Post a comment on the text below

Previous comments

• ES - Spain (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 15 Mar 2019 14:08:54

  This is not the meaning of art 4(3) of the WFD. The designation of a WB as HMWB is not related to the use for which it has been designated, but to the use that will be significantlly affected if restoration measures were put in place.

  Art.4.3. Member States may designate a body of surface water as artificial or heavily modified, when:
  (a) the changes to the hydromorphological characteristics of that body which would be necessary for achieving good ecological status would have significant adverse effects on:
  (i) the wider environment;

  ...

  This would be the case of a dam built for any purpose (being it irrigation, hydropower...) where demolishing it could have signifficant effects on a birds protected area for waterfowl, due to the habitat created by the dam. The WFD would make us choose Wider environment in this case while the reporting database is asking for irrigation or hydropower.
  

  So we should report in this field the water use affected (or wider environment) instead of the water use for which it has been designated. If it is considered necessary, maybe we should use to fields:

  • one for the water use (or wider environment) affected if restoration measures would took place.
  • another for the water use that the HYMO modification has (in this case 'wider environment should be excluded from the codelist)
  • HU1 - Hungary (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 03 May 2019 13:37:04

     
    

    This is not the meaning of art 4(3) of the WFD. The designation of a WB as HMWB is not related to the use for which it has been designated, but to the use that will be significantlly affected if restoration measures were put in place.

    Art.4.3. Member States may designate a body of surface water as artificial or heavily modified, when:
    (a) the changes to the hydromorphological characteristics of that body which would be necessary for achieving good ecological status would have significant adverse effects on:
    (i) the wider environment;

    ...

    This would be the case of a dam built for any purpose (being it irrigation, hydropower...) where demolishing it could have signifficant effects on a birds protected area for waterfowl, due to the habitat created by the dam. The WFD would make us choose Wider environment in this case while the reporting database is asking for irrigation or hydropower.
    

    So we should report in this field the water use affected (or wider environment) instead of the water use for which it has been designated. If it is considered necessary, maybe we should use to fields:

    • one for the water use (or wider environment) affected if restoration measures would took place.
    • another for the water use that the HYMO modification has (in this case 'wider environment should be excluded from the codelist)

     

    HU: The other part of the WFD Article 4(3) (a) is also important in the understanding of HMWB designation rule/method:

    “(a) the changes to the hydromorphological characteristics of that body which would be necessary for achieving good ecological status would have significant adverse effects on:

    (ii)    navigation, including port facilities, or recreation;

    (iii)   activities for the purposes of which water is stored, such as drinking-water supply, power generation or irrigation;

    (iv)   water regulation, flood protection, land drainage, or

    (v)    other equally important sustainable human development activities;”

    These (ii – v) are the potentially negatively affected water uses for which a water body can be designated as HMWB.

• ES - Spain (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 15 Mar 2019 14:12:48

  The same codelist as for HYMO preassures in Annex 1a (pressures 4.1.1 to 4.5) should be used to avoid inconsistencies.

  We also think that Annex 1a shouldn't be splitted by drivers as usually the relation pressure- driver is 1:n

• ES - Spain (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 17 Mar 2019 11:12:15

  hmwbWaterUse / hmwbPhysicalAlteration

  It is a conditional element: only to be used for HMWBs. A new Quality check should be included to prevent reporting this element when the condition is not fulfilled (the WB is not a HMWB) in access template.

  We have detected a lot of inconsistencies in spanish RBDs reporting regarding this issue. This is a general comment for all conditional fields.

• HU - Hungary (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 25 Mar 2019 12:02:37

  ‘Unknown’: it cannot be specified e.g. for some historical modification.

• IT - Italy (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 03 May 2019 10:50:12

  We agree with the ES comment about Quality checks on conditional fields when the condition is not fullfilled in orther to prevent a lot of inconsistencies

• NO - Norway (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 03 May 2019 14:05:14

  We wish to keep this as it is, for the reasons put by HU in the comment to ES, and since it is valuable information both for the management and the public.

• BE (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 03 May 2019 15:20:17

  Please clarify the concept 'hmwbWateruse'. Now the different options are not in line with Art 4.3.

  We only have reported here the wateruses that are related to the designation of HMWB. F.i. tourism and recreation can not be a reason to designate an HMWB