Examples of using Mandatory values in English and their translations into Finnish
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Official/political
-
Computer
-
Programming
The total number of zones complying with the mandatory values is thus 1 646 426+ 1 220.
In 143 areas bathing water quality improved from noncompliance to compliance with at least the mandatory values.
Member States must comply with the mandatory values but may adopt the stricter standards and non-binding guide values. .
Percentage of points sufficiently sampled which comply with mandatory values.
The percen tage of bathing areas not complying with the mandatory values in turn fell by 2.7% to 8.6% in the 1999 bathing season.
C(l) percentage ornumber of bathing areas sufficiently sampled which comply with mandatory values.
The eco-label criterion for VOC content is more ambitious than the mandatory values prescribed herein, but compliance is voluntary.
In the freshwater bathing areas, there was a marked increase in the compliance rate with the guide and/or mandatory values.
All the coastal bathing areas complied with at least the mandatory values and 81.8% also complied with the more stringent guide values. .
C(G) percenta3e ornumber of bathins areas sufficiently sampled which comply with suide values and mandatory values.
C(G) 1 483:1 483 areas complied with the mandatory values and also the more stringent guide values. .
Water quality at Europe's most popular summer destinations was generally good- with more than 90% of bathing water sites meeting the mandatory values.
The percentage of bathing areas complying with the mandatory values, which had been 100% during the previous bathing season, slipped back to 90.9% during the 1999 season.
The results for coastal areas were high, with 94.7% compliance for the mandatory values 95.4% in 2003.
More than 96% of bathing areas complied with the mandatory values set by the directive and 89.3% with'the more stringent guide values as well.
However, 5 of the 14 areas where bathing was prohibited have been rehabilitated,with the result that most of them now comply with the guide and/or mandatory values.
Member States must comply with the mandatory values set out in the Bathing Water Directive but may choose instead to adhere to the stricter(non-binding) guide values. .
A total of 14 bathing areas were delisted compared with the previous bathing season,the vast majority of which had been complying with the guide and/ or mandatory values in 2002.
While almost all the bathing areas in this category complied with the mandatory values laid down by the directive, only just over 60% met the more stringent guide values as well.
Two of the bathing areas(50%) which complied with the guide values during the 1998 bathing season com plied with only the less strict mandatory values during the 1999 season.
On the contrary, the vast majority of them complied with the guide and/or mandatory values this time, although nine were delisted and five failed to comply with the manda tory values. .
The stability index is also. fairly high, which is a good sign, considering the relatively high rates of compliance with the guide and/or mandatory values during the 2002 bathing season.
Despite a slight increase in the percentage of bathing areas complying with the mandatory values laid down in the directive, average bathing water quality can hardly be said to have improved since the previous season.
Three other bathing areas which had been complying with the guide values during the previous season complied only with the less stringent mandatory values this time.
The biggest change was in the bathing areas which had been complying with the mandatory values in 2002, since 63 out of the total of 100 also complied with the guide values in the 2003 season.
To determine their quality bathing waters are tested against a number of physical, chemical andmicrobiological parameters for which the Bathing Water Directive sets out mandatory values.
Although the percentage of bathing areas complying with the mandatory values rose slightly, it remained fairly low, creeping from 83.2% during the 1998 bathing season to 85.4% in the 1999 season.
However, one of the four freshwater bathing areas which had previously complied with the guide values laid down in the directive complied with only the less stringent mandatory values In the 2003 bathing season.
The percentage of bathing areas complyingwith the guide values(66.8%) and/or mandatory values(90.2%) rose by 3.2 and 3.7% respectively compared with the 1998 bathing season.
Although six bathing areas which had complied with the guide values during the 2001 season complied only with the less stringent mandatory values during the 2002 bathing season, the ratio remains slightly over 1.