Navigation
Post a comment on the text below
swSignificantPressureType - Required.(SignificantPressureType_Enum)
Indicate the significant pressure type(s) from the enumeration list.
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
The codelist of Annex 1a shouldn't be splitted by drivers as usually the relation pressure- driver is 1:n
As an example, for dams the list of pressure-driver combinations is:
4.2.1 - Dams, barriers and locks - Hydropower
Energy – hydropower
4.2.2 - Dams, barriers and locks - Flood protection
Flood Protection
4.2.3 - Dams, barriers and locks - Drinking water
Urban development
4.2.4 - Dams, barriers and locks - Irrigation
Agriculture
4.2.5 - Dams, barriers and locks - Recreation
Tourism and recreation
Small dams are used in rivers to create recreational areas (bathing waters) and also angling areas
4.2.6 - Dams, barriers and locks - Industry
Industry, Energy - non-hydropower
Dams are sometimes created to provide freshwater for large industry e.g. typically for cooling purposes
4.2.7 - Dams, barriers and locks - Navigation
Transport
4.2.8 - Dams, barriers and locks – Other
4.2.9 - Dams, barriers and locks – Unknown or obsolete
In Spain there is a clear register of dams, but most of them (almost all) are multipurpose. Reporting them as it is proposed now creates duplication of information. A WB maybe affected by one dam with several objectives or uses or in the sense of this field drivers (irrigation, drinking water, hydropower and recreation). With the current schema we have to report four types of pressures for that particular WB. This creates important misunderstandings, than can be easily solved by splitting the list and using a list of pressures and a list of drivers, but not a combination of both.
RO supports the proposal of ES, to have in view more clar the aspects of pressure-driver combinations.
We suggest that a column (with pick up options: ecological status and chemical status) be added in order to differentiate between a significant pressures in relation to ecological status and a significant pressures in relation to chemical status because sometimes the same pressure could be relevant for both ecological and chemical status.
Since the guidance says 'Significant pressures should only be reported for those water bodies which have been identified as being at risk'
we propose to extend the quality check (not only check consistency with status but with risk aswell)
Within-schema check: If (SWB/SurfaceWaterBody/swEcologicalStatusOrPotentialValue is ‘3’, ‘4’ or ‘5’ or SWB/SurfaceWaterBody/swEcologicalStatusOrPotentialExpectedGoodIn2015=No), at least one significant pressure type must be selected from the enumeration list (can include option ‘8 Unknown pressures’). The option ‘No significant pressure’ is not a valid selection.
Within-schema check: If (SWB/SurfaceWaterBody/swChemicalStatusValue is ‘3’ or SWB/SurfaceWaterBody/swChemicalStatusExpectedGoodIn2015=No), at least one significant pressure type must be selected from the enumeration list (can include ‘8 Unknown pressures’). The option ‘No significant pressure’ is not a valid selection.
It was hard to implement the new list of pressure and impact types in mid cycle. The pressure and impact analysis was already performed with the old types at that stage and had to be corrrected/transformed to fit the reporting demands.
We would welcome if the list of pressure types in annexe 1a could be simplified. As the list is very detailed and we hadn't subdivided our pressures into that detail we weren't always sure which information should be reported.
The suggestion from ES to split the list of pressures and the list of drivers could be a way to facilitate the reporting. This would also allow to add some information on the drivers if the option "other" (e.g. 1.9 - Point - Other) is choosen.
In any case, if the list of pressure types will be modified this should be done rapidly as this list will be the basis for the article 5 assessment that need to be done until the end of this year.
We wish to keep this as it is, since a lot of information would be lost if it was simplified. We see the problem with many drivers per pressure type in a WB, but then it is better to add several pressure types. An example is a dam for drinking water and hydropower. The measures here will be different, and we wish to keep them separate to be able to point to the right sector.
We support ES, RO an LU.
In any case, if the list of pressure types will be modified this should be done rapidly as this list will be the basis for the article 5 assessment that need to be done until the end of this year.