Data and maps

Chemical status (WFD 002) - Assessment DRAFT created Apr 2013: This indicator summarises the results from the Water Framework (WFD) River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) on chemical status of groundwater and surface waters. The results should be interpreted cautiously, since chemical monitoring as reported in the first RBMPs was incomplete, and information is not always comparable between Member States. The results from the first showed: Poor chemical status for groundwater, by area, is about 25 % across Europe. A total of 16 Member States have more than 10 % of groundwater bodies in poor chemical status; this figure exceeds 50 % in four Member States. Excessive levels of nitrate are the most frequent cause of poor groundwater status across much of Europe. Poor chemical status for rivers, lakes, and transitional and coastal waters does not exceed 10 %, aggregated across Europe as a whole. Notably, the chemical status of many of Europe’s surface waters remains unknown, ranging between one third of lakes and more than half of transitional waters. A total of 10 Member States report poor chemical status in more than 20 % of rivers and lakes with known chemical status, whilst this figure rises to above 40 % in five Member States. A total of 10 Member States report poor chemical status in more than 20 % of rivers and lakes with known chemical status, whilst this figure rises to above 40 % in five Member States. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a widespread cause of poor status in rivers. Heavy metals are also a significant contributor to poor status in rivers and lakes, with levels of mercury in Swedish freshwater biota causing 100 % failure to reach good chemical status. Industrial chemicals such as the plasticiser di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and pesticides also constitute widespread causes of poor chemical status in rivers. Six Member States report poor chemical status in transitional waters to be more than 50 % of the water bodies with known chemical status. PAHs, the antifouling biocide tributyltin (TBT) and heavy metals are the most common culprits. Six Member States report all their coastal waters as having good chemical status, although in five others, poor chemical status exceeds 90 % of those water bodies with a known chemical status. A variety of pollutant groups contribute to poor status in coastal waters, reflecting a diverse range of sources.
Located in Data and maps › Indicators › Chemical status
Chemical status of transitional and coastal waters per RBD — percentage of water bodies not achieving good chemical status: -
Located in Data and maps › Maps and graphs
Conservation status of river and lake habitat types and species, and conservation status of coastal and transitional waters habitat types of European interest: -
Located in Data and maps › Maps and graphs
Distribution of chemical status of groundwater, rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters.: Number of Member States contributing to the dataset: Groundwater (26); Rivers (25); Lakes (22); Transitional (15) and Coastal (20). Percentages shown for rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal are by water body count. Groundwater percentages, however, are expressed by area. The total number of water bodies is shown in parenthesis. Data from Sweden are excluded from surface water data illustrated in the figure. This is because Sweden contributed a disproportionately large amount of data and, classified all its surface waters as poor status since levels of mercury found within biota in both fresh and coastal waters exceed quality standards.
Located in Data and maps › Maps and graphs
Distribution of ecological status or potential of classified rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters: The figure shows percentage of the total number of classified water bodies (with total number given in brackets). See the indicator specification for more details
Located in Data and maps › Maps and graphs
Ecological status or potential (WFD 003) - Assessment DRAFT created Apr 2013: More than half of the surface water bodies in Europe are reported to be in less than good ecological status or potential, and will need mitigation and/or restoration measures to meet the WFD objective. River water bodies and transitional waters are reported to have worse ecological status or potential than water bodies in lakes and coastal waters.
Located in Data and maps › Indicators › Ecological status or potential
Ecological status/potential of and proportion of water bodies affected by pollution and hydromorphological pressures for transitional (left panel (a, b, c)) and coastal (right panel (d, e, f)) water bodies, by sea region: -
Located in Data and maps › Maps and graphs
Impacts and pressures (WFD 001) - Assessment DRAFT created Apr 2013: The pressures reported to affect most surface water bodies are pollution from diffuse sources causing nutrient enrichment, and hydromorphological pressures causing altered habitats. Lakes are generally least affected by pressures and their impacts. Pollution from diffuse sources is reported for a larger proportion of water bodies than pollution from point sources for all water categories except transitional waters. The highest proportion of water bodies affected by hydromorphological pressures and altered habitats impact is found for rivers.
Located in Data and maps › Indicators › Impacts and pressures
Percentage of natural, heavily modified, artificial and unknown status for river, lake, transitional and coastal water bodies: The graphs illustrate the designation of heavily and artificial water bodies
Located in Data and maps › Maps and graphs
Percentage of natural, heavily modified, artificial and unknown status for river, lake, transitional and coastal water bodies: -
Located in Data and maps › Maps and graphs

Next 7 items » 1 2

Write to us

Call us

Sound and independent information
on the environment

Sections

Search results

Write to us

Call us

Sound and independent information on the environment

Sections

Search results

Sound and independent information
on the environment