Post a comment on the text below
indicatorGap - Required.(IndicatorPressure_Enum)
For each significant pressure type or chemical substance reported, select the pre-defined quantitative indicator of the scale and extent of the pressure or chemical substance that is to be reduced by measures to achieve Environmental Objectives. This is the gap to be filled to meet objectives. At least one of the pre-defined quantitative indicators must be selected from the enumeration list although more than one may be appropriate for the situation in the RBD.
Select the ‘PO99 – Other indicator’ option from the enumeration list to report details of additional quantitative indicators developed by the Member State in the relevant schema elements.
For indicative purposes, the pressures and chemical substances have been mapped to the pre-defined Key Types of Measure (KTMs) (see Annex 3). Quantitative indicators have been proposed for each pressure or chemical substance causing failure and the relevant KTMs.
All indicators are defined in terms of what needs to be done to achieve Environmental Objectives (i.e. good ecological status or potential or good chemical status). This means that the value of the indicator will be reduced with time as measures are implemented. A value of 0 is comparable with 100 % good ecological status or potential or good chemical status. Any ‘Other’ indicator reported by Member States should be constructed in the same way.
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
In Denmark the available information on pressures is only partly structured and disaggregrated in a way to respond to the pre-defined quantitative indicator of the scale.
Focus in Denmark has been how to achieve good ecological status in the different types of water bodies (rivers, lakes, costwaters etc.) and we have traced the source to pressuretype where possible, although there sometimes is more than one relevant pressure.
In the WISE reporting the quantitative indicators is also very specific concerning the actual use including a wish to disaggregrate data whether the alterations of water bodies is caused by agricultural, aqua cultural or other specific purposes, and for some pressures it's not possible to disaggregate data to this extend.
Similar comment to SWsignificantPressureType
The codelist of Annex 1a shouldn't be splitted by drivers as usually the relation pressure- driver is 1:n
In the same sense indicators should not be splited by pressure-driver
As an example, the following indicators should be grouped in one to avoid double accounting the effects of 'hydrological alterations' that are multipurpose (almost all):
The new indicator should be:
The existing indicators are:
PA07 – Area (km2) of water bodies where hydromorphological alterations for agricultural purposes are preventing the achievement of objectives
PA08 – Area (km2) of water bodies where hydromorphological alterations for aquaculture purposes are preventing the achievement of objectives
PA09 – Area (km2) of water bodies where hydromorphological alterations for hydropower production are preventing the achievement of objectives
PA10 – Area (km2) of water bodies where hydromorphological alterations for other purposes are preventing the achievement of objectives
PA11 – Area (km2) of water bodies where hydromorphological alterations for public water supply purposes are preventing the achievement of objectives
PA12 – Area (km2) of water bodies where hydromorphological alterations for transport purposes are preventing the achievement of objectives
It is the same case with indicators PL02 to PL09. We propose a new one:
The same happends with indicators PN01 to PN09. We propose a new indicator:
RO agrees.
The focus of the WFD is to achieve good ecological and chemical status. It is reasonable to ask from memberstates to link certain (groups of) failing substances to certain pressures. But it is statistically not acceptable to quantify this with indicators the way it is now.
The available information on pressures is not structured in the way to fill in this table. Brussels is an environment with many pressures where we cannot disaggregate the pressure by the measures.
We suggest to label this item 'not required' since the EC itself indicates certain pressures are more difficult to quantify, or it is difficult to disaggregate pressure-measure relationships in certian RBDs. This implies that filling in this field cannot be required.
based on the achievement of Good only – there is no provision for the target to be set as high. - The provision to have environmental objectives as high needs to be provided for throughout the reporting database. It will also need to be included in future article 15 reporting.
Further evaluation on the added-value of elaborating on two types of indicators (IndicatorGap and KeyTypeMeasureIndicator) should be sought, particularly noting that the pre-defined indicators may reflect the same scenario. There may therefore be scope for further alignment and simplification between the two classes. Should no added-value be attributed to having two separate indicators, schemas could be simplified through amalgamation of reporting fields.
Is the problem pointed out by ES real. Does anyone sum up the indicators?