EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 56 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: Portugal







Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans

{COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}



Table of Contents Acronyms and definitions Foreword General Information Status of the second river basin management plan reporting Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) Recommendations Topic 1 Governance and public participation 1.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 1.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 2 Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 2.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 3.2 Assessment and classification of ecological status/potential of surface water 3.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first RBMPs

3.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 4 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 4.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 4.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 4.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 5 Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 5.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 5.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 5.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 6 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 6.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 6.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 6.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 7 Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential 7.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle for designation 7.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 7.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 8 Environmental objectives and exemptions 8.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 8.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle

8.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 9 Programme of measures 9.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 9.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 9.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 10.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 10.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 10.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 11 Measures related to pollution from agriculture 11.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 11.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 11.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 12 Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 12.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 12.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 12.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology 13.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 13.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle

13.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies 14.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle and main changes since the first cycle 14.2 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 15 Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 15.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 15.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 15.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 16 Adaptation to drought and climate change 16.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 16.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 16.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Acronyms and definitions EQS Directive Environmental Quality Standards Directive FD Floods Directive Km Kilometre km2 Kilometre squared KTM Key Type of Measure PoM Programme of Measures RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Water Information System for Europe Annex 0 Member States reported the structured information on the second RBMPs to WISE ( Water Information System for Europe ). Due to the late availability of the reporting guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying what information they were unable to report and the reasons why. This Annex was produced using a template included in the reporting guidance. If Member States reported all the required information, this explanatory note was not necessary.



Foreword The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) requires in its Article 18 that each Member State reports its River Basin Management Plan(s) (RBMPs) to the European Commission. The second RBMPs were due to be adopted by the Member States in December 2015 and reported to the European Commission in March 2016. This Member State Assessment report was drafted on the basis of information that was reported by Member States through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) electronic reporting.

The Member State Reports reflect the situation as reported by each Member State to the European Commission in 2016 or 2017 and with reference to RBMPs prepared earlier. The situation in the Member States may have changed since then.



General Information Map A Map of RBDs Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) International RBDs (within European Union) International RBDs (outside European Union) National RBDs (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters Portugal is a republic comprised of a continental part and two autonomous regions. The total area of Portugal is 92 072 km², with an economic exclusive zone of 1 727 408 km². The population is about 10.6 million. The information on areas of the national RBDs including sharing countries is provided in Table A: Table A: Overview of Portugal’s RBDs RBD Name Size (km2) Countries sharing RBD PTRH1 Minho and Lima 2464 ES PTRH2 Cavado, Ave and Leca 3585 - PTRH3 Douro 19218 ES PTRH4A Vouga, Mondego and Lis 12144 - PTRH5A Tagus and West Rivers 30502 ES PTRH6 Sado and Mira 12149 (12144) - PTRH7 Guadiana 11611 ES PTRH8 Algarve Rivers 5511 - PTRH9 Azores 10047 - PTRH10 Madeira 2248 - Source: RBMPs reported to WISE. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Portugal. The share of Portugal in the respective international RBDs is 5.0 % (Minho), 47.1 % (Lima), 21.7 % (Tejo), 17.3 % (Guadiana) and 19.3 % (Douro). Table B: Transboundary river basins by category and % share in Portugal Name international river basin National RBD Countries sharing RBD Co-ordination category 2 km² % Miño/Minho PTRH1 (Minho-Lima) ES 854 (814) 5.0 (9.0) Lima/Limia PTRH1 (Minho-Lima) ES 1180 (1199) 47.1 (47.6) Duero/Douro PTRH3 (Douro) ES 18855 (18588) 19.3 (19.1) Tajo/Tejo PTRH5A (Tagus and West Rivers) ES 15415 (25016) 21.7 (31.0) Guadiana PTRH7 (Guadiana) ES 11598 (11534) 17.3 (17.2)

Source: WISE electronic reports. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Portugal. Category 1: International agreement, permanent co-operation body and international RBMP in place. Category 2: International agreement and permanent co-operation body in place. Category 3: International agreement in place. Category 4: No co-operation formalised.



Status of the second river basin management plan reporting A total of ten RBMPs of Portugal (Minho and Lima, Cavado, Ave and Leca, Douro, Vouga, Mondego and Lis, Tagus and West Rivers, Sado and Mira, Guadiana, Algarve Rivers, Azores, Madeira) were published between 29 January and 15 December 2016. Documents are available from the European Environment Agency EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ .



Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMP of Portugal are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation Portugal and Spain ensured coordination on a broad range of issues in the international RBDs they share. A broad range of stakeholders were actively involved in Portugal’s RBDs, in nine of them via advisory councils. Portugal did not adopt and publish the RBMPs in accordance with the timetable in the WFD. ·Characterisation of the RBD The delineation of transboundary water bodies has been coordinated by the Commission for the Implementation and Development of the Albufeira Convention. A number of the national Portuguese types do not have corresponding intercalibration types: this equates to 58 % of coastal water bodies in Portugal as a whole (41 % of these are in the Azores and Madeira). For natural lakes (all in the Azores RBD) there are no common intercalibration types. For rivers and transitional waters are 33 % and 67 %, respectively, without a common intercalibration type. There are still significant gaps in the development of reference conditions for all types in all categories of surface waters for all the relevant quality elements. This casts doubts on the robustness of the subsequent classification of ecological status/potential in Portugal. There was an improvement since the first cycle, but several tasks remain to be completed. National authorities have reported work underway, to be concluded in 2019, which will further advance the subsequent classification of ecological status/potential in Portugal. Further characterisation work of groundwater bodies has been undertaken since the first cycle by describing the geological formation and whether they are layered or not. Portugal has also included an assessment of linkages with surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems.

In most Portuguese RBDs, the significance of pressures on both surface and groundwater has not been defined in terms of thresholds, but on failure to reach good status. Portugal has established inventories of emissions for all RBDs except for the Minho. Not all priority substances are included in these inventories, according to the information reported. Tier 1 of the methodology was implemented for all substances included in the inventories (while the Guidance Document recommends to implement at least Tier 1 + 2 for substances relevant at RBD level). The data quality was not reported. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status The total number of monitoring sites reported by Portugal increased by 36 % since the first RBMPs. There were no reported operational monitoring sites in coastal waters in any of the RBDs even though there are significant pressures reported. Portugal subsequently explained that sites reported for surveillance monitoring were in fact also used for the classification of ecological status. Hydromorphological quality elements are monitored in only one lake and in around half of river and transitional water bodies used for surveillance monitoring. Portugal identified River Basin Specific Pollutants on the basis of a previous list of River Basin Specific Pollutants and their presence in water in the period 2004-2012. Concerning pesticides, Portugal also took into account whether or not they were authorised. Environmental Quality Standards are reported for 26 River Basin Specific Pollutants in water. All of them were derived according to Technical Guidance n. 27. The analytical method used for each substance meets the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of the Directive 2009/90/EC for the strictest standard applied. Monitoring was reported for 16 chemical substances that are not Priority Substances. These were generally assumed to be River Basin Specific Pollutants, but for Portugal they are different from the substances for which Environmental Quality Standards were derived. For some river, transitional and coastal water bodies, classification of ecological status/potential was based on none of the required biological quality elements. Although 43 surface water bodies were classified in high status, only four of these were classified using the required hydromorphological quality elements. Hydromorphological quality elements were not used in the classification of lakes, even though these elements were reported to be monitored in lakes. Compared to the first RBMPs, the classification of ecological status/potential was based on more comprehensive classification methods, which consider more of the relevant biological quality elements and some hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements (mainly nutrients). There is therefore a decrease in the proportion of water bodies with unknown ecological status/potential. However, the overall ecological status/potential of surface water bodies has not improved significantly since the first RBMPs. The one-out all-out principle has been used in all RBD, except in Madeira, to establish the overall ecological status. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies ·The proportion of water bodies in unknown status has increased since the first RBMPs (from 58 to 74 %). The proportion in good status has consequently decreased, while the proportion of water bodies failing to achieve good status remained stable. Portugal also reports improvements for three Priority Substances. ·63 % of classified surface water bodies were classified with high confidence, and 34 % with low confidence. ·20 %, 87 % and 70 % of river, transitional and coastal water bodies were monitored. ·33 Priority Substances were monitored for status assessment; most were monitored in less than 10 water bodies. Not all substances reported as discharged were monitored, however Portugal mentioned that some of the substances reported as discharged were actually not found in the effluents, but half of the limit of quantification was used as a basis to calculate the loads reported to the E-PRTR. Monitoring frequencies were below the recommended minimum frequencies for surveillance and operational monitoring. ·Hexachlorobenzene, mercury and hexabutadiene were not monitored in biota. ·For trend assessment, Portugal reported no data on monitoring of Priority Substances in sediment and/or biota. However, Portugal subsequently clarified that since 2013 11 of the 14 substances have been monitored in sediment in the mainland RBDs, in what appears to be a limited number of sites. According to the Portuguese legislation, monitoring should be carried out in the future at or above the recommended minimum frequency.

·For the assessment of chemical status, the one-out, all-out principle was used in all RBDs, except in Madeira. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies The number of monitored groundwater bodies increased from 70 to 80. In mainland Portugal grouping of groundwater bodies was reported for monitoring purposes. No monitoring was reported for two river basin districts (Azores and Madeira). The confidence in status varies among RBDs, and only 20 % of groundwater bodies results have high confidence. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies Overall, the monitoring situation deteriorated since the first RBMPs, as 43 % of the groundwater bodies have no surveillance monitoring and not all groundwater bodies at risk are subject to operational monitoring. According to the information subsequently provided by Portugal, the coverage of chemical monitoring in mainland Portugal is almost complete and grouping of groundwater bodies has been done for monitoring purposes. According to a clarification subsequently provided by Portugal, all WFD core parameters are monitored in all RBDs of mainland Portugal. As regards status assessment, the situation improved, with 2.7 % of the total groundwater body area failing good status, instead of 4.9 % previously. ·Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential The designation of several heavily modified water bodies has been reviewed since the first RBMPs, to take account of Common Implementation Strategy guidance and improved characterisation. However, the designations of some HMWBs is still pending. For example, in the Azores RBD some areas, namely ports, have been identified as having heavily modified water bodies’ characteristics, but a procedure for their designation is still ongoing. Some information is provided on how the significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use and the wider environment have been defined. No explicit description of improvements made to the method for good ecological potential definition since the first cycle could be found in the RBMPs, but according to information subsequently provided by Portugal some improvements have taken place due to: 1) the revision/refinement of some BQE assessment methods; 2) the intercalibration and adoption of new methods for other BQEs; and 3) the adoption of a hybrid CIS Guidance/Prague Approach to the definition of ecological potential. Good ecological potential is defined in terms of biology and, in general, this is done using the same assessment methods and metrics as for the ecological status (e.g. for HMWB downstream weirs/dams or other kind of inland lotic HMWB). The only difference is for reservoirs, where specific metrics are used for phytoplankton. For the reservoirs of northern type, the Mediterranean Reservoir Phytoplankton Evaluation Index is used. For the reservoirs of southern type and main flow type reservoirs, chlorophyll a is used for classification. According to information subsequently provided by Portugal, other biological quality elements are considered as “not applicable” in Portuguese reservoirs, based on the intercalibration of ecological status methods. Mitigation measures for defining good ecological potential have been reported: the ecological changes expected due to the mitigation measures are described in a qualitative way. According to information subsequently provided by Portugal, besides reinforcing the implementation of these measures, studies are being developed to improve the mitigation measures on hydromorphological conditions, environmental flows in particular. ·Environmental objectives and exemptions Environmental objectives for surface water ecological and chemical status have been reported in all RBDs, and the same applies for quantitative and chemical status of groundwater. Information is provided on by when water bodies are expected to achieve the WFD objectives. Drivers, pressures and pollutants leading to exemptions are reported, although some gaps and uncertainties remain in some RBDs. Justifications for exemptions have been provided at water body level. Criteria have been developed for the application of exemptions with regard to technical feasibility and disproportionate costs. However, the reasoning for the exemptions and the timeframes to achieve environmental objectives might be better developed and reflected in the RBMPs. ·Programme of Measures In general the amount and quality of information has improved since the first RBMPs, in particular by clearly identifying the gaps to good status for most significant pressures and designing the Programmes of Measures (PoM) to close the gaps. However, cost-effectiveness analyses have only been carried out in one of the ten RBDs. Portugal subsequently clarified that the cost-effectiveness analysis of the measures in the eight mainland RBMPs will occur during the process of evaluating the implementation of the measures in 2018. This will allow for an evaluation of the effectiveness of the measures against the state of the bodies of water. A clear financial commitment is generally in place for the Programmes of Measures in all ten RBDs. On a sectoral basis, financial commitments do not seem to be in place for a small number of relevant sectors in three RBDs. Portugal subsequently clarified that the mid-term review will allow the necessary changes to be made, in particular those of a financial nature.

New legislation or regulations to implement the Programmes of Measures in the first cycle was required in eight RBDs (not required in two RBDs) and is still in progress. There is so far no clear distinction between mandatory and voluntary measures. Portugal subsequently clarified that all basic measures were mandatory as they were in place to comply with existing Directives, whereas the supplementary measures may be mandatory or voluntary. As to coordination with the Floods Directive, the design and new and existing structural measures have been adapted to take account of WFD environmental objectives, and financial commitments have been secured for the implementation of the Programmes of Measures in the flood protection sector in all RBDs. Portugal indicated that Natural Water Retention Measures have been included in the Programmes of Measures of all RBDs and KTM 23 has been mapped to national measures, but there is no evidence that such measures have been made operational. Portugal subsequently clarified that these measures are being integrated into the Rural Development Programme of mainland Portugal and are being made operational when funding is awarded to relevant farmers. ·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity ·Water abstraction pressure in Portugal has been reported as relevant for all RBDs except the Azores. ·The Water Exploitation Index + is calculated and has been reported for all RBDs. No trend data have been reported to WISE, but such trends are included for groundwater bodies in the RBMPs. ·In the Algarve Rivers groundwater consumption pressures have increased in the recent past. ·Overall data are presented for almost all RBDs regarding the main purposes for water consumption. Agricultural abstraction data are based on estimations, rather than being backed by metering. ·No detailed data on water consumption was reported for Madeira, although, according to information subsequently provided by Portugal, information on sector characterisation is publicly available. ·Licenses and permits for abstractions and flow regulations are being updated. ·Measures related to pollution from agriculture There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. A gap assessment was missing in the first cycle but has been carried out in the second cycle. It addresses diffuse chemical pollution and nutrients. The implementation of Article 11(3)(h) basic measures for the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture at source is required in all RBDs. Portugal has established mandatory safeguard zones around drinking water protection areas. Financing of the agricultural measures is secured in all RBDs. ·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture Portugal has made progress in identifying where improvements to urban waste water treatment can help to reduce pollution by Priority Substances from industry in particular. There is limited information on the substance-specificity or potential effectiveness of measures. It appears that in the island RBDs in particular, more information is needed on the concentrations of Priority Substances in water to inform the decisions on measures. ·Measures related to hydromorphology

For the definition of ecological flows, the national water authority is in charge of the elaboration of a methodological guide to be applied in different regions of mainland Portugal. At the time of publishing the RBMPs and the Programmes of Measures, the methodological guide was still under development. Overall, work is still in progress concerning the definition of ecological flow regimes. According to information subsequently provided by Portugal, all dams built after 2000 have a definition of ecological flows. A significant number of dams, however, still do not have ecological flows defined (particularly older ones) and monitoring programmes have been and are being developed to define ecological flow regimes. Specific measures mentioned in some of the RBMPs indicate relevance for Natural Water Retention Measures and green infrastructure, e.g. maintenance of permanent prairies and pastures and areas of ecologic interest as well as sustainable forestry. There is no national or regional strategy that prioritises the implementation of Natural Water Retention Measures and green infrastructure measures per se. However, the National Climate Change Adaptation Plan includes these types of measures. Also the Common Agriculture Programme with green payments and the Rural Development Programme of mainland Portugal promote Natural Water Retention Measures, which are reflected in some of the RBMPs. ·Economic analysis and water pricing policies A rather broad definition of water services is applied in the Portuguese RBDs, but they still differ from RBD to RBD. Environmental and resource costs are regarded as internalised through the existing legislation, but they are still not explicitly calculated. ·Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) There was no evidence of a differentiated approach to setting additional objectives for Habitats and Birds Directives Protected Areas. This is because all these areas were deemed to be adequately protected by the objectives of good status under the Water Framework Directive. No information was reported to WISE on a monitoring programme in surface waters and groundwater for water bodies associated with Protected Areas. This however seems to be a mere error in the information reported to WISE, as the River Basin Management Plans actually include a table summarizing the number of monitoring stations per protected area type. ·Adaptation to drought and climate change Climate change was considered in various ways in all RBDs, on the basis of the Common Implementation Strategy guidance document on how to adapt to climate change. Droughts have been reported to be relevant for a major part of Portugal. It is unclear if proper drought management planning and actions are in place to justify the Article 4(6) exemptions which have already been applied in the first RBMPs. According to the information provided by Portugal, Article 4(6) only referred to water bodies potentially affected. Furthermore, Prevention, Monitoring and Contingency Plans for Droughts Situations are in place.

Recommendations Portugal should ensure that the preparation of the next cycle of RBMPs is carried out in accordance with the WFD timetable, to ensure the timely adoption of the third RBMPs. Clear information should be included in the national RBMPs about international coordination efforts, in order to increase transparency. Portugal should continue to improve international cooperation, including coordinated assessments of the technical aspects of the WFD such as applying a harmonised approach for status assessment and coordinated Programmes of Measures in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. Further work is needed in the establishment of reference conditions for some types of Quality Elements and in the review of assessment methodologies, in particular for transitional and coastal waters. Portugal should complete the development of methods for the status assessment of water bodies and should determine the reference conditions and apply them through the implementation of robust monitoring programmes. Portugal should improve monitoring of surface water by covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories, as there has been some deterioration in the monitoring of some biological and hydromorphological quality elements since the first RBMPs. Operational monitoring needs to include all water bodies which are subject to significant pressures, including in coastal waters.

Portugal should complete the development of assessment methods that are WFD compliant for all relevant quality elements and provide a complete assessment of ecological status for all water bodies, including all relevant quality elements. The number of water bodies with unknown status should be reduced, and confidence in the assessment of surface water chemical status improved. For this, monitoring should be performed in the relevant matrix in a way that ensures sufficient spatial coverage and temporal resolution to reach sufficient confidence in the assessment for all water bodies, if necessary in combination with robust grouping/extrapolation methods. In particular all discharged substances should be monitored. If reduced frequencies or a different matrix are used, the corresponding explanations should be provided, as required by the Directives. Trend monitoring should be further improved for all relevant substances, in a way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage. Efforts should be kept up to further improve the methodology for the designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies: clear criteria should be elaborated for the assessment of significant adverse effects of mitigation measures on their use or the wider environment, and the lack of significantly better environmental options. This will improve the transparency of the designation process. As for the definition of ecological potential, a consistent methodology needs to be elaborated and applied for all RBDs, taking into account all relevant biological quality elements. Portugal should continue to strengthen the assessments for the justification of Article 4(4) exemptions by closing still remaining data gaps on drivers, pressures and the necessary measures for the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. Justifications of Article 4(7) exemptions should be further strengthened by ensuring that each project is assessed at water body level, in addition to the performed strategic level assessments. Cost-effectiveness analysis should be applied to support the selection of measures for all RBDs. Portugal should continue updating licenses and permits for all abstractions and flow regulations, and ensure that they are compatible with the WFD objectives. Portugal should continue to develop measures in the third RMBPs, in cooperation with the farming community, to address agricultural phosphorus pressures, so as to facilitate the achievement of the WFD objectives, and ensure that support structures (advice, inspections, funding etc.) are in place to facilitate compliance with the measures. Clearer links should be made between measures and individual pollutants, partly to improve assessment of the need for supplementary measures. The island RBDs should ensure that they gather more information on the pressures from Priority Substances and (potential) River Basin Specific Pollutants, in order to determine the measures needed to combat them. Portugal should ensure that ecological flows are derived and implemented during this second cycle in all RBDs. Portugal should continue prioritising the use of green infrastructure and/or Natural Water Retention Measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements in water quality, flood protection, habitat conservation etc.), social and economic benefits, and which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure. Cost recovery should be applied for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies. Any exemption should be justified using Article 9(4). Portugal should also present in a transparent manner how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. The water-pricing policy should be set out in a transparent fashion and a clear overview of estimated investments and investment needs should be provided. Portugal should ensure that the specific objectives for Shellfish Protected Areas, including the guidance values for microbiological standards, are consistent with the repealed Shellfish Waters Directive.



Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.1.1Administrative arrangements – RBDs Portugal designated 10 RBDs. Eight of these are located in mainland Portugal, and the remaining two are for its autonomous island regions, the Azores and Madeira.

There has been a minor change in the RBDs since the first cycle: the West Rivers, previously included with the Vouga, Mondego and Lis (PTRH4 then, now PTRH4A), are now part of the Tagus and West Rivers RBD (PTRH5A). 1.1.2Administrative arrangements – competent authorities The WISE reporting includes three competent authorities: the Portuguese Environment Agency (for mainland Portugal RBDs), and two regional secretariats for environment for the RBDs of the Azores and Madeira. 1.1.3RBMPs – structure and Strategic Environmental Assessment While Portugal did not report sub-plans to WISE, the RBMPs identify several national plans and strategies, covering issues including water scarcity and droughts, adaptation to climate change, rural planning and waste water treatment ( Figure 1 .1). All of the RBMPs in Portugal were subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment.



Figure 1.1 Issues, sectors, sub-basins or water categories in Portugal supplemented by more detailed sub-plans for the second cycle RBD Agriculture Chemical industry Hydropower Transport Water Scarcity and droughts Climate change Coastal erosion Rural planning Urban planning Nutrient enrichment Chemical pollution Other * PTRH1 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ PTRH2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ PTRH3 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ PTRH4A ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ PTRH5A ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ PTRH6 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ PTRH7 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ PTRH8 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ PTRH9 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ PTRH10 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Source: WISE electronic reports Note: Other plans include: water supply, sewerage and waste water treatment; rural development; energy; the sea; waste; resource efficiency; tourism; biodiversity; forests; aquaculture ✓ Covered by sub-plans 1.1.4Public consultation Draft documents for all RBMPs were available for the requisite six months. In all 10 RBDs, the public and interested parties were informed by: direct mailing, Internet, invitations to stakeholders, local authorities, media (papers, TV, radio), meetings, printed material and written consultation. Additionally, documents were available for download. In the Azores, there was also a direct mailing via email and paper copies were available at exhibitions and at meetings of the official committee of interest parties. In Madeira, there was a direct emailing of documents in addition to their being available for download. In all ten Portuguese RBDs, stakeholders were actively involved. All RBDs but one (Madeira being the exception) had advisory councils. Five of the RBDs used regular exhibitions (Sado and Mira, Guadiana, Algarve Rivers, Azores and Madeira). The Tagus and West Rivers RBD referred to the formation of alliances and the Azores RBD to the involvement of stakeholders in drafting. The stakeholders that were actively involved varied across the 10 RBDs; nonetheless, in all, agriculture/farmers and local/regional authorities were involved. Water supply/sanitation stakeholders were actively involved in all RBD ; energy/hydropower industry and NGOs/nature protection stakeholders were involved in six RBMPs. Other stakeholders involved in at least one RBMP were: consumer groups such as fisheries/aquaculture, industry and navigation/ports. Public consultation had the following impacts on the RBMPs: addition of new information (in all RBDs except Tagus and West Rivers); adjustment to specific measures (all RBDs); changes to selection of measures (all RBDs except Vouga, Mondego and Lis and the Azores); commitment to action in the next cycle (all RBDs); and commitment to further research (all RBDs except Vouga, Mondego and Lis, Sado and Mira, Guadiana and the Azores). The European Commission’s 2015 recommendations called for the promotion of 'good coordination between public administration and other stakeholders (...) to improve the planning and implementation of PoM and to monitor their effectiveness'. The information reported to WISE indicates that Portugal established good coordination with stakeholders; it is not clear, however, if coordination has strengthened since the first RBMPs, when stakeholders were also actively involved in the preparation of RBMPs, including via advisory councils. 1.1.5Integration with the Floods Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive A single plan including the RBMP and Floods Risk Management Plan was prepared in the Azores and Madeira RBDs. Joint consultation for both the WFD and Floods Directive was made in all Portugal's 10 RBDs except Guadiana (because floods risk zones were not identified in Guadiana) . Further information on integration with respect to the Programmes of Measures is provided in Chapter 9. None of Portugal's RBDs had joint consultations with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive .

1.1.6International coordination Four Portuguese RBDs are part of international RBDs shared with Spain: Minho and Lima, Douro, Tagus and West Rivers and Guadiana. Portugal reports that an international agreement and permanent cooperation body are in place (designated as category 2 cooperation). Cooperation takes place via the Commission for the implementation and development of the Albufeira Convention, which governs water issues between Portugal and Spain. For all four RBDs, Portugal reports that there was international co-ordination of public participation. According to a document on the joint planning process under the Albufeira Convention for the second RBMPs , cooperation between Portugal and Spain covered: identification and delimitation of transboundary bodies of water, identification of heavily modified water bodies, typology of water bodies, protected areas, significant pressures, monitoring, assessment of the status of water bodies, Programmes of Measures, environmental objectives and their exceptions, public participation, Strategic Environmental Assessment and the monitoring and implementation of plans. In the Guadiana international RBD, for example, seven meetings were held to promote coordination on the development of the respective RBMPs in Portugal and Spain; the two Member States moreover made a commitment to strengthen cooperation in the third cycle (see the fact sheet on the Guadiana international RBD for further information). 1.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle No major changes are apparent from the information reported to WISE. 1.3Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission’s recommendations based on the first RBMPs and Programmes of Measures requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Promote good coordination between public administration and other stakeholders, in particular involving the existing River Basin Councils, to improve the planning and implementation of the Programme of Measures and to monitor their effectiveness. ·Assessment: Information reported to WISE refers to advisory groups in nearly all RBDs (the exception being Madeira). However, the recommendations refer to the role of RBD Councils as advisory bodies for the RBMPs in the first cycle. Consequently, the information available is not sufficient to draw a conclusion as to whether the planning and implementation of the Programmes of Measures and monitoring of their effectiveness has improved vis-a-vis the first cycle. ·Recommendation: Develop the RBMPs for international RBDs in close cooperation with Spain, in particular for as regards the identification of pressures and impacts, design of monitoring networks, methodologies used to assess status and development of PoMs. The 2015 recommendations state that in the first cycle, there was 'coordination between Portugal and Spain for the international RBDs, although no joint plans or actions have been devised', and it calls for the development of the RBMPs for international RBDs 'in close cooperation with Spain'. Joint RBMPs and Programmes of Measures were not developed in the second cycle. Nonetheless, it appears that Portugal and Spain continued and deepened coordination in the second cycle. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled.

Topic 2Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.1.1Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies The total number of surface water bodies identified in Portugal increased by 5 % from the first to the second cycle ( Table 2.1). The largest increase, by 194, was in rivers, while there was a decrease of 99 in the number of lake water bodies. Lakes were reported by eight of the nine RBDs in the first cycle, but only by one of them in the second cycle. This is because the previous lake water bodies are reservoirs: these were reported as lake water bodies in the first cycle, but as river water bodies in the second cycle, given that they were river water bodies before they were dammed to form reservoirs. There was a small increase (2) in coastal waters and a small decrease (1) in transitional water bodies between the two periods. There were only small changes in the numbers of natural surface water bodies between the two cycles, for example a reduction from 24 natural lake water bodies in the first cycle to 23 in the second cycle. However, within the RBDs there were some big changes. In particular, there was a decrease of 30 natural river water bodies in the Vouga, Mondego and Lis RBD and an increase of 32 in the Tagus and West Rivers RBD, reflecting the changes in the RBD boundaries. The biggest change in the designation of heavily modified water bodies was in the reporting of reservoirs as rivers, when in the first cycle they had been considered as lakes. There were no changes in the numbers of heavily modified coastal and transitional water bodies. In terms of the total number of designated heavily modified water bodies, there was an increase of 40 (19 %) between the two cycles ( Figure 2.1 ). 12.5 % of surface water bodies in Portugal were designated as heavily modified in the second cycle, compared to 11 % in the first cycle. Artificial water bodies represented 3.5 % of surface water bodies in Portugal and were identified in rivers and coastal waters. There was no change in the numbers of artificial coastal waters between the two cycles but there was an increase of 43 artificial river water bodies (an 80 % increase). Much of this increase occurred in the Madeira RBD, where numbers increased from zero in the first cycle to 43 in the second cycle. The reason for this is that "levadas", which are man-made channels used for irrigation, were delineated as artificial water bodies for the second cycle in the Madeira RBD. Table 2.1Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in Portugal for the second and first cycles Year RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Number of water bodies Total length of water body (km) Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies 2016 PTRH1 61 530 8 29 2 58 2016 PTRH2 76 722 6 7 1 222 2016 PTRH3 387 5,068 3 7 2 362 2016 PTRH4A 215 3,189 10 130 5 609 2016 PTRH5A 457 7,223 4 399 6 2,870 2016 PTRH6 226 2,515 9 217 3 2,063 2016 PTRH7 261 3,046 5 36 2 17 2016 PTRH8 69 863 4 10 10 1,763 2016 PTRH9 10 57 23 9 3 0 27 7,719 (7,909) 2016 PTRH10 137 888 8 1,447 2016 Total 1,899 24,100 23 9 52 835 66 17,129 (17,323) 2010 PTRH1 56 501 3 16 10 39 2 58 2010 PTRH2 69 723 7 41 6 7 1 222 2010 PTRH3 361 37,046 17 86 3 7 2 362 2010 PTRH4 236 3,779 9 26 10 130 8 3,099 2010 PTRH5 395 6,757 24 148 4 368 2 382 2010 PTRH6 195 2,193 19 93 9 217 3 2,064 2010 PTRH7 222 3,006 16 315 5 36 2 17 2010 PTRH8 64 901 3 7 3 9 10 1,764 2010 PTRH9 13 819 24 9 3 0 27 7,722 2010 PTRH10 94 542,851 8 1,447 2010 Total 1,705 598,576 122 742 53 813 65 17,137

Source: WISE electronic reports. For the sake of consistency with other Member States, the values indicated were calculated from the geometries reported in spatial data. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Portugal and are directly extracted from tables in the RBMPs. Figure 2.1 Proportion of surface water bodies in Portugal designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and first cycles. NB - the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category. Source: WISE electronic reports The number of groundwater bodies in Portugal increased by two (1.3 %) in the second cycle ( Table 2 .2). This comprised no change in five of the ten RBDs, small changes in some others and relatively large changes in the Vouga, Mondego and Lis (-8) and Tagus and West Rivers (+8) RBDs, due to the changed boundary between the two RBDs. In the Guadiana RBMP, one groundwater body was deleted. Its status was classified as "unknown” in the first cycle. This results in all groundwater bodies being classified as in "good status" for the second cycle. Table 2.2 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Portugal for the second and first cycles Year RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2016 PTRH1 2 939.08 (939.12) 1,445.54 (1,445.58) 1,192.31 (1,192.35) 2016 PTRH2 4 202.3 (202.31) 1,498.86 (1,498.88) 844.9 (844.92) 2016 PTRH3 3 15.18 18,732.98 (18,735.92) 6,272.37 (6,273.35) 2016 PTRH4A 22 15.23 4,825.90 (4,826.04) 563 (563.02) 2016 PTRH5A 20 5.06 14,267.28 (14,268.05) 1,490.32 (1,490.43) 2016 PTRH6 9 18.42 2,711.24 (2,711.25) 933.65 (933.67) 2016 PTRH7 8 9.62 6,267.47 (6,268.05) 1,463.15 (1,463.26) 2016 PTRH8 25 1.78 819.26 (819.32) 149.67 (149.68) 2016 PTRH9 54 0.42 262.17 (262.99) 42.99 (43.22) 2016 PTRH10 4 24.15 417.87 195.66 (195.67) 2016 Total 151 2010 PTRH1 2 (939.12) (1445.58) (1192.35) 2010 PTRH2 4 (202.31) (1498.88) (844.92) 2010 PTRH3 3 (15.18) (18735.92) (6273.35) 2010 PTRH4 30 5.06 4,826.28 (4,826.04) 510.35 (510.33) 2010 PTRH5 12 7.7 (7.70) 14,268.13 (14,268.15) 2,236.50 (2,236.51) 2010 PTRH6 8 (18.42) (2750.73) (1050.38) 2010 PTRH7 9 (9.62) (6306.43) (1300.67) 2010 PTRH8 23 (5.34) (812.38) (162.69) 2010 PTRH9 54 0.42 262.06 44.32 2010 PTRH10 4 24.15 417.87 195.67 2010 Total 149 Source: WISE electronic reports. For the sake of consistency with other Member States, the values indicated were calculated from the geometries reported in spatial data. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Portugal and are the ones directly reported in the RBMPs. Table 2.3 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in Portugal between the second and first cycles. It is notable that both the minimum size of rivers and the maximum size have decreased overall. The minimum size criteria reported were 10 km2 catchment area for rivers and 0.4 km2 surface area for lakes. However, the Azores RBD has a minimum size criterion of 0.01 km2 surface area for lakes. Table 2.3 Size distribution of surface water bodies in Portugal in the second and first cycles Year RBD River length (km) Lake area (km2) Transitional area (km2) Coastal area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average 2016 PTRH1 2.04 (2.03) 40.81 (40.90) 9.13 (9.14) 0.29 9.75 3.58 5.53 52.69 29.11 2016 PTRH2 1.97 53.33 (53.37) 10.47 (10.48) 0.23 2.56 1.24 221.76 221.7 (221.76) 221.7 (221.76) 2016 PTRH3 0.64 90.2 (90.36) 13.81 (13.82) 0.85 4.45 2.43 1.02 360.5 (360.57) 180.76 (180.80) 2016 PTRH4A 1.7 92.02 (91.74) 15.55 (15.56) 0.37 70.77 12.97 30.3 315.66 (315.71) 121.73 (121.75) 2016 PTRH5A 0.53 (0.52) 254.8 (254.57) 16.76 13.20 188.11 (188.15) 99.78 (99.79) 1.60 1,686.61 (1,687.01) 478.38 (478.61) 2016 PTRH6 1.18 109.91 (109.93) 12.33 0.16 107.92 (107.93) 24.11 2.17 1,393.48 (1,394.28) 687.64 (688.01) 2016 PTRH7 0.71 (0.70) 89.55 (89.66) 13.02 1.12 16.3 7.16 4.60 12.57 8.58 (8.59) 2016 PTRH8 2.03 79.21 (79.18) 13.27 0.02 8.52 (8.51) 2.58 3.52 778.81 (779.18) 176.3 (176.37) 2016 PTRH9 0.99 10.76 (10.63) 5.69 0.01 3.55 (3.64) 0.41 (0.412) 0.01 0.06 0.03 12.92 (13.44) 4,770.00 (4,870.47) 285.89 (292.92) 2016 PTRH10 0.38 61.77 (61.24) 6.48 (6.49) 29.46 (29.44) 644.37 (644.80) 180.83 (180.86) 2010 PTRH1 2.03 40.9 (40.90) 8.95 1.4 (1.40) 9.94 5.34 0.29 9.75 3.90 5.53 52.7 29.11 2010 PTRH2 1.97 53.38 10.48 1.83 21.08 5.93 0.23 2.56 1.24 221.79 (221.76) 221.79 (221.76) 221.79 2010 PTRH3 2.01 20,157.99 102.62 0.55 9.88 5.07 0.85 4.45 2.43 1.02 360.6 180.81 2010 PTRH4 1.7 (1.70) 122.03 16.01 0.4 17.02 2.92 0.37 70.78 (70.77) 12.97 2.5 (2.49) 2,002.81 387.36 2010 PTRH5 0.53 (0.523) 254.57 17.11 0.38 32.7 (32.70) 6.16 9.64 182.09 91.88 1.60 380.08 190.84 2010 PTRH6 1.18 83.98 11.25 0.42 20.02 4.90 0.16 107.93 24.11 2.17 1,394.28 688.02 2010 PTRH7 2.05 89.66 13.54 0.43 241.76 (241.75) 19.66 1.12 16.3 7.16 4.61 (4.60) 12.57 8.59 2010 PTRH8 2.03 79.18 14.08 1.67 3.363.37 2.43 0.02 8.52 (8.51) 2.88 3.52 779.21 176.38 2010 PTRH9 7.77 153.13 (153.12) 62.98 0.01 3.55 0.39 0.01 0.06 0.03 12.91 4,774.61 286.02 2010 PTRH10 1,003.85 27,715.00 5,775.01 29.45 644.8 180.86 Source: WISE electronic reports. For the sake of consistency with other Member States, the values indicated were calculated from the geometries reported in spatial data. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Portugal and are the ones directly reported in the RBMPs. Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by Portugal on how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles. The water body type with the most changes was river water bodies, with water bodies created (n = 56), split (n = 64) and deleted (n = 9). The splitting of water bodies may account for the decrease in the maximum length noted from Table 2.3.

An example of splitting and aggregation is in the Azores RBD, where the only re-delineation was for one small river that was divided into four water bodies in the first cycle and consists of two water bodies in the second cycle. No information regarding the consequences of this re-delineation was found. Table 2.4 Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in Portugal between the second and first cycles Type of water body change for second cycle (wiseEvolutionType) Groundwater Body River Water Body Lake Water Body Transitional Water Body Coastal Water Body aggregation 1 change 10 changeBothAggregationAndSplitting 4 changeCode 1 36 2 changeExtendedArea 13 68 4 2 changeReducedArea 7 4 creation 1 56 deletion 1 9 1 1 noChange 124 1672 23 47 60 splitting 4 49 1 2 Total water bodies before deletion 152 1908 24 52 67 Delineated for second cycle (after deletion from first cycle) 151 1899 23 52 66 Source: WISE electronic reports. 2.1.2Identification of transboundary water bodies in national shares of international RBDs Portugal reported transboundary coastal water bodies in two RBDs, transboundary river water bodies in four RBDs and transboundary transitional water bodies in two RBDs. The delineation has been coordinated by the Commission for the Implementation and Development of the Albufeira Convention, which is the platform that aims to ensure coordination of actions in the process and implementation of the WFD. A joint report was drawn up between Portugal and Spain which reflects the entire planning process for shared water bodies. No transboundary groundwater bodies were reported to WISE . 2.1.3Typology of surface water bodies Table 2.5 shows the number of surface water body types at RBD level in Portugal for the first and second cycles. 10 coastal water types were identified for the second cycle for Portugal: seven of these have the same codes as reported for the first cycle. Three types were intercalibrated with common intercalibration type CW-NEA1/26 (all Atlantic North: National types A5 A6 and A7). Two natural lake types were reported, both only applicable to the Azores: the same two types had been reported in the first cycle. There are no appropriate common intercalibration types for lakes in the Azores. Portugal reported 23 river types in the second cycle, with 12 types shared by more than one RBD; type "ART" was shared by six RBDs. The same 23 type codes had been reported for the first cycle. Six river types were intercalibrated against three common river intercalibration types. Three reservoir types were reported as river types (in the first cycle they had been reported as lake types): one of these was intercalibrated against one common intercalibration type for reservoirs. Five types for transitional waters were reported and one of these was intercalibrated against common intercalibration type TW-NEA11. Two of the five types have the exact same codes of the types reported in the first cycle and the remaining three have codes that appear to have been slightly modified but are in fact the same types. System B was applied in the definition of the typology for surface waters of mainland Portugal. Several variables were used, including climatic and morphological quantitative variables, geology and size of the catchment. Then validation was carried out with biological information from the communities of phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates, diatoms, macrophytes and fish obtained from sampling campaigns carried out at reference sites. Table 2.5 Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Portugal for the first (2010) and second (2016) cycles RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 PTRH1 5 (4) 5 1 0 1 1 1 1 PTRH2 3 4 0 (1) 0 0 (1) 1 2 1 PTRH3 4 (6) 8 1 (2) 0 1 1 1 (2) 2 PTRH4A 6 6 2 (2) 0 1 1 2 (3) 1 PTRH5A 6 (10) 14 2 (3) 0 1 1 2 3 PTRH6 10 (4) 6 3 (1) 0 1 1 2 2 PTRH7 4 7 1 (2) 0 1 1 2 (1) 1 PTRH8 4 (5) 6 (9) 2 (1) 0 1 1 1 (3) 3 PTRH9 5 (1) 1 1 (2) 2 1 (3) 3 3 3 PTRH10 1 (3) 3 2 (0) 0 3 (0) 0 3 (2) 2 TOTAL 20 23 5 2 10 5 5 (10) 10 Source: Commission’s 4th Implementation Report for the 2010 data and WISE electronic reports for the 2016 data. Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are shared by RBDs. Values in brackets are those contained in the WISE reporting done by Portugal for the first RBMPs, which were corrected before inclusion in the Commission’s Implementation Report. A number of the national Portuguese types do not have corresponding intercalibration types. This is the case for 58 % of coastal water bodies in Portugal as a whole (41 % of these are in the Azores and Madeira). For natural lakes (all in the Azores RBD) there are no common intercalibration types. For rivers and transitional waters there are 33 % (1 % in the Azores and Madeira) and 67 % (6 % in the Azores and Madeira), respectively, without a common intercalibration type. Note that the Portuguese water bodies of the archipelagos of Azores and Madeira present unique characteristics, not allowing a comparison with mainland water bodies or with the broad European Union types defined in the intercalibration exercise.

Eight RBDs reported river water bodies that are reservoirs but were originally rivers. 35 % of the 119 reservoirs have been intercalibrated against the common Mediterranean reservoir type (LW-L-M5/7). Two types associated with these reservoirs did not have reported common intercalibration types: these two types were only reported for reservoirs and represented 65 % of the reservoirs reported. The RBMPs reported that the types established underwent the intercalibration exercise as part of the Macaronesia Region, which presents certain specificities that rendered different System B abiotic factors selection, and thus different biological validation. For some RBDs, in the rivers category only benthic invertebrates and diatoms are relevant, and for the lakes category only phytoplankton is relevant (natural lakes occur only in the Azores). It therefore remains unclear whether the results of the intercalibration exercise have been correctly translated to national types without a common intercalibration type. For international RBDs, the “Summary Report on the Characterization of the Hydrographic Regions provided for the WFD” explained that only a preliminary reconciliation of the typologies defined by Portugal and Spain has been undertaken and it is understood that the two countries have carried out the intercalibration exercise, in the respective Geographic Intercalibration Group . 2.1.4Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies Table 2.6 shows the percentage of surface water body types in Portugal with reference conditions established for the first and second cycles. Only 23 natural lakes were reported for Portugal, which are all in the Azores and only had reference conditions established for some biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. Reservoirs were reported as river water bodies. Three types were associated with the reservoirs that were originally rivers and one of the types was associated with a common intercalibration type. However, whilst this type had reference conditions established for all required biological quality elements, none had been established for hydromorphological quality elements and for only some physicochemical quality elements: this puts into doubt the comparability of the status of these reservoirs with the other equivalent types across Europe . 78 % of river water bodies in Portugal were associated with types that have reference conditions for all biological quality elements, and 47 % with types that had reference conditions for all biological and hydromorphological quality elements. In terms of the physicochemical quality elements, 18 river types had reference conditions established for some quality elements, five types had no reference conditions for any physicochemical quality elements and no types had reference conditions for all physicochemical quality elements. Table 2.6 Percentage of surface water body types in Portugal with reference conditions established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. Numbers in parenthesis are the number of types in each category Water category Water types Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Physicochemical quality elements Rivers (23) All 43 % 39 % Some 35 % 30 % 78 % None 22 % 30 % 22 % Lakes (2) All Some 100 % 100 % 100 % None Transitional (5) All 40 % Some 60 % 60 % 100 % None 40 % Coastal (10) All 30 % Some 70 % 50 % 100 % None 50 % Source: WISE electronic reports Only three of the ten coastal water body types had reference conditions established for all biological quality elements. However, these three types did not have reference conditions for any hydromorphological quality elements and only for some physicochemical quality elements. In total 50 % of coastal water bodies did not have reference conditions established for all hydromorphological quality elements and none had reference conditions for all elements. 94 % of the transitional water bodies in Portugal were associated with two types for which there were reference conditions for all biological quality elements, for some physicochemical quality elements and for no hydromorphological quality elements. Type-specific reference conditions were coordinated with Spain for all international RBDs. They were coordinated for biological quality elements, for all the shared types under the same category. Type-specific reference conditions were coordinated only for some physico-chemical elements, for all the shared types under the same category. Reference conditions have been coordinated with all Member States for hydromorphological quality elements, for all the shared types under the same category. 2.1.5Characteristics of groundwater bodies Portugal reported the requested characteristics of groundwater bodies i.e. whether they are layered, linked to a surface water body or linked to a terrestrial ecosystem and their geological formation. 2.1.6Significant pressures on water bodies Portugal reported the most significant pressures on surface waters were diffuse agricultural (39 % of water bodies) followed by diffuse other (30 %) as shown in Figure 2.2. It is difficult to compare pressures between the two cycles because there has been a re-delineation of water bodies and a re-definition of pressure types. However, a tentative comparison can be made for point source and diffuse source at an aggregated level. As shown in Figure 2.3. , 27 % of the 1945 surface water bodies in the first cycle were affected by point source pressures whereas in the second cycle the percentage reported was 24 % of 2040 surface water bodies. The equivalent figures for diffuse source pressures were 46 % in the first cycle and 41 % in the second cycle. Portugal reported five different significant pressures on groundwater bodies from seven RBDs. Diffuse - agriculture affected the greatest proportion of groundwater bodies (13 % of 151 groundwater bodies), followed by alteration of water level or volume (2.6 %) and point source other (1.3 %) ( Figure 2.2 ). The Azores RBMP also reports that saline intrusion is a pressure in some coastal groundwater bodies as a result of their overexploitation, with an ongoing comprehensive study on the subject. In the first cycle, 13 different pressure types were reported covering five RBDs. Diffuse agricultural pressures affected 17 % of the 149 groundwater bodies in Portugal: not necessarily in the same RBDs for both cycles.

Figure 2.2 The most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies in Portugal for the second cycle

Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 2.3 Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Portugal in the first and second cycles. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. NB - there were 2040 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 1945 for the first cycle. Source: WISE electronic reports 2.1.7Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater All 10 Portuguese RBDs reported the same types of tools for the assessment of significant pressures on surface water: a combination of numerical tools and expert judgment were used for point sources, diffuse sources and water flow pressures, whereas for water abstraction pressures numerical tools were used. Significance has not been defined in terms of thresholds in all RBDs except the Azores and the definition of significance was linked to the potential failure of objectives in all RBDs except Madeira. The RBMPs confirmed that there have been no changes in the criteria for the identification of pressures since the first cycle. For example, there is no organic load threshold (or any other kind) that can be linked to the water body status, nor to the objectives themselves. The criteria for significance are: 1) the conservation of habitats or the survival of species directly dependent on water; 2) the quality standards referred to in the specific legislation of protected areas; and 3) water bodies being able to meet the environmental objectives established. Nine of the ten RBDs in Portugal used expert judgement for assessing the significance of point source pressures on groundwater bodies; the Azores used a combination of expert judgment and numerical tools. Significance has not been defined in terms of thresholds in all RBDs and the definition of significance was linked to the potential failure of objectives in all RBDs except Madeira. The Azores RBD used the DRASTIC methodology to assess groundwater body vulnerability to point source pressures. A combination of both types of tools was used for assessing diffuse source pressures in all 10 RBDs. For example, the Guadiana and Madeira RBDs both estimated the pollutant loads to the underlying groundwater body from the agricultural sector as roughly 70 % of the nitrogen load and 20 % of the phosphorus load flowing to surface water bodies. These figures are estimates and no tool was used to develop them. The Azores RBD also employed the DRASTIC methodology for diffuse pressures. Numerical tools were reported by nine RBDs for water abstraction pressures; a combination of numerical tools and expert judgment was used in the Azores. Mainland Portugal and the Madeira and Azores RBDs have a legal definition of the significance of abstraction pressures, which is where abstractions exceed 90 % of the annual average long-term recharge and the groundwater levels recorded during the monitoring period reveal significant downward trends. Artificial recharge pressures were not assessed in Portugal, as artificial recharge is not authorised; some RBMPs mention it as a pressure but state that it is not applicable to their RBD. 2.1.8Significant impacts on water bodies As for pressures, a comparison of significant impacts between the two cycles may not be reliable. However, the proportion of surface water bodies in Portugal impacted by nutrient enrichment in 2010 was 27 % of 1945 surface water bodies and the proportions impacted by nutrient pollution in 2016 was 27 % of 2040 surface water bodies. The main significant impacts on surface water bodies reported for 2016 are shown in Figure 2.4. Only one RBD reported impacts on groundwater bodies in 2010: Algarve Rivers, where four water bodies were impacted by changes in chemical composition and one by “other” impacts. Four different impact types were reported across seven RBDs in 2016, with nutrient pollution affecting the largest proportion of groundwater bodies: 13 % from five RBDs ( Figure 2.4 ). Figure 2.4 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Portugal for the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies Source: WISE electronic reports 2.1.9Quantification of the gap and apportionment of pressures Five RBDs in Portugal reported gaps to good status for diffuse agricultural pressures and for nitrate pollution in groundwater: the indicators of the gaps were in both cases number of water bodies failing Environmental Quality Standards. Gaps and Key Types of Measure (KTM) were reported for all significant pressures identified at the groundwater body level. Point source pressures on surface waters have been identified from a number of sectors/activities: urban waste water (eight RBDs); non IED plants (eight RBDs); IED plants (three RBDs); and waste disposal sites (one RBD). The indicator of the gap is in each case, expressed as number of water bodies failing Environmental Quality Standards. The activities/sectors associated with diffuse source pressures on surface waters were: agriculture (eight RBDs); “other” (eight RBDs); urban run-off (seven RBDs); discharges not connected to sewers (six RBDs); aquaculture (four RBDs); contaminated sites (three RBDs); and mining (one RBD). The number of water bodies failing Environmental Quality Standards was again used as the indicator of the gap.

Abstraction or flow diversion for public water supply was reported by six RBDs, for industry for four RBDs and for agriculture for three RBDs. The gap indicator was "Number of bodies of water that do not meet environmental objectives due to this type of pressure". Hydrological alteration pressures have been identified from a number of sectors/activities: hydropower (six RBDs), public water supply (six RBDs) and agriculture (five RBDs). Portugal generally reported gaps and KTMs for most significant pressures reported at the surface water body level. The exceptions were for abstraction or flow diversion - hydropower pressures in six RBD, diffuse - aquaculture in two RBDs and physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - unknown or obsolete in two RBDs. The quantification of gaps to be filled for chemical substances causing failure of status objectives have been defined for nitrate in groundwater in five RBDs and for petroleum hydrocarbons in one RBD. Gaps have been defined for six Priority Substances in surface waters: 4-nonylphenol (six RBDs), endosulfan (one RBD), tributyltin (one RBD), lead (two RBDs), nickel (four RBDs) and cadmium (two RBDs). There are also gaps for River Basin Specific Pollutants such as antimony (one RBD), chromium (one RBD), copper (five RBDs), zinc (two RBDs) and total cyanide (one RBD). There are a number of chemicals/determinands that might be considered as physicochemical quality elements such as nitrate, phosphate, ammonium, total phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, pH and biological oxygen demand. 2.1.10Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status 21 groundwater bodies in Portugal (14 %) were reported to be at risk of failing good chemical status. Nine pollutants were reported to be causing risk. The pollutant causing the risk in most groundwater bodies was nitrate (13 % of groundwater bodies). Four (3 %) groundwater bodies were at risk of failing good quantitative status; water balance was reported to be the reason for the risk and the environmental objective at risk was uses or functions of groundwater. 2.1.11Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQS Directive) requires Member States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all Priority Substances and the 8 other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I of the Directive for each RBD, or part thereof, lying within their territory. This inventory should allow Member States to further target measures to tackle pollution from Priority Substances. It should also inform the review of the monitoring networks, and allow the assessment of progress made in reducing (or suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for Priority Substances (and Priority Hazardous Substances). All RBDs except Madeira have established inventories. 24 Priority Substances appeared in at least one of these inventories. Nine RBDs had inventories for cadmium and mercury,eight8 RBDs for nickel and seven RBDs for lead. For example, the Cavado, Ave and Leca RBD included 18 Priority Substances in an inventory, and Minho and Lima only four. It is not clear whether the two-step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 has been followed for most of the substances included in the inventories. Tier 1 of the methodology was implemented for all substances included in the inventories (while the Guidance Document recommends to implement at least Tier 1 + 2 for substances relevant at RBD level) . The data quality was not reported. 2.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle The total number of surface water bodies identified in Portugal increased by 5 % from the first to the second RBMPs. The largest increase, by 194, was in rivers, while there was a decrease of 99 in the number of lakes bodies. Lakes were reported by 8 of the 9 RBDs in the first RBMPs, but only in one of these in the second. This is because the previous lake water bodies are reservoirs. Following the Commission guidance they were reported as river water bodies in the second RBMPs (as they were formerly river water bodies before they were dammed to form reservoirs). There were no changes in the numbers of heavily modified coastal and transitional water bodies between the two cycles. In terms of the total number of designated heavily modified water bodies, there was an increase of 40 (19 %) between the two cycles. 12.5 % of surface water bodies in Portugal were designated as heavily modified in the second cycle, compared to 11 % in the first cycle. Artificial water bodies represented 3.5 % of surface water bodies in Portugal. Artificial water bodies were identified in rivers and coastal waters. There is no change in the numbers of artificial coastal waters between the two cycles but there was an increase of 43 artificial river water bodies (an 80 % increase). Much of this increase occurred in the Madeira RBD where numbers increased from zero in the first cycle to 43 in the second cycle. The reason for this is that "levadas", which are man-made channels used for irrigation, were delineated for the second cycle. Other than for the significant change in how reservoirs have been reported, it appears that there has been no change in the typology used for both cycles: there are small differences in coding but these are probably due to re-coding of the same type. It is difficult to compare pressures between the two cycles because there has been a re-delineation of water bodies and a re-definition of pressure types. However, a tentative comparison can be made for point source and diffuse source at an aggregated level. In the first cycle, 27 % of the 1945 surface water bodies in Portugal were affected by point source pressures whereas in the second cycle the percentage reported was 24 % of 2040 surface water bodies. The equivalent figures for diffuse source pressures were 46 % in the first cycle and 41 % in the second cycle. In the second cycle, Portugal reported five different significant pressures on groundwater bodies from seven RBDs. Diffuse agricultural pressures affected the greatest proportion of groundwater bodies (13 % of 151 groundwater bodies), followed by alteration of water level or volume (2.6 %) and point source other (1.3 %). In the first cycle, 13 different pressure types were reported covering five RBDs. Diffuse agricultural pressures affected 17 % of the 149 groundwater bodies in Portugal: not necessarily in the same RBDs for both cycles. As for pressures, a comparison of significant impacts between the two cycles may not be reliable. However, the proportion of surface water bodies in Portugal impacted by nutrient enrichment in the first cycle was 27 % of 1944 surface water bodies and the proportion impacted by nutrient pollution in the second cycle was 27 % of 2040 surface water bodies. There seems to have been an increase in surface water body affected by organic enrichment/ pollution from 12 % in the first to 41 % in the second cycle. Only the Algarve Rivers RBD reported impacts on groundwater bodies in the first cycle, where four water bodies were impacted by changes in chemical composition and one by “other” impacts. Four different impact types were reported across seven RBDs in the second cycle, with nutrient pollution affecting the largest proportion of groundwater bodies: 13 % from five RBDs. 2.3Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and Programmes of Measures requested action on the following:

·Recommendation: Complete the development of methods for the status assessment of water bodies and determination of reference conditions and apply them through the implementation of robust monitoring programmes. An adequate WFD-compliant assessment and monitoring framework is a necessary pre-requisite to design effective Programme of Measures and ultimately to achieve the WFD objectives. [Reference conditions for the classification of transitional and coastal waters had not yet been defined]. Assessment: There are still significant gaps in the reference conditions for some types of quality elements in all water categories. For example, only three of the ten coastal water body types had reference conditions established for all biological quality elements. However, these three types did not have reference conditions for any hydromorphological quality elements and only for some physicochemical quality elements. In total, 50 % of coastal water bodies did not have reference conditions established for all hydromorphological quality elements and none had reference conditions for all elements. 94 % of the transitional water bodies in Portugal were associated with two types for which there were reference conditions for all biological quality elements, for some physicochemical quality elements and for no hydromorphological quality elements. In summary, there has been some progress in establishing reference conditions in coastal waters and transitional waters but there are still some gaps, therefore this recommendation has been partially fulfilled .



Topic 3Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 3.1.1Monitoring of ecological status/potential Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for the assessment of the status of surface water and of groundwater in order to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. Territorial waters are not a water body category under the WFD. However, it should be noted that under Article 2(1) of the WFD, territorial waters are included for the assessment and reporting of chemical status. Monitoring programmes Portugal reported monitoring programmes covering the surveillance and operational monitoring of surface water and groundwater, and also quantitative monitoring for groundwater. No programmes to monitor chemical status were reported for territorial waters. However there were differences between RBDs in terms of the type of programme in relation to the water categories identified in each RBD. In the Cávado, Ave and Leça, Douro, Vouga, Mondego and Lis, Tagus and West Rivers, Sado and Mira and Algarve Rivers RBDs there are surveillance programmes for each identified water category but no operational monitoring for transitional and coastal waters. In the Guadiana RBD there were no monitoring programmes for coastal waters even though coastal waters have been designated in this RBD. In the Azores RBD there was only an operational programme for lakes but no surveillance programme, even though there was a surveillance programme for the other three water categories. There were surveillance programmes only for groundwater and coastal waters in the Madeira RBD even though rivers were also defined . Monitoring sites The total number of monitoring sites reported by Portugal increased by 36 % between the first and second RBMPs. Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes in the first and second RBMPs, and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for the second RBMPs. Table 3.1 Number of sites reported to be used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Portugal for the second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported in the first RBMPs, the data for the second RBMPs does not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring. Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op Second RBMPs PTRH1 17 28 2 0 17 0 0 0 PTRH2 8 49 6 2 10 0 2 0 PTRH3 76 91 21 3 5 0 3 0 PTRH4A 49 49 6 1 35 0 7 0 PTRH5B 43 164 13 10 10 0 22 0 PTRH6 36 44 12 0 14 0 15 0 PTRH7 45 44 29 0 15 0 0 0 PTRH8 16 26 4 1 5 0 17 0 PTRH9 20 (22) 0 1 (23) 22 (15) 0 (3) 3(0) 42 (38) 0 PTRH10 0 (22) 0 0 0 0 0 0 (14) 0 Total by type of site 310 (334) 495 94 (116) 39 (32) 111 (114) 3 108 (118) 0 Total number of monitoring sites 805 (819) 133 (148) 114 (117) 108 (118) First RBMPs PTRH1 19 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 PTRH2 16 23 6 2 7 0 1 0 PTRH3 58 62 4 12 3 0 1 0 PTRH4 65 62 4 5 9 0 3 0 PTRH5 83 85 10 13 4 0 1 0 PTRH6 21 31 2 7 3 0 2 0 PTRH7 16 41 3 9 3 0 42 0 PTRH8 23 10 3 0 9 0 3 2 PTRH9 23 0 23 15 3 5(0) 1(38_ 2(0) PTRH10 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total by type of site 346 321 56 63 42 5(0) 54(91) 4(2) Total number of monitoring sites 667 119 47(42) 58(93) Sources: Member States electronic reports to WISE. Numbers in parentheses were subsequently provided by Portugal.



Table 3.2 Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes in Portugal Monitoring Purpose Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal CHE - Chemical status 20 23 3 56 ECO - Ecological status 20 23 3 56 OPE - Operational monitoring 495 39 3 SUR - Surveillance monitoring 310 94 111 108 Total sites irrespective of purpose 805 133 114 122 Source: WISE electronic reports

There were no reported operational monitoring sites in coastal waters in any of the RBDs in Portugal: significant point source, diffuse source and hydromorphological pressures are reported for coastal waters. Surveillance sites were reported in coastal waters in seven of the ten RBDs that designated this category of water bodies: Portugal subsequently indicated that additionally there were unreported surveillance monitoring sites in the Madeira RBD. Lakes were only designated in one RBD (the Azores), but all RBDs reported surveillance sites in lakes and six RBDs reported operational sites in lakes . Member States were asked to report for heavily modified river or lake water bodies whether the water body is a reservoir that has been created by damming a river (“Yes, it is a reservoir and the water body was originally a river”) or an existing lake (“No, it is a reservoir but the water body was originally a lake”). Portugal reported 119 reservoirs where the water body was originally a river: these reservoirs may be monitored as lakes and the sites reported to be in lakes. Portugal subsequently confirmed that these water bodies were reported as rivers, but in every other aspect (namely classification systems) were reported as lakes. Surveillance sites were reported in all RBDs with transitional waters except for the Azores RBD where they were only monitored operationally. All RBDs with rivers reported surveillance sites and all except the Azores RBD also reported operational monitoring sites. The Madeira RBD designated coastal waters and rivers but reported no operational or surveillances sites: instead they reported the (14) sites in coastal waters to be for monitoring of chemical and/or ecological status and there were no sites in rivers. Portugal subsequently indicated that a surface water surveillance monitoring programme in the Azores RBD had not been reported to WISE: it included 23 sites in lakes, 10 sites in rivers, 3 sites in transitional waters and 27 sites in coastal waters. Similarly for the Madeira RBD, 22 surveillance sites in rivers and 14 surveillance sites in coastal waters had not been reported to WISE. Compared to the first RBMPs there was an increase in the number of surveillance sites in six RBDs, a decrease in one RBD and no changes in the other three RBDs. In rivers, there was a decrease in the number of surveillance sites in seven RBDs and an increase in three. Overall, there was a 100 % increase in numbers of surveillance sites in coastal waters, a 68 % increase in lakes, a 10 % decrease in rivers and a 164 % increase in transitional water sites from the first to the second RBMPs. In terms of operational monitoring there was a decrease in the numbers of sites in two RBDs from the first to the second RBMPs and no change in the others. For rivers, there was an increase in the numbers of operational sites from the first to the second RBMPs in seven RBDs, a decrease in one and no change in the other two. Overall, there was a 100 % decrease in the number of operational sites in coastal waters, a 39 % decrease in lakes, a 54 % increase in rivers and a 40 % decrease in transitional waters from the first to the second RBMPs. Monitored quality elements Table 3.3 illustrates the quality elements used for the monitoring of lakes and rivers for the second RBMPs: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. Table 3.3 Quality elements monitored for the second RBMPs in Portugal (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants). Note: quality elements may be used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Phytoplankton Macrophytes Phytobenthos Benthic invertebrates Fish Angiosperms Macroalgae Other aquatic flora Other species Hydrological or tidal regime Continuity conditions Morphological conditions Lakes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Transitional Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Coastal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes General physicochemical quality elements Transparency conditions Thermal conditions Oxygenation conditions Salinity conditions Acidification status Nitrogen conditions Phosphorus Conditions Silicate Other determinand for nutrient conditions Lakes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Transitional Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Coastal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Source: WISE electronic reports For Portugal as a whole, in terms of the biological quality elements used for the surveillance monitoring of coastal waters, lakes and transitional waters, phytoplankton was the most commonly used (in around 95 % of water bodies included in surveillance monitoring). The other expected quality elements for coastal waters were monitored in 81 % of water bodies for macroalgae, and 88 % of water bodies for benthic invertebrates. In transitional waters, 91 % of water bodies are monitored for benthic invertebrates and 84 % for fish but the proportion monitored for macroalgae is much lower i.e. 27 % of water bodies included in surveillance monitoring. In lakes, phytoplankton is virtually the only biological quality element used in surveillance monitoring with one water body also monitored for macrophytes and benthic invertebrates. Regarding reservoirs, Portugal explained that it considers that phytoplankton is the only biological quality element applicable. In rivers, benthic invertebrates is the biological quality element mainly included in surveillance monitoring (73 % of river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring), followed by phytobenthos (58 % of river water bodies), fish (18 %) macrophytes (17 %) and phytoplankton (2 %): phytoplankton is not a relevant quality element for rivers but is relevant in reservoirs. A number of biological quality elements are also unrepresentatively monitored in rivers. The two hydromorphological quality elements required to be monitored for surveillance purpose in coastal waters were monitored in 90 % of water bodies included in surveillance monitoring. However, the required elements in rivers and transitional water were monitored in around 50 % of water bodies included in surveillance monitoring. Hydromorphological quality elements are only monitored for surveillance purposes in one lake water body.

The expected physicochemical quality elements are monitored in a relatively high proportion (around 90 %) of water bodies included in surveillance monitoring. In coastal waters, all the required biological quality elements were monitored in 71 % of water bodies included in surveillance monitoring, all the required hydromorphological quality elements in 88 % of water bodies and all required physicochemical quality elements in 24 % of water bodies. In rivers, all the required biological quality element were monitored in 11 % of water bodies included in surveillance monitoring. In transitional waters, all the required biological quality elements were monitored in 24 % of water bodies included in surveillance monitoring, all the required hydromorphological quality elements in 49 % of water bodies and all required physicochemical quality elements in 87 % of water bodies. Three transitional water bodies were operationally monitored in Portugal and all the expected quality elements were monitored in all of them. A full range of biological quality elements and other relevant quality elements were included in the operational monitoring of river and lake water bodies. 97 % of lake water bodies included in operational monitoring were monitored for phytoplankton, and a higher proportion of lake water bodies were monitored for the other biological quality elements than was the case for surveillance purposes: for example, 59 % of lake water bodies monitored for benthic invertebrates for operational purposes and only 1 % for surveillance purposes. The most commonly monitored biological quality element in rivers for operational purposes was benthic invertebrates, which were monitored in 83 % of river water bodies included in operational monitoring. Annex V of the Water Framework Directive provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the six year period covered by a RBMP. For phytoplankton this should be done twice during the monitoring year and for the other biological quality elements once during the year. Of the five biological quality elements used for surveillance monitoring of coastal waters, two were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency: the lowest rate was for macroalgae, for which 43 % of sites met the minimum recommended frequency. Overwhelmingly, phytoplankton was used for the monitoring of lakes for surveillance purposes and 99 % of sites were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency. The other three reported biological quality elements were only sampled at one site, all with a lower than recommended frequency. Only one of the five relevant biological quality elements reported for the surveillance monitoring of rivers (fish) was sampled at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites. Macrophytes had the lowest rate (73 % of sites). All of the biological quality elements used for surveillance monitoring of transitional waters were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites. Coastal waters were not operationally monitored. There was a very low rate of alignment with the minimum recommended sampling frequency for four biological quality elements included in the operational monitoring of lakes: no sites for three of the four and only 16 % of sites for phytoplankton. In contrast to surveillance monitoring, fish were only sampled at least at the minimum frequency at 7 % of sites. Macrophytes were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at none of the sites and phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates at all sites. Again in contrast to surveillance monitoring, there were few sites used for the operational monitoring of transitional waters and none was sampled at the minimum recommended frequency for any of the five reported biological quality elements. River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored Portugal reported that 16 substances/determinands that are not Priority Substances were being monitored. According to the Reporting Guidance for the second RBMPs it was expected that these would be River Basin Specific Pollutants. However, all might also be defined as general physicochemical quality elements. None of these substances match the River Basin Specific Pollutants reported in the context of setting Environmental Quality Standards. This may however be a reporting issue, as River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored at the generic quality element level in all four water categories and the results of monitoring were subsequently reported to be used in the classification of the ecological status/potential in rivers and lakes. In addition, Portugal subsequently clarified that in mainland Portugal, several River Basin Specific Pollutants were defined, including both metals and synthetic substances: Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Copper, Chromium, Zinc, Bentazone, Cyanide, 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), 2,4-dichlorophenol, 3,4-Dichloroaniline, Dimethoate, Ethylbenzene, Tributyl phosphate, Linuron, Mecoprop (MCPP), Xylene, Toluene, Terbuthylazine, Desethylterbuthylazine, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol. Table 3.4 shows the number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants (reported at the level of the quality element) in Portugal in the first and second RBMPs. Table 3.4 Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants for the second RBMPs and non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants for the first RBMPs in Portugal. Note that the data from both cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used and also not all Member State reported information at the site level, meaning that there were no equivalent data for the first RBMPs. RBMP Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal first Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants 92 49 44 16 second Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 294 27 3 42 Sources: WISE electronic reports Surveillance and operational monitoring of surface water bodies Figure 3.1 shows the proportion of water bodies subject to surveillance and operational monitoring. 20 % of surface water bodies in Portugal are included in surveillance monitoring compared to 19 % for operational monitoring. It is difficult to compare the relative proportion of lake and river water bodies included in the different types of monitoring because of how reservoirs have been reported: as river water bodies in the surface water body schema and as lakes in the monitoring schema. However, a striking observation is that no coastal water bodies are included in operational monitoring, while 73 % are included in surveillance monitoring. 87 % of transitional water bodies (in eight RBDs) are included in surveillance monitoring. Operational monitoring of transitional waters is only undertaken in the Azores RBD but these are not included in surveillance monitoring. Even though there is monitoring of coastal waters in the Madeira RBD, this was reported not to be for surveillance or operational purposes but for ecological and chemical status purposes. There was no comparable information available for the first RBMPs.



Figure 3.1 Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Portugal for the first RMPs (2010) and second RBMPs (2016). Note that no differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring

Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.2 shows the proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that is subject to surveillance monitoring. Figure 3.2 Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that is included in surveillance monitoring in Portugal Source: WISE electronic reports. A differentiated presentation between ecological status and potential and including all types of quality element can be viewed here - https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityElement_Status_Compare/SWB_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false&:showVizHome=no Transboundary surface water body monitoring Portugal reported transboundary coastal water bodies in two RBDs, transboundary river water bodies in four RBDs and transboundary transitional water bodies in two RBDs. However, no monitoring sites were reported to be part of or contributing to international monitoring networks. 3.2 Assessment and classification of ecological status/potential of surface water 3.2.1Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies The ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Portugal for the second RBMPs is illustrated in Map 3.1 . This is based on the most recent assessment of status. The number of delineated surface water bodies for the first RBMPs was 1945, this increased by around 5 % to 2040 for the second. Overall ecological status has been reported for almost all delineated water bodies, except artificial rivers and 33 % of coastal and transitional water bodies. Map 3.1 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Portugal based on the most recently assessed status/potential of the surface water bodies Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). High Good Moderate Poor Bad Unknown RBDs Countries outside the European Union Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) A differentiated presentation of this data between ecological status and potential and including all types of quality elements can be viewed here - https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityElement_Status_Compare/SWB_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false&:showVizHome=no

Figure 3.3 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies in Portugal for the first RBMPs with that for the second (based on the most recent assessment of status/potential) and that expected by 2015. The overall ecological status/potential has not improved significantly since the first RBMPs. Overall for Portugal there was a 4 % decrease in the proportion of high status and an increase of 4 % of surface water bodies in good status/potential from the first to the second RBMPs. Whilst there was little change in the proportion of surface water bodies in poor status/potential, there was an increase in the proportions of moderate (19 % ) and bad (63 % ) status/potential. Figure 3.3 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Portugal for the second RBMPs, for the first RBMPs and expected in 2015. The numbers in the parenthesis are the number of surface water bodies for each cycle. Note that the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 2008 to 2016. The year of the assessment of status for first RBMPs is not known Source: WISE electronic reports 3 % of coastal water bodies, zero lakes, 5 % of river water bodies and 4 % of transitional water bodies were reported to have unknown ecological status/po