Post a comment on the text below
swEcologicalStatusOrPotentialExpectedAchievementDate - Conditional(GoodStatus_Enum).
If good ecological status or potential will NOT be achieved by 2015 (swEcologicalStatusOrPotentialExpectedGoodIn2015 is No), report the date by which it is expected that it will be achieved in full. The methodology of this assessment should be clearly explained in the RBMP or background documents (reference reported under classification methodologies). If good ecological status or potential will not be achieved by 2015, exemptions should be applied. Please report the date by which it is expected that good ecological status or potential will be achieved in full, not the date relating to individual exemptions. However, please note the following:
Article 4(4) exemptions relate to the extension of deadlines. According to Article 4(4)c of the WFD, postponing the achievement of objectives beyond 2027 is only possible due to natural conditions.
If Article 4(5) exemptions apply, report the date by when the less stringent objective is to be achieved. If the less stringent objective has already been achieved then select 'Less stringent objectives already achieved'. If good ecological status or potential will be achived by 2015 (swEcologicalStatusOrPotentialExpectedGoodIn2015 is Yes) this element should not be reported.
This element should not be reported if surfaceWaterBodyCategory is 'TeW' (territorial waters).
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
We suggest that alternative objectives be added in the enumeration (pick up) list taking into account the objectives set for the exemptions under Art. 4.7. (see CIS Guidance no. 36).
We have introduce incoherent combinations in the access database without getting blockers
swEcologicalStatusOrPotentialExpectedGoodIn2015
swEcologicalStatusOrPotentialExpectedAchievementDate
Yes
2016--2021
Yes
2022--2027
Although in the XML generation this field is ignored, the Access file that is the source of information in Spain remains unchanged and produces many problems when using it for statistical analysis.
Would it be possible to include checks in this sense in the Access database?
Next check should be implemented:
If swEcologicalStatusOrPotentialExpectedGoodIn2015 is ‘Yes’ this element must not be reported.
GENERAL COMMENT
The Quality checks should include not only a conditional check requiring a value when the condition is fulfilled, but also requiring the field to be left empty "NULL" when the condition is not fulfilled.
It can be implemented in the Access database by adding in all codelist a 'Not applicable' value required when the condition is not fulfilled.
This field does not solve the problem when a WB has both 4(4) (time extension) and 4(5) (less stringent objective) exemptions.
The current codelist do not allow identifying cases when a SWB has 'less stringent objective already achieved' but it is not in compliance with all environmental objectives because of other quality element (without less stringent objective) but with a time extension (ie 2022-2027).
We suggest to split the field in two. Leaving this field as it is now but removing from the codelist 'less stringent objective already achieved'.
A new field should be included in order to report the achievement of less stringent objectives for quality elements with a 4(5) exemption.
We propose to delete or re-write the part of guidance on completion of schema element concerning exemption Art. 4(4) – it is not clear, if extension of deadlines would be possible only due to natural conditions. In addition, exemption 4(7) is missing.
In Chapter 2 swEcologicalStatusOrPotentialExpectedAchievementDate is based on the achievement of Good only – there is no provision for the target to be set as high (entering good waterbodies with a future objective date will return an error). 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.
Will the European Commission add new target for 2028-2033? What about reporting for Mayotte?
NO finds it good as it is. For us it does not give a meaning to have both 4(4) and 4(5) for the same WB.