IWR515 Water Legislation

Implementation of the Water Framework Directive River

Basin Management Plans

SPAIN

Instructor: ASST. PROF. DR. HATİCE ESER ÖKTEN

Student: Amrudeen Haidary
Date: 22.01.2020
 Outlines

• 1 GENERAL INFORMATION • 6 ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL STATUS OF

• 2 STATUS OF REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE SURFACE WATERS

2.1 Main strengths • 7 DESIGNATION OF HMWB AND SETTING OF

2.2 Main weaknesses GOOD ECOLOGICAL POTENTIAL (GEP)

• 3 CHARACTERISATION OF RIVER BASIN • 8 ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICAL STATUS OF

3.1 Typology of Surface Water SURFACE WATER

3.2 Delineation of Surface Water Bodies

• 9 ASSESSMENT OF GROUNDWATER STATUS
3.3 Identification of significant pressures and impacts DISTRICTS
• 10 CLIMATE CHANGE
• 4 MONITORING

4.1 Monitoring of Surface Waters 10.1 Water scarcity and droughts

4.2 Monitoring of Ground Waters 10.2 Flood risk management

• 5 STATUS 10.3 Adaptation to climate change

• 11 RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL INFORMATION
 Water is a scarce resource in
Spain, with conflicts among
water demand.
 Population: 47 millions with
an annual 64 million tourists
 Area: 505,990 km2
 Use of water per sector:
• households 13%
• agricultural 68%
• industrial 19%
 GENERAL INFORMATION
 The transposition of the WFD into
Spanish law was made by Article 129
of Law 62/2003.
 The Ministerial Order for
Hydrological Planning 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.
 GENERAL INFORMATION
 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.
STATUS OF REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE
 At the time of compiling this report, Spain has
adopted and reported 18 RBMPs to the European
Commission.
 RBMPs have not yet been adopted (December
2014) for the 7 RBDs.
 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 RBMP (Canary Islands not approved yet – December 2014).
 Further work is needed to ensure WFD is fully transposed in all intra-community
RBDs
 High number of new infrastructure projects are planned, but the conditions for
application of exemptions 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.
 Despite its importance for management and planning purposes, the register of
water abstractions is not yet completed in Spain.
 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 favorable conservation status of water-dependent protected
habitats and species.
CHARACTERISATION OF RIVER
BASIN DISTRICTS
Typology of Surface Water
 The IPH (Instrucción de
Planificación Hidrológica,
Hydrological Planning Instruction)
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:
Delineation of Surface Water Bodies
 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 km2, of
TWB 5 km2 and of CWB 105 km2.
 Significant larger averages have been identified for RWBs in ES030, ES040 and
ES050.
 Spain has delineated 748 GWB, with an average size of 482 km2; a significantly
larger average size has been applied in ES010.
Identification of significant pressures and impacts
 
 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 m3/yr).
 The identification of (significant) impacts is generally well linked to
pressures when dealing with water abstractions and point source pollution,
and some plans provide comprehensive overviews on all pressures related to
water bodies. In the case of diffuse pollution or hydro morphological
alterations , 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.
 Transitional and coastal water management have been identified as
significant pressures for 117 water bodies (40 % of TW and CW).
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
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.
 In fact, additional information gathered through
the bilateral meeting held in November 2014
shows that monitoring programs are not being
implemented as reported and, due to budgetary Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right)
cuts, monitoring efforts have significantly monitoring stations
reduced since 2010.
 In some cases operational monitoring is not in
place because there are no water bodies
identified at risk.
MONITORING
 Differences exist between the number of water
bodies monitored for each quality element as
indicated in the monitoring programs and the
number of water bodies where information on
status of each quality element is provided.

Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right)

monitoring stations
Monitoring of Surface Waters

 As shown in Figure above, a monitoring program has been set up.

 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.
 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 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 groundwater chemical status
monitoring programs 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.
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 or in good status.
 A significant number/proportion (>5%) of water bodies in bad ecological status has
been identified in some RBDs.
 The overall number (727 WBs) and proportion (17%) of water bodies with unknown
ecological status is very high.
 Large differences exist in the status results between RBDs. There is no plausible
explanation for these differences other than the lack of harmonization 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.
 185 water bodies still have unknown status (19%), with especially significant high
values in ES091 (110 water bodies, 95%).
 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, thus the status assessment can be
considered as insufficient to inform adequately the rest of
the WFD planning process.
 The information on chemical status of GWB is much more
complete, with only 8 water bodies in “unknown” status,
and 33% of these GWBs in poor status.
 3159 SWB are expected to achieve good or better global
status by 2015, with significant increases (>25 %) in 4
RBDs.
 Note that most likely a major number of these water bodies
will simply be re-classified from currently “unknown”
status.
Map of ecological status of natural surface Map of ecological status of natural surface
water bodies 2009 water bodies 2015
Map of chemical status of natural surface water Map of chemical status of natural surface water
bodies 2009 bodies 2015
Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027.
ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL STATUS OF SURFACE WATERS
 
 1817 natural SWB (43%) are considered in good or better status in 2009; with better
than average results in some RBDs.
 In general, there is a lack of information about the uncertainties in classification and
disparity regarding the confidence on the classification results.
 Bidasoa river estuary shared between Spain and France reflects how neighboring
water bodies are classified with different results (in Spanish plan it fails due to
biological status and in French plan due to chemical), leading to different measures.
DESIGNATION OF HMWB AND SETTING OF GOOD ECOLOGICAL
POTENTIAL (GEP)
 In most RBMPs, good ecological potential (GEP) has been defined following a general
methodology established at national level in the IPH which, in turn, follows the reference
based approach suggested by the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance document
number 4.
 Reservoirs: phytoplankton boundaries are given (biomass and composition) for different
types of monomictic reservoirs
 Coastal and transitional water bodies affected by ports: boundary values are given for
some types of water bodies for phytoplankton (biomass only), pollution by nutrients and
organic matter (same values for all types), turbidity, dissolved oxygen and total
hydrocarbons.
 The indicators chosen are more linked to water quality than sensitive to the physical
modification of the water bodies. Therefore, it is unclear how this scheme can be used to
set objectives and drive improvements to ecological condition in HMWBs beyond water
quality considerations.
  The overall number of HMWBs is
908.
 The total number of river HMWBs
is 737, 17% of all RWBs; and the
overall number of artificial water
bodies (AWBs) is 58 (1% of total
SWB).
 HMWB are relatively important in
TW (33%), and several RBDs
classify all their TWB as HMWB.
Map of percentage Heavily Modified and
Artificial water bodies by River Basin District
ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICAL STATUS OF SURFACE WATER

 Chemical status is good in the majority of SWB for most Spanish RBDs.
 According to additional information provided by Spain (2014), water bodies which were
identified as not subject to direct discharges from priority substances were not monitored and
were classified as “unknown” instead of “good”. This seems to ignore important potential
sources of pollution such as atmospheric deposition or urban waste water discharges.
 The substances most commonly causing exceedance of environmental quality standards are
heavy metals.
 Pesticides, as substances causing exceedances have not been reported significantly for other
basins with intensive agriculture.
 Table below includes a list of pollutants causing exceedance
in the RBDs.
 Lead and mercury are the substances found in the largest
number of WBs, followed by nickel and various pesticides.
ASSESSMENT OF GROUNDWATER
STATUS

 Approximately 57% of the 748 Spanish

GWBs are in good status, and the rest in poor
or unknown status.
 Almost all GWB have been classified and
only 8 GWBs remain “unknown” chemical
status.
 Only two RBDs have all their GWB in good
chemical status, but overall poor status is
present in a large number of GWBs, with
some RBDs showing significant percentages
of water bodies in poor chemical status
(>50%).

Number of groundwater bodies and their status

CLIMATE CHANGE
 Water scarcity and droughts
 Water scarcity and droughts are both relevant topics
for almost all Spanish RBDs.
 Water scarcity is a key feature and significant water
management issue of many RBMPs, with dedicated
chapters in all plans.
 Long term data series of available resources and flows
are usually available (1940-2006).
 Real consumption data is generally not available,
though not recognized as a weakness or uncertainty of
the water balances in the RBMPs.
 Almost all plans include a strong measure package to
improve/enlarge water supply to all water users,
following the trend scenarios, and considering water
transfers, desalination plants or groundwater
abstractions.
CLIMATE CHANGE
 Water scarcity and droughts
 Measures to limit/restrict consumption are
generally not considered. It is not possible
to assess the relevance of the share of the
demand and supply-side measures. In any
case, for all RBMPs the mid-term water
supply and demand data match.
 In general, Drought Management Plans
(DMP) are either already approved or
foreseen in the RBMPs as sub-plans, and
they are more or less detailed in the
RBMPs.
 DMPs have been developed with statistical
or water use relevant thresholds, but it is
uncertain to what extent the thresholds are
related to the WFD objectives.
Flood risk management

 In general, the RBMPs acknowledge the parallel

development of the Flood Risk Management Plans.
 Most plans include also measures targeted to protect
against floods, though the type of measures cannot often
be identified in the POMs (Program of Measures), as
these refer to more abstract concepts like “Extreme
Hydrological Situations”, “Flood Management” or
“Measures to prevent and reduce flood impacts”.
Adaptation to climate change

 In all inter-community RBMPs and several regional RBMPs, climate

change has been taken into consideration according to the changes in
water availability.
 The IPH establishes that water balances shall include two long-term-
average timelines (1940-2005 and 1980-2005) and analyze their
differences, in order to better understand evolution and increase the
robustness of the datasets.
 Furthermore, preliminary expected reductions of water availability by
2027 are fixed between -2 and -11%, pending further detailed studies.
 Furthermore, the Spanish National Climate Change Adaptation Plan
and/or Regional plans have been listed as related plans or programs
though without further explaining the relation with the RBMPs.
RECOMMENDATIONS

Spain should:
 Adopt as soon as possible the outstanding RBMPs for Canary Islands.
 Fill as soon as possible the gaps in transposition in the intra-community RBDs
 Improve reporting to WISE (Water Information System for Europe), ensuring that the
information uploaded is the same as reflected in the RBMPs.
 Consider the review of the legislation to incorporate explicitly the identification of water bodies
at risk as a result of the pressure and impact analysis.
 Fill the gaps in assessment systems for biological quality and supporting elements, in particular
for fish.
 Include the complete assessment systems for coastal and transitional waters.
 Report transparently the confidence and limitations of the assessments as appropriate.
 Fill urgently the gaps in monitoring of surface waters and ensure consistent monitoring with
appropriate coverage.
 Ensure that monitoring is adequately resourced and maintained.
 Extend chemical monitoring beyond water bodies affected by industrial discharges.
 Consider as well atmospheric deposition and urban waste water discharges as relevant sources of
chemical pollution.
 Review the way the modernization of irrigation is considered in the POMs. Only those projects which
genuinely contribute to the WFD objectives should be labelled as such. Such contribution should be
justified and quantified in the RBMPs on a case by case basis.
 Extend calculation of environmental costs to costs related to energy production (hydropower, cooling)
and diffuse pollution from agriculture.
Thank You!