Miljøudvalget 2015
KOM (2015) 0120
Offentligt
1925138_0001.png
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 17.7.2018
SWD(2015) 56 final/2
CORRIGENDUM
This document corrects document SWD(2015) 56 final of 09.03.2015.
[Document updated with River Basin Districts ES120, ES122, ES123, ES124, ES125, ES126,
ES127, corresponding to the Canary Islands in Spain].
The text should read as follows:
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Report on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive River Basin
Management Plans
Member State: SPAIN
Accompanying the document
COMMUNICATION FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
The Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive: Actions towards the 'good
status' of EU water and to reduce flood risks
{COM(2015) 120 final} - {SWD(2015) 50 final} - {SWD(2015) 51 final} -
{SWD(2015) 52 final} - {SWD(2015) 53 final} - {SWD(2015) 54 final} -
{SWD(2015) 55 final}
EN
EN
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GENERAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................................................................... 5
STATUS OF REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE ....................................................................................................... 9
M
AIN STRENGTHS
....................................................................................................................................................... 10
M
AIN WEAKNESSES
..................................................................................................................................................... 10
GOVERNANCE ............................................................................................................................................................. 11
R
IVER
B
ASIN
M
ANAGEMENT
P
LANS
(RBMP
S
) – S
TRUCTURE
,
COMPLETENESS
,
LEGAL STATUS
............................ 11
C
ONSULTATION
........................................................................................................................................................... 11
CHARACTERISATION OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICTS ........................................................................................ 14
T
YPOLOGY OF
S
URFACE
W
ATER
............................................................................................................................... 14
D
ELINEATION OF
S
URFACE
W
ATER
B
ODIES
.............................................................................................................. 16
I
DENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT PRESSURES AND IMPACTS
.................................................................................... 18
P
ROTECTED AREAS
..................................................................................................................................................... 24
MONITORING............................................................................................................................................................... 27
M
ONITORING OF
S
URFACE
W
ATERS
.......................................................................................................................... 29
M
ONITORING OF
G
ROUND
W
ATERS
........................................................................................................................... 30
M
ONITORING OF
P
ROTECTED
A
REAS
........................................................................................................................ 30
STATUS........................................................................................................................................................................... 35
ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL STATUS OF SURFACE WATERS ................................................................ 56
A
SSESSMENT METHODS
............................................................................................................................................... 57
R
ESULTS
...................................................................................................................................................................... 60
DESIGNATION OF HMWB AND SETTING OF GOOD ECOLOGICAL POTENTIAL (GEP) ........................ 61
D
ESIGNATION OF
HMWB
........................................................................................................................................... 61
M
ETHODOLOGY FOR
G
OOD
E
COLOGICAL
P
OTENTIAL
(GEP)
................................................................................. 61
R
ESULTS
HMWB
AND
AWB
...................................................................................................................................... 63
ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICAL STATUS OF SURFACE WATER ....................................................................... 66
M
ETHODOLOGY
.......................................................................................................................................................... 66
S
UBSTANCES CAUSING EXCEEDANCES
........................................................................................................................ 66
M
IXING ZONES
............................................................................................................................................................ 69
ASSESSMENT OF GROUNDWATER STATUS ....................................................................................................... 69
Q
UANTITATIVE STATUS
............................................................................................................................................... 70
C
HEMICAL STATUS
...................................................................................................................................................... 70
P
ROTECTED
A
REAS
..................................................................................................................................................... 70
OBJECTIVES AND EXEMPTIONS............................................................................................................................ 72
I
NTRODUCTION
........................................................................................................................................................... 72
P
ROTECTED
A
REAS
..................................................................................................................................................... 73
A
RTICLES
4(4)
AND
4(5)
.............................................................................................................................................. 74
A
RTICLE
4(6)
............................................................................................................................................................... 77
A
RTICLE
4(7)
............................................................................................................................................................... 77
E
XEMPTIONS UNDER THE
G
ROUNDWATER
D
IRECTIVE
............................................................................................. 78
PROGRAMME OF MEASURES ................................................................................................................................. 78
P
ROGRAMME OF
M
EASURES
- G
ENERAL
................................................................................................................... 78
M
EASURES RELATED TO AGRICULTURE
..................................................................................................................... 82
M
EASURES RELATED TO HYDROMORPHOLOGY
......................................................................................................... 86
M
EASURES RELATED TO GROUNDWATER
.................................................................................................................. 89
M
EASURES RELATED TO CHEMICAL POLLUTION
....................................................................................................... 90
2
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0003.png
M
EASURES RELATED TO
A
RTICLE
9
........................................................................................................................... 90
CLIMATE CHANGE..................................................................................................................................................... 95
W
ATER SCARCITY AND DROUGHTS
............................................................................................................................ 95
F
LOOD RISK MANAGEMENT
........................................................................................................................................ 95
A
DAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE
........................................................................................................................... 95
RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 96
List of acronyms
AWB
BQE
CW
CWB
DMP
Artificial Water Body
Biological Quality Element
Coastal waters
Coastal Water Bodies
Drought Management Plans
Drinking Water Protected Areas
Ecological flows
Good Ecological Potential
Groundwater Bodies
Heavily Modified Water Body
Instrucción de Planificación Hidrológica (Hydrological Planning Instruction)
Less Stringent Objectives
Lakes
Lake Water Bodies
Protected area
Programme of Measures
Quality Element
River Basin District
River Basin Management Plan
Reglamento de Planificación Hidrológica (Hydrological Planning Regulation)
Rivers
River Water Bodies
Strategic Environmental Assessment
Surface Water Bodies
Transitional waters
Transitional Water Bodies
Water Framework Directive
Water Information System for Europe
DWPA
Eflows
GEP
GWB
HMWB
IPH
LSO
LW
LWB
PA
PoM
QE
RBD
RBMP
RPH
RW
RWB
SEA
SWB
TW
TWB
WFD
WISE
3
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0004.png
GENERAL INFORMATION
Figure 1.1:
Map of River Basin Districts
International River Basin Districts (within EU)
International River Basin Districts (outside EU)
National River Basin Districts (within EU)
Countries (outside EU)
Coastal Waters
Source:
WISE, Eurostat (country borders)
The transposition of the WFD (Directive 2000/60/EC) into Spanish law was made by Article 129 of
Law 62/2003 regarding fiscal, administrative and social measures (Spanish Official Gazette (BOE)
No. 313 of 31 December 2003) which amended the consolidated text of the Water Act, approved by
Royal Legislative Decree 1/2001. A number of minor regulations closed transposition gaps and
enabled the planning process in the first cycle. In this context, the following Royal Decrees (RDs)
are of relevance:
Regulation of Hydrological Planning (Reglamento de Planificación Hidrológica (RPH) (Real
Decreto 907/2007, de 6 julio, por el que se aprueba el Reglamento de la Planificación
Hidrológica, BOE 07-07-2007); and its subsequent modification by RD 1161/2010 de 17 de
septiembre).
Definition of the limits of River Basin Districts (RBDs) (by RD 125/2007, de 2 de febrero, que
fija el ámbito territorial de las demarcaciones hidrográficas (artículo 16 bis 5 del TRLA)).
4
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0005.png
Competent Authorities (RD 126/2007, de 2 de febrero, que regula la composición,
funcionamiento y atribuciones de los Comités de Autoridades Competentes de las
demarcaciones hidrográficas con cuencas intercomunitarias (artículo 36 bis del TRLA)).
The Ministerial Order for Hydrological Planning (ORDEN ARM/2656/2008 sobre Instrucción de
Planificación Hidrológica (IPH)) is a complementary intra-ministerial regulation tool that defines
precisely the procedures for the planning process and other substantial obligations such as the
conditions for granting exceptions and the monitoring and classification of the ecological and
chemical status of surface waters. However, the IPH applies only –to rivers that flow through
different regions
1
(ES010, ES017, ES018, ES020, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES070, ES080, ES091),
and not to rivers that are completely within the territory of one region
2
(ES014, ES060, ES063,
ES064, ES100, ES110 and ES12X). This is due to the distribution of competences between State
and regions established by the Spanish Constitution (Articles 149.1.22 and 148.1.10), where
catchments shared by more than one Region are the exclusive competence of the State, and intra-
community catchments are the exclusive competence of the Regions. National Laws and Decrees
are considered (in full or in part) as basic rules that apply across the country, but Ministerial Orders
do not bind Regions. Additional legislation at Regional level is therefore needed to ensure that
Spanish legislation fully complies with the Directive
3
. Nevertheless, the IPH has been used as a
“guidance document” in the development of intra-community RBMPs. Further guidance documents
have been developed and are either available as draft or final versions, both at National or Regional
levels, in particular for ES100.
At Regional level, several Water Laws have been approved in the past decade to adapt legislation to
comply with the WFD, including Catalonia (2003), Basque Country (2006), Andalusia (2010) and
Galicia (2010 and 2015).
Spain has a long track record of water quantity focused Hydrological Planning, aimed at ensuring
adequate water supply for existing and future demands. This process delivered RBMPs for all
RBDs (different from the current delimitation) in the late 1990s, plus a National Hydrological Plan
approved in 2001. This Plan was partially derogated (Ebro-Segura inter-basin transfer) in 2004.
1
2
3
Called inter-community RBDs.
Called intra-community RBDs.
On this subject see judgement of the EU Court of Justice of 24 October 2013 on case C-512/12 available at
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-151/12
5
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0006.png
RBD
ES010
ES014
ES017
ES018
ES020
ES030
ES040
ES050
ES060
ES063
ES064
ES070
ES080
ES091
ES100
ES110
ES120
ES122
ES123
ES124
ES125
ES126
ES127
ES150
ES160
Name
Minho-Sil
Galician Coast
Cantábrico Oriental
Cantábrico Occidental
Duero
Tagus
Guadiana
Guadalquivir
Andalusia Mediterranean
Basins
Guadalete and Barbate
Tinto, Odiel and Piedras
Segura
Jucar
Ebro
Internal Basins of Catalonia
Balearic Islands
Gran Canaria
Fuerteventura
Lanzarote
Tenerife
La Palma
La Gomera
El Hierro
Ceuta
Melilla
Size
(km
2
)*
17619
12988
6405
19002
78889
55781
55528
57228
20010
5969
4729
19025
42735
85570
16438
4968
1558
1660
836
2033
706
370
269
20
24
Countries sharing
borders
PT
-
FR
-
PT
PT
PT
-
-
-
-
-
-
AD, FR
FR
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MA
MA
Table 1.1:
Overview of Spain’s River Basin Districts
* Area in Spanish territory.
Source:
WISE, River Basin Management Plans and information provided by Spain (2014)
4
4
References to 'information provided by Spain in 2014' in this document relate to information received in the context of
the bilateral meeting held between the Commission services and the Spanish authorities on 10 November 2014 and its
follow-up.
6
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0007.png
Name international
river basin
Miño/Minho
Duero/Douro
Guadiana
Ebro
Segre (Sub-Basin
Ebro/Rhone)
Catalan
Lima/Limia
Tajo/Tejo
Garonne
Nive (Sub-Basin Adour-
Garonne RBD)
Nivelle (Sub-Basin
Adour-Garonne RBD)
Bidasoa (Sub-Basin
Adour-Garonne RBD)
Ceuta
Melilla
National RBD
ES010
ES020
ES040
ES091
ES091
ES100
ES010
ES030
ES017/ES091
ES017
ES017
ES017
ES150
ES160
Countries
sharing
borders
PT
PT
PT
AD, FR
AD, FR
FR
PT
PT
FR
FR
FR
FR
MA
MA
Co-ordination category
4
2
km²
%
km² %
16226 95.0
78859 80.7
55454 82.7
85534 99
18750
16438
1326
55772
555
121
70
689
95.2
99,9
52.9
78.3
0.7
19.0
12.0
97.0
20
24
100
100
Table 1.2:
Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Spain
5
Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.
Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.
Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.
Category 4: No co-operation formalised.
Source:
EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU, and
Information provided by Spain.
Regarding the shared catchments with other MS/third countries, the following overview
information can be provided:
With Portugal – Miño (ES010), Duero (ES020), Tagus (ES030) and Guadiana (ES040);
regulated by the Albufeira Convention
6
.
With France – Cantábrico Oriental (ES017), Ebro (ES091) and Catalonia (ES100). Since 2003
annual co-ordination meetings have taken place, and since 2006 the Toulouse Agreement is in
place according to Art 3 WFD. ES017 provides information that there is no need to establish a
common international RBMP. A Co-ordination Committee for the follow-up of the WFD
implementation and water management in transboundary rivers is in place.
With Andorra – Ebro (ES091).
With Morocco – Ceuta (ES150) and Melilla (ES160).
5
Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin
management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).
6
http://www.cadc-albufeira.eu/
7
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0008.png
STATUS OF REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE
At the time of compiling this report, Spain has adopted and reported the 25 RBMPs to the European
Commission (by year of adoption): ES100 (2011); ES014, ES060, ES063 and ES064 (2012);
ES010, ES017, ES018, ES020, ES040, ES050, ES110, ES150, and ES160 (2013); and ES030,
ES070, ES080 and ES091 (2014)
7
and ES120, ES122, ES123, ES124, ES125, ES126 and ES127
(2015). Full details are provided in the following table.
RBD
ES010
ES014
ES017
ES018
ES020
ES030
ES040
ES050
ES060
ES063
ES064
ES070
ES080
ES091
ES100
ES110
ES120
ES122
ES123
ES124
ES125
ES126
ES127
ES150
ES160
RBMP Date of
Adoption
19/04/2013
14/09/2012
07/06/2013
07/06/2013
21/06/2013
11/04/2014
17/05/2013
17/05/2013
14/09/2012
14/09/2012
14/09/2012
11/07/2014
11/07/2014
28/02/2014
05/09/2011
8
06/09/2013
01/04/2015
22/04/2015
16/11/2015
06/05/2015
05/06/2015
01/04/2015
07/05/2015
27/09/2013
27/09/2013
RBMP Date of
Reporting
28/06/2013
28/06/2013
12/02/2014
21/10/2013
15/11/2013
03/11/2014
01/07/2013
16/07/2013
01/08/2013
01/08/2013
28/06/2013
20/10/2014
05/11/2014
30/10/2014
24/02/2014
17/10/2014
22/06/2015
17/06/2015
04/02/2016
12/05/2015
22/06/2015
21/04/2015
17/07/2015
29/10/2014
29/10/2014
Table 2.1:
Adoption and reporting to the Commission of Spain's RBMPs.
Source:
RBMPs, Official Public Gazette and River Basin Autorities' websites, WISE and Information provided by
Spain (2014).
7
A full list is provided at:
http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/agua/temas/planificacion-hidrologica/planificacion-
hidrologica/planes-cuenca/default.aspx
8
The ES100 plan was definitely adopted by a royal decree on 5 September 2011 and published in the Spanish Official
Gazette (BOE) on 22 September 2011. Afterwards the decree approving the Catalan RBMP was annulled by the High
Court of Catalonia on 16 May 2013 on procedural grounds. The RBMP and the PoMs were adopted again by the
Regional Government on 23 December 2014. Adoption by the National Government is pending.
8
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0009.png
A summary of the main strengths and weaknesses of the Spanish RBMPs is presented below:
Main strengths
There has been an extensive technical work carried out by the river basin authorities in the
preparation of the RBMPs.
The RBMPs are complete and structured documents, which generally include numerous
annexes with a significant amount of detailed information and background documents.
Quantitative aspects are considered, with water balances done for each RBD and ecological
flows calculated for many river stretches.
Significant efforts have been made to ensure a broad public participation in the process of
development of the RBMP.
All RBMPs have gone through a strategic environmental assessment.
Main weaknesses
The late approval of RBMPs
9
. Spain should ensure the timely adoption of the next RBMPs.
Further work is needed to ensure WFD is fully transposed in all intra-community RBDs.
No river, lake or transitional surface water bodies have been designated in the Canary
Islands without providing a proper justification, despite the existence of rivers and large
dams. No further work, such as monitoring, identification of pressures, classification of
status or the adoption of measures has been consequently developed.
The gaps on characterisation, the deficiencies in monitoring programmes and in the status
assessment methods have resulted in an important number of water bodies with unreliable
or unknown status. This undermines the whole planning process and compromises the
definition of the necessary measures and the achievement of environmental objectives.
Furthermore, environmental objectives are missing for a relatively high number of water
bodies, or are delayed until 3
rd
planning cycle (2027) without proper justification.
Quantitative management of water is linked to quality objectives through the establishment
of ecological flows in many river stretches, but these are generally not clearly linked to the
achievement of good status.
High number of new infrastructure projects are planned, but the conditions for application
of exemptions (WFD Article 4(7)) have not been included in the RBMPs and the potential
impacts on the status are generally not reflected in the environmental objectives of water
bodies.
Cost recovery instruments have not been adapted to the WFD requirements. As a
consequence, there is a lack of adequate incentives for efficient use of the resource and the
adequate contribution to the recovery from different users is not guaranteed. Environmental
9
On this subject see judgement of the EU Court of Justice of 4 October 2012 on case C-403/11 available at
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-403/11&td=ALL
9
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0010.png
and resource costs are high but not included in the recovery. River basin authorities do not
have sufficient resources to exert an effective control of water uses in the RBDs.
Despite its importance for management and planning purposes, the register of water
abstractions is not yet completed in Spain. Metering of water uses should be generalised.
The consideration of water dependent protected areas should be improved. Specific
objectives, monitoring and measures need to be included in the RBMPs in order to ensure
the favourable conservation status of water-dependent protected habitats and species.
GOVERNANCE
River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) – Structure, completeness, legal status
RBMPs are adopted by the Government through a Royal Decree, which is published in the Spanish
Official Gazette, except for the Canary Islands (RBDs ES12X), for which the RBMPs are finally
adopted by a Decree of the regional government. Regionally-managed RBDs are preceded by
approval by the Regional Government. The legal part of the RBMPs is therefore binding for third
parties.
The RBMPs consist of a package of documents including the main text (several hundreds of pages),
and a varying number and length of Annexes and Appendices, that sometimes include preparatory
or background documents (e.g. detailed characterisation studies of certain groundwater bodies
(GWB)), thus often amounting several thousands of pages. They are usually well structured, with
different degrees of technical detail between the main text and the Appendices.
Nonetheless, some information is missing or has not been identified in the screening assessment of
some of the RBMPs, such as the result of the public consultation and its integration in the RBMP;
links between pressures, objectives and measures; information at water body level (pressures,
status, objectives and measures); or the results of the tasks/studies carried out (e.g. status
classification by different quality elements, modelling exercises, cost-effectiveness analysis).
Consultation
Though Spain had previous experience in managing water at the river basin level and establishing
RBMPs, the WFD process started late in all RBDs.
The establishment of RBDs and competent authorities (due in 2003) was done late and the
Commission took Spain to Court
10
. The case was not closed until 2011.
Table 3.2.1 provides an overview of the dates of the WFD Article 14 consultation steps and the
dates of adoption of the RBMPs. The dates reflect the delay in implementation in respect to the
deadlines foreseen in the WFD.
Regarding the publication of the final RBMPs, the first plan (ES100) was formally approved on
02/09/2011, almost 2 years late compared to the deadlines set in the WFD (December 2009). The
rest of the RMPs have been approved since then, with increasing delay regarding the deadlines and
10
On this subject see judgement of the EU Court of Justice of 7 May 2009 on case C-516/07 available at
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=c-516/07&td=ALL
10
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0011.png
the public consultation process (more than 2 years difference in many cases). The adoption of the
Canary Islands RBMPs (ES12X) has been completed during 2015.
Timetable, work
programme and
statement on
consultation measures
22/12/2006
26/07/2007
28/04/2008
26/07/2007
26/07/2007
26/07/2007
26/07/2007
26/07/2007
26/07/2007
02/07/2008
01/02/2008 and
22/05/2010
01/02/2008 and
22/05/2010
26/07/2007
26/07/2007
26/07/2007
01/11/2006
10/2006
03/2009
25/12/2009
20/05/2009
28/11/2008
12/03/2009
18/12/2009
30/10/2012
30/10/2012
28/06/2011
22/05/2010
15/05/2012
2011
01/12/2012
30/11/2012
Significant
water
management
issues
22/12/2007
31/07/2008
28/01/2009
31/07/2008
31/07/2008
31/07/2008
31/07/2008
31/07/2008
31/07/2008
28/05/2009
28/05/2009
28/05/2009
31/07/2008
18/12/2009
31/07/2008
01/12/2007
06/2007
21/12/2009
Final
adoption
RBMP
22/12/2009
19/04/2013
14/09/2012
07/06/2013
07/06/2013
21/06/2013
11/04/2014
17/05/2013
17/05/2013
14/09/2012
14/09/2012
14/09/2012
11/07/2014
11/07/2014
28/02/2014
02/09/2011
06/09/2013
01/04/2015
22/04/2015
16/11/2015
06/05/2015
05/06/2015
01/04/2015
07/05/2015
27/09/2013
27/09/2013
RBD
Due
dates
ES010
ES014
ES017
ES018
ES020
ES030
ES040
ES050
ES060
ES063
ES064
ES070
ES080
ES091
ES100
ES110
ES120
ES122
ES123
ES124
ES125
ES126
ES127
ES150
ES160
Draft RBMP
22/12/2008
15/12/2010
20/08/2010
04/05/2011
04/05/2011
15/12/2010
20/03/2013
25/05/2011
15/12/2010
22/05/2010
22/05/2010
22/05/2010
07/06/2013
07/08/2013
12/05/2012
16/12/2009
01/09/2008
09/11/2011
10/10/2013
04/12/2013
09/10/2013
05/05/2010
07/08/2012
09/08/2013
15/12/2012
28/12/2012
28/12/2012
Table 3.2.1: Timeline of the different steps of the consultation process
Source:
WISE, RBMPs and ES websites and Information provided by Spain (2014). Note that the dRBMP ES110 has
been consulted twice.
Though the timing of consultation has in general been delayed, all RBMPs have respected the 6
months required length of consultation during the drafting process, with ES124 being consulted for
9 months. All RBMPs provide details of the consultation process, and some (e.g. ES100, ES010,
ES020, ES050, ES080) publish also overviews and summary data on the key impact of public
consultation on the contents of the RBMP. During the consultation, usually several hundreds of
11
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0012.png
formal comments have been received on the consulted documents, and many plans provide a sub-
classification of items within each of the comments. Some RBMPs (e.g. ES080, ES100) provide a
clear and transparent response on whether and how each individual comment has been integrated
within the plans, but others do not.
During the RBMP drafting process, many RBDs started significant processes of active involvement
directed at the public (e.g. brochures, campaigns), stakeholders (geographical, sector or topic
workshops) and other meetings. The efforts in ES091 to develop events at local level and in ES100
to draft plans/PoMs at river-stretch level should be noted.
Some RBMPs (e.g. ES091, ES110 – with two consultation periods) have significantly changed the
content of their draft versions, and changes in information, criteria and text have been reported for
several RBMPs, though not necessarily documented in WISE or corresponding summaries (e.g.
ES020).
All RBMPs have undergone a SEA process.
In addition to the formal public consultation, the Spanish legislation foresees a number of
consultation and decision making steps before adoption of the RBMPs. The Committee of
Competent Authorities
11
, aimed at promoting co-operation between national, regional and local
organisations in the application of the WFD, approves the RBMPs before submission to the RBD
Water Advisory Boards for their opinion. These RBD Boards are composed by representatives of
authorities, water users and stakeholders
12
. It should be noted that despite a majority supporting the
plans, significant votes against the RBMPs occurred in ES050 (by the Regional Government of
Andalusia) and ES091 (by the Regional Government of Catalonia) at the respective RBD Board
meetings (see Figure 3.2.1). Reports of the Board meetings are neither included in the RBMPs nor
available at the RBDs websites.
As a result of the ruling of the European Court of Justice of 7 May 2009, Royal Decree 29/2011 created an additional
coordination body for the purpose of elaborating the RBMP for the Cantábrico Oriental RBD ES017, composed of
representatives of Central Administration and Basque Country regional Administration.
12
11
There is also a National Water Advisory Board which informs the plans before adoption by the Government.
12
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0013.png
Figure 3.2.1:
Support within the National Water Advisory Board to RBMPs
Source:
Information provided by Spain (2014).
CHARACTERISATION OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICTS
Typology of Surface Water
The general methodology for the establishment of types and reference conditions has been
regulated by the IPH (section 2.2.1.3 and 2.2.1.4 and Annexes II and III) following a spatially-
based technical proposal by Spanish Research Centre CEDEX. The IPH establishes 32 river types,
30 lake types, 13 transitional water types and 20 coastal water types.
Additional types have been established by River Basin Authorities (RBAs) (e.g. coastal types in
ES070 and river types in ES110 - this latter still in process). The following number of surface water
(SW) types has been considered in the RBMPs:
13
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0014.png
RBD
ES010
ES014
ES017
ES018
ES020
ES030
ES040
ES050
ES060
ES063
ES064
ES070
ES080
ES091
ES100
ES110
ES120
ES122
ES123
ES124
ES125
ES126
ES127
ES150
ES160
Sum
Rivers
9
7
6
12
17
27
14
17
13
7
6
10
12
9
15
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
32
Lakes
3
0
3
5
7
8
12
12
7
4
1
4
7
19
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
Transitional
1
3
3
6
Coastal
1
7
1
3
1
3
4
2
3
2
2
2
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
2
2
4
3
2
5
6
1
8
4
5
4
5
7
4
4
3
2
2
2130
Table 4.2.1:
Surface water body types at RBD level
Source:
WISE and Information provided by Spain.
For river type water bodies, system B has been chosen for all categories based on a variety of data
(hydrological, geological, physical, climatic, etc.) and it is not clear if they have been tested against
biological data. Occasionally, system A has also been used.
Tabulated values for reference conditions and class boundaries have been established by the IPH
for rivers but not for all surface water body types. The IPH does not include values for lake and
transitional water body types
13
. It is also unclear how the IPH reference conditions and class
boundaries have been established. After the IPH approval, the Spanish Ministry of the Environment
carried out complementary work to preliminarily establish reference conditions for additional types.
13
Spain informed in 2014 that some RBDs have developed reference conditions and class boundaries for additional
quality elements.
14
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
Delineation of Surface Water Bodies
General criteria for the delineation of water bodies are also included in the IPH (section 2.2.1.1),
again based on work performed by CEDEX (river and lake water categories). Each RBD has
applied the criteria depending on its particular conditions.
The following overview table 4.3.1 gives information on the number of water bodies. ES122 and
ES123 share a common coastal water body (Eastern Islands), but this has only be assigned to
ES122 in the table 4.3.1 (and in the following ones) to avoid double counting.
15
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0016.png
Surface Water
RBD
Number
ES010
ES014
ES017
ES018
ES020
ES030
ES040
ES050
ES060
ES063
ES064
ES070
ES080
ES091
ES100
ES110
ES120
ES122
ES123
ES124
ES125
ES126
ES127
ES150
ES160
Total
270
411
109
250
696
308
249
392
133
65
48
90
304
700
261
94
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4.381
Rivers
Average
Length (km)
16.49
10.63
14.23
15.39
19.95
29.44
35.95
27.68
16.79
17.19
19.57
19.13
18.60
19.10
15.28
6.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.35
19.76
Lakes
Average Area
Number
(sq km)
3
0
11
7
14
16
58
35
8
10
5
6
19
110
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
329
0.48
0
0.41
0.23
0.89
0.95
1.05
27.11
2.59
0.23
0.25
6.39
2.22
0.74
0.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.76
4
13
7
10
11
1
4
8
25
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
180
12.85
10.64
2.14
12.26
14.33
25.17
3.69
19.42
0.08
1.23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.54
2
3
27
12
4
17
22
3
33
42
6
5
6
11
5
4
3
3
3
260
31.31
163.56
76.53
44.65
43.69
71.13
97.09
103.40
48.47
89.18
549.90
444.70
375.70212
72.68
55.00
41.00
261.48
13.48
3.54
105.88
Transitional
Average Area
Number
(sq km)
4
22
14
21
6.33
4.77
3.46
4.37
Coastal
Average Area
Number
(sq km)
1
29
4
15
15.98
110.26
144.43
103.75
Groundwater
Number
6
18
28
20
64
24
20
60
67
14
4
63
90
105
39
90
10
4
1
4
5
5
3
1
3
748
Average Area
(sq km)
2934.1
729.5
205.0
693.6
1232.6
910.1
1124.1
624.6
155.2
304.5
257.5
243.8
453.6
521.5
288.6
52.6
155.8
413.2
846.1
508.2
142.0
73.6
89.7
11.2
5.0
482.8
Table 4.3.1:
Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions
Source:
WISE, RBMPs and information provided by Spain (2014).
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0017.png
Spain has delineated 4,381 River Water Bodies (RWB), 329 Lake Water Bodies (LWB), 180
Transitional Water Bodies (TWB) and 260 Coastal Water Bodies (CWB). The average length of
RWB is 19 km, and the average surface of LWB is 3 km
2
, of TWB 5 km
2
and of CWB 105 km
2
.
Significant larger averages have been identified for RWBs in ES030, ES040 and ES050. The
reasons for such differences are not clear.
Note that in the Canary Islands - following the statement of the regional Water Planning Instruction
(Decree 165/2015) - no river, lake or transitional water bodies have been designated, despite the
existence of rivers
14
, large dams
15
and protected areas
16
. For example, in ES 125, both Barranco de
las Angustias and Barranco del Agua could be examples of significant watercourses, candidates to
be classified as SWB. Note that the whole island is a Biosphere Reserve.
Spain has delineated 748 GWB, with an average size of 482 km
2
; a significantly larger average size
has been applied in ES010. The reasons for these differences are not clear.
The minimum size of small water bodies has been set at 5 km length for RWB, 0.5 km
2
for LWB
(or 0.08 km
2
if the lake is deeper than 3 metres, or whatever dimensions if protected in the Ramsar
list), 0.5 km
2
for TWB and 5 km length of coastline for CWB.
Following the National CEDEX guidance, minor lakes are frequently aggregated to conform a
LWB (e.g. lagoon complex), thus reflecting much better the large number of small LWB in Spain.
Similarly, small river stretches of different typology may be added to connecting larger ones.
In the case of TWB, limits are established following geographical parameters (public coastal
maritime domain), but consider also chemical aspects such as the salinity gradient in the river, and
the penetration of freshwater into the sea, and other criteria associated with the description of the
status of the TWB.
Identification of significant pressures and impacts
The identification of the pressures and impacts of human activity on water bodies was done for the
first time in the context of the IMPRESS study on the basis of the “Guidance to identifying
pressures and impact analysis in surface waters (2005)” (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as
the Guidance). This study included the identification and the assessment of pressures and impacts
associated with point and non-point pollution, significant water withdrawals and returns, regulation
works, hydromorphological alterations, and other significant anthropogenic impacts on water
bodies. The approach relied first on a qualitative assessment and, in a second stage, on a
quantitative assessment based on a simplified model. The objective of this study was to identify the
water bodies at risk of failing the WFD environmental objectives.
For the purpose of the qualitative assessment, the Guidance included thresholds of significance for
the various pressure categories. The impact was estimated or measured and assessed as "confirmed"
"probable", "no impact" or "no data". On this basis the final assessment of risk of failing
14
15
E.g. RBMP ES127 refers to one river basin with 13 km2, this means above the WFD thresholds for being considered
The 2006 Art.5 Analysis informs about 116 large dams with 100 hm3 storage capacity. The largest capacity exists in
ES120 followed by ES124; including in ES120 the large Soria dam with 15hm3 used storage capacityand a watershed
of 32 km2.
16
E.g. the Natura 2000 Standard Data Form for ES0000043 (Caldera de Taburiente) refers to its “abundance of springs
and water courses”.
17
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0018.png
environmental objectives was established, which depended on the characteristics of each water
body.
The 2008 IPH
17
, on the basis of which the RBMPs were to be developed, included further
thresholds for the purpose of including a comprehensive inventory of pressures in the RBMPs. The
link to significance in terms of risk, however, is no longer evident, as there is no reference to
impact or risk assessment in the IPH. Indeed the Spanish legislation (RPH, IPH) does not require
for surface water the identification of water bodies at risk of failing the environmental objectives
due to significant pressures. According to the WFD this risk assessment should be based on all
available information on pressures, impacts and status as well as trends in the water uses. The result
of this assessment should then be used to inform the design of the monitoring programmes and the
programmes of measures. The risk assessment is essential to complement the information on status
gathered in the previous cycle, to identify potential risk of deterioration of water bodies due to
increasing pressures and to target effectively the monitoring efforts.
Abstractions larger than 20000 m
3
/yr are defined as significant. Cumulative abstractions in rivers
are being dealt with by assessing upstream abstractions compared with natural flows, considering a
40% (or other RBD-specific) threshold as significant. Prolonged drought periods are considered as
the natural flow is calculated using long term averages.
Thresholds for the inventory of hydromorphological pressures (dams, transfers, dikes, etc.) are
defined in the IPH. Other pressures like the introduction of invasive species, polluted sediments, or
land drainage (or angling, recreation, ES020) are listed for identification, but no guidance is given
for when considering them as “significant” pressures and they are judged on a case by case basis at
RBD level.
The IPH establishes a list of categories of point and diffuse sources that need to be included in the
inventory. Thresholds are provided for a few of these categories (for example discharges from
aquaculture facilities larger than 100000 m
3
/yr)
18
. Criteria for the main diffuse sources are generally
not given in the IPH, but have been defined by each RBMPs. However, the method used to
establish the significance is not clear.
In general, for the preparation of the RBMPs, and in order to consider cumulative effects, the
inventory of pressures was used as input for modelling tools.
The identification of (significant) impacts is generally well linked to pressures (e.g. water uses)
when dealing with water abstractions and point source pollution, and some plans provide
comprehensive overviews on all pressures related to water bodies (e.g. ES080). In the case of
diffuse pollution (e.g. ES070) or hydromorphological alterations (e.g. ES030, ES070), the picture is
often more complicated, and no clear relationship with impacts has been described for these
pressures within many RBMPs at water body level.
Significant point source pressures have been identified for more than 1750 water bodies, namely for
ES014, ES018, ES020, ES050, ES091 and ES100 which are RBDs with significant urban and
industrial developments.
Significant diffuse source pressures have been identified in more than 1200 water bodies. The
pressures are particularly prevalent in the RBDs ES014, ES080, ES091 and ES100. Some
17
18
It is not clear to what extent the Guidance and the IPH was used in intra-community RBDs.
According to information provided by Spain, the application of thresholds has been done on a case by case basis.
18
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
agricultural land-use intensive RBDs, however, like ES040 and ES070 have not reported significant
diffuse source pressures.
High percentages of water bodies subject to significant water abstraction have been identified in
one northern river basin district (ES018) and some southern river basin districts (ES040, and
ES050). Despite water quantity being a significant problem in some of the river basins, these have
not identified large numbers of water bodies affected by significant abstraction pressures (e.g.
ES063, ES064, ES070, ES080, ES091, and ES110).
According to the Spanish authorities, this apparent mismatch between the relatively low
percentages of water bodies reported as subject to significant pressures and the severity of the
perceived problem is, at least in part, due to the fact that Spain reported to WISE only the result of
the qualitative pressure and impact assessment, which is not accurate in case of diffuse sources of
pollution or water abstraction. However, this casts doubt about the reliability of the thresholds of
significance used for the pressure inventories and the usability of the information reported. It is not
clear why there are so large differences across the different basins if they were supposed to use the
same thresholds (as included in the IPH). And it is also unclear why Spain did not report to WISE
the result of the final and complete assessment of pressures and impacts, although it may have to do
with the fact that the risk assessment resulting from the pressure and impact analysis is not required
by the Spanish legislation, as explained above, and is therefore wrongly seen as a one-off exercise
that was due only in 2005 as part of the preparation of the first RBMP.
Significant water flow regulations and hydromorphological alterations have been identified for
more than 1550 surface water bodies most likely caused by the high number of large dams in Spain
(1350), and many other hydromorphological alterations. A high proportion of surface water bodies
(>60%) affected by such pressures can be found in ES017, ES018, and ES020. Relatively low
values (<20%) have been reported for ES010, ES014, ES030, ES050, ES060, and ES091, despite
the large number of dams and river infrastructure existing in most of these basins. Again, there is
no plausible explanation for these large differences unless approaches used in the RBDs were
significantly different.
River management as a significant pressure appears to be interpreted in different ways in the RBDs,
as a few of the RBMPs report significant pressures (e.g. ES017, ES018) and others no single
significant pressure (e.g. ES010, ES020, ES030, ES040, ES063, ES064, ES080, ES091 and
ES100).
Transitional and coastal water management have been identified as significant pressures for 117
water bodies (40 % of TW and CW). Significant pressures have been reported mainly for ES018,
ES060, and ES070. No such pressures were identified for ES010, ES040, ES050, ES063 ES064,
ES080, ES091 and ES110, though ports and navigation, as well as recreational activities and sand
dredging are present in the RBDs, and despite the fact that inventories of pressures include as
relevant connectivity alterations, channelling, sluices, land occupation, dredging and beach
regeneration.
Other pressures have been identified for a large number of surface water bodies (more than 1000),
in particular in ES014, ES018, ES080 and ES100.
No pressures have been identified in more than 1900 Spanish surface water bodies. ES018 and
ES070 report only less than 20 surface water bodies with no significant pressure; and large numbers
of surface water bodies with no pressures are reported from ES010, ES030, ES050 and in particular
ES091 (77% of the surface water bodies have no pressure). When compared to the status, it is
nonetheless surprising that in ES030, ES091 and ES110 there appears to be a much lower number
19
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
of surface water bodies in good status in 2009 than the number of water bodies with no pressure
(ES030: 243 water bodies without pressure vs. 170 water bodies in good status; ES091: 635 water
bodies without pressure vs. 226 water bodies in good status; and ES110: 129 water bodies without
pressure vs. 73 water bodies in good status). This comparison indicates an inconsistency in the
planning process, either within the identification of pressures or the classification of status. And
again, figures show significant differences in approach that questions the effectiveness of the
harmonisation efforts.
There is a significant difference between data included in many of the RBMPs and provided via
WISE, hampering a good understanding of the challenges faced in the RBDs, e.g. ES020 RBMP
develops a significant analysis of diffuse pollution, meanwhile according to WISE no water body is
affected by such type of pressures. This may be due to the fact that only the qualitative analysis was
reported but it is unclear and confusing.
20
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0021.png
RBD
ES010
ES014
ES017
ES018
ES020
ES030
ES040
ES050
ES060
ES063
ES064
ES070
ES080
ES091
ES100
ES110
ES120
ES122
ES123
ES124
ES125
ES126
ES127
ES150
ES160
No pressures
Point source
Diffuse source
Water abstraction
Flow regulations
and morphological
alterations
River management
Transitional and
coastal water
management
Other
morphological
alterations
Other pressures
No.
200
63
25
12
160
243
36
210
20
54
38
14
64
635
54
129
1
2
2
5
2
3
1
%
71.9
13.6
18.1
4.1
22.5
75.0
11.5
47.4
11.4
55.7
55.9
12.3
18.3
77.3
15.6
75.0
0
20
33.33
18.18
100
50
100
25.0
No.
58
178
75
177
264
67
136
163
119
33
22
38
122
147
159
18
5
4
4
6
0
2
0
2
%
20.9
38.5
54.3
60.4
37.2
20.7
43.5
36.8
68.0
34.0
32.4
33.3
35.0
17.9
46.0
10.5
83.33
80
66.67
54.55
0
50
0
50.0
No.
34
181
33
17
92
18
23
78
87
40
25
73
201
155
117
32
1
1
2
6
0
1
0
0
%
12.2
39.2
23.9
5.8
13
5.6
7.3
17.6
49.7
41.2
36.8
64.0
57.6
18.9
33.8
18.6
16.67
20
33.33
54.55
0
25
0
0.0
No.
49
3
74
189
74
45
166
147
86
26
17
40
78
39
62
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
17.6
0.6
53.6
64.5
10.4
13.9
53.0
33.2
49.1
26.8
25.0
35.1
22.3
4.8
17.9
5.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
No
47
54
89
198
439
20
113
84
32
35
26
34
140
120
109
11
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
2
%
16.9
11.7
64.5
67.6
61.8
6.2
36.1
19.0
18.3
36.1
38.2
29.8
40.1
14.6
31.5
6.4
0
0
0
72.7
0
0
0
50.0
No.
0
22
77
156
0
0
0
57
12
0
0
32
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.0
4.8
55.8
53.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.9
6.9
0.0
0.0
28.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
No.
0
18
12
31
%
0.0
3.9
8.7
10.6
No.
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
4.9
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
No.
30
277
59
175
1
0
68
29
11
1
10
42
145
1
185
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
10.8
60.0
42.8
59.7
0.1
0.0
21.7
6.5
6.3
1.0
14.7
36.8
41.5
0.1
53.5
7.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
28
0
0
13
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.0
0.0
16.0
0.0
0.0
11.4
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0022.png
RBD
No pressures
Point source
Diffuse source
Water abstraction
Flow regulations
and morphological
alterations
River management
Transitional and
coastal water
management
Other
morphological
alterations
Other pressures
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Total
1958
38.2
1796
35.1
1118
21.8
1026
21.420.02
1554
30.3
365
7.12
117
2.3
22
0.4
1046
20.4
Table 4.4.1:
Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures.
Source:
WISE and information provided by Spain (2014). No data available for ES150.
22
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0023.png
Figure 4.4.1:
Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures
1 = No pressures
2 = Point source
3 = Diffuse source
4 = Water abstraction
5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations
6 = River management
7 = Transitional and coastal water management
8 = Other morphological alterations
9 = Other pressures
Source:
WISE. No data available for ES150.
Protected areas
More than 28800 Protected Areas have been reported for those RBDs with WISE data
available, an average of 5 Protected Areas per water body.
Of these, by far the largest number corresponds to the more than 21000 Protected Areas for
abstraction for drinking water, an average of 4.9 such Protected Areas per water body. The
Ebro (ES091) is the RBD with the largest number of such areas.
More than 1600 bathing water Protected Areas have been reported, mainly for ES014, ES060
and ES100.
More than 1100 areas protected for their habitats and more than 500 for their birds are
reported. They account for an average of 0.28 protected area for every water body, with
higher values in ES150, ES070, ES091 and ES030.
401 Nitrate Vulnerable Zones have been reported, 218 shellfish areas (mainly in ES014), and
462 UWWT Protected Areas (especially relevant for ES110 and ES100).
The information included in the RBMPs regarding Protected Areas usually refers to a list of
the Protected Areas, their classification, and an overview map of their location within the
RBD, displayed as points. Nonetheless, in general no information is provided on the
following features: the specific protection elements (e.g. shellfish, habitats and birds), the
23
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
conservation status of the protected area, the pressures or threats that affect the protected
area, and the overlap of Protected Areas with water bodies (e.g. for use in the delimitation of
water bodies). Exceptionally, some additional information might be found on specific
Protected Areas in the Appendices (e.g. ES040 regarding the Tablas de Daimiel protected
area and the underlying GWBs).
24
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0025.png
Number of PAs
European Other
Article 7
Abstraction for
drinking water
RBD
National
Habitats
Shellfish
Nitrates
UWWT
6
2
12
8
36
53
19
13
3
3
3
7
30
29
113
125
2
3
6
1
1
4
1
0
0
4744
80
Bathing
Local
Birds
ES010
ES014
ES017
ES018
ES020
ES030
ES040
ES050
ES060
ES063
ES064
ES070
ES080
ES091
ES100
ES110
ES120
ES122
ES123
ES124
ES125
ES126
ES127
ES150
ES160
Total
754
2183
106
123
3518
476
1521
954
882
109
86
119
1980
7072
1292
80
30
0
35
5
11
5
21
2136
2
32
448
36
99
26
32
26
32
237
53
25
116
176
43
208
26
46
33
32
39
7
7
4
7
8
1766
1798
11
9
4
16
53
63
43
13
21
14
6
33
44
132
24
24
5
7
7
7
1
6
3
2
2
5435
50
0
7
0
3
2
0
11
12
10
3
2
0
0
11
66
0
8
8
9
14
21
15
23
16
3
3
0
1
4
15
19
0
20
37
36
79
78
85
61
38
70
25
19
73
83
292
56
71
38
10
83
142
80
152
0
0
0
0
39
0
0
0
8
0
261
316
15
0
7
16
0
0
1119
166
12
80
111
493
60
168
152
72
37
38
141
96
143
85
0
0
0
0
0
10
7
10
9
14
3
3
9
280
23
20
13
7
1
95
3
17
0
0
6
6
36
7
5
7
7
5
18
4
1081
2943
366
622
4237
791
1888
1245
1387
257
187
506
2708
7765
2162
659
113
83
056
107
38
67
29
17
31
2929
3293
49
0
0
1811
17
28
26
9
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1854
2
1
0
0
418
1
0
218
0
0
127
0
0
159
2
0
1253
1264
Table 4.5.1:
Number of Protected Areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and
groundwater
19
Source:
WISE and Information provided by Spain.
19
This information corresponds to the reporting of Protected Areas under the WFD. More/other information
may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives.
25
Total
Fish
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
MONITORING
Some estimated 18000 monitoring sites have been reported by Spain, mainly for rivers and
groundwater bodies. The average number of monitoring sites per water body is 18 for GWB,
4.3 for CWB, 4(4) for TWB, 1.5 for RWB and 0.8 for LWB.
The information provided in the RBMPs and WISE regarding monitoring systems is not
always fully consistent. The RBMPs usually include the legal texts and maps showing the
monitoring sites, but no information on the methodology for the design of the network (e.g.
how pressure and impact analysis has been used to design the monitoring programmes).
Information on gaps or the status of implementation is also missing, although it appears a
significant issue given the high percentage of water bodies with unknown status (see next
chapter).
In fact, additional information gathered through the bilateral meeting held in November 2014
shows that monitoring programmes are not being implemented as reported and, due to
budgetary cuts, monitoring efforts have significantly reduced since 2010.
No information on operational monitoring sites has been provided for several RBDs/water
categories (ES010 and ES070 re CW; ES019, ES017, ES050 re LW operational sites; ES060,
ES063 and ES064 re GW quantitative sites). In some cases operational monitoring is not in
place because there are no water bodies identified at risk (ES040, ES050, ES120, ES122,
ES124, ES125, ES126, ES127 re CW; ES014 and ES018 re GW quantitative sites).
Generally, there is no or unclear information about grouping of water bodies (e.g. ES014,
ES017, ES018, ES040, ES100), despite larger number of RWB and LWB than monitoring
sites (in the overall figures). Differences exist between the number of water bodies monitored
for each quality element as indicated in the monitoring programmes and the number of water
bodies where information on status of each quality element is provided (e.g. ES017, ES018
for fish, ES020). The reason for these differences is not clear.
International monitoring programmes are set up for ES020 and ES040 with PT, and though
they have not been established for ES010 with PT or for ES017 with FR, transboundary
coordination is in place.
26
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0027.png
RBD
Rivers
Surv
Op
Lakes
Surv
Op
Transitional
Surv
Op
Coastal
Surv
Op
Surv
Groundwater
Op
Quant
ES010
ES014
ES017
ES018
ES020
ES030
ES040
ES050
ES060
ES063
ES064
ES070
ES080
ES091
ES100
ES110
ES120
ES122
ES123
ES124
ES125
ES126
ES127
ES150
ES160
Total by type of site
Total number of
monitoring sites
20
Total number
compared to the
number of
corresponding WBs
86
519
165
505
819
466
165
274
48
30
30
101
154
358
301
63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4084
74
29
239
204
726
169
217
114
72
79
64
78
101
286
111
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2597
0
0
6
8
32
20
18
4
3
4
5
6
20
40
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
195
280
0,8
0
0
0
3
2
4
17
0
2
4
6
1
17
22
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
85
5
68
25
187
0
0
8
41
9
21
42
7
31
42
28
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
545
800
4,4
0
0
4
73
0
0
6
20
9
21
42
0
12
41
7
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
255
0
70
11
106
0
0
5
9
46
35
16
31
226
36
31
72
186
50
46
30
0
44
18
7
0
0
1
64
0
0
0
0
18
35
16
104
113
36
16
15
117
20
0
0
0
0
0
7
44
51
38
53
486
214
121
155
98
75
42
45
218
1693
613
328
24
36
1
54
16
8
17
0
0
4430
18
0
21
0
140
59
33
78
98
36
15
368
99
0
867
123
36
13
0
5
14
3
17
0
0
2043
7356
9.8
8
51
28
36
555
202
207
266
0
0
0
172
287
377
446
126
60
36
1
36
6
5
17
0
0
2922
6681
1,5
4
0
8308 464
76
14351481
5,65.7
Table 5.2:
Number of monitoring sites by water category
Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant = Quantitative
Source:
WISE and Information provided by Spain. There are large differences between the figures reported in
WISE and those corrected by Spanish authorities in 2014.
20
The total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites
are used for more than one purpose.
27
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0028.png
Figure 5.1:
Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations
River monitoring stations
Lake monitoring stations
Transitional water monitoring stations
Coastal water monitoring stations
Unclassified surface water monitoring stations
Groundwater monitoring stations
River Basin Districts
Countries outside EU
Source:
WISE (2010), Eurostat (country borders).
28
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0029.png
Monitoring of Surface Waters
As shown in Figure 5.1 and Table 5.2, a monitoring programme has been set up.
The following monitoring design and implementation gaps relating to surveillance
monitoring can be identified for some of the RBDs
21
:
RW: Lack of monitoring QE1-2, QE1-4 and QE3-3
LW: Lack of monitoring in general (e.g. ES010), QE1-2, QE1-3, QE1-4, QE2, QE3-1
and QE3-3.
One important gap is the lack of monitoring for fish in most of the RBDs.
-
-
In terms of operational monitoring, information on the relationship between pressures,
impacts and monitored biological quality elements (BQEs) is scarce. It can be noted that in
ES017 and ES018 (RW) altered habitats due to abstractions or water flow are not
monitored/related to QE1-4. Information is lacking on how chemical pollution due to
atmospheric deposition will be detected, and it has not been considered in the design of
pollutant sampling in river basins.
Monitoring of sediments and biota is not specified in most of the RBMPs (e.g. ES017,
ES018, ES020, ES040, ES050, ES12) but additional information received from Spain
indicates that monitoring of sediments and biota is being undertaken in all RBDs.
Monitoring of Ground Waters
Significant monitoring networks have been built up to control groundwater status, in
particular based on the existing quantitative (piezometric) networks, and on average 10
monitoring sites exist per GWB. The monitoring network is particular dense in the areas with
intensive abstractions. The exception is ES060, ES063 and ES064 where no quantitative
monitoring is reported despite intensive water use. ES120 reports significant data gaps and
the lack of representativeness of the quantitative monitoring network to provide adequate
data. This data scarcity is a general problem in the whole Canarian archipielago, transfering
uncertainty to the status assessment and the settlement of objectives.
The groundwater chemical status monitoring programmes are designed in order to detect
significant and sustained upward trends in pollutants, even though a detailed justification is
lacking in the documents of the RBMPs.
Monitoring of Protected Areas
Monitoring in protected areas is required under WFD Article 8 and section 1.3.5 of Annex V.
A total of 679 monitoring sites have been reported for Protected Areas (PAs), this is one site
per 24 PAs. Most of them relate to bathing water, drinking water and nitrates.
21
The acronyms for the WFD Quality Elements follow the coding adopted for WISE: QE1 Biological, QE1-1
Phytoplankton, QE1-2 Other aquatic flora, QE1-3 Benthic invertebrates, QE1-4 Fish, QE1-5 Other species, QE2
Hydromorphological Quality Elements, QE2-1 Hydrological regime-rivers, QE2-2 River continuity, QE2-3
Morphological conditions-Rivers, QE2-4 Hydrological regime-lakes, QE2-5 Morphological conditions-lakes,
QE2-6 Morphological conditions-transitional and coastal waters, QE2-7 Tidal regime-transitional waters, QE2-8
Tidal regime-Coastal waters, QE3 Chemical and physico-chemical, QE3-1 General parameters, QE3-2 Priority
substances, QE3-3 Non priority specific pollutants, QE3-4 Other national pollutants.
29
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0030.png
It is however not clear whether the reported monitoring sites are the result of just the
geographical overlay of monitoring sites and protected areas or are genuine sites for the
monitoring of the specific objectives of the relevant protected areas. Generally WISE
reporting identifies specific programmes for the monitoring of some types protected areas
(water bodies for the production of drinking water, bathing water, shellfish, etc.).
Regarding Drinking Water PA, monitoring covers only a very small percentage of the total
number of such PAs. It is unclear if all relevant parameters of the Drinking Water Directive
are monitored.
Monitoring of shellfish PAs is focused on shellfish as economically relevant species, and
covers heavy metals and toxic pollutants. It is reported for only 3 RBDs, although shellfish is
a relevant economic activity in other RBDs as well.
Monitoring in Nature PAs is not mentioned in the RBMPs. In general, RBMPs include only a
geographic reference of PAs under the Habitats Directive, without further referring to the
specific conservation status and/or objectives.
RBD
ES010
ES014
ES017
ES018
ES020
ES030
ES040
ES050
ES060
ES063
ES064
ES070
ES080
ES091
ES100
ES110
ES120
ES122
ES123
ES124
ES125
ES126
ES127
ES150
ES160
Surface
drinking
water
abstraction
55
104
104
103
143
109
63
50
33
0
0
8
16
132
45
76
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
Surface waters
Bathing
water
27
0
55
99
27
31
19
0
0
0
0
55
5
242
63
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
Fish
21
13
10
14
21
15
16
18
3
3
0
2
8
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Birds
sites
0
0
0
16
*
32
0
0
0
0
58
-
-
19
54
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Habitats
sites
0
0
0
78
*
56
0
0
0
0
63
-
-
0
82
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nitrates
0
138
0
0
38
*
67
0
0
0
0
28
107
NA
556
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Shell-
fish
0
0
5
17
NA
NA
1
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UWWT
7
0
5
0
151
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
25
99
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ground-
water
drinking
water
9
44
10
20
144
0
80
0
0
0
28
-
348
138
204
0
0
0
2
0
22
0
0
20
268
Table 5.3.1:
Number of monitoring stations in Protected Areas.
Source:
Information provided by Spain (2014). *: No network defined, but parameters are being controlled by
other monitoring networks.
30
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0031.png
Figure 5.2:
Map of monitoring stations for Protected Areas
Source:
WISE (2010)
NB. For Groundwater, no information was supplied by ES020, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES063, ES064,
ES070, ES100 and ES110 on Protected Area Monitoring Points. For surface waters, information was supplied
about Drinking Water Protected Areas only for ES020, ES030, ES050, ES060, ES100 and ES110. Partial
information on other Protected Areas was supplied by ES018, ES040, ES063, ES064, ES070, ES080 and
ES091. The remaining RBDs supplied information on all types of Protected Area. Monitoring for Drinking
water PAs has been established in all RBDs, although the information is unclear/contradictory for ES014.
31
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0032.png
22
RBD
ES010
ES014
ES017
ES018
ES020
ES030
ES040
ES050
ES060
ES063
ES064
ES070
ES080
ES091
ES100
ES110
ES120
ES122
ES123
ES124
ES125
ES126
ES127
ES150
ES160
Rivers
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
QE1.4 Fish
QE1.5 Other species
QE2 Hydromorphological QEs
QE1.2 Other aquatic flora
QE1.2.3 Macrophytes
QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos
QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates
QE1.1 Phytoplankton
22
The use of phytoplankton as an indicator in rivers is limited in Spain to reservoirs only.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
QE3.1 General Parameters
QE3.3 Non priority specific
Pollutants
QE3.4 Other national pollutants
QE1.1 Phytoplankton
QE1.2 Other aquatic flora
QE1.2.3 Macrophytes
QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos
QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates
QE1.4 Fish
-
-
QE1.5 Other species
QE2 Hydromorphological QEs
QE3.1 General Parameters
QE3.3 Non priority specific
pollutants
-
-
QE3.4 Other national pollutants
Lakes
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0033.png
RBD
ES010
ES014
ES017
ES018
ES020
ES030
ES040
ES050
ES060
ES063
ES064
ES070
ES080
ES091
ES100
ES110
ES120
ES122
ES123
ES124
ES125
ES126
ES127
ES150
ES160
Table 5.1:
Quality elements monitored -
Source:
Information provided by Spain (2015).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
QE1.1 Phytoplankton
QE1.2 Other aquatic flora
QE Monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
QE1.2.1 Microalgae
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
QE1.2.2 Angiosperms
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
QE1.4 Fish
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
QE1.5 Other species
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
QE3.1 General Parameters
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
QE1.1 Phytoplankton
-
-
QE1.2 Other aquatic flora
-
-
-
QE1.2.1 Microalgae
-
-
-
QE1.2.2 Angiosperms
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
QE1.4 Fish
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
QE1.5 Other species
-
-
-
-
QE3.1 General Parameters
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
QE Not monitored
Not Relevant
QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates
Transitional
QE2 Hydromorphological QEs
QE3.3 Non priority specific
pollutants
QE3.4 Other national pollutants
QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates
Coastal
QE2 Hydromorphological QEs
QE3.3 Non priority specific
pollutants
QE3.4 Other national pollutants
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
STATUS
The ecological status of natural SWBs presented in the RBMPs shows that 43% are either in
high or good status. Several RBDs have a relatively high proportion (>15%) of water bodies
in high ecological status (ES010, ES014, ES018, ES050, ES070) or in good status (e.g.
ES030, ES050 and ES060).
A significant number/proportion (>5%) of water bodies in bad ecological status has been
identified in some RBDs (ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES063 and ES070).
The overall number (727 WBs) and proportion (17%) of water bodies with unknown
ecological status is very high; and in particular the following RBDs should be mentioned:
ES014, ES063, ES064, ES080, ES091, ES100, ES110, ES123; ES091 presents the largest
number of water bodies with unknown ecological status (322 water bodies).
Large differences exist in the status results between RBDs. The following shows the
percentage of natural SWB in good or better status in some of the main RBDs:
ES030 Tagus
ES050 Guadalquivir
ES060 Andalucía Med
ES070 Segura
ES080 Jucar
ES091 Ebro
ES040 Guadiana
ES020 Duero
61
59
54
48
42
34
28
21
There is no plausible explanation for these differences other than the lack of harmonisation of
the status assessment. The figures question the reliability of the status assessments and the
use that has been made of the EU intercalibration results.
34
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0035.png
RBD
ES010
ES014
ES017
ES018
ES020
ES030
ES040
ES050
ES060
ES063
ES064
ES070
ES080
ES091
ES100
ES110
ES120
ES122
ES123
ES124
ES125
ES126
ES127
ES150
ES160
TOTAL
Total
227
422
101
258
620
198
244
325
130
67
51
84
289
705
268
158
5
5
55
6
5
4
3
2
2
4184
High
No.
69
74
4
51
28
10
6
52
11
0
2
13
3
71
5
22
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
422
(%)
30,4
17,5
4,0
19,8
4,5
5,1
2,5
16,0
8,5
0,0
3,9
15,5
1,0
10,1
1,9
13,9
20,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
10,1
Good
No.
101
137
49
143
105
111
63
140
60
13
16
28
120
169
62
47
4
5
05
6
5
4
3
2
2
1400
(%)
44,5
32,5
48,5
55,4
16,9
56,1
25,8
43,1
46,2
19,4
31,4
33,3
41,5
24,0
23,1
29,7
80,0
100,0
83,3
100,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
33,5
Moderate
No.
37
67
29
51
441
46
131
71
37
6
15
25
61
107
76
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1212
(%)
16,3
15,9
28,7
19,8
71,1
23,2
53,7
21,8
28,5
9,0
29,4
29,8
21,1
15,2
28,4
7,6
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
29,0
Poor
No.
13
19
15
7
39
9
25
33
11
16
5
6
19
29
26
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
289
(%)
5,7
4,5
14,9
2,7
6,3
4,5
10,2
10,2
8,5
23,9
9,8
7,1
6,6
4,1
9,7
10,8
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
6,9
2
3
2
3
7
10
19
29
9
5
1
12
14
7
12
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bad
No.
(%)
0,9
0,7
2,0
1,2
1,1
5,1
7,8
8,9
6,9
7,5
2,0
14,3
4,8
1,0
4,5
2,5
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
3,3
Unknown
No.
5
122
2
3
0
12
0
0
2
27
12
0
72
322
87
56
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
722
(%)
2,2
28,9
2,0
1,2
0,0
6,1
0,0
0,0
1,5
40,3
23,5
0,0
24,9
45,7
32,5
35,4
0,0
0,0
100,00
0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
17,3
139
Table 6.1:
Ecological status of natural surface water bodies
Source:
WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2014).
Regarding the ecological potential of HMWB or AWB, 32% is evaluated as high or good
status overall, with significant differences between low values (<15%; ES100) and high
percentages (approx. 50%; ES010, ES050, ES070). 185 water bodies still have unknown
status (19%), with especially significant high values in ES091 (110 water bodies, 95%).
35
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0036.png
RBD
ES010
ES014
ES017
ES018
ES020
ES030
ES040
ES050
ES060
ES063
ES064
ES070
ES080
ES091
ES100
ES110
ES120
ES122
ES123
ES124
ES125
ES126
ES127
ES150
ES160
TOTAL
Total
51
40
37
35
90
126
69
118
45
30
17
30
60
116
78
14
1
0
1
5
0
0
0
1
2
966
High
No.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
2
-
-
-
0
0
2
(%)
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
-
0,0
40,0
-
-
-
0,0
0,0
0,2
No.
25
11
7
15
28
49
18
63
20
9
7
14
26
0
11
4
0
-
0
2
-
-
-
0
0
Good
(%)
49,0
27,5
18,9
42,9
31,1
38,9
26,1
53,4
44,4
30,0
41,2
46,7
43,3
0,0
14,1
28,6
0,0
-
0,0
40,0
-
-
-
0,0
0,0
32,0
Moderate
No.
15
20
15
12
55
32
17
32
16
11
7
11
9
4
29
1
0
-
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
286
(%)
29,4
50,0
40,5
34,3
61,1
25,4
24,6
27,1
35,6
36,7
41,2
36,7
15,0
3,4
37,2
7,1
0,0
-
0,0
0,0
-
-
-
0,0
0,0
29,6
No.
9
3
8
2
5
25
8
16
1
3
0
2
7
2
14
1
0
-
0
0
-
-
-
0
1
Poor
(%)
17,6
7,5
21,6
5,7
5,6
19,8
11,6
13,6
2,2
10,0
0,0
6,7
11,7
1,7
17,9
7,1
0,0
-
0,0
0,0
-
-
-
0,0
50,0
11,1
No.
2
3
6
4
1
12
12
7
8
0
0
2
4
0
15
0
0
-
0
0
-
-
-
1
0
77
Bad
(%)
3,9
7,5
16,2
11,4
1,1
9,5
17,4
5,9
17,8
0,0
0,0
6,7
6,7
0,0
19,2
0,0
0,0
-
0,0
0,0
-
-
-
100,0
0,0
8,0
Unknown
No.
0
3
1
2
1
8
14
0
0
7
3
1
14
110
9
8
1
-
1
1
-
-
-
0
1
185
(%)
0,0
7,5
2,7
5,7
1,1
6,3
20,3
0,0
0,0
23,3
17,6
3,3
23,3
94,8
11,5
57,1
100,0
-
100,0
20,0
-
-
-
0,0
50,0
19,2
309
107
Table 6.2:
Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies
Source:
WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain.
36
kom (2015) 0120 - Ingen titel
1925138_0037.png
Regarding the chemical status of natural SWB, a number of RBMPs have classified a large
proportion of water bodies in good status. Some RBDs have significant work to do to
improve the assessment of chemical status of natural SWBs (ES064, ES063). In several other
RBDs a significant number of water bodies still need to be classified (ES010, ES018, ES091
y ES110 with > 75% unknown), thus the status assessment can be considered as insufficient
to inform adequately the rest of the WFD planning process.
RBD
ES010
ES014
ES017
ES018
ES020
ES030
ES040
ES050
ES060
ES063
ES064
ES070
ES080
ES091
ES100
ES110
ES120
ES122
ES123
ES124
ES125
ES126
ES127
ES150
ES160
TOTAL
Total
227
422
101
258
620
198
244
325
130
67
51
84
289
705
268
158
5
5
5
6
5
4
3
2
2
4184
Good
No.
39
356
62
62
599
192
215
282
116
30
22
77
159
0*
140
0
2
5
0
6
5
4
3
0
2
2378
%
17,2
84,4
61,4
24,0
96,6
97,0
88,1
86,8
89,2
44,8
43,1
91,7
55,0
0,0
52,2
0,0
40,0
100,0
0,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
0,0
100,0
56,8
No.
7
34
9
4
21
6
2
11
2
10
15
7
8
32
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
182
Poor
%
3,1
8,1
8,9
1,6
3,4
3,0
0,8
3,4
1,5
14,9
29,4
8,3
2,8
4,5
5,2
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
4,3
No.
181
32
30
192
0
0
27
32
12
27
14
0
122
673
114
158
3
0
5
0
0
0
0
2
0
1624
Unknown
%