EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 52015SC0056R(01)

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

SWD/2015/56 final/2

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}


TABLE OF CONTENTS

GENERAL INFORMATION    

STATUS OF REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE    

Main strengths    

Main weaknesses    

GOVERNANCE    

River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) – Structure, completeness, legal status    

Consultation    

CHARACTERISATION OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICTS    

Typology of Surface Water    

Delineation of Surface Water Bodies    

Identification of significant pressures and impacts    

Protected areas    

MONITORING    

Monitoring of Surface Waters    

Monitoring of Ground Waters    

Monitoring of Protected Areas    

STATUS    

ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL STATUS OF SURFACE WATERS    

Assessment methods    

Results    

DESIGNATION OF HMWB AND SETTING OF GOOD ECOLOGICAL POTENTIAL (GEP)    

Designation of HMWB    

Methodology for Good Ecological Potential (GEP)    

Results HMWB and AWB    

ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICAL STATUS OF SURFACE WATER    

Methodology    

Substances causing exceedances    

Mixing zones    

ASSESSMENT OF GROUNDWATER STATUS    

Quantitative status    

Chemical status    

Protected Areas    

OBJECTIVES AND EXEMPTIONS    

Introduction    

Protected Areas    

Articles 4(4) and 4(5)    

Article 4(6)    

Article 4(7)    

Exemptions under the Groundwater Directive    

PROGRAMME OF MEASURES    

Programme of Measures - General    

Measures related to agriculture    

Measures related to hydromorphology    

Measures related to groundwater    

Measures related to chemical pollution    

Measures related to Article 9    

CLIMATE CHANGE    

Water scarcity and droughts    

Flood risk management    

Adaptation to climate change    

RECOMMENDATIONS    

List of acronyms

AWB

Artificial Water Body

BQE

Biological Quality Element

CW

Coastal waters

CWB

Coastal Water Bodies

DMP

Drought Management Plans

DWPA

Drinking Water Protected Areas

Eflows

Ecological flows

GEP

Good Ecological Potential

GWB

Groundwater Bodies

HMWB

Heavily Modified Water Body

IPH

Instrucción de Planificación Hidrológica (Hydrological Planning Instruction)

LSO

Less Stringent Objectives

LW

Lakes

LWB

Lake Water Bodies

PA

Protected area

PoM

Programme of Measures

QE

Quality Element

RBD

River Basin District

RBMP

River Basin Management Plan

RPH

Reglamento de Planificación Hidrológica (Hydrological Planning Regulation)

RW

Rivers

RWB

River Water Bodies

SEA

Strategic Environmental Assessment

SWB

Surface Water Bodies

TW

Transitional waters

TWB

Transitional Water Bodies

WFD

Water Framework Directive

WISE

Water Information System for Europe

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)).

·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.

RBD

Name

Size (km2)*

Countries sharing borders

ES010

Minho-Sil

17619

PT

ES014

Galician Coast

12988

-

ES017

Cantábrico Oriental

6405

FR

ES018

Cantábrico Occidental

19002

-

ES020

Duero

78889

PT

ES030

Tagus

55781

PT

ES040

Guadiana

55528

PT

ES050

Guadalquivir

57228

-

ES060

Andalusia Mediterranean Basins

20010

-

ES063

Guadalete and Barbate

5969

-

ES064

Tinto, Odiel and Piedras

4729

-

ES070

Segura

19025

-

ES080

Jucar

42735

-

ES091

Ebro

85570

AD, FR

ES100

Internal Basins of Catalonia

16438

FR

ES110

Balearic Islands

4968

-

ES120

Gran Canaria

1558

-

ES122

Fuerteventura

1660

-

ES123

Lanzarote

836

-

ES124

Tenerife

2033

-

ES125

La Palma

706

-

ES126

La Gomera

370

-

ES127

El Hierro

269

-

ES150

Ceuta

20

MA

ES160

Melilla

24

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

Name international river basin

National RBD

Countries sharing borders

Co-ordination category

2

4

km²

%

km²

%

Miño/Minho

ES010

PT

16226

95.0

Duero/Douro

ES020

PT

78859

80.7

Guadiana

ES040

PT

55454

82.7

Ebro

ES091

AD, FR

85534

99

Segre (Sub-Basin Ebro/Rhone)

ES091

AD, FR

18750

95.2

Catalan

ES100

FR

16438

99,9

Lima/Limia

ES010

PT

1326

52.9

Tajo/Tejo

ES030

PT

55772

78.3

Garonne

ES017/ES091

FR

555

0.7

Nive (Sub-Basin Adour-Garonne RBD)

ES017

FR

121

19.0

Nivelle (Sub-Basin Adour-Garonne RBD)

ES017

FR

70

12.0

Bidasoa (Sub-Basin Adour-Garonne RBD)

ES017

FR

689

97.0

Ceuta

ES150

MA

20

100

Melilla

ES160

MA

24

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).

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

RBMP Date of Adoption

RBMP Date of Reporting

ES010

19/04/2013

28/06/2013

ES014

14/09/2012

28/06/2013

ES017

07/06/2013

12/02/2014

ES018

07/06/2013

21/10/2013

ES020

21/06/2013

15/11/2013

ES030

11/04/2014

03/11/2014

ES040

17/05/2013

01/07/2013

ES050

17/05/2013

16/07/2013

ES060

14/09/2012

01/08/2013

ES063

14/09/2012

01/08/2013

ES064

14/09/2012

28/06/2013

ES070

11/07/2014

20/10/2014

ES080

11/07/2014

05/11/2014

ES091

28/02/2014

30/10/2014

ES100

05/09/2011 8

24/02/2014

ES110

06/09/2013

17/10/2014

ES120

01/04/2015

22/06/2015

ES122

22/04/2015

17/06/2015

ES123

16/11/2015

04/02/2016

ES124

06/05/2015

12/05/2015

ES125

05/06/2015

22/06/2015

ES126

01/04/2015

21/04/2015

ES127

07/05/2015

17/07/2015

ES150

27/09/2013

29/10/2014

ES160

27/09/2013

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).

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 3rd 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 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 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.

RBD

Timetable, work programme and statement on consultation measures

Significant water management issues

Draft RBMP

Final adoption RBMP

Due dates

22/12/2006

22/12/2007

22/12/2008

22/12/2009

ES010

26/07/2007

31/07/2008

15/12/2010

19/04/2013

ES014

28/04/2008

28/01/2009

20/08/2010

14/09/2012

ES017

26/07/2007

31/07/2008

04/05/2011

07/06/2013

ES018

26/07/2007

31/07/2008

04/05/2011

07/06/2013

ES020

26/07/2007

31/07/2008

15/12/2010

21/06/2013

ES030

26/07/2007

31/07/2008

20/03/2013

11/04/2014

ES040

26/07/2007

31/07/2008

25/05/2011

17/05/2013

ES050

26/07/2007

31/07/2008

15/12/2010

17/05/2013

ES060

02/07/2008

28/05/2009

22/05/2010

14/09/2012

ES063

01/02/2008 and 22/05/2010

28/05/2009

22/05/2010

14/09/2012

ES064

01/02/2008 and 22/05/2010

28/05/2009

22/05/2010

14/09/2012

ES070

26/07/2007

31/07/2008

07/06/2013

11/07/2014

ES080

26/07/2007

18/12/2009

07/08/2013

11/07/2014

ES091

26/07/2007

31/07/2008

12/05/2012

28/02/2014

ES100

01/11/2006

01/12/2007

16/12/2009

02/09/2011

ES110

10/2006

06/2007

01/09/2008

09/11/2011

06/09/2013

ES120

03/2009

21/12/2009

10/10/2013

01/04/2015

ES122

25/12/2009

04/12/2013

22/04/2015

ES123

20/05/2009

28/06/2011

09/10/2013

16/11/2015

ES124

05/05/2010

06/05/2015

ES125

28/11/2008

22/05/2010

07/08/2012

05/06/2015

ES126

12/03/2009

15/05/2012

09/08/2013

01/04/2015

ES127

18/12/2009

2011

15/12/2012

07/05/2015

ES150

30/10/2012

01/12/2012

28/12/2012

27/09/2013

ES160

30/10/2012

30/11/2012

28/12/2012

27/09/2013

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 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.

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:

RBD

Rivers

Lakes

Transitional

Coastal

ES010

9

3

1

1

ES014

7

0

3

7

ES017

6

3

3

1

ES018

12

5

6

3

ES020

17

7

ES030

27

8

ES040

14

12

1

2

ES050

17

12

3

2

ES060

13

7

4

4

ES063

7

4

2

3

ES064

6

1

3

2

ES070

10

4

2

5

ES080

12

7

2

6

ES091

9

19

2

1

ES100

15

12

3

8

ES110

2

0

4

4

ES120

0

0

0

5

ES122

0

0

0

4

ES123

0

0

0

5

ES124

0

0

0

7

ES125

0

0

0

4

ES126

0

0

0

4

ES127

0

0

0

3

ES150

0

0

0

2

ES160

1

0

0

2

Sum

32

30

13

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.

 

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.

RBD

Surface Water

Groundwater

Rivers

Lakes

Transitional

Coastal

Number

Average Length (km)

Number

Average Area (sq km)

Number

Average Area (sq km)

Number

Average Area (sq km)

Number

Average Area (sq km)

ES010

270

16.49

3

0.48

4

6.33

1

15.98

6

2934.1

ES014

411

10.63

0

0

22

4.77

29

110.26

18

729.5

ES017

109

14.23

11

0.41

14

3.46

4

144.43

28

205.0

ES018

250

15.39

7

0.23

21

4.37

15

103.75

20

693.6

ES020

696

19.95

14

0.89

64

1232.6

ES030

308

29.44

16

0.95

24

910.1

ES040

249

35.95

58

1.05

4

12.85

2

31.31

20

1124.1

ES050

392

27.68

35

27.11

13

10.64

3

163.56

60

624.6

ES060

133

16.79

8

2.59

7

2.14

27

76.53

67

155.2

ES063

65

17.19

10

0.23

10

12.26

12

44.65

14

304.5

ES064

48

19.57

5

0.25

11

14.33

4

43.69

4

257.5

ES070

90

19.13

6

6.39

1

25.17

17

71.13

63

243.8

ES080

304

18.60

19

2.22

4

3.69

22

97.09

90

453.6

ES091

700

19.10

110

0.74

8

19.42

3

103.40

105

521.5

ES100

261

15.28

27

0.15

25

0.08

33

48.47

39

288.6

ES110

94

6.16

0

0

36

1.23

42

89.18

90

52.6

ES120

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

549.90

10

155.8

ES122

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

444.70

4

413.2

ES123

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

375.70212

1

846.1

ES124

0

0

0

0

0

0

11

72.68

4

508.2

ES125

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

55.00

5

142.0

ES126

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

41.00

5

73.6

ES127

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

261.48

3

89.7

ES150

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

13.48

1

11.2

ES160

1

5.35

0

0

0

0

3

3.54

3

5.0

Total

4.381

19.76

329

3.76

180

5.54

260

105.88

748

482.8

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE, RBMPs and information provided by Spain (2014).

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. 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 km2; 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 km2 for LWB (or 0.08 km2 if the lake is deeper than 3 metres, or whatever dimensions if protected in the Ramsar list), 0.5 km2 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 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 m3/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 m3/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 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 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. 



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.

%

ES010

200

71.9

58

20.9

34

12.2

49

17.6

47

16.9

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

30

10.8

ES014

63

13.6

178

38.5

181

39.2

3

0.6

54

11.7

22

4.8

18

3.9

0

0.0

277

60.0

ES017

25

18.1

75

54.3

33

23.9

74

53.6

89

64.5

77

55.8

12

8.7

0

0.0

59

42.8

ES018

12

4.1

177

60.4

17

5.8

189

64.5

198

67.6

156

53.2

31

10.6

0

0.0

175

59.7

ES020

160

22.5

264

37.2

92

13

74

10.4

439

61.8

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

0.1

ES030

243

75.0

67

20.7

18

5.6

45

13.9

20

6.2

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

ES040

36

11.5

136

43.5

23

7.3

166

53.0

113

36.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

68

21.7

ES050

210

47.4

163

36.8

78

17.6

147

33.2

84

19.0

57

12.9

0

0.0

0

0.0

29

6.5

ES060

20

11.4

119

68.0

87

49.7

86

49.1

32

18.3

12

6.9

28

16.0

0

0.0

11

6.3

ES063

54

55.7

33

34.0

40

41.2

26

26.8

35

36.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

1.0

ES064

38

55.9

22

32.4

25

36.8

17

25.0

26

38.2

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

10

14.7

ES070

14

12.3

38

33.3

73

64.0

40

35.1

34

29.8

32

28.1

13

11.4

0

0.0

42

36.8

ES080

64

18.3

122

35.0

201

57.6

78

22.3

140

40.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

145

41.5

ES091

635

77.3

147

17.9

155

18.9

39

4.8

120

14.6

0

0.0

0

0.0

5

0.6

1

0.1

ES100

54

15.6

159

46.0

117

33.8

62

17.9

109

31.5

0

0.0

14

4.0

17

4.9

185

53.5

ES110

129

75.0

18

10.5

32

18.6

9

5.2

11

6.4

10

5.8

0

0.0

0

0.0

13

7.6

ES120

0

5

83.33

1

16.67

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ES122

1

20

4

80

1

20

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ES123

2

33.33

4

66.67

2

33.33

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ES124

2

18.18

6

54.55

6

54.55

0

0

8

72.7

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ES125

5

100

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ES126

2

50

2

50

1

25

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ES127

3

100

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ES150

ES160

1

25.0

2

50.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

50.0

0

0.0

1

25.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

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.

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 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).

RBD

Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water

Bathing

Birds

European Other

Fish

Habitats

Local

National

Nitrates

Shellfish

UWWT

Total

ES010

754

32

11

0

8

20

83

166

0

1

6

1081

ES014

2183

448

9

7

8

37

142

12

0

95

2

2943

ES017

106

36

4

0

9

36

80

80

0

3

12

366

ES018

123

99

16

3

14

79

152

111

0

17

8

622

ES020

3518

26

53

2

21

78

0

493

10

0

36

4237

ES030

476

32

63

0

15

85

0

60

7

0

53

791

ES040

1521

26

43

11

23

61

0

168

10

6

19

1888

ES050

954

32

13

12

16

38

0

152

9

6

13

1245

ES060

882

237

21

10

3

70

39

72

14

36

3

1387

ES063

109

53

14

3

3

25

0

37

3

7

3

257

ES064

86

25

6

2

0

19

0

38

3

5

3

187

ES070

119

116

33

0

1

73

0

141

9

7

7

506

ES080

1980

176

44

0

4

83

8

96

280

7

30

2708

ES091

7072

43

132

11

15

292

0

143

23

5

29

7765

ES100

1292

208

24

66

19

56

261

85

20

18

113

2162

ES110

80

26

24

0

0

71

316

0

13

4

125

659

ES120

46

5

38

15

7

2

113

ES122

30

33

7

10

3

83

ES123

0

32

7

0

0

1811

0

0

0

0

6

056

ES124

35

39

7

17

7

1

1

107

ES125

7

1

28

1

1

38

ES126

5

7

6

26

16

1

2

4

67

ES127

11

4

3

9

1

1

29

ES150

5

7

2

0

0

2

0

0

0

1

0

17

ES160

21

8

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

31

Total

21362

17661798

543550

127

159

12531264

1119

1854

418

218

474480

2929329349

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.



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.



RBD

Rivers

Lakes

Transitional

Coastal

Groundwater

Surv

Op

Surv

Op

Surv

Op

Surv

Op

Surv

Op

Quant

ES010

86

74

0

0

5

0

0

0

44

18

8

ES014

519

29

0

0

68

0

70

0

51

0

51

ES017

165

239

6

0

25

4

11

1

38

21

28

ES018

505

204

8

3

187

73

106

64

53

0

36

ES020

819

726

32

2

0

0

0

0

486

140

555

ES030

466

169

20

4

0

0

0

0

214

59

202

ES040

165

217

18

17

8

6

5

0

121

33

207

ES050

274

114

4

0

41

20

9

0

155

78

266

ES060

48

72

3

2

9

9

46

18

98

98

0

ES063

30

79

4

4

21

21

35

35

75

36

0

ES064

30

64

5

6

42

42

16

16

42

15

0

ES070

101

78

6

1

7

0

31

104

45

368

172

ES080

154

101

20

17

31

12

226

113

218

99

287

ES091

358

286

40

22

42

41

36

36

1693

0

377

ES100

301

111

29

7

28

7

31

16

613

867

446

ES110

63

33

0

0

31

20

72

15

328

123

126

ES120

0

0

0

0

0

0

186

117

24

36

60

ES122

0

0

0

0

0

0

50

20

36

13

36

ES123

0

0

0

0

0

0

46

0

1

0

1

ES124

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

0

54

5

36

ES125

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

16

14

6

ES126

0

0

0

0

0

0

44

0

8

3

5

ES127

0

0

0

0

0

0

18

0

17

17

17

ES150

0

0

0

0

0

0

7

7

0

0

0

ES160

0

1

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

Total by type of site

4084

2597

195

85

545

255

830876

464

4430

2043

2922

Total number of monitoring sites 20

6681

280

800

14351481

7356

Total number compared to the number of corresponding WBs

1,5

0,8

4,4

5,65.7

9.8

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.

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).

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.

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

Surface waters

Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction

Bathing water

Fish

Birds sites

Habitats sites

Nitrates

Shell-fish

UWWT

ES010

55

27

21

0

0

0

0

7

9

ES014

104

0

13

0

0

138

0

0

44

ES017

104

55

10

0

0

0

5

5

10

ES018

103

99

14

16

78

0

17

0

20

ES020

143

27

21

268

38

NA

151

144

ES030

109

31

15

*

*

*

NA

*

ES040

63

19

16

32

56

67

1

0

0

ES050

50

0

18

0

0

0

0

0

80

ES060

33

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

ES063

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

ES064

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ES070

8

55

2

58

63

28

0

0

28

ES080

16

5

8

-

-

107

-

-

-

ES091

132

15

-

-

NA

-

25

348

ES100

45

242

0

19

0

556

0

99

138

ES110

76

63

0

54

82

19

8

41

204

ES120

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ES122

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ES123

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ES124

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

ES125

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ES126

0

13

0

0

0

0

0

0

22

ES127

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ES150

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ES160

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

20

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.

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.

RBD

Rivers

Lakes

QE1.1 Phytoplankton 22

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

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

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

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-



RBD

Transitional

Coastal

QE1.1 Phytoplankton

QE1.2 Other aquatic flora

QE1.2.1 Microalgae

QE1.2.2 Angiosperms

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

QE1.1 Phytoplankton

QE1.2 Other aquatic flora

QE1.2.1 Microalgae

QE1.2.2 Angiosperms

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

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).

QE Monitored

QE Not monitored

-

Not Relevant

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            61

ES050 Guadalquivir        59

ES060 Andalucía Med    54

ES070 Segura            48

ES080 Jucar            42

ES091 Ebro            34

ES040 Guadiana        28

ES020 Duero            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.



RBD

Total

High

Good

Moderate

Poor

Bad

Unknown

No.

(%)

No.

(%)

No.

(%)

No.

(%)

No.

(%)

No.

(%)

ES010

227

69

30,4

101

44,5

37

16,3

13

5,7

2

0,9

5

2,2

ES014

422

74

17,5

137

32,5

67

15,9

19

4,5

3

0,7

122

28,9

ES017

101

4

4,0

49

48,5

29

28,7

15

14,9

2

2,0

2

2,0

ES018

258

51

19,8

143

55,4

51

19,8

7

2,7

3

1,2

3

1,2

ES020

620

28

4,5

105

16,9

441

71,1

39

6,3

7

1,1

0

0,0

ES030

198

10

5,1

111

56,1

46

23,2

9

4,5

10

5,1

12

6,1

ES040

244

6

2,5

63

25,8

131

53,7

25

10,2

19

7,8

0

0,0

ES050

325

52

16,0

140

43,1

71

21,8

33

10,2

29

8,9

0

0,0

ES060

130

11

8,5

60

46,2

37

28,5

11

8,5

9

6,9

2

1,5

ES063

67

0

0,0

13

19,4

6

9,0

16

23,9

5

7,5

27

40,3

ES064

51

2

3,9

16

31,4

15

29,4

5

9,8

1

2,0

12

23,5

ES070

84

13

15,5

28

33,3

25

29,8

6

7,1

12

14,3

0

0,0

ES080

289

3

1,0

120

41,5

61

21,1

19

6,6

14

4,8

72

24,9

ES091

705

71

10,1

169

24,0

107

15,2

29

4,1

7

1,0

322

45,7

ES100

268

5

1,9

62

23,1

76

28,4

26

9,7

12

4,5

87

32,5

ES110

158

22

13,9

47

29,7

12

7,6

17

10,8

4

2,5

56

35,4

ES120

5

1

20,0

4

80,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES122

5

0

0,0

5

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES123

55

0

0,0

05

83,3

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

50

100,00,0

ES124

6

0

0,0

6

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES125

5

0

0,0

5

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES126

4

0

0,0

4

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES127

3

0

0,0

3

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES150

2

0

0,0

2

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES160

2

0

0,0

2

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

TOTAL

4184

422

10,1

1400

33,5

1212

29,0

289

6,9

139

3,3

722

17,3

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%).



RBD

Total

High

Good

Moderate

Poor

Bad

Unknown

No.

(%)

No.

(%)

No.

(%)

No.

(%)

No.

(%)

No.

(%)

ES010

51

0

0,0

25

49,0

15

29,4

9

17,6

2

3,9

0

0,0

ES014

40

0

0,0

11

27,5

20

50,0

3

7,5

3

7,5

3

7,5

ES017

37

0

0,0

7

18,9

15

40,5

8

21,6

6

16,2

1

2,7

ES018

35

0

0,0

15

42,9

12

34,3

2

5,7

4

11,4

2

5,7

ES020

90

0

0,0

28

31,1

55

61,1

5

5,6

1

1,1

1

1,1

ES030

126

0

0,0

49

38,9

32

25,4

25

19,8

12

9,5

8

6,3

ES040

69

0

0,0

18

26,1

17

24,6

8

11,6

12

17,4

14

20,3

ES050

118

0

0,0

63

53,4

32

27,1

16

13,6

7

5,9

0

0,0

ES060

45

0

0,0

20

44,4

16

35,6

1

2,2

8

17,8

0

0,0

ES063

30

0

0,0

9

30,0

11

36,7

3

10,0

0

0,0

7

23,3

ES064

17

0

0,0

7

41,2

7

41,2

0

0,0

0

0,0

3

17,6

ES070

30

0

0,0

14

46,7

11

36,7

2

6,7

2

6,7

1

3,3

ES080

60

0

0,0

26

43,3

9

15,0

7

11,7

4

6,7

14

23,3

ES091

116

0

0,0

0

0,0

4

3,4

2

1,7

0

0,0

110

94,8

ES100

78

0

0,0

11

14,1

29

37,2

14

17,9

15

19,2

9

11,5

ES110

14

0

0,0

4

28,6

1

7,1

1

7,1

0

0,0

8

57,1

ES120

1

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

1

100,0

ES122

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

ES123

1

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

1

100,0

ES124

5

2

40,0

2

40,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

1

20,0

ES125

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

ES126

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

ES127

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

ES150

1

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

1

100,0

0

0,0

ES160

2

0

0,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

1

50,0

0

0,0

1

50,0

TOTAL

966

2

0,2

309

32,0

286

29,6

107

11,1

77

8,0

185

19,2

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies

Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain.


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

Total

Good

Poor

Unknown

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

ES010

227

39

17,2

7

3,1

181

79,7

ES014

422

356

84,4

34

8,1

32

7,6

ES017

101

62

61,4

9

8,9

30

29,7

ES018

258

62

24,0

4

1,6

192

74,4

ES020

620

599

96,6

21

3,4

0

0,0

ES030

198

192

97,0

6

3,0

0

0,0

ES040

244

215

88,1

2

0,8

27

11,1

ES050

325

282

86,8

11

3,4

32

9,8

ES060

130

116

89,2

2

1,5

12

9,2

ES063

67

30

44,8

10

14,9

27

40,3

ES064

51

22

43,1

15

29,4

14

27,5

ES070

84

77

91,7

7

8,3

0

0,0

ES080

289

159

55,0

8

2,8

122

42,2

ES091

705

0*

0,0

32

4,5

673

95,5

ES100

268

140

52,2

14

5,2

114

42,5

ES110

158

0

0,0

0

0,0

158

100,0

ES120

5

2

40,0

0

0,0

3

60,0

ES122

5

5

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES123

5

0

0,0

0

0,0

5

100,0

ES124

6

6

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES125

5

5

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES126

4

4

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES127

3

3

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES150

2

0

0,0

0

0,0

2

100,0

ES160

2

2

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

TOTAL

4184

2378

56,8

182

4,3

1624

38,8

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies

Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2014)

* The map on page 163 of the Ebro RBMP (figure 84) shows surface water bodies in good chemical status and it is therefore inconsistent with the WISE reporting reflected on this table.

A similar assessment can be made regarding the chemical status assessment of AWB/HMWB. 60% are reported as being in good status but several RBDs include high percentages of “unknown” status: ES010, ES018, ES080, ES091, ES110). ES091 reports as unknown 114 out of 116 water bodies. These large percentages of water bodies with unknown status undermine the subsequent planning process.

RBD

Total

Good

Poor

Unknown

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

ES010

51

17

33,3

0

0,0

34

66,7

ES014

40

26

65,0

11

27,5

3

7,5

ES017

37

19

51,4

10

27,0

8

21,6

ES018

35

19

54,3

2

5,7

14

40,0

ES020

90

87

96,7

3

3,3

0

0,0

ES030

126

121

96,0

5

4,0

0

0,0

ES040

69

53

76,8

0

0,0

16

23,2

ES050

118

101

85,6

14

11,9

3

2,5

ES060

45

40

88,9

0

0,0

5

11,1

ES063

30

20

66,7

2

6,7

8

26,7

ES064

17

6

35,3

8

47,1

3

17,6

ES070

30

20

66,7

9

30,0

1

3,3

ES080

60

22

36,7

9

15,0

29

48,3

ES091

116

0

0,0

2

1,7

114

98,3

ES100

78

37

47,4

16

20,5

25

32,1

ES110

14

0

0,0

0

0,0

14

100,0

ES120

1

0

0,0

0

0,0

1

100,0

ES122

0

0

-

0

-

0

-

ES123

1

0

0,0

0

0,0

1

100,0

ES124

5

4

80,0

0

0,0

1

20,0

ES125

0

0

-

0

-

0

-

ES126

0

0

-

0

-

0

-

ES127

0

0

-

0

-

0

-

ES150

1

0

0,0

0

0,0

1

100,0

ES160

2

0

0,0

1

50,0

1

50,0

Total

966

592

61,3

92

9,5

282

29,2

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified surface water bodies

Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2014).

According to information provided by the Spanish authorities, in general chemical monitoring has been carried out in those water bodies receiving industrial discharges or subject to potential discharges from use of pesticides in agriculture. For the rest good chemical status has been assumed, or can be assumed in case they have been classified as “unknown” status. However, this overlooks other relevant sources of chemical pollution such as urban wastewater and atmospheric deposition.

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.



RBD

Good

Poor

Unknown

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

ES010

5

83,3

1

16,7

0

0,0

ES014

18

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES017

26

92,9

2

7,1

0

0,0

ES018

20

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES020

50

78,1

14

21,9

0

0,0

ES030

18

75,0

6

25,0

0

0,0

ES040

7

35,0

13

65,0

0

0,0

ES050

44

73,3

16

26,7

0

0,0

ES060

32

47,8

35

52,2

0

0,0

ES063

5

35,7

7

50,0

2

14,3

ES064

2

50,0

2

50,0

0

0,0

ES070

39

61,9

24

38,1

0

0,0

ES080

63

70,0

27

30,0

0

0,0

ES091

82

78,1

23

21,9

0

0,0

ES100

16

41,0

23

59,0

0

0,0

ES110

55

61,1

35

38,9

0

0,0

ES120

2

20,0

8

80,0

0

0,0

ES122

0

0,0

4

100,0

0

0,0

ES123

0

0,0

0

0,0

1

100,0

ES124

3

75,0

1

25,0

0

0,0

ES125

4

80,0

0

0,0

1

20,0

ES126

3

60,0

2

40,0

0

0,0

ES127

0

0,0

0

0,0

3

100,0

ES150

0

0,0

0

0,0

1

100,0

ES160

0

0,0

3

100,0

0

0,0

Total

494

66,0

246

32,9

8

1,1

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2014).

The data on quantitative status is also largely complete, with the important exception of ES063, where a large percentage of groundwater bodies are in unknown quantitative status. This is consistent with the lack of quantitative monitoring reported for this RBD. Methodological approaches for determining GWB status are heterogeneous, not always transparent nor attentive to the definition of the WFD as stated in Annex V (2.1.2), particularly with regard to dependent ecosystems. A particular important gap is found in ES127, where GWB status is rated as “good” even though no specific quantitative threshold is set on the basis of “water policy” criteria.



RBD

Good

Poor

Unknown

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

ES010

6

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES014

18

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES017

28

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES018

20

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES020

59

92,2

5

7,8

0

0,0

ES030

24

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES040

9

45,0

11

55,0

0

0,0

ES050

42

70,0

18

30,0

0

0,0

ES060

35

52,2

32

47,8

0

0,0

ES063

3

21,4

3

21,4

8

57,1

ES064

3

75,0

0

0,0

1

25,0

ES070

22

34,9

41

65,1

0

0,0

ES080

60

66,7

30

33,3

0

0,0

ES091

104

99,0

1

1,0

0

0,0

ES100

33

84,6

6

15,4

0

0,0

ES110

53

58,9

37

41,1

0

0,0

ES120

1

10,0

9

90,0

0

0,0

ES122

0

0,0

4

100,0

0

0,0

ES123

0

0,0

0

0,0

1

100,0

ES124

0

0,0

4

100,0

0

0,0

ES125

5

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES126

5

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES127

3

100,0

0

0,0

0

0,0

ES150

0

0,0

0

0,0

1

100,0

ES160

0

0,0

3

100,0

0

0,0

TOTAL

533

71,3

204

27,3

11

1,5

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies

Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain.

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. Application of exemptions according to WFD Article 4(4) affects 30% of SWB with particularly high numbers in ES040, ES080, ES070 and ES020. Article 4(5) is applied in 8 RBDs affecting 3% of the total number of SWB, with highest percentages in ES020 and ES030.

The forecast for status improvement in 2021 and 2027 is shown in table 6.7 to 6.13.

RBD

Total

Global status (ecological and chemical)

Good ecological status 2021

Good chemical status 2021

Good ecological status 2027

Good chemical status 2027

Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009

Good or better 2015

Increase 2009-2015

Art 4(4)

Art 4(5)

Art 4(6)

Art 4(7)

No.

%

No.

%

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

%

%

%

%

ES010

278

196

70,5

232

83,5

12,9

247

88,8

271

97,5

275

98,9

278

100

15,5

1,1

0,0

0,0

ES014

462

320

69,3

397

85,9

16,7

453

98,1

451

97,6

462

100

455

98,5

12,6

1,5

0,0

0,0

ES017

138

58

42,0

96

69,6

27,5

138

100

138

100

138

100

138

100

30,4

0,0

0,0

0,0

ES018

293

210

71,7

253

86,3

14,7

290

99,0

292

99,7

293

100

293

100

13,7

0,0

0,0

0,7

ES020

710

161

22,7

293

41,3

18,6

299

42,1

710

100

627

88,3

710

100

47,0

11,7

0,0

0,0

ES030

324

170

52,5

228

70,4

17,9

262

80,9

324

100

296

91,4

324

100

21,0

5,6

0,0

0,0

ES040

313

88

28,1

88

28,1

0,0

88

28,1

313

100

312

99,7

313

100

71,6

0,0

0,0

0,0

ES050

443

252

56,9

299

67,5

10,6

391

88,3

441

99,5

434

98,0

442

99,8

30,5

2,0

0,0

0,0

ES060

175

91

52,0

137

78,3

26,3

155

88,6

175

100

168

96,0

175

100

17,7

4,0

4,0

0,0

ES063

97

35

36,1

40

41,2

5,2

51

52,6

78

80,4

79

81,4

87

89,7

40,2

1,0

0,0

0,0

ES064

68

25

36,8

28

41,2

4,4

35

51,5

41

60,3

56

82,4

63

92,6

41,2

0,0

0,0

0,0

ES070

114

52

45,6

58

50,9

5,3

95

83,3

101

88,6

114

100

114

100

49,1

0,0

0,0

0,0

ES080

349

149

42,7

152

43,6

0,9

196

56,2

332

95,1

349

100

349

100

56,4

0,0

0,0

0,0

ES091

821

226

27,5

552

67,2

39,7

553

67,4

624

76,0

628

76,5

636

77,5

9,0

1,5

0,0

0,0

ES100

346

76

22,0

195

56,4

34,4

197

56,9

318

91,9

346

100

346

100

43,6

0,0

0,0

0,0

ES110

172

73

42,4

73

42,4

0,0

73

42,4

0

0,0

73

42,4

0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

ES120

6

5

83,3

5

83,3

0,0

5

83,3

2

33,3

6

100

6

100

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

ES122

5

5

100

5

100

0,0

5

100

5

100

5

100

5

100

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

ES123

6

05

083,3

06

100,0

016,7

6

100

6

100

6

100

6

100

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

ES124

11

10

90,9

11

100

9,1

11

100

11

100

11

100

11

100

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

ES125

5

5

100

5

100

0,0

5

100

5

100

5

100

5

100

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

ES126

4

4

100

4

100

0,0

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

ES127

3

3

100

3

100

0,0

3

100

3

100

3

100

3

100

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

ES150

3

2

66,7

2

66,7

0,0

3

100

3

100

3

100

3

100

33,3

0,0

0,0

0,0

ES160

4

2

50,0

3

75,0

25,0

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

25,0

0,0

25,0

0,0

Total

5150

2223

43,2

3165

61,5

18,3

3569

69,3

4652

90,3

4697

91,2

4770

92,6

29,6

2,7

0,2

0,0

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027.

Water bodies with good status in 2009 are those where ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, and exemptions are not considered. Water bodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories: ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered; chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions; ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions; and ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions. Note: Water bodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2014).



RBD

Total

Ecological status

Good ecological status 2021

Good ecological status 2027

Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009

Good or b