Maybe it makes sense to write our rationale down here, so people do not have to look for it on our diary. The following quote is from @nisha's reviewer diary elaborating on our rationale to assess water quality:
"Water quality data is a complex issue and can be organized in many ways. I usually will identify drinking water quality data as the priority for the assessment. But because drinking water is a local responsibility it will not always be available as a dataset in a central ministry. This is the case for Belgium which is so decentralized that there is no country-wide dataset available. However, France is a good example of how even though water is managed locally, all the data gets reported to a central place. They have a portal where you can find weekly water quality for your town.
In order to understand this you have look at the regulation. Most of the time drinking water quality is sent in an aggregated form to a central office, usually in the Ministry of Public Health or in an Environmental protection agency. This means there should be data there, [but often there is no access to raw data but only to aggregated reports without parameters like in the case of the UK]. These are usually reports not datasets.
In this case and for countries where most of the population doesn’t get piped drinking supply there will not be any data in the central health ministry. So it is then essential to look at the Environmental water quality data. The Ministry of the Environment will usually collect data on water resources (lakes, rivers, and groundwater). Though this will not only be for drinking water they will have data on water quality. For most countries this is an essential dataset because not every country has 80% or more of the population getting their drinking water from their house tap, also countries like Switzerland and Denmark do still get a majority of their water from natural sources with a minimal amount of treatment.
If the environmental water quality dataset has all the parameters then [we count the data as compliant]. If it doesn’t and there is no drinking water quality data then we do not consider the data for assessment. This is the case for the UK for instance, as they are missing 2 parameters in their environmental dataset."
To answer your questions, Nick and Owen, we have two possible entry points to assess this dataset. Key is, that we want to assess water pollutants that are of general interest to be published. What are your thoughts on this?