Back to section

Post a comment on the text below

2.  REPORTING AT SURFACE WATER BODY LEVEL (SCHEMA SWB) including 2.3, 2,4 and 2.5 – cont.

  • Very few simplifications suggested i.e. excluding “No exemptions” in the ExemptionType_Enum
  • Option to report separately chemical status for water matrix and for biota: a solution proposed is to introduce in the list “biota EQS”
  • grouping of water bodies: 1) more guidance, 2) at WB level as it is now or QE or PS level
  • Add in the MonitoringResults_Enum a combination monitoring/grouping

Previous comments

  • SE - Sweden (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 02 May 2019 11:05:21
    Very few simplifications suggested i.e. excluding “No exemptions” in the ExemptionType_Enum  
    Option to report separately chemical status for water matrix and for biota: a solution proposed is to introduce in the list “biota EQS”  
    Grouping of water bodies: 1) more guidance, 2) at WB level as it is now or QE or PS level SE: No. We do not agree as we do not understand the purpose of the change
    Add in the MonitoringResults_Enum a combination monitoring/grouping SE: No. We do not agree as we do not understand the purpose of a combination
  • SI - Slovenia (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 03 May 2019 09:58:25

    1.Regarding Comment no. 55 and 56 in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls" on paragraph SWEcologicalExemptionType, in our opinion it is not necessary to eliminate "No exemption".

    2.Regarding Comment no. 80 in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls" on "SurfaceWaterBody (SWB chemical status)„, the issues, as presented, was also  pointed out in the scope of discussion on the content of EEA draft report "European waters Assessment of status and pressures 2018", which took place in the period 2017-2018. In our opinion the proposal in Comment no. 100 deals with the same aspects as given in Comment no. 80. If the reporting of chemical status would be done separately for  water matrix and separately for biota then the reported data would enable presentation of the results as "where is the problem - in biota or in water?" and the proposal from Comment no. 100 would be taken into account.

    3.Regarding Comment no. 86 in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls" on "swChemicalMonitoringResults„, we do not agree with the proposal.

    4.Regardnig Comment no. 87 in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls" on "swChemicalStatusGrouping „,  we do not agree with the proposal to group at QE and/or substance level (or group of substances). In addition we support the suggestion that maybe it can be considered to delete this element.

    5. Regarding Comment no. 83 in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls" on "swChemicalMonitoringResults„, we do not agree with the proposal.

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