Post a comment on the text below

swEcologicalExemptionType - Required.(ExemptionType_Enum)

Report which type(s) of exemption(s) apply if good ecological status or potential is not expected to be achieved by 2015. More than one exemption may apply to a surface water body.

Previous comments

RO - Romania1 (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 18 Mar 2019 07:55:57

To report only the SWBs with exemptions and to eliminate the WBs with “No exemption”; we tried to not report/we try to eliminate the WBs with “No exemption”, but a reporting error occurred.
BG - Bulgaria (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 21 Mar 2019 16:31:19

It is required to fill-in all QEs , not only ones related to SWB for which exemptions are applied. We suggest to simplify the reporting - to report only the QEs, related to the SWB for which exemptions are applied – in order to avoid the reporting of a large amount of QEs for which “No exemption” was reported. (For Danube RBD in Bulgaria, the records containing QEs reported as “No exemptions” form 91% out of all 4953 records. )
- RO - Romania1 (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 25 Apr 2019 09:17:42
  
  It is required to fill-in all QEs , not only ones related to SWB for which exemptions are applied. We suggest to simplify the reporting - to report only the QEs, related to the SWB for which exemptions are applied – in order to avoid the reporting of a large amount of QEs for which “No exemption” was reported. (For Danube RBD in Bulgaria, the records containing QEs reported as “No exemptions” form 91% out of all 4953 records. )
  
  RO supports the BG suggestion.
  - EL - Greece (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 02 May 2019 11:40:57
    
    It is required to fill-in all QEs , not only ones related to SWB for which exemptions are applied. We suggest to simplify the reporting - to report only the QEs, related to the SWB for which exemptions are applied – in order to avoid the reporting of a large amount of QEs for which “No exemption” was reported. (For Danube RBD in Bulgaria, the records containing QEs reported as “No exemptions” form 91% out of all 4953 records. )
    
    RO supports the BG suggestion.
    
    EL supports the BG suggestion
LU - Luxembourg1 (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 18 Apr 2019 14:50:05

We support the comment from RO.

We reported only those WBs for which exemptions needed to be appied and a reporting error occurred for the WBs which had reached good status in 2015 and therefore no exemption was applied for them. Only the WBs with exemptions should be reported here.
FR1 - France (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 29 Apr 2019 11:22:33
Should we add the following tests :
- If the water body is in good status, then the element should be "no exemption"
- If the water body is in unknown status, the element should be "no exemption" or we could add "unknown"
For Mayotte, is it possible to maintain the postposne of deadline?
NO - Norway (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 03 May 2019 14:25:26

We want to keep it as it is.

You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.