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 (ES010, ES017, ES018, ES020, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES070, ES080, ES091), and not to rivers that are completely within the territory of one region (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 . 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) 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 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 . ·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) 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 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 . 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 . 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 , 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 . 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 . 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 , large dams and protected areas . 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 , 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) . 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 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 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 : -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 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 better 2015 Increase 2009 -2015 Art 4(4) Art 4(5) Art 4(6) Art 4(7) No. % No. % % No. % No. % % % % % ES010 227 170 74,9 189 83,3 8,4 198 87,2 225 99,1 15,9 0,9 0,0 0,0 ES014 422 211 50,0 398 94,3 44,3 422 100,0 422 100,0 5,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES017 101 53 52,5 77 76,2 23,8 101 100,0 101 100,0 23,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES018 258 194 75,2 234 90,7 15,5 257 99,6 258 100,0 9,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES020 620 133 21,5 253 40,8 19,4 258 41,6 556 89,7 48,9 10,3 0,0 0,0 ES030 198 121 61,1 165 83,3 22,2 178 89,9 190 96,0 12,6 2,5 0,0 0,0 ES040 244 69 28,3 67 27,5 -0,8 67 27,5 243 99,6 72,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES050 325 192 59,1 200 61,5 2,5 281 86,5 316 97,2 35,7 2,8 0,0 0,0 ES060 130 71 54,6 107 82,3 27,7 120 92,3 127 97,7 15,4 2,3 2,3 0,0 ES063 67 13 19,4 29 43,3 23,9 34 50,7 54 80,6 37,3 1,5 0,0 0,0 ES064 51 18 35,3 19 37,3 2,0 24 47,1 39 76,5 39,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES070 84 41 48,8 44 52,4 3,6 76 90,5 84 100,0 47,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES080 289 123 42,6 126 43,6 1,0 165 57,1 289 100,0 56,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES091 705 240 34,0 551 78,2 44,1 551 78,2 626 88,8 10,6 1,4 0,0 0,0 ES100 268 67 25,0 173 64,6 39,6 173 64,6 268 100,0 35,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES110 158 69 43,7 69 43,7 0,0 69 43,7 69 43,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES120 5 5 100,0 5 100,0 0,0 5 100,0 5 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES122 5 5 100,0 5 100,0 0,0 5 100,0 5 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES123 5 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES124 6 6 100,0 6 100,0 0,0 6 100,0 6 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES125 5 5 100,0 5 100,0 0,0 5 100,0 5 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES126 4 4 100,0 4 100,0 0,0 4 100,0 4 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES127 3 3 100,0 3 100,0 0,0 3 100,0 3 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES150 2 2 100,0 2 100,0 0,0 2 100,0 2 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES160 2 2 100,0 2 100,0 0,0 2 100,0 2 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Total 4184 1822 43,5 2738 65,4 21,9 3011 72,0 3904 93,3 27,9 2,2 0,1 0,0 Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027. Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2014).

RBD Total Chemical status Good chemical status 2021 Good chemical status 2027 Chemical exemptions (% 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. % % % % % ES010 227 39 17,2 220 96,9 79,7 220 96,9 227 100,0 3,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES014 422 356 84,4 391 92,7 8,3 422 100,0 422 100,0 7,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES017 101 62 61,4 95 94,1 32,7 101 100,0 101 100,0 5,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES018 258 62 24,0 256 99,2 75,2 258 100,0 258 100,0 0,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES020 620 599 96,6 620 100,0 3,4 620 100,0 620 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES030 198 192 97,0 198 100,0 3,0 198 100,0 198 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES040 244 215 88,1 244 100,0 11,9 244 100,0 244 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES050 325 282 86,8 324 99,7 12,9 324 99,7 324 99,7 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 ES060 130 116 89,2 130 100,0 10,8 130 100,0 130 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES063 67 30 44,8 52 77,6 32,8 52 77,6 59 88,1 10,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES064 51 22 43,1 31 60,8 17,6 31 60,8 46 90,2 29,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES070 84 77 91,7 79 94,0 2,4 79 94,0 84 100,0 6,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES080 289 159 55,0 281 97,2 42,2 281 97,2 289 100,0 2,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES091 705 0 0,0 622 88,2 88,2 622 88,2 634 89,9 1,7 0,3 0,0 0,0 ES100 268 140 52,2 258 96,3 44,0 258 96,3 268 100,0 3,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES110 158 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES120 5 2 40,0 2 40,0 0,0 2 40,0 5 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES122 5 5 100,0 5 100,0 0,0 5 100,0 5 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES123 5 5 100,0 5 100,0 0,0 5 100,0 5 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES124 6 6 100,0 6 100,0 0,0 6 100,0 6 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES125 5 5 100,0 5 100,0 0,0 5 100,0 5 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES126 4 4 100,0 4 100,0 0,0 4 100,0 4 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES127 3 3 100,0 3 100,0 0,0 3 100,0 3 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES150 2 0 0,0 2 100,0 100,0 2 100,0 2 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES160 2 2 100,0 2 100,0 0,0 2 100,0 2 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Total 4184 2378 56,8 3830 91,5 34,7 3869 92,5 3936 94,1 2,5 0,1 0,0 0,0 Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2012 and 2027 Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2015). As regards the increase of the number of Natural SWB in good chemical status by 2015, the figures of Table 6.9 might be misleading, as they include the expected re-classification of the currently “unknown” status of water bodies (see Table 6.3). RBD Total GW chemical status Good chemical status 2021 Good chemical status 2027 GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs) 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. % % % % % ES010 6 5 83,3 5 83,3 0,0 6 100,0 6 100,0 16,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES014 18 18 100,0 18 100,0 0,0 18 100,0 18 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES017 28 26 92,9 27 96,4 3,6 28 100,0 28 100,0 3,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES018 20 20 100,0 20 100,0 0,0 20 100,0 20 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES020 64 50 78,1 48 75,0 -3,1 48 75,0 50 78,1 3,1 21,9 0,0 0,0 ES030 24 18 75,0 18 75,0 0,0 22 91,7 24 100,0 25,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES040 20 7 35,0 7 35,0 0,0 7 35,0 20 100,0 65,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES050 60 44 73,3 49 81,7 8,3 55 91,7 60 100,0 18,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES060 67 32 47,8 46 68,7 20,9 55 82,1 62 92,5 23,9 7,5 0,0 0,0 ES063 14 5 35,7 7 50,0 14,3 7 50,0 12 85,7 35,7 14,3 0,0 0,0 ES064 4 2 50,0 2 50,0 0,0 4 100,0 4 100,0 50,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES070 63 39 61,9 37 58,7 -3,2 38 60,3 53 84,1 25,4 15,9 0,0 0,0 ES080 90 63 70,0 63 70,0 0,0 72 80,0 87 96,7 26,7 3,3 0,0 0,0 ES091 105 82 78,1 82 78,1 0,0 82 78,1 103 98,1 20,0 1,9 0,0 0,0 ES100 39 16 41,0 18 46,2 5,1 18 46,2 39 100,0 53,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES110 90 55 61,1 64 71,1 10,0 75 83,3 87 96,7 25,6 3,3 0,0 0,0 ES120 10 2 20,0 2 20,0 0,0 2 20,0 2 20,0 0,0 80,0 0,0 0,0 ES122 4 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 ES123 1 0 0,0 01 100,0 100,0 1 100,0 1 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES124 4 3 75,0 3 75,0 0,0 4 100,0 4 100,0 25,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES125 5 4 80,0 4 80,0 0,0 4 80,0 5 100,0 20,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES126 5 3 60,0 5 100,0 40,0 5 100,0 5 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES127 3 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 0 0,0 3 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES150 1 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 1 100,0 1 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES160 3 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 3 100,0 3 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Total 748 494 66,0 526 70,3 4,3 575 76,9 697 93,2 22,9 6,8 0,0 0,0 Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2012 and 2027 Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2015). RBD Total Groundwater quantitative status Good quantitative status 2021 Good quantitative status 2027 GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs) 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. % % % % % ES010 6 6 100,0 6 100,0 0,0 6 100,0 6 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES014 18 18 100,0 18 100,0 0,0 18 100,0 18 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES017 28 28 100,0 28 100,0 0,0 28 100,0 28 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES018 20 20 100,0 20 100,0 0,0 20 100,0 20 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 5,0 ES020 64 59 92,2 59 92,2 0,0 59 92,2 60 93,8 1,6 6,3 0,0 0,0 ES030 24 24 100,0 24 100,0 0,0 24 100,0 24 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES040 20 9 45,0 9 45,0 0,0 9 45,0 20 100,0 55,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES050 60 42 70,0 43 71,7 1,7 52 86,7 60 100,0 28,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES060 67 35 52,2 45 67,2 14,9 54 80,6 67 100,0 32,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES063 14 3 21,4 14 100,0 78,6 14 100,0 14 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES064 4 3 75,0 4 100,0 25,0 4 100,0 4 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES070 63 22 34,9 22 34,9 0,0 24 38,1 63 100,0 65,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES080 90 60 66,7 60 66,7 0,0 63 70,0 90 100,0 33,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES091 105 104 99,0 104 99,0 0,0 104 99,0 105 100,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES100 39 33 84,6 37 94,9 10,3 37 94,9 39 100,0 5,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES110 90 53 58,9 88 97,8 38,9 89 98,9 90 100,0 2,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES120 10 1 10,0 1 10,0 0,0 10 100,0 10 100,0 90,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES122 4 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 ES123 1 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES124 4 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 ES125 5 5 100,0 5 100,0 0,0 5 100,0 5 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES126 5 5 100,0 5 100,0 0,0 5 100,0 5 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES127 3 3 100,0 3 100,0 0,0 3 100,0 3 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES150 1 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 1 100,0 1 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES160 3 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 3 100,0 3 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Total 748 533 71,3 595 79,5 8,3 632 84,5 735 98,3 18,7 1,6 0,0 0,1 Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2012 and 2027 Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2014). RBD Total HMWB and AWB Ecological potential Good ecological potential 2021 Good ecological potential 2027 Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB) 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. % % % % % ES010 51 25 49,0 43 84,3 35,3 49 96,1 50 98,0 13,7 2,0 0,0 0,0 ES014 40 11 27,5 25 62,5 35,0 31 77,5 40 100,0 37,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES017 37 7 18,9 19 51,4 32,4 37 100,0 37 100,0 48,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES018 35 15 42,9 20 57,1 14,3 33 94,3 35 100,0 42,9 0,0 0,0 5,7 ES020 90 28 31,1 40 44,4 13,3 41 45,6 71 78,9 34,4 21,1 0,0 0,0 ES030 126 49 38,9 63 50,0 11,1 84 66,7 106 84,1 34,1 10,3 0,0 0,0 ES040 69 18 26,1 21 30,4 4,3 21 30,4 69 100,0 69,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES050 118 63 53,4 99 83,9 30,5 110 93,2 118 100,0 16,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES060 45 20 44,4 30 66,7 22,2 35 77,8 41 91,1 24,4 8,9 8,9 0,0 ES063 30 9 30,0 11 36,7 6,7 17 56,7 25 83,3 46,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES064 17 7 41,2 11 64,7 23,5 11 64,7 17 100,0 35,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES070 30 14 46,7 15 50,0 3,3 19 63,3 30 100,0 50,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES080 60 26 43,3 26 43,3 0,0 31 51,7 60 100,0 56,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES091 116 0 0,0 2 1,7 1,7 2 1,7 2 1,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES100 78 11 14,1 24 30,8 16,7 24 30,8 78 100,0 69,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES110 14 4 28,6 4 28,6 0,0 4 28,6 4 28,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES120 1 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 0 0,0 1 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES122 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ES123 1 0 0 1 100,0 100,0 1 100,0 1 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES124 5 4 80,0 5 100,0 20,0 5 100,0 5 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES125 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ES126 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ES127 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ES150 1 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 1 100,0 1 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES160 2 0 0,0 1 50,0 50,0 2 100,0 2 100,0 50,0 0,0 50,0 0,0 Total 966 311 32,2 460 47,6 15,4 558 57,8 793 82,1 34,4 3,8 0,5 0,2 Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2012 and 2027 Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2014). RBD Total HMWB and AWB Chemical status Good chemical status 2021 Good chemical status 2027 Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB) 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. % % % % % ES010 51 17 33,3 51 100,0 66,7 51 100,0 51 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES014 40 26 65,0 29 72,5 7,5 29 72,5 33 82,5 10,0 17,5 0,0 0,0 ES017 37 19 51,4 30 81,1 29,7 37 100,0 37 100,0 18,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES018 35 19 54,3 33 94,3 40,0 34 97,1 35 100,0 5,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES020 90 87 96,7 90 100,0 3,3 90 100,0 90 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES030 126 121 96,0 126 100,0 4,0 126 100,0 126 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES040 69 53 76,8 69 100,0 23,2 69 100,0 69 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES050 118 101 85,6 117 99,2 13,6 117 99,2 118 100,0 0,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES060 45 40 88,9 45 100,0 11,1 45 100,0 45 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES063 30 20 66,7 26 86,7 20,0 26 86,7 28 93,3 6,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES064 17 6 35,3 10 58,8 23,5 10 58,8 17 100,0 41,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES070 30 20 66,7 22 73,3 6,7 22 73,3 30 100,0 26,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES080 60 22 36,7 51 85,0 48,3 51 85,0 60 100,0 15,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES091 116 0 0,0 2 1,7 1,7 2 1,7 2 1,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES100 78 37 47,4 60 76,9 29,5 60 76,9 78 100,0 23,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES110 14 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES120 1 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 0 0,0 1 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES122 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ES123 1 0 0,0 1 100,0 100,0 1 100,0 1 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES124 5 4 80,0 5 100,0 20,0 5 100,0 5 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES125 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ES126 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ES127 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ES150 1 0 0,0 0 0,0 0,0 1 100,0 1 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES160 2 0 0,0 2 100,0 100,0 2 100,0 2 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Total 966 592 61,3 769 79,6 18,3 778 80,5 829 85,8 6,1 0,7 0,0 0,0 Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2012 and 2027. Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2014).

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009 Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015 Good or better Less than Good or Unknown River Basin Districts Countries outside EU Source: WISE, RBMPs, Eurostat (country borders); information provided by Spain. Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009 Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015 Good or better Less than Good or Unknown River Basin Districts Countries outside EU Source: WISE, RBMPs, Eurostat (country borders); information provided by Spain.





Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009 Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015 Good Failing to achieve good or Unknown River Basin Districts Countries outside EU Source: WISE, RBMPs, Eurostat (country borders); information provided by Spain. Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009 Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015 Good Failing to achieve good or Unknown River Basin Districts Countries outside EU Source: WISE, RBMPs, Eurostat (country borders); information provided by Spain. Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009 Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015 Good Less than Good or Unknown River Basin Districts Countries outside EU Source: WISE, RBMPs, Eurostat (country borders); information provided by Spain.

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009 Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015 Good Less than Good or Unknown River Basin Districts Countries outside EU Source: WISE, RBMPs, Eurostat (country borders); information provided by Spain.



ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL STATUS OF SURFACE WATERS The IPH (5.1.2) establishes a common baseline for the status assessment which has been implemented, in general, in all RBDs . The assessment framework for ecological status is however incomplete as the IPH does not include boundary values for all quality elements, water categories and types. Moreover, the way the boundaries are set is not binding for RBDs. The IPH states that the boundaries included have to be used “in general” and RBDs can depart from them if justified in the RBMP. In addition, the IPH exempt the application of the boundaries for biological quality elements in case of prolonged drought, which is not in line with the WFD and ignores the mechanisms that the WFD includes to handle such exceptional meteorological situations (Article 4(6)). Finally, the values can be different depending on the sampling protocol. All these flexibilities built in the IPH lead to lack of transparency and clarity on what is actually the assessment framework applied by each RBD . In principle the normative part of the RBMPs include the boundaries for good status for the types in each RBD. In some cases the use of the boundaries are qualified in a way that is not in line with WFD, such as in ES070 (Article 20.2: "the reference conditions will not be considered in the assessment of good status if failure is due only to natural conditions"; one-out all-out is not applied to the IPS diatom index). In ES030 Tajo and ES040 Guadiana some boundaries in the normative part of the RBMP have been significantly changed to less protective values than the IPH values (e.g. for types 5 and 8). On the other hand ES091 Ebro and ES070 Segura use stricter values for some types (e.g. type 12) than ES080 Jucar and ES030 Tajo. The good-moderate boundary values for ES100 are also different for the same types. It has not been possible to find a coherent justification for such discrepancies. The values used should have reflected the legally binding boundaries of the 2008 Commission Decision on Intercalibration . The translation of the intercalibration results into the Spanish classification scheme is unclear. The purpose of the typology is to group water bodies with the same abiotic characteristics and therefore sharing reference conditions and boundaries. The discrepancies appear to indicate that either typology is not adequate for the purpose (it should be tested against biological data to ensure consistency) or the boundaries used by the RBDs are not consistent. The reference conditions seem to vary as well between RBDs for the same types. In general, all RBMPs include (standardised) general statements on the legal and theoretical framework for the classification of ecological status; but not necessarily information on the practical steps undertaken (e.g. the non-consideration of certain BQEs, like fish) or detailed information on classification per water body. In general, the one-out-all-out principle has been correctly applied. However, in ES123, ES125 and ES127, physico-chemical indicators (for Phosphates and/or Nitrates) are rated as moderate or bad for some CWBs but, in spite of this fact, ecological status is classified as "good”. Assessment methods The IPH (5.1.2 and Annex III) shows that there are some important gaps in the classification system: -For RW there is no classification system for macrophytes (QE1-2-3) and fish (QE1-4); phytoplankton (QE1-1) has been considered as not relevant for Spanish river types, although the technical justification provided has not been considered sufficient to discard this quality element from all Spanish rivers ; -For LW only phytoplankton (QE1-1) is developed for reservoirs; fish (QE1-4) has been considered as not relevant for Spanish lakes, although the technical justification provided has not been considered sufficient to discard this quality element23. -For TW only benthic fauna is developed (QE1-3, M-AMBI) and phytoplankton (QE1-1) is partly developed (chlorophyll a);

-For CW the system is fully developed. Of the above-mentioned, it is particularly worrying that QE1-4 (fish) has not been developed, as this BQE is particularly relevant for assessing many of the pressures, in particular water abstraction, hydrological alteration, morphological changes and pollution. Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Phytoplankton Macrophytes Phytobenthos Benthic invertebrates Fish Physico-Chemical Hydromorphological Phytoplankton Macrophytes Phytobenthos Benthic invertebrates Fish Physico-Chemical Hydromorphological Phytoplankton Macroalgae Angiosperms Benthic invertebrates Fish Physico-Chemical Hydromorphological Phytoplankton Macroalgae Angiosperms Benthic invertebrates Physico-Chemical Hydromorphological 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 7.1.1 Availability of biological assessment methods as reflected in the RBMPs. Notes: based on the information presented in the RBMPs and reported in WISE. Green means that a method is available but it does not necessarily mean that it is WFD compliant. If a method is presented but not used the cell is marked in yellow. Spain provided in 2014 updated information showing the progress in the development of some of the methods but it is not reflected here. Assessment methods developed Assessment methods partially developed or under development Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear or inconsistent information provided - Water category not relevant Source: RBMPs and WISE. There is no homogeneous methodology for grouping of water bodies and the extrapolation of status for non-monitored water bodies. It is not clear how this is done. The assessment methodology for supporting physico-chemical quality elements has been developed by the IPH Chapter 5.1.2, but still requires further work for being type-specific (including standards for reservoirs, such as on phosphorous) and consistent with the biological boundaries. The following BQEs have been considered sensitive to the indicated impacts in the RBMPs: RW LW TW CW Nutrient enrichment 1-1 (ES014, ES017, ES018, ES020, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES100) 1-2 (ES014, ES017, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES091, ES100) 1-3 (ES014, ES017, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES091, ES100) 1-4 (ES014, ES017, ES020, ES040, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES100) 1-5 (ES014) 1-1 (ES017, ES030, ES060, ES070, ES080) 1-2 (ES070) 1-3 (ES060) 1-4 (ES017) 1-5 (ES100) 1-1 (ES014, ES060, ES063, ES064, ES070) 1-2 (ES014) 1-3 (ES060, ES064, ES070) 1-4 (ES014) 1-5 (ES100) 1-1 (ES014, ES017, ES060, ES070, ES100) 1-2 (ES014, ES017, ES070) 1-3 (ES017, ES060, ES070) Organic enrichment 1-1 (ES014, ES017, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES100) 1-2 (ES014, ES017, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES091, ES100) 1-3 (ES014, ES017, ES018, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES091, ES100) 1-4 (ES014, ES017, ES040, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES100) 1-5 (ES014, ES018) 1-1 (ES018, ES030, ES070) 1-2 (ES070) 1-1 (ES014, ES018, ES063, ES064, ES070) 1-2 (ES014, ES018) 1-3 (ES018, ES064, ES070) 1-4 (ES014, ES018) 1-1 (ES014, ES017, ES018, ES070, ES100) 1-2 (ES014, ES017, ES018, ES070) 1-3 (ES017, ES018, ES070) Contamination by priority substances 1-1 (ES014, ES017, ES030, ES050, ES060, ES070) 1-2 (ES014, ES017, ES020, ES030, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES091, ES100) 1-3 (ES014, ES017, ES018, ES020, ES030, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES091, ES100) 1-4 (ES014, ES017, ES020, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES100) 1-5 (ES014, ES017) 1-1 (ES070) 1-2 (ES070) 1-1 (ES014, ES017, ES018, ES064, ES070) 1-2 (ES014, ES017, ES018) 1-3 (ES017, ES018, ES064, ES070) 1-4 (ES014, ES017, ES018) 1-1 (ES014, ES064, ES070) 1-2 (ES014, ES070) 1-3 (ES064, ES070) Contaminated sediments 1-1 (ES070) 1-2 (ES070) 1-3 (ES070) 1-4 (ES070) 1-3 (ES080) 1-1 (ES014, ES017) 1-2 (ES014, ES017) 1-3 (ES017) 1-4 (ES014, ES017) 1-1 (ES014, ES070) 1-2 (ES014, ES070) 1-3 (ES070) Acidification 1-2 (ES080) 1-3 (ES014, ES080) 1-4 (ES080) 1-5 (ES014) Saline intrusion 1-1 (ES060) 1-2 (ES060, ES070) 1-3 (ES060, ES070) 1-4 (ES060) 1-2 (ES070) 1-3 (ES070) 1-2 (ES070) 1-3 (ES070) Elevated temperatures 1-1 (ES080) 1-3 (ES080) 1-4 (ES080) 1-1 (ES080) Altered habitats 1-1 (ES014, ES017, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080) 1-2 (ES014, ES017, ES020, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES100) 1-3 (ES014, ES017, ES018, ES020, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES100) 1-4 (ES014, ES017, ES020, ES040, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES100) 1-5 (ES014, ES017, ES070, ES080) 1-1 (ES018, ES020, ES040, ES060, ES070, ES080) 1-2 (ES020, ES070) 1-3 (ES020, ES040, ES060) 1-4 (ES018, ES020, ES040) 1-5 (ES100) 1-1 (ES014, ES017, ES040) 1-2 (ES014, ES017, ES040) 1-3 (ES017, ES040) 1-4 (ES014, ES017, ES040) 1-5 (ES100) 1-1 (ES014, ES070, ES100) 1-2 (ES014, ES070) 1-3 (ES070) Other impacts 1-1 (ES030, ES050, ES060, ES070) 1-2 (ES014, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES091, ES100) 1-3 (ES014, ES017, ES018, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES091, ES100) 1-4 (ES014, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES100) 1-5 (ES014, ES017, ES070) 1-1 (ES018, ES030, ES060, ES070) 1-2 (ES070) 1-3 (ES060) 1-1 (ES050) 1-3 (ES050) 1-1 (ES070, ES100) 1-2 (ES070) 1-3 (ES070) Table 7.1.2: Summary of the BQEs used in operational monitoring in relation to the significant pressures and main impacts on water bodies in RBDs. Information provided by Spain (2014). The linkages established comparing the different RBMPs are varied. It appears that there is no common understanding on how the different quality elements respond to impacts. Results The results show the following distribution of status (see Table 6.8): 1817 natural SWB (43%) are considered in good or better status in 2009; with better than average results in some RBDs (ES010, ES014, ES017, ES018, ES050 and ES060) and even better results in a couple of RBDs (75%: ES010 y ES018). Low percentages of SWB in good or better status (≤25%) are found in ES063, ES020 and ES100. In general, there is a lack of information about the uncertainties in classification (in particular in the RBMPs, where no RBD raises uncertainty issues) and disparity regarding the confidence on the classification results (reported under WISE). One RBD (ES040) reports 100% classifications as high confidence, despite the fact that its RBMP mentions how lack of data on a specific QE or lack of data on all QE in a specific water body have been handled, e.g. referring to an expert judgment meeting in May 2009, assessing available data, developing trend analyses and thus proposing a classification. ES020 distributes confidence 50:50 between high and low, without providing further information on uncertainties. ES018 classifies almost all water bodies with medium confidence. Other RBDs do not provide any information on confidence. Though official co-ordination mechanisms are in place and technical co-operation is taking place (explicitly described in the RBMP ES040, and implicitly for ES010, ES020, and ES030), transboundary co-ordination can be improved for classification of status, e.g. the Bidasoa river estuary shared between Spain and France reflects how neighbouring water bodies (e.g. ES111T012010 and French Estuarie Bidasoa) are classified with different results (in Spanish plan it fails due to biological status and in French plan due to chemical), leading to different measures.

DESIGNATION OF HMWB AND SETTING OF GOOD ECOLOGICAL POTENTIAL (GEP) Designation of HMWB Designation of heavily modified water bodies (HMWB) has generally followed a complete three stepwise approach as established in the national regulation (IPH), based on CIS Guidance Document nº 4. However, some exceptions and gaps should be noted: -One RBMP (ES110) only provides brief overview information on the results of the final designation, without adding any complementary information on the methodology, and the stepwise assessment. -In one RBMP (ES014), HMWBs have been established after verification of the preliminary identification (step 2 of 3), and step 3 is still missing. In fact, the RBMP states that "the final designation will be completed when the programme of measures is fully developed". -In Canarian RBMPs (ES120 and ES124), major ports are designated HMWBs without clearly covering steps 2 and 3, assuming that conditions (a) and (b) of article 4.3 of the WFD are fulfilled without justification. -In most RBMPs, criteria (or thresholds) for defining significant adverse effects on the use are not clearly stated (though adverse effects are listed; ES080 recognises in one case lack of data to support this test) and expert judgment has been extensively used. ES091 does not provide the results of the assessment of significant adverse effects for transitional water bodies. -Similarly, the identification of “better environmental options” and analysis criteria for this step are not always clear, may be absent (e.g. ES100, ES110), or too generic and poorly developed (most of the RBMPs include only a few lines of generic statements). ES124 includes two candidate HMWBs in water bodies where port infrastructures are planned. This approach circumvents de facto the obligations of Articles 4(1) and 4(7). Finally, ES123 includes one so-called “preliminarly designated” HMWB namely the Port of Arrecife without specifying the following steps to take. Methodology for Good Ecological Potential (GEP) In most RBMPs, good ecological potential (GEP) has been defined following a general methodology established at national level in the IPH which, in turn, follows the reference-based approach suggested by the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance document number 4. The IPH sets some quality elements, indicators and thresholds for two types of HMWBs: -Reservoirs: phytoplankton boundaries are given (biomass and composition) for different types of monomictic reservoirs -Coastal and transitional water bodies affected by ports: boundary values are given for some types of water bodies for phytoplankton (biomass only), pollution by nutrients and organic matter (same values for all types), turbidity, dissolved oxygen and total hydrocarbons. The indicators chosen are more linked to water quality than sensitive to the physical modification of the water bodies. Therefore, it is unclear how this scheme can be used to set objectives and drive improvements to ecological condition in HMWBs beyond water quality considerations. From the available information it is not possible to understand the setting of reference values nor to assess how mitigation measures to achieve GEP have been considered.

Some RBMPs establish additional boundaries for HMWBs. For example ES070 includes boundary values for biological quality elements in channelled rivers (although without differentiating typologies). ES080 establishes different values for diatoms IPS index in heavily modified rivers. The rationale of this is again questionable as the IPS index is mainly responding to water quality alterations, and not to physical modification. More work has apparently been developed for reservoirs that for other categories of HMWBs. In conclusion, a full methodology is still missing. Results HMWB and AWB Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial water bodies by River Basin District 0 – 5 % 5 – 20 % 20 – 40 % 40 – 60% 60 – 100 % No data reported River Basin Districts Countries outside EU Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders). The overall number of HMWBs is 908. The total number of river HMWBs is 737, 17% of all RWBs (though still significantly below the overall number of large dams in Spain); and the overall number of artificial water bodies (AWBs) is 58 (1% of total SWB). HMWB are relatively important in TW (33%), and several RBDs classify all their TWB as HMWB. AWB refer mainly to the LW category, considering e.g. small reservoirs or ponds that are not connected to rivers. RBD Water category Rivers Lakes Transitional water Coastal water All water bodies No % of category No % of category No % of category No % of category No % HMWB ES010 49 18,1 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 49 17,6 ES014 33 8,0 - - 0 0,0 7 24,1 40 8,7 ES017 23 21,1 8 72,7 4 28,6 0 0,0 35 25,4 ES018 27 10,8 0 0,0 5 23,8 1 6,7 33 11,3 ES020 80 11,5 2 14,3 - - - - 82 11,5 ES030 116 37,7 0 0,0 - - - - 116 35,8 ES040 54 21,7 1 1,7 1 25,0 0 0,0 56 17,9 ES050 102 26,0 1 2,9 13 100,0 0 0,0 116 26,2 ES060 31 23,3 0 0,0 4 57,1 8 29,6 43 24,6 ES063 14 21,5 0 0,0 10 100,0 4 33,3 28 28,9 ES064 8 16,7 0 0,0 6 54,5 2 50,0 16 23,5 ES070 21 23,3 2 33,3 1 100,0 3 17,6 27 23,7 ES080 43 14,1 3 15,8 4 100,0 6 27,3 56 16,0 ES091 63 9,0 43 39,1 3 37,5 0 0,0 109 13,3 ES100 69 26,4 1 3,7 3 12,0 5 15,2 78 22,5 ES110 3 3,2 - - 6 16,7 5 11,9 14 8,1 ES120 - - - - - - 1 16,7 1 16,7 ES122 - - - - - - 0 0,0 0 0,0 ES123 - - - - - - 1 16,7 1 16,7 ES124 - - - - - - 5 45,5 5 45,5 ES125 - - - - - - 0 0,0 0 0,0 ES126 - - - - - - 0 0,0 0 0,0 ES127 - - - - - - 0 0,0 0 0,0 ES150 - - - - - - 1 33,3 1 33,3 ES160 1 100,0 - - - - 1 33,3 2 50,0 Total 737 16,8 61 18,5 60 33,3 50 19,2 908 17,6 AWB ES010 0 0,0 2 66,7 - - - - 2 0,7 ES014 0 0,0 - - - - - - 0 0,0 ES017 0 0,0 2 18,2 - - - - 2 1,4 ES018 0 0,0 2 28,6 - - - - 2 0,7 ES020 8 1,1 0 0,0 - - - - 8 1,1 ES030 1 0,3 9 56,3 - - - - 10 3,1 ES040 0 0,0 13 22,4 - - - - 13 4,2 ES050 0 0,0 2 5,7 - - - - 2 0,5 ES060 1 0,8 1 12,5 - - - - 2 1,1 ES063 0 0,0 2 20,0 - - - - 2 2,1 ES064 1 2,1 0 0,0 - - - - 1 1,5 ES070 0 0,0 3 50,0 - - - - 3 2,6 ES080 4 1,3 0 0,0 - - - - 4 1,1 ES091 2 0,3 5 4,5 - - - - 7 0,9 ES100 0 0,0 0 0,0 - - -