2 Drivers Table RBD Number and area of Aggregation on the It was not possible responsible for groundwater bodies basis of the information to produce (drivers failure of good failing good quantitative on pressures provided were not reported quantitative status due to each driver. at water body level unless linked to status pressures reported Percentage of at detailed level, groundwater bodies which was optional) failing good status due to each driver in relation to total number of groundwater bodies failing good status. 3 Quantitative Chart National Percentage of Aggregation on the No status of groundwater bodies of basis of the information groundwater poor and good reported at water body bodies quantitative status by level. area. 4 Quantitative Map RBD Percentage of Aggregation on the Yes status of groundwater bodies not basis of the information groundwater achieving good reported at water body bodies quantitative status by level – water bodies area. with unknown status not included. 5 Aggregation Table MS/RBD Number and size (area) of Aggregation on the Yes tables: groundwater bodies by basis of the information Quantitative and quantitative status class. reported at water body chemical status level. of groundwater bodies 6 Progress in Map/ MS/RBD Number, area and Aggregation on the Not relevant in 2010 achieving good Chart percentage of basis of the information reporting quantitative groundwater bodies reported at status since the which have achieved good groundwater body level. first RBMP quantitative status since the first RBMPs. 7 Improvement in Map/ National/ RBD Percentage of water Aggregation on the Not relevant in 2010 quantitative Chart bodies which have basis of the information reporting status since the improved quantitative reported at water body first RBMP status since the first level. RBMP 8 Reasons behind Chart MS Exemptions reported by Aggregation on the Yes Article 4(4) Member States to extend basis of the information exemptions the deadline of the reported at water body achievement of good level. quantitative status beyond 2015 and reasons given (natural condition, technical feasibility, disproportionate costs or combinations). 9 Percentage of Map/ EU/MS/ RBD Number, area and Aggregation on the No groundwater Chart/ percentage of basis of the information bodies expected Table groundwater bodies reported at water body to be of good expected to be of good level. quantitative quantitative status in status in 2015 2015. Notes: * Scale of information: EU = European; MS = National, Member State; RBD = River Basin District; SU = Sub-unit; WB = water body
2 Drivers responsible for failure of good quantitative status Table RBD Number and area of groundwater bodies failing good quantitative status due to each driver. Percentage of groundwater bodies failing good status due to each driver in relation to total number of groundwater bodies failing good status. Aggregation on the basis of the information on pressures provided at water body level It was not possible to produce (drivers were not reported unless linked to pressures reported at detailed level, which was optional) 3 Quantitative status of groundwater bodies Chart National Percentage of groundwater bodies of poor and good quantitative status by area. Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level. No 4 Quantitative status of groundwater bodies Map RBD Percentage of groundwater bodies not achieving good quantitative status by area. Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level – water bodies with unknown status not included. Yes 5 Aggregation tables: Quantitative and chemical status of groundwater bodies Table MS/RBD Number and size (area) of groundwater bodies by quantitative status class. Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level. Yes 6 Progress in achieving good quantitative status since the first RBMP Map/ Chart MS/RBD Number, area and percentage of groundwater bodies which have achieved good quantitative status since the first RBMPs. Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at groundwater body level. Not relevant in 2010 reporting 7 Improvement in quantitative status since the first RBMP Map/ Chart National/ RBD Percentage of water bodies which have improved quantitative status since the first RBMP Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level. Not relevant in 2010 reporting 8 Reasons behind Article 4(4) exemptions Chart MS Exemptions reported by Member States to extend the deadline of the achievement of good quantitative status beyond 2015 and reasons given (natural condition, technical feasibility, disproportionate costs or combinations). Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level. Yes 9 Percentage of groundwater bodies expected to be of good quantitative status in 2015 Map/ Chart/ Table EU/MS/ RBD Number, area and percentage of groundwater bodies expected to be of good quantitative status in 2015. Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level. No Notes: * Scale of information: EU = European; MS = National, Member State; RBD = River Basin District; SU = Sub-unit; WB = water body
WFD_ReportingGuidance.docx