Spain: IWR515 Water Legislation
Spain: IWR515 Water Legislation
SPAIN
• 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
alterations
6 = River management
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.
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
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!