52015SC0056R(01)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels,17.7.2018

SWD(2015) 56 final/2

CORRIGENDUM
This document corrects document SWD(2015) 56 final of 09.03.2015.
[Document updated with River Basin Districts ES120, ES122, ES123, ES124, ES125, ES126, ES127, corresponding to the Canary Islands in Spain].

The text should read as follows:

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Report on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive River Basin Management Plans
Member State: SPAIN

Accompanying the document

COMMUNICATION FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

The Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive: Actions towards the 'good status' of EU water and to reduce flood risks

{COM(2015) 120 final}

{SWD(2015) 50 final}

{SWD(2015) 51 final}

{SWD(2015) 52 final}

{SWD(2015) 53 final}

{SWD(2015) 54 final}

{SWD(2015) 55 final}

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

Choose the experimental features you want to try