EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 42 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Spain 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) 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) 56 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 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 the first cycle 1.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 2 Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with 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 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the 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 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 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 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 the 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 the 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 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 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 the 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 the first cycle 13.3 Progress with Commission recommendations

Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies 14.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance 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 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 WFD requirements in the second cycle and main changes since the first cycle 16.2 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 QA/QC Directive Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Annex 0 Water Information System for Europe 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 River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) prepared earlier. The situation in the Member States may have changed since then.





General Information Map A Map of River Basin Districts Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) International River Basin Districts (within European Union) International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) National River Basin Districts (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters



The information on areas of the national river basin districts including sharing countries is provided in the following table: Table A: Overview of Spain‘s River Basin Districts RBD Name English Name Size (km2) International Countries sharing RBD ES010 Miño-Sil Miño-Sil 17588 ✓ PT ES014 Galicia-Costa Galicia-Coast 16300 - ES017 Cantábrico Oriental Eastern Cantabrian 6391 ✓ FR ES018 Cantábrico Occidental Western Cantabrian 18978 ES020 Duero Duero 78886 ✓ PT ES030 Tajo Tagus 55784 ✓ PT ES040 Guadiana Guadiana 55560 ✓ PT ES050 Guadalquivir Guadalquivir 57686 - ES060 Cuencas Mediterráneas Andaluzas Andalusian Mediterranean Basins 20019 - ES063 Guadalete y Barbate Guadalete and Barbate 6499 - ES064 Tinto, Odiel y Piedras Tinto, Odiel and Piedras 4945 - ES070 Segura Segura 20242 - ES080 Júcar Jucar 44871 - ES091 Ebro Ebro 85942 ✓ AD, FR ES100 Distrito de Cuenca Fluvial de Cataluña Catalan River Basin District 18041 ES110 Islas Baleares Balearic Islands 8731 - ES120 Gran Canaria Gran Canaria 2111 - ES122 Fuerteventura Fuerteventura 2894 - ES123 Lanzarote Lanzarote 2118 - ES124 Tenerife Tenerife 2837 - ES125 La Palma La Palma 981 - ES126 La Gomera La Gomera 530 - ES127 El Hierro El Hierro 529 - ES150 Ceuta Ceuta 60 ✓ MA ES160 Melilla Melilla 24 ✓ MA Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE (Spain subsequently corrected the names of several river basin districts). The share of Spain in the respective international RBDs is shown in the following table. Table B: Transboundary river basins by category and % share in Spain Name international river basin National RBD Countries sharing RBD Coordination category 2 3 km² % km² % Miño/Minho ES010 PT 16226 95.0 Duero/Douro ES020 PT 78859 80.7 Guadiana ES040 PT 55454 82.7 Ebro ES091 AD, FR 85534 99 Segre (Sub-Basin Ebro/Rhone) ES091 AD, FR 18750 95.2 Lima/Limia ES010 PT 1326 52.9 Tajo/Tejo ES030 PT 55772 78.3 Garonne ES017/ES091 FR 555 0.7 Nive (Sub-Basin Adour-Garonne RBD) ES017 FR 121 19.0 Nivelle (Sub-Basin Adour-Garonne RBD) ES017 FR 70 12.0 Bidasoa (Sub-Basin Adour-Garonne RBD) ES017 FR 689 97.0 Ceuta ES150 MA 60 Melilla ES160 MA 24 Source: WISE electronic reporting 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 second river basin management plan reporting A total of 18 of the 25 RBMPs of Spain (Miño-Sil, Galicia-Coast, Eastern Cantabrian, Western Cantabrian, Duero, Tagus, Guadiana, Guadalquivir, Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, Guadalete and Barbate, Tinto, Odiel and Piedras, Segura, Jucar, Ebro, Catalan River Basin District, Balearic Islands, Ceuta, Melilla) were published between 18 July 2015 and 22 January 2016. Seven RBMPs (El Hierro, La Gomera, La Palma, Tenerife, Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria) were adopted between September 2018 and January 2019. 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 Spain are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation ·A broad range of stakeholder groups were actively involved in the development of the RBMPs, including via advisory groups. ·Spain has strengthened cooperation with Portugal on the implementation of the WFD and the preparation of their respective RBMPs. ·While Spain has improved cooperation with France on river basin management, the information available suggest there is room for improvement in the third RBMPs. ·For all but two RBDs, consultation of RBMPs and FRMPs was co-ordinated and steps have been taken to co-ordinate measures across the two Directives. ·Spain did adopt and publish most of its RBMPs (18 out of 25) in accordance with the timetable in the WFD. Spain had not reported seven of its 25 RBMPs (Gran Canaria, Fuerteventura, Lanzarote, Tenerife, La Palma, La Gomera and El Hierro) and these have therefore not been included in this assessment. These plans have been recently approved by the Regional Government. ·Characterisation of the RBD Further characterisation work of groundwater bodies has been undertaken since the first RBMPs, by describing the geological formation and whether or not they are layered. Spain has also included an assessment of linkages with surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems. The Typology has not been made biologically relevant for all types for the second RBMPs. In addition, for a large proportion of water body types in all water categories, no equivalent intercalibration type was reported. If the results of the intercalibration exercise have not been appropriately translated to these national types then the validity of the classification of ecological status/potential of a significant proportion of surface water bodies can be questioned. There are no water bodies in Spain that have had reference conditions established for all relevant hydromorphological or all relevant physicochemical quality elements. There are also gaps in terms of reference conditions for all relevant biological quality elements in all water categories. There have been improvements in the assessment of significant pressures with more water bodies identified as having pressures, as a consequence of a more detailed analysis of significant pressures. At the same time, for a number of RBDs, expert judgment is still used to define the significance of pressures, instead of numerical methods such as modelling which would make the analysis more quantitative and robust. All RBDs in Spain reported inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of priority substances, except Ceuta, but the inventories do not include all Priority Substances. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status

·The proportion of river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring increased in nine of the 16 RBDs for which there is relevant information for both the first and second RBMPs. However, it decreased in the other seven RBDs. For operational monitoring, the proportion of river water bodies covered increased in 10 RBDs and decreased in the other six. ·There was a 39 % reduction in the number of surveillance monitoring sites and an 18 % reduction in the number of operational monitoring sites since the first RBMPs. ·There are significant gaps in the monitoring of all required quality elements in surveillance monitoring. River Basin Specific Pollutants have been monitored in all water categories. A total of 221 pollutants have been selected. Standards have been set for some (but not all) pollutants in accordance with the Technical Guidance Document No 27. The analytical methods used are in line with Article 4(1) or Article 4(2) of the QA/QC Directive (2009/90/EC) for almost all standards. ·The classification of ecological status is based on more comprehensive classification methods than was the case for the first RBMPs. More relevant biological quality elements were considered, e.g. fish and phytoplankton in rivers, as well as some hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. ·The majority of water bodies have been classified based on monitoring at the quality element level, which is a significant improvement since the first RBMPs. ·The overall ecological status/potential has slightly improved, but the proportion of water bodies at less than good status is still between 30 and 70 % for natural rivers in most RBDs. ·Most water bodies are classified with high or medium confidence, which is a great improvement since the first cycle ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies Significant progress has been made in reducing the proportion of surface water bodies with unknown status since the first RBMPs (from 37 to 6 %).This resulted in a large increase in the proportion of surface water bodies with good chemical status (from 58 % to 87 %) and a small increase in the proportion with poor status from 5 to 6 %. 54 % of the classified water bodies were assessed based on monitoring, 45 % by expert judgement and less than 1 % by grouping. A relatively high proportion of water bodies were therefore classified by expert judgement, which could be linked to the low confidence in the assessment (40 % of surface water bodies were classified with low confidence). Territorial waters were not monitored and assessed for chemical status. There seemed to be some inconsistencies in the number of sites and water bodies reported for chemical monitoring in the other water categories. Three RBDs did not report any monitoring programme. In 10 RBDs, all Priority substances included in an inventory and discharged were monitored. In a further six RBDs, some of the substances discharged are not monitored. Not all inventories considered all priority substances, so it is not clear whether all discharged substances have been identified. The remaining RBDs did not report an inventory. The number of Priority Substances monitored in water for status assessment is variable depending on the RBD; between 4 and 41 Priority Substances are monitored. There is also a high degree of variability in the proportion of water bodies monitored between RBDs and water categories. The recommended minimum frequency were met at some sites for 40 of the 41 substances for operational and for all substances for surveillance monitoring. Fewer substances meet these recommended minimum frequencies in coastal and transitional waters than in surface freshwaters. Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene were monitored in biota for status assessment in four of the 18 RBDs, but not in all water categories (one additional RBD monitors only mercury and hexachlorobutadiene in biota). The spatial coverage appears to be very limited in these RBDs. The recommended minimum frequency was met at all sites in twoRBDs but at fewer sites in the remaining RBDs. Up to 14 substances were monitored for trend in sediment and /or biota depending on the RBD (nine RBDs did not report any trend monitoring). Monitoring was undertaken at some sites in all water categories. However, the spatial coverage appears to be very limited. The recommended minimum frequency was met in the majority of sites. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 84 groundwater bodies are still not subject to groundwater quantitative monitoring. It has to be considered that information from the Canary Islands river basin districts has not been reported in the second cycle reporting. In river basin districts Ceuta and Melilla, there is no quantitative monitoring. The number of monitoring sites increased by approximately 15 % when comparing the two planning cycles. All groundwater bodies now have a clear status. About 25 % of the groundwater bodies are at risk of failing good quantitative status. The overall status situation improved: for the RBDs for which information is also available from the first RBMP, the number of groundwater bodies failing good quantitative status declined slightly.





·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies Efforts have been made in groundwater status assessment, so the number of groundwater bodies in unknown status has been significantly reduced since the first RBMPs (from 8 to 1 out of 729 groundwater bodies). 31 % of the total groundwater body area is failing good chemical status. The coverage of groundwater bodies by monitoring of chemical status is not complete, neither for surveillance monitoring nor for operational monitoring. The coverage of groundwater bodies at risk by operational monitoring has increased since the first RBMP (18 %) Not all substances causing risk are subject to monitoring. All WFD core parameters are monitored in seven river basin districts but in nine river basin districts the coverage is incomplete. Threshold values have not been established for all substances causing risk and in two of 18 river basin districts natural background levels have not been considered. ·Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential The second RBMPs include assessments of the significant adverse effects of measures on the use and wider environment and an assessment of better environmental options on the level of water bodies. However, no criteria and thresholds to define significant effects are provided in the RBMPs or the methodological documents. In the first RBMPs, a full methodology for good ecological potential definition was missing. In the second RBMPs, 14 out of 18 RBDs, the CIS approach was applied to define good ecological potential. In the remaining four RBDs (Guadalquivir, Segura, Ceuta, Melilla), a hybrid approach was used. In the second RBMPs, there is a specific national method in place for defining good ecological potential of reservoirs and ports. Good ecological potential has not been defined in terms of biology in the RBDs Ceuta and Melilla. For most RBDs, information is not entirely clear on whether actual values for biological quality elements are estimated or not for good ecological potential, except for reservoirs and ports, for which values for phytoplankton are defined at national level. Mitigation measures for defining good ecological potential have been reported for all 18 RBDs. In these RBMPs, fact sheets specific to each heavily modified water body included the expected changes due to the application of those mitigation measures. ·Environmental objectives and exemptions ·An important effort has been done since the previous plans, which has led to a significant decrease in the number of water bodies for which the environmental objective was not set. ·Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies have been reported in all RBDs as well as for chemical and quantitative status of groundwater. Information is also provided on when the objectives are expected to be achieved. ·Important efforts have been made regarding the justifications of technical feasibility, disproportionate costs and natural conditions related to the application of exemptions in the second RBMPs, although there is room for improvement in the 3rd cycle. ·Some important efforts have been made for a better application of Article 4(7), and explanation on the exemptions applied is provided in the specific fact sheets provided per water body. ·Programme of Measures ·New legislation or regulations to implement the Programme of Measures in the first cycle was reported as necessary and has already been implemented in the 18 RBDs for which information was provided. However, only some measures have been completed from the first cycle of Programme of Measures in those 18 RBDs. Although progress seems to have been achieved on the issues identified in the European Commission recommendations, there are still some areas of implementation that have yet to be addressed. ·A large number of national basic and supplementary measures are reported across a wide range of KTMs. A wide range of types of measure has been used. Coverage of significant pressures with operational KTM is variable for different RBDs. ·Indicators of the gaps to be filled by KTMs and indicators for the scale and progress with implementation of measures were provided, but for a number of pressures and RBDs, the information provided was incomplete. ·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity

Water abstraction and exploitation continues to be very significant for a large part of Spain, where many river basin districts have high levels of water exploitation index + (WEI+) and some of them are beyond the risk threshold of 40 %, e.g. RBDs Balearic Islands, Segura, Jucar and Guadalquivir. Most of the water abstraction or consumption data - and in particular for irrigation - rely on surveys and modelling, and are not always backed by metering. Basic measures such as abstraction control under Article 11(3)(e) are in place. River Basin Authorities have to maintain a Water Register of concessions to control abstractions, while water reuse is also foreseen as a measure in most of the river basin districts. No information on a systematic review of the concessions according to the WFD objectives has been found in the river basin management plans. No plan is included in the river basin management plans to extend and generalise the use of flow meters for all water abstractions and uses (especially for agriculture). Water pricing measures for water services from agriculture (KTM 11) are only considered for abstraction pressures in a few river basin districts (Guadalquivir, Guadalete and Barbate, Jucar) and are mainly focused on studies. ·Measures related to pollution from agriculture The link between pressures and measures related to pollution from agriculture is fully established. General binding rules under Article 11(3)(h) are applied for nitrates and pesticides in all RBDs. At the same time, supplementary measures beyond Nitrate Vulnerable Zones have been rarely included in the Programmes of Measures and are only reported with low budgets. It remains unclear from the information provided in the RBMPs, if measures reported are of voluntary or mandatory nature. The area of agricultural land to be covered by measures for achieving the environmental objectives is provided for several measures, but not for all. Financing of agricultural measures is not secured in all basins. ·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture The presentation of the information on measures against non-agricultural pollutants makes it difficult to assess their likely effectiveness. ·Measures related to hydromorphology ·Hydromorphological measures have been reported for more RBDs compared to the first RBMPs. However, a significant number of water bodies are affected by hydromorphological pressures, whose driver is unknown or obsolete. ·Indicators on the gap to be filled for significant hydromorphological pressures are provided for all RBDs but progress indicators for the KTM tackling these pressures are only reported for three of 18 RBDs. Therefore, no substantial conclusions can be drawn on the progress expected from measures over the next cycles. ·Ecological flows have been derived for all relevant water bodies but implemented only in some (work still ongoing). The timeline for completing the process of implementing ecological flows differs for different RBDs, while for other RBDs, no information is given on the relevant timeline. The second RBMPs also make reference to actions of prioritising the implementation of ecological flows in “strategic” or priority river stretches within the second cycle and in non-priority stretches by 2027. ·Specific measures included in the second RBMPs have clear links to Natural Water Retention Measures. However, the RBMPs do not provide clear explanations of how such measures contribute to water retention in their specific context. ·Economic analysis and water pricing policies Overall, more information has been presented as compared to the first RBMPs, including an updated economic analysis. A general methodology for calculating cost recovery resulted in a harmonised presentation of cost recovery rate results. Also, the methodology for Environmental Costs has been streamlined, resulting in significantly higher costs than in the first planning cycle. The second RBMPs include the estimation of the financial, environmental and resource costs of the water services, as well as the income obtained by the different existing cost recovery instruments for the different water services in Spain.

Regarding incentive pricing, some instruments target environmental costs, but important gaps remain, in particular regarding self-abstraction and diffuse pollution. ·Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) Protected Areas for all types listed in Annex IV of the WFD have been designated in Spain. The status of water bodies associated with these Protected Areas has been comprehensively reported. The reported extent of the monitoring programme associated with Protected Areas is limited and inconsistent with the number of Protected Areas. Progress since the first cycle with the definition of additional objectives for Protected Areas associated with Natura 2000 sites has been limited. ·Adaptation to drought and climate change ·Climate change has been considered in various ways in all river basin districts. However, KTM24 (climate change adaptation measures) is not made operational to address significant pressures in any of the river basin districts. ·None of the river basin management plans has applied any exemption under Article 4(6) for prolonged droughts (except Guadiana in the RBMP, but not according to WISE). According to the WISE reporting, no sub-plans are in place on water scarcity and droughts. It should be noted however, that Spain has initiated the review of the 2006-2007 drought management plans and they are expected to be approved in the near future.



Recommendations ·Spain should make sure that the preparation of the next RBMPs is carried out in accordance with the WFD timetable, to ensure the timely adoption of the third RBMPs. ·Spain should continue to improve international cooperation, including coordinated assessments of the technical aspects of the Water Framework Directive such as ensuring a harmonized approach for status assessment and a coordinated Programme of Measures in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. ·Spain needs to continue its work on the establishment of reference conditions, in particular for relevant hydromorphological and physico-chemical quality elements. ·There has been some progress on the integration of the analysis of pressures and impacts into the Programmes of Measures. Spain needs to ensure that all pressures are factored into the analysis, in line with previous recommendations. ·Further work is needed on the apportionment of pressures among individual sectors, in order to be able to identify the most appropriate measures. ·Spain should ensure all water bodies are delimited, in particular in the Canary Islands, where so far no river, lake or transitional water bodies have been identified. ·Spain should improve its monitoring program to ensure extensive and consistent monitoring of water bodies, with appropriate coverage of all relevant quality elements, as there are still important gaps and as there has been a decrease in the number of monitoring sites since the first RBMPs. ·Spain should have a clear and transparent method for the selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and clearly identify the substances that are causing failure in water bodies. Spain should complete the definition of environmental quality standards for all River Basin Specific Pollutants. ·Spain should continue to progress in the transfer of the results of the intercalibration into all national types, and provide clear information on the methods that have been intercalibrated. ·Spain should complete the development of assessment methods for fish in all water bodies, and for all relevant quality elements in coastal and transitional waters.

·The number of unknowns should be further reduced and Spain should continue improving the confidence in the assessment of surface water chemical status for all water categories (including territorial waters, whose status should be assessed). 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. If a different matrix or reduced frequencies are used, the corresponding explanations should be provided, as required by the Directives. All priority substances discharged should be monitored. ·Spain should further improve trend monitoring for all relevant priority substances, in a way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage, in all RBDs. ·Efforts need to be continued to complete the methodology for heavily modified water body designation for all RBDs, including clear and transparent criteria for significant adverse effects on the use or the wider environment. Good ecological potential needs to be defined also in terms of biological quality elements for all RBDs. ·There has been an increase in the number of exemptions in the second RBMPs, although the approach taken has been to use deadline exemptions (Article 4(4)) instead of less stringent objectives (Article 4(5)), in order not to reduce the level of ambition regarding the WFD objectives. The justifications and related criteria for technical feasibility and disproportionate costs need to be clearly distinguished between Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions due to the different nature of both exemptions. ·Further progress is required in order to ensure that the application of Article 4(7) exemptions are in line with the WFD obligations, and a more specific and detailed assessment is carried out case by case. ·All the KTMs should be operational and measures should cover all the significant pressures, including individual Priority Substances, River Basin Specific Pollutants and Groundwater pollutants, including from non-agricultural sources. ·It should be clarified how the measures contribute to close the gaps to good status, and supplementary measures should be identified and implemented where necessary. ·Continued progress is needed to extend the use of flow meters, to ensure that all abstractions are metered and registered, and that permits are adapted to available resources. Users need to be required to report regularly to river basin authorities on the volumes actually abstracted. This information should be used to improve quantitative management and planning, especially in those river basin districts which present significant abstraction pressures and high values of WEI+. ·In the third RBMPs, Spain should state clearly to what extent, in terms of area covered and pollution risk mitigated, basic measures (minimum requirements to be complied with) or supplementary measures (designed to be implemented in addition to basic measures) will contribute to achieving the WFD objectives. Spain should also identify sources of funding (e.g. CAP Pillar 1, RDP) as appropriate, to facilitate successful implementation of these measures and ensure that the next Nitrates Action Programme includes controls on phosphorus applications. ·More hydromorphological measures need to be implemented and reported for all water bodies affected by hydromorphological pressures, and for all RBDs. ·Spain should continue its efforts to establish ecological flows for all relevant water bodies, and ensure its implementation as soon as possible. ·Spain should apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies or justify any exemptions using Article 9(4). Spain should continue to clearly present how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. It should also continue to transparently present the water-pricing policy and provide a transparent overview of estimated investments and investment needs. ·Spain should define in the third river basin management plans the status of all protected areas, to ensure a harmonised approach across the country. ·Spain should derive the quantitative and qualitative needs for protected habitats and species, translated into specific objectives for each Protected Area, which should be inserted in the RBMPs. Appropriate monitoring and measures should also be included in the RBMPs. ·Spain should ensure that new drought management plans are adopted, particularly in light of the fact that abstraction is identified as a significant pressure for groundwater bodies in the country.

Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.1.1Administrative arrangements – river basin districts Spain has designated 25 river basin districts (RBDs). Eight of Spain's 25 RBDs are part of international river basin districts: Spain shares International RBDs with Portugal (for Miño-Sil, Duero, Tagus and Guadiana), with France (for Eastern Cantabrian, Ebro), with Andorra (Ebro) and Morocco (Ceuta and Melilla).

1.1.2Administrative arrangements – competent authorities Spain has indicated over a large number of competent authorities for its RBDs. These include the River Basin Authorities of RBDs that cross Autonomous Regions and Water Boards for Spain's islands. These bodies have a long list of main roles: monitoring and assessment of status of groundwater and surface water, economic analysis, pressure and impact analysis, enforcement of regulations, preparation of RBMP and Programmes of Measures, public participation, implementation of measures, coordination of implementation and reporting to the European Commission. The Autonomous Regions have the following main roles: economic analysis, enforcement of regulations, public participation, implementation of measures and coordination of implementation. Five national Ministries: Agriculture, Food and Environment have main roles for all RBMP activities. Other ministries – for Health, Social Services and Equality; Industry, Energy and Tourism; Foreign Affairs and Cooperation; and Public Works and Transport – also have roles, including for the enforcement of regulations and coordination of implementation. Finally, local authorities (entidades locales) are indicated as competent authorities with main roles for: enforcement of regulations, economic analysis, preparation of Programme of Measures, public participation, implementation of measures and coordination of implementation. 1.1.3River Basin Management plans – sub-plans and Strategic Environmental Assessment) None of the RBMPs submitted had sub-plans which were reported in WISE but Spain has informed that all the RBMPs dedicated several chapters to explain the relation with other plan addressing specific issues such as Water Scarcity and Droughts, Rural Planning or Agriculture. Strategic Environmental Assessments were prepared for all the RBMPs reported as of July 2017. 1.1.4Public consultation For the RBMPs reported, all documents were available for consultation for the requisite six months. The public and interested parties were informed by direct mailing, internet, invitations to stakeholders, local authorities, media (papers, television, radio), printed materials, written consultation and by the official journal(s). Documents for consultation were available via direct mailing (e-mail) and for download. In all the RBDs reported, stakeholders were actively involved via advisory groups, involvement in the drafting of plans and also in regular exhibitions. In all the RBDs reported, stakeholder groups involved came from the following sectors: agriculture/farmers; energy/hydropower; industry; local/regional authorities; navigation/ports; NGOs/nature protection; water supply and sanitation; and others. Public consultation had the following impacts on the Plans: addition of new information, adjustment to specific measures, changes to selection of measures, changes to the methodology used, commitment to action in the next RBMP and commitment to further research. 1.1.5Integration with other EU legislation: Floods Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive For all but two RBDs (Galicia-Coast and Balearic Islands), joint consultation was organised for the RBMPs and the Flood Risk Management Plans and Spain has informed that the design of both type of plans has been strongly coordinated. None of the RBMPs published went through joint consultation with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 1.1.6International coordination and co-operation For the four International RBDs Spain shares with Portugal, it is reported that there is international agreement and a permanent co-operation body in place (designated as category 2): notably, the Albufeira convention for the protection and sustainable use of the waters of the Spanish-Portuguese watersheds is in place since 1998. For the two international RBDs shared with France, international coordination is also designated as category 2 cooperation, i.e. there is an international agreement and permanent co-operation body in place. The Ebro Flood Risk Management Plan refers to several agreements, including the Agreement of Toulouse, signed in 2006, under which it was agreed to make independent plans, and to hold technical meetings for coordination. Spain has informed that several meetings took place to coordinate and review the second RBMPs. Other bodies in place include the Joint Commission on the Lanós Lake, where Spain has informed that yearly meetings have taken place, and the Upper Garonne Joint Commission. Spain subsequently informed that within the framework of the Agreement of Toulouse, there have been conversations between France and Spain on mapping and other details on the characterisation of water bodies. Spain also informed that the International Commission of the Pyrenees holds yearly plenary meetings. In addition, a Commission on the exploitation of the International Channel D’Angoustrine and Llivia was formally established in 2013. The Ebro RBD has signed a convention with DREAL Nouvelle-Aquitanie for the implementation of a joint platform for information exchange (for further information see the reports on international coordination on the Water Framework Directive). For the International RBDs shared with Morocco there is an international agreement on water management in place without permanent co-operation mechanisms (designated as category 3 cooperation). For RBMPs published, Spain reported that public consultation was coordinated with neighbouring Member States and countries: for example, Spain’s draft Flood Risk Management Plans were translated into Portuguese language and were available on the website of the competent Portuguese authority. The joint planning process under the Albufeira Convention for the second RBMPs indicates that 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 state 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 (for further information see the reports on international coordination on the Water Framework Directive).

1.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle Cooperation between Spain and Portugal has strengthened. 1.3Progress with Commission recommendations ·Recommendation: Reinforce the cooperation with Portugal and France in shared RBDs (covering characterisation, pressures and impacts, monitoring, assessment of status, public consultation, measures, etc.), ensuring that there is a common understanding for transboundary water bodies and catchments for these issues. The outcomes of such cooperation (in particular with Portugal) should be reflected in the RBMPs or ad-hoc background documents. Assessment: Cooperation between Portugal and Spain has strengthened in the second cycle, covering issues including monitoring, status assessments, public consultation and measures. Information is available, for example in documents prepared in the process under the Albufeira Convention. The information available indicates that France and Spain have increased cooperation in some areas, such as information exchange. This recommendation has been fulfilled, in terms of cooperation with Portugal; but partially fulfilled in terms of cooperation with France. ·Recommendation: adopt as soon as possible the outstanding RBMPs for the Canary Islands. Assessment: The first RBMPs of the Canary Islands were adopted and subsequently reported around mid-2015 (with one reported in 2016). This recommendation has thus been fulfilled for the first RBMPs. As for the second RBMPs, as of mid-2017, 18 of Spain's 25 RBDs had published RBMPs. ·Recommendation: ensure consultation and adoption of the second RBMPs according to the WFD timetable, avoiding delays. Assessment: 17 RBMPs were published with a small delay but six RBMPs were not published as of late 2018. This recommendation can be considered partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Fill as soon as possible the gaps in transposition in the intra-community RBDs. With regard to this Recommendation, the CSWD cites ECJ judgement C-151/12 and calls for full transposition of the WFD for regions (Autonomous Communities) responsible for intra-community RBDs. Assessment: Spain has informed that the Spanish Regional Authorities completed the required transposition before the approval of the second RBMPs, thus the recommendation is considered fulfilled.

Topic 2Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.1.1 Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies Overall, in 18 of the 25 RBDs in Spain (there are no reported data for the seven Canary Island RBDs in 2016), there was a small decrease in the numbers of lake water bodies (0.9 %) and coastal waters (15 %) but there was a small increase in the number of river water bodies (0.42 %) and transitional water bodies (3.3 %) between the two cycles ( Table 2.1 ). For coastal water, bodies there was a decrease in 3 RBD, an increase in one and no change in the other 12 RBDs with coastal waters. There was a decrease in transitional water bodies in one RBD, an increase in one and no change in the 12 other RBDs with transitional waters. Five RBDs showed an increase in numbers, four a decrease and nine no change in river water body numbers between the two cycles. For lakes, there were increases in four RBDs a decrease in three RBD and no change in the other 12 RBDs with lakes. Overall in Spain, there was an increase of 162 in the number of river water bodies designated as heavily modified between the two cycles (Figure 2.1) For the first cycle, 16.8 % of river water bodies were designated as heavily modified, in the second cycle, the percentage of heavily modified as a proportion of total river water bodies had increased to 20 %. The largest increase was in the Duero RBD (number from 80 (11.5 % of total river water bodies) to 208 (30 % of total river water bodies) and proportion of total river length from 4.6 % to 28 %). The RBMP explained that this was due to a review of designated heavily modified water bodies in connection to hydrological and hydromorphological pressures. There was also an increase in numbers of heavily modified rivers in five other RBDs, no change in nine RBDs and decrease in two RBDs. There was a small decrease in the number of heavily modified lake water bodies (5) and coastal water bodies (7) and an increase in heavily modified transitional water (10) in Spain as a whole between the two cycles. Further information related to changes in the designation of heavily modified water bodies is provided in Chapter 7.2. of this report.



Table 2.1 Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in Spain for the second and first cycles Year RBD Lakes Rivers Transitional Coastal Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies 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 2016 ES010 3 1 272 3 973 2 15 2 21 2016 ES014 0 0 415 4 172 22 105 29 3 198 2016 ES017 3 0 117 1 581 14 49 4 578 2016 ES018 7 2 250 3 696 21 91 15 1 553 2016 ES020 19 17 690 12 949 0 0 0 0 2016 ES030 16 15 307 7 361 0 0 0 0 2016 ES040 59 62 251 7 156 4 51 2 62 2016 ES050 35 896 395 9 282 13 132 3 490 2016 ES060 10 22 133 2 056 7 15 27 2 067 2016 ES063 10 2 65 1 017 10 122 12 535 2016 ES064 6 1 47 781 11 157 4 176 2016 ES070 6 38 90 1 448 1 25 17 1 209 2016 ES080 19 42 304 5 140 4 15 22 2 134 2016 ES091 106 65 698 12 293 16 161 3 308 2016 ES100 27 4 261 3 784 25 2 33 1 600 2016 ES110 0 0 94 576 36 44 41 3 741 2016 ES150 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 40 2016 ES160 0 0 1 5 0 0 3 11 2016 Total 326 1 169 4 390 77 272 186 985 220 17 725 2010 ES010 3 1 270 3 957 4 25 1 16 2010 ES014 0 0 411 4 189 22 105 29 3 198 2010 ES017 11 4 109 1 537 14 48 4 578 2010 ES018 7 2 250 3 694 21 92 15 1 556 2010 ES020 14 12 696 12 945 0 0 0 0 2010 ES030 7 (16) 1 307 (308) 7 342 0 0 0 0 2010 ES040 58 61 249 7 154 4 51 2 63 2010 ES050 35 949 392 9 301 13 138 3 491 2010 ES060 8 21 133 1 998 7 15 27 2 066 2010 ES063 10 2 65 997 10 123 12 536 2010 ES064 5 1 48 783 11 158 4 175 2010 ES070 6 22 90 1 435 1 25 17 1 209 2010 ES080 19 42 300 (304) 5 078 4 15 22 2 136 2010 ES091 110 68 700 12 148 8 155 3 310 2010 ES100 27 4 073 261 3 790 25 1 899 33 1 599 385 2010 ES110 0 0 94 579 36 44 42 3 746 2010 ES150 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 536 2010 ES160 0 0 1 5 349 0 0 5 1 240 2010 Total 329 5 260 4 381 82 277 180 2 894 260 52 680 958 Source: WISE electronic reporting. Values in brackets provided by Spain in the frame of the assessment. Figure 2.1 Proportion of surface water bodies in Spain designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and first cycles. Note that the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category Source: WISE electronic reporting Table 2.2 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in Spain between the second and first cycles. The changes in minimum sizes are difficult to compare because they were not reported for each RBD and there also appears to be some unit errors in the reporting. The minimum size criteria reported were 10 km2 catchment area for rivers and for lakes it varied between RBD but the largest minimum surface area was 0.5 km2. There was a small increase in the numbers of groundwater bodies (2 %) overall ( Table 2.3 ): with a decrease in numbers in three RBDs, an increase in one RBD and no change in 14 RBDs. The changes in the number and delineations are based on the results of work done in close collaboration with the Geological and Mining Institute of Spain Table 2.2 Size distribution of surface water bodies in Spain in the second and first cycles Lake area (km2) River length (km) Transitional (km2) Coastal (km2) Year RBD Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average 2016 ES010 0.03 0.97 0.48 3.47 69.89 16.42 5.23 9.74 7.49 5.53 15.35 10.44 2016 ES014 2.82 63.02 10.54 0.14 18.92 4.77 1.6 656.12 110.28 2016 ES017 0.04 0.16 0.09 4.06 78.00 14.64 0.41 19.09 3.52 10.47 231.6 144.61 2016 ES018 0.07 0.5 0.23 3.47 80.82 15.40 0.41 18.7 4.33 1.8 499.87 103.53 2016 ES020 0.02 3.8 0.88 4.05 97.00 19.98 2016 ES030 0.01 7.82 0.95 2.48 161.20 29.56 2016 ES040 0.03 22.35 1.05 0.86 234.89 35.96 1.52 25.71 12.81 4.61 57.85 31.23 2016 ES050 0.02 345.77 25.61 1.07 136.73 27.46 0.54 30.61 10.15 122.2 213.22 163.28 2016 ES060 0.02 13.15 2.21 4.33 74.12 17.28 0.61 6.08 2.14 0.57 478.54 76.56 2016 ES063 0.03 1.12 0.23 1.93 121.54 17.53 0.25 80.93 12.24 0.1 106.19 44.58 2016 ES064 0.05 0.87 0.22 1.46 134.43 19.53 2.3 42.42 14.29 12.77 126.09 44.03 2016 ES070 0.84 20.1 6.39 1.42 68.11 18.81 25.16 25.16 25.16 0.79 390.73 71.13 2016 ES080 0.01 24.89 2.22 1.60 99.45 18.62 0.19 14.1 3.69 2.6 268.16 97.02 2016 ES091 0 11.3 0.61 0.80 140.35 19.27 0.11 70.09 10.04 62.48 171.87 102.7 2016 ES100 0 1.32 0.15 1.76 80.52 15.26 0 0.37 0.08 0.65 247.33 48.5 2016 ES110 0.36 54.03 6.33 0.01 21.21 1.23 0.55 906.83 91.25 2016 ES150 0.99 25.06 13.48 2016 ES160 5.38 5.38 5.38 2.01 4.73 3.51 2010 ES010 0.03 0.97 0.48 3.00 70.00 16.49 4.17 9.74 6.33 15.98 15.98 15.98 2010 ES014 2.82 63.00 10.63 0.14 18.9 4.77 1.6 655.85 110.26 2010 ES017 0.06 1.31 0.48 4.03 76.97 14.23 0.42 19.08 3.46 10.46 231.22 144.43 2010 ES018 0.07 0.5 0.23 3.75 80.75 15.39 0.41 18.68 4.37 1.81 500.42 103.75 2010 ES020 0.09 3.49 0.89 4.05 96.88 19.95 2010 ES030 0.01 0.46 0.11 0.01 161.21 29.49 2010 ES040 0.03 22.33 1.05 0.82 235.05 35.95 1.52 25.79 12.85 4.62 58 31.31 2010 ES050 0.02 359.1 27.11 1.07 136.64 27.69 0.92 36.57 10.64 122.4 213.56 163.56 2010 ES060 0.02 13.15 2.59 4.23 69.99 16.79 0.61 6.08 2.14 0.57 478.22 76.53 2010 ES063 0.03 1.12 0.23 1.92 121.61 17.19 0.25 81.02 12.26 0.1 106.41 44.65 2010 ES064 0.07 0.87 0.25 1.46 134.82 19.57 2.3 42.52 14.33 12.75 125.79 43.69 2010 ES070 0.84 20.11 7.48 1.42 68.12 19.13 25.17 25.17 25.17 0.79 390.67 71.13 2010 ES080 0.01 24.91 2.22 1.59 99.42 18.60 0.19 14.11 3.69 2.61 268.34 97.09 2010 ES091 0 11.29 0.65 0.79 96.60 18.92 0.03 70.23 19.42 63.05 172.4 103.4 2010 ES100 0.23 1,323.11 150.84 1.76 80.51 15.28 4.34 364.49 75.97 647.22 247,421.95 48,466.22 2010 ES110 0.36 53.97 6.16 0.01 21.22 1.23 0.1 909.63 89.18 2010 ES120 5.77 195.72 89.29 2010 ES122 20.59 607.64 248.1 2010 ES123 0.91 988.32 212.07 2010 ES124 0.26 541.6 72.67 2010 ES125 1.36 204.17 55.13 2010 ES126 15.89 76.09 40.58 2010 ES127 4.8 230.62 87.17 2010 ES150 987,841.11 25,066,119.47 13,482,672.28 2010 ES160 5.35 5.35 5.35 2,009,619.00 4,745,374.00 3,537,643.33 Source: WISE electronic reporting Table 2.3 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Spain for the second and first cycles Year RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2016 ES010 6 188.26 7,787.77 2,931.24 2016 ES014 18 42.87 2,442.48 722.31 2016 ES017 20 2.54 1,610.00 286.67 2016 ES018 20 21.02 3,985.93 693.16 2016 ES020 64 71.84 5,571.13 1,365.10 2016 ES030 24 68.51 4,332.10 910.52 2016 ES040 20 12.26 2,576.96 1,123.93 2016 ES050 86 27.39 4,845.53 394.12 2016 ES060 67 4.29 1,037.22 155.48 2016 ES063 14 24.15 361.1 135.86 2016 ES064 4 64.93 630.86 376.76 2016 ES070 63 6.71 1,586.79 241.75 2016 ES080 90 10.26 7,121.90 450.27 2016 ES091 105 17.8 4,083.45 520.36 2016 ES100 37 5.71 754.73 252 2016 ES110 87 3.07 295.52 54.58 2016 ES150 1 11.15 11.15 11.15 2016 ES160 3 1.92 5.89 4.4 2016 Total 729 2010 ES010 6 2934.1 2010 ES014 18 43.07 2,455.49 729.51 2010 ES017 28 2.5 977 205 2010 ES018 20 21 3,992.00 693.58 2010 ES020 64 1232.6 2010 ES030 24 910.1 2010 ES040 20 1124.1 2010 ES050 60 624.6 2010 ES060 67 155.2 2010 ES063 14 24.16 362.38 304.5 2010 ES064 4 63.33 470.2 257.5 2010 ES070 63 243.8 2010 ES080 90 453.6 2010 ES091 105 521.5 2010 ES100 39 288.6 2010 ES110 90 52.6 2010 ES120 10 155.8 2010 ES122 4 413.2 2010 ES123 1 846.1 2010 ES124 4 508.2 2010 ES125 5 142 2010 ES126 5 73.6 2010 ES127 3 89.7 2010 ES150 1 11.2 2010 ES160 3 5 2010 Total 748 Source: WISE electronic reporting. Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by Spain on how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles for both surface water and groundwater. For groundwater bodies and river water bodies the main changes were deletions and splitting of water bodies. Table 2.4 Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in Spain between the second and first cycles Type of water body change for second cycle (wiseEvolutionType) Lakes Rivers Transitional Coastal Groundwater Aggregation 2 7 Splitting 2 22 1 28 Aggregation and splitting 10 2 21 Change 16 1401 99 68 298 Creation 6 14 3 1 1 Deletion 24 1 1 3 Code 33 387 33 18 41 Extended area 1 1 Reduced area 2 No change 269 2554 50 170 362 Total water bodies before deletion 326 4414 187 261 764 Delineated for second cycle (after deletion from first cycle) 326 4390 186 260 729

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2.1.2 Identification of transboundary water bodies Spain reported transboundary coastal (two RBDs), river (five RBDs) and transitional (three RBDs) water bodies. The delineation of transboundary water bodies was reported to have been coordinated with some but not all neighbouring Member States. For example, the Eastern Cantabrian RBD has updated the list of transboundary water bodies with France and some specific coordination work has been carried out between the two countries. In the Duero RBD, in accordance with the Albufeira Convention, some action has been taken to coordinate delineation of water bodies with Portugal. In the Guadiana RBD, Portugal informed that one water body was changed by being split in three and consequently Spain has changed the water body (20664 Embalse de Alqueva) to be split into three water bodies, corresponding to the Portuguese ones. This close cooperation and coordination with Portugal took place for the four shared RBDs (Miño, Duero, Tagus and Guadiana), in the framework of the Albufeira Convention. Spain has not reported that any transboundary groundwater bodies have been delineated. 2.1.3 Typology of surface water bodies Overall, there was a significant increase in the number of water body types in all four water categories in Spain as a whole for the second cycle compared to the first ( Table 2.5 ). The largest increase was for rivers where there was an increase from 32 types for the first RBMPs to 48 types in the second cycle RBMP. There was no change in numbers of types in six of the 18 RBDs that reported information. There was a decrease in number of river types in four RBDs, an increase in 5 RBDs and no change in seven RBDs: one RBD did not identify rivers. No information is provided in the RBMPs on why the number of types has increased. The RBMPs do not include information regarding the cross-checking of the different theoretical water body types against biological data, nor a detailed description of the typology methodology, typology factors (descriptors) and related ranges, methods for testing typology versus biological data. There is also no information in the RBMPs on whether system A or B has been used. Overall in Spain, 29 types of coastal water bodies were identified. 35 % of coastal water bodies in Spain were reported not to have corresponding intercalibration types. For a number of national types, intercalibration types were reported in some RBDs but in other RBDs no corresponding intercalibration types were reported for the same national type code. Spain clarified that there are some mismatches between the national and the common types, and further work is planned to solve these mismatches. Of the 36 lake types reported for Spain, 32 were reported not to have a corresponding intercalibration type, representing 90 % of lake water bodies in Spain. Table 2.5 Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Spain for the first and second cycles RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 ES010 9 11 3 3 1 1 1 1 ES014 7 7 0 0 3 3 7 7 ES017 6 8 3 3 3 3 1 1 ES018 12 12 5 5 6 6 3 3 ES020 17 17 7 8 0 0 ES030 27 19 8 8 0 0 ES040 14 12 12 12 1 1 2 2 ES050 17 20 12 11 3 3 2 2 ES060 13 13 7 9 4 4 4 4 ES063 7 7 4 4 2 2 3 3 ES064 6 7 1 2 3 3 2 2 ES070 10 9 4 3 2 1 5 6 ES080 12 12 7 7 2 2 6 6 ES091 9 16 19 18 2 4 1 1 ES100 15 14 12 11 3 3 8 9 ES110 2 3 0 0 4 3 4 4 ES150 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 ES160 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 Total 32 48 30 36 13 18 21 29 Source: WISE electronic reporting. Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are shared by RBDs. Overall in Spain, 48 different (coded) river types were reported. Some of the national type codes were reported to have an intercalibration type in some RBDs but not in others, and in other RBDs different intercalibration types were reported for the same national type code. 47 % of the river water bodies in Spain did not have a reported corresponding intercalibration type. 18 different (coded) transitional water body types were reported in Spain. In some RBDs, a national type code had a reported intercalibration type whereas in another RBD no corresponding intercalibration type was reported for the same national type code. 69 % of transitional water bodies in Spain did not have a reported intercalibration type. 16 of the 18 RBDs that have reported to WISE to date have identified coastal waters, 14 RBDs lake waters, 17 RBDs river waters and 14 RBDs transitional waters. Three coastal waters types were shared by four RBDs and 13 types by only one RBD. In terms of lakes, three types were common to six RBDs and nine different types were reported by only one RBD. Two river types were common to 10 RBDs and eight types were reported by only one RBDs. For transitional waters one type was common to five RBDs and eight types were reported by only one RBD. Only one national type had the same code but different description (AC-T10 in coastal waters), but this was due to a reporting mistake concerning one of the three RBDs that reported this national type No information was found in the RBMPs about whether typology has been coordinated with other Member States. 2.1.4 Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies Table 2.6 shows the percentage of surface water body types in Spain with reference conditions established for different quality elements for the first and second cycles. In lakes, reference conditions have been established for all biological quality elements for 78 % of types, for some biological quality elements for 19 % of types and for no biological quality elements for 3 % of types. Reference conditions have not been established for any hydromorphological quality elements for any of lakes types and all lake types have reference conditions for some physicochemical quality elements. There are seven cases where common types reported by different RBDs have different information on the quality elements used in the establishment of reference condition. For example, lake water body type L-T21 is reported to have reference conditions for all biological quality elements in the Duero, Guadiana, Guadalquivir, Ebro and Andalusian Mediterranean RBD and for none in the Guadalete and Barbate RBD. Almost a third of the river types had reference conditions established for all biological quality elements, 69 % for some biological quality elements and 2 % for none of the biological quality elements. No type had reference conditions for all of the relevant hydromorphological or physicochemical quality elements, and 35 % of types did not have reference conditions for any of the hydromorphological quality elements. All river types had reference conditions for some physicochemical quality elements. 21 river types shared between more than one RBD had different information reported on the establishment of quality elements. For example, river water body type R-T19 had reference conditions for all biological quality elements in the Guadalquivir RBD and for none in the Tinto, Odiel and Piedras RBD.

Table 2.6 Percentage of surface water body types in Spain with reference conditions established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements Water category Water types reference conditions established Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Physicochemical quality elements Rivers (48) All 29 % Some 69 % 65 % 100 % None 2 % 35 % 0 % Lakes (36) All 78 % Some 19 % 0 % 100 % None 3 % 100 % 0 % Transitional (18) All 6 % Some 89 % 0 % 94 % None 6 % 100 % 6 % Coastal (29) All 38 % Some 62 % 14 % 100 % None 0 % 86 % 0 % Source: WISE electronic reporting In coastal waters, reference conditions have not been established for all relevant hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements in any of the types. Reference conditions have been established for some physicochemical quality elements in all reported types, for some hydromorphological quality elements in around 14 % of types and in 86 % of types for none of the hydromorphological quality elements. Around 38 % of types had reference conditions for all relevant biological quality elements and 62 % of types for some biological quality elements. For two types shared between more than one RBD, different information was reported for the completeness of reference conditions: for example, a coastal water body type AC-T04 was reported to have reference conditions for all biological quality elements in the Catalan RBD and for some in the Western Cantabrian RBD. None of the 18 transitional water body types had established reference conditions for any of the hydromorphological quality elements. In terms of biological quality elements, only 6 % of types had reference conditions in terms of all biological quality elements, 89 % for some and 6 % for none. Two types shared between more than one RBD had different information reported on the establishment of reference conditions. There are no water bodies in Spain that have had reference conditions established for all relevant hydromorphological or all relevant physicochemical quality elements. The list of reference conditions is fixed in the Spanish legislation. Two measures foreseen in the RBMPs of the Miño-Sil and Guadiana RBDs concern coordination with Portugal on the identification of type-reference conditions, and further work is planned, jointly with Portugal, to improve the harmonisation of methodologies for status assessment of transboundary water bodies. 2.1.5 Characteristics of groundwater bodies All 18 Spanish RBDs that have reported their second RBMPs have characterised their groundwater bodies in terms of their geological formation and as to whether or not the water bodies were layered. All RBDs also identified which groundwater bodies were linked to surface water bodies and/or terrestrial ecosystems. 2.1.6 Significant pressures on water bodies In terms of surface water bodies in Spain, the pressure with the greatest percentage of affected water bodies was point urban waste water (37 % of surface water bodies), followed by diffuse agriculture (34 %), abstraction or flow diversion for agriculture (22 %) ( Figure 2.2 ). 16 % of surface water bodies were affected by abstraction or flow diversion for public water supply and 20 % by introduced species and diseases and 15 % by dams, barriers and locks for irrigation. The three surface water pressures reported by most RBDs were urban waste water (all 18 RBDs); abstraction or flow diversion for public water supply (17 RBDs); and diffuse agricultural (16 RBDs). It is difficult to compare the number and proportion of water bodies affected by significant pressures because of changes introduced to the types of pressures reported for the second cycle and because Spain only reported pressures at the aggregated level in the first cycle: disaggregated pressures were reported in the second cycle. Figure 2.3 shows that there is an apparent increase in diffuse, point and hydromorphological pressure types, due to a more detailed analysis of pressures compared to the one done for the first RBMPs. Changes in methodologies for defining pressures are discussed below. The most significant pressures on groundwater bodies in terms of proportion of groundwater bodies affected at the national level was diffuse agricultural (56 % of groundwater bodies), abstraction or flow diversion for agriculture (32 %), and abstraction or low diversion for public water supply (27 %) ( Figure 2.2 ). The three most common pressures on groundwater at the country level were diffuse agriculture (significant in 14 of the 18 RBDs with reported information), abstraction or flow diversion for agriculture (12 RBDs) and abstraction or flow diversion for public water supply (10 RBDs).



Figure 2.2 The 10 most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies in Spain for the second cycle Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 2.3 Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Spain in the first and second cycles. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Note there were 5122 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 5124 for the first cycle Source: WISE electronic reporting 2.1.7 Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater

The approach adopted for the first RBMPs relied first on a qualitative assessment and, in a second stage, on a quantitative assessment based on a simplified model. The objective of this approach study was to identify the water bodies at risk of failing the WFD environmental objectives. The qualitative assessment included thresholds of significance for the various pressure categories. An inventory of pressures was used as input for modelling tools. For the second RBMP, expert judgement was exclusively used by three RBDs (Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, Guadalete and Barbate and Tinto, Odiel and Piedras) to define significant pressures to surface waters. Expert judgment was also used by the Galicia-Coast RBD to define three of four assessed pressure groups (diffuse source pressures were defined by a combination of expert judgment and numerical tools). Catalan RBD and Balearic Islands also used expert judgment to define diffuse source and water flow pressures, respectively. A combination of expert judgment and numerical tools (including modelling) was used in 12 RBDs for point source and water abstraction pressures, 11 for diffuse pressures and in 10 for water flow pressures. The Segura RBD used numerical tools for all pressures types reported. The exclusive use of expert judgment may make the assessment of the significance of pressures to be less robust than if more quantitative tools (such as numerical tools) had been developed and applied. Significance of pressures to surface water was defined in terms of thresholds and in terms of the potential failure of objectives in the same 12 of the 18 reported RBDs. Expert judgment was used by more RBD to define significant pressures to groundwater than for surface waters. Four RBDs (Tagus, Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, Guadalete and Barbate, and Tinto, Odiel and Piedras) used it for all four pressure types, Balearic Islands for the three pressure types assessed, Catalan RBD for two of the four pressure types assessed and Galicia-Coast RBD for three of the four types assessed. Expert judgment was used for seven RBDs in terms of point source pressures and for six RBDs for diffuse source pressure, water abstraction pressures and for artificial recharge pressures. Numerical tools were exclusively used by Segura and Jucar RBDs for all assessed pressures. As for surface waters, similarly, the exclusive use of expert judgment may make the assessment of the significance of pressures to be less robust than if more quantitative tools (such as numerical tools) had been developed and applied. Significance of pressures on groundwater bodies has been defined in terms of thresholds in 15 of the 18 reported RBDs and was linked to the potential failure of good status in 12 RBDs. No information was found in the RBMPs on the changes in the methodology or the criteria for the assessment of significance from the first to the second RBMPs. Eastern Cantabrian, Duero and Guadiana RBDs reported that there was a re-assessment of pressures. However, following the criteria already applied in the first planning cycle (Legal Order ARM 2656/2008), Duero RBD also described how newly agricultural and livestock data available at local district level helped to facilitate the pressures assessment; and Guadiana RBD referenced additional information available from Portugal on pressures. 2.1.8 Significant impacts on water bodies The most significant impact on surface water bodies in Spain in terms of the proportion of water bodies was altered habitats due to morphological changes (36 % of water bodies and significant in all RBDs that reported) followed by nutrient pollution (33 % surface water bodies and 17 RBDs) and organic pollution (24 % and 17 RBDs) ( Figure 2.4 ). Chemical pollution was reported to be significant in 17 RBDs and affected 16 % of surface water bodies in Spain. Figure 2.4 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Spain for the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies. Source: WISE electronic reporting The most significant impact type at the country level in terms of proportion of groundwater bodies was nutrient pollution that affected 39 % of groundwater bodies and was reported by 13 of the 18 RBDs ( Figure 2.4 ). The next most significant was chemical pollution affecting 27 % of groundwater bodies across 11 RBDs and abstraction exceeding available groundwater resources in 22 % of groundwater bodies across 10 RBDs. 2.1.9 Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status 16 of the 18 RBDs in Spain that reported had some groundwater bodies that were at risk of failing of not meeting good chemical status, ranging from one in the Eastern Cantabrian RBD (5 %) to 79 (92 %) in the Guadalquivir RBD. Overall in Spain 55 % of groundwater bodies were at risk. Nitrate was the pollutant causing a risk of failing good chemical status in the most groundwater bodies in Spain (46 % of all groundwater bodies) followed by chloride (11 %) and pesticides (9 %). Nitrate was causing a risk in 13 of the 18 reported RBDs, chloride in eight RBDs and pesticides in three. 10 of the 18 reported RBDs indicated that there were groundwater bodies at risk of not being in good quantitative status. All three groundwater bodies were at risk in the Melilla RBD and the next highest proportion of groundwater bodies at risk was in the Segura RBD (68 %): overall in Spain, 24 % of groundwater bodies were at risk. Water balance was reported as the cause of the risk to quantitative status in all 10 RBDs that indicated that some groundwater bodies were at such risk. Overall, water balance was the cause of the risk in 23 % of groundwater bodies in Spain. 2.1.10Quantification and apportionment of pressures There are 20 different types of pressures reported to be significant on surface water for which specific measures have not been reported: for example in four RBDs this is in terms of point urban water, in four RBDs for point waste disposal sites and three for abstraction or flow diversion for industry. Spain subsequently explained that these pressures were not addressed by measures because they did not lead to significant impacts. Diffuse agricultural pressures were significant in 14 RBDs: gaps to the achievement of objectives were identified in these RBDs and measures to address the pressures were reported in each. Abstraction and flow diversion for agriculture (10 RBDs), for public water supply (eight RBDs), industry (four RBDs) and fish farms in one RBD were reported to be significant, gaps and measures to the achievement of objectives were reported in each: this indicated that there has been some apportionment of these pressures between the responsible sectors in some RBDs. In terms of groundwater, the RBD that reported the most types of pressures (13) with gaps to the achievement of objectives was Jucar. On the other hand, the Guadalquivir RBD reported the most types of pressure (13) on groundwater without associated gaps: Guadalquivir also reported three pressures with gaps. The significant pressure on groundwater where most RBDs (14) reported gaps was diffuse agriculture, followed by abstraction or flow diversion for agriculture (10 RBDs), public water supply (eight RBDs) and from industry (four RBDs). Gaps were not reported in terms of point source pressures from urban waste water in four RBDs, from waste disposal sites in four RBDs and from Industrial Emissions Directive plants in three RBDs. In terms of point source pressures to surface waters from urban waste water, gaps had been identified for 16 of the 18 RBDs where these pressures were reported to be significant, and measures implemented. No gaps or measures were reported for the other two RBDs (Balearic Islands and Melilla, though relatively few surface water bodies were affected: 21 and one respectively). Gaps had also been reported for other sectors responsible for point source pressures: storm overflows (four out of five RBDs with this significant pressure), Industrial Emissions Directive plants (13 out of 14 RBDs), non-Industrial Emissions Directive plants (10 RBDs out of 12 RBDs), contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites (one out of two RBDs), waste disposal sites (seven out of 12 RBDs), mine waters (six out of eight RBDs) and aquaculture (six out of eight RBDs). Gaps to the achievement of objectives had also been reported for 13 of the 16 RBDs reporting diffuse agriculture as a significant pressure. Gaps to the achievement of objectives in terms of abstraction or flow diversion for public water supply were reported for 10 of the 17 RBDs with this as a significant pressure and for 12 of the 14 RBDs in terms of agriculture. A gap was not reported for pressures arising from public water supply in Guadalquivir where 260 (58 %) of surface waters were affected by this significant pressure and where no specific measures to tackle this pressure have been reported. In summary, gaps were not reported for all significant pressures on surface water in all RBDs because not all the significant pressures as identified by Spain generate impacts. In terms of surface water, the RBD that reported gaps for the most pressures types (35) was Western Cantabrian followed by Ebro (32) and Miño-Sil (31). The RBD that reported the fewest types of pressures (1) with gaps was Ceuta. Guadalquivir (25), Balearic Islands (24) and Catalan RBD (20) reported the most types of pressures without associated gaps: these three RBDs did report gaps for 6, one and 26 types of pressure respectively. 16 RBDs reported gaps for point source pressures to surface waters: two did not. There were reported gaps for diffuse agriculture pressures in 13 RBDs: three did not report gaps. There were also reported gaps for abstraction or flow diversion pressures from agriculture in 12 RBDs and two RBDs did not report gaps for this pressure. The type of pressure without reported gaps in the most RBDs was abstraction or flow diversion pressures for public water supply (7 RBDs): gaps for this pressure had been reported by 10 other RBDs. 29 different groundwater pollutants and 43 different chemical substances in surface waters were reported with gaps to the achievement of objectives in Spain as a whole. The groundwater pollutant reported with gaps by the most RBDs (11) was nitrate, followed by chloride by seven RBDs. Lead, cadmium and nickel were the chemical substances in surface waters that were reported with gaps by the most RBDs: 12, 11 and 10, respectively.

2.1.11Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (2008/105/EC ) requires Member States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all Priority Substances and the eight other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I EQS 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. All RBDs in Spain reported inventories, except Ceuta. Four RBDs reported inventories for 30 (Eastern Cantabrian) or 35 (Western Cantabrian, Ebro and Catalan RBD) Priority Substances. Seven RBDs reported inventories for less than 10 Priority Substances, notably Miño-Sil (4). The remaining six RBDs had inventories for 11 to 19 Priority Substances. 4-nonylphenol, octylphenol (4-(1,1',3,3'-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol), carbon tetrachloride, trichloromethane, total cyclodiene pesticides (aldrin + dieldrin + endrin + isodrin), Total DDT (DDT, p,p' + DDT, o,p' + DDE, p,p' + DDD, p,p') and brominated diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47, 99, 100, 153 and 154) were not reported as being included in the inventory by any of the RBDs that reported, even if Spain clarified that they were indeed included in the Eastern Cantabrian RBD inventory. However, lead, mercury, nickel and cadmium were included by all the 17 RBDs that reported an inventory. The two step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document No 28 has not been followed for any of the substances included in the inventories. The Guidance Document also describes a Tiered approach (comprising four tiers in total). An increase in tier corresponds to an increase in understanding of sources and pathways. For these inventories, the Guidance Document recommended to implement Tier 1+ 2 to capture both point and diffuse sources, at least for substances deemed relevant at RBD-level. Spain implemented these two tiers for all substances included in the inventories. The data quality was assessed as uncertain. 2.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle Overall in 18 of the 25 RBDs in Spain (there are no reported data for the seven Canary Island RBDs in 2016), there was a small increase in the numbers of groundwater bodies (2 %), a small decrease in the number of lake (0.9 %) and coastal water bodies (15 %) and a small increase in the number of river water bodies (0.42 %) and transitional water bodies (3.3 %) between the two cycles. There have also been some improvements such as the geographic delineation of the connection of six transitional and river water bodies. For groundwater bodies, the RBMPs reported that several of them have been grouped, and a new one delineated. In the Guadiana RBD, there has been the new delineation of five transboundary water bodies with Portugal since the first cycle. Overall in Spain, for the first cycle 16.8 % of river water bodies were designated as heavily modified, in the second cycle, the percentage of heavily modified as a proportion of total river water bodies had increased to 20 %. The largest increase was in Duero (number from 80 (11.5 % of total river water bodies) to 208 (30 % of total river water bodies) and proportion of total river length from 4.6 % to 28 %). Overall, there was significant increase in the number of water body types in all four water categories in Spain as a whole for the second cycle compared to the first. The largest increase was for rivers where there was an increase from 32 types for the first to 48 types in the second RBMP. The RBMPs explain that reference conditions have been improved (e.g. adopting recent ones of the National regulation). It is difficult to compare the situation in the first RBMPs with that in the second. However, it is clear from the reporting of the second RBMPs to WISE that reference conditions still have not been completed for all relevant quality elements in all water categories and RBDs. Because there has been a re-delineation of surface water bodies in Spain between the two cycles resulting in 28 fewer surface water bodies for the second cycle and because of significant differences between the defined pressure types between the two cycles, it is difficult to make a quantitative comparison of pressures between the two cycles. The most comparable pressure types between the cycles are point source and diffuse source pressures at an aggregated level. In the first RBMPs, 34.8 % of surface water bodies in Spain were subject to significant point source pressures, this had increased to 44.1 % in 2016. For diffuse source pressures, 23.4 % of surface water bodies were affected in the first RBMPs, which increased to 43.2 % in the second cycle. No significant pressures were reported for 1958 (38.3 %) surface water bodies in Spain in the first cycle. In the second cycle, the number had decreased to 1057 (20.6 %), which reflects the improvements in the analysis of significance of pressures used for the second RBMPs. The RBMPs reported that there was a re-assessment of pressures and more data available on agriculture and livestock at district level which helped facilitate the pressures assessment. 2.3Progress with Commission recommendations ·Recommendation: Consider reviewing the legislation to incorporate explicitly the identification, by way of the pressures and impacts analysis, of water bodies at risk. Assessment: Spain has improved its pressure and impacts analysis since the first cycle but there are a number of RBDs where expert judgment is used to define the significance of pressures rather than more numerical methods such as modelling which would make the analysis more quantitative and robust. However, there is evidence that additional quantitative data has been used. Spain reported that the legislation has been reviewed and Royal Decree 817/2015 establishes the criteria for monitoring and assessing the status of the surface waters and the Environmental Quality Standards. This recommendation can therefore be considered as fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Ensure that there is a proper integration of the pressures and impacts analysis, the status assessment and the design of the Programme of Measures. Avoid defining the Programme of Measures on the basis of business as usual and a non-transparent assessment of what can be done, but rather on a genuine gap analysis that identifies which measures are needed to achieve good status and can also support the justification of exemptions. Assessment: There has been a gap analysis for all the significant pressures that can cause significant impacts in the surface waters and groundwater and measures have been established to address those pressures. Further progress is needed to better correlate the pressures and impacts analysis, the status assessment and the design of the Programme of Measures. There has been some progress on this aspect of the recommendation and therefore this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Ensure that RBMPs apportion impacts to pressures and sources/drivers, to increase the understanding of which activities and sectors are responsible and in which proportion - for achieving objectives. Assessment: As indicated above a gap analysis appears to have been performed for the second RBMP in some RBDs in Spain. This analysis has identified which sectors are responsible for some significant pressures e.g. point source pollution. In some of the RBMPs a matrix is reported that includes drivers and impacts showing the relationship between them. However, the numbers of water bodies affected were not included and therefore there was not a quantitative assessment. There is no evidence that source apportionment has been undertaken and therefore this recommendation has been partially fulfilled.

·Recommendation: Ensure all water bodies are delimited, in particular in the Canary Islands, where so far no river, lake or transitional water bodies have been identified. Assessment: The Canary Island RBDs have not reported their second RBMPs and therefore progress with this recommendation cannot be assessed; this recommendation is so far not 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 Monitoring programmes There was a wide variation in the number of monitoring programmes reported by each of the 18 of the 25 RBDs in Spain that had reported, with the Ebro RBD reporting 41 and four other RBDs only 1. The Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, Guadalete and Barbate and Tinto, Odiel and Piedras RBDs reported one programme (hydrological plan) that covered all four surface water categories and groundwater. The only reported programme for the Melilla RBD was for surveillance monitoring of coastal waters: note that this RBD had also identified rivers. No reported monitoring programme in Spain included territorial waters which are required to be monitored for chemical status only. Monitoring sites It is difficult to assess the changes of total numbers of monitoring sites in Spain because there are no reliable data for the first RBMPs. However, there are comparable data for sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring. Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes from the first to the second RBMPs, and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for the second RBMPs. Overall for the 18 RBDs in Spain that had reported on the second RBMPs, there was a 39 % reduction in the number of surveillance sites between the first RBMPs (5529 sites) and the second (3353 sites). There was a smaller reduction (18 %) in the number of operational sites between the two periods, 3362 for the first RBMPs and 2753 for the second. The ratio between surveillance and operational sites was 1:6 for the first RBMPs and 1:2 for the second indicating that there had been a proportionally larger reduction in surveillance compared to operational sites. Table 3.1 Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Spain for the second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported in the first RBMPs, the second RBMPs data 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 ES_010 147 90 0 0 ES_014 153 35 0 0 44 1 41 12 ES_017 207 89 5 0 33 4 21 1 ES_018 61 55 5 2 131 13 58 ES_020 160 569 14 2 ES_030 357 179 0 0 ES_040 148 243 21 16 7 3 5 ES_050 31 114 0 0 12 6 ES_060 130 74 10 6 8 7 34 6 ES_063 37 37 10 0 14 14 15 15 ES_064 35 20 4 1 14 14 5 3 ES_070 88 67 4 6 7 31 66 ES_080 202 262 14 18 ES_091 337 186 41 20 1 1 ES_100 262 259 28 0 28 320 157 ES_110 0 33 0 0 20 26 ES_150 0 0 0 0 7 7 Total by type of site 2355 2312 156 71 299 77 543 293 Total number of monitoring site used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring 3637 187 324 699 First RBMPs ES_010 86 74 0 0 5 0 0 0 ES_014 519 29 68 0 70 0 ES_017 165 239 6 0 25 4 11 1 ES_018 505 204 8 3 187 73 106 64 ES_020 819 726 32 2 ES_030 466 169 20 4 ES_040 165 217 18 17 8 6 5 0 ES_050 274 114 4 0 41 20 9 0 ES_060 48 72 3 2 9 9 46 18 ES_063 30 79 4 4 21 21 35 35 ES_064 30 64 5 6 42 42 16 16 ES_070 101 78 6 1 7 0 31 104 ES_080 154 101 20 17 31 12 226 113 ES_091 358 286 40 22 42 41 36 36 ES_100 301 111 29 7 28 7 31 16 ES_110 63 33 31 20 72 15 ES_150 7 7 ES_160 0 1 4 0 Total by type of site 4084 2597 195 85 545 255 705 425 Total number of monitoring sites 6681 280 800 1130 Source: Member States electronic reporting to WISE. Table 3.2 Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes for the second RBMPs in Spain: Note that no differentiation is made between sites used for ecological monitoring and/or chemical monitoring. Also there are differences between the RBDs included in this Table and the previous Table. Monitoring Purpose Lakes Rivers Transitional Coastal BWD - Recreational or bathing water - WFD Annex IV.1.iii 17 124 59 366 CHE - Chemical status 43 1010 279 347 DRI - Groundwater abstraction site for human consumption 20 DWD - Drinking water - WFD Annex IV.1.i 11 891 7 6 ECO - Ecological status 175 2522 345 750 HAB - Protection of habitats or species depending on water - WFD Annex IV.1.v 17 675 1 INT - International network of other international convention 3 INV - Investigative monitoring 30 536 9 MSF - Marine Strategy Framework Directive monitoring network 3 384 NID - Nutrient sensitive area under the Nitrates Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 5 65 5 79 OPE - Operational monitoring 71 2312 77 293 QUA - Quantitative status 109 REF - Reference network monitoring site 28 326 20 14 RIV - International network of a river convention (including bilateral agreements) 37 2 1 SEA - International network of a sea convention 46 SHE - Shellfish designated waters - WFD Annex IV.1.ii 2 43 48 SOE - EIONET State of Environment monitoring 36 479 SUR - Surveillance monitoring 156 2355 299 543 TRE - Chemical trend assessment 17 282 43 168 UWW - Nutrient sensitive area under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 2 312 20 3 Total sites irrespective of purpose 248 4669 536 1360 Source: WISE electronic reporting In terms of surveillance monitoring, there was a decrease in the number of sites in most RBDs for all relevant water categories: 11 of the 14 RBDs with transitional waters, 10 of the 17 RBDs with rivers, 10 of the 16 RBDs with coastal waters and nine of the 14 RBDs with lakes. The largest decrease was in the Duero RBD where for the first RBMP there were 819 river sites used for surveillance, and the number decreased to 160 for the second RBMP. There are also RBDs with increased numbers of surveillance sites for the second RBMPs: two for coastal waters, four for lakes, six for rivers and one for transitional waters. The biggest increase was in the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins RBD where there were 48 sites for the first RBMPs and 130 for the second. There were similar decreases in the number of monitoring sites used for operational purposes: seven RBDs for coastal waters, seven RBDs for lakes, eight RBDs for rivers and nine RBDs for transitional waters. The Duero RBD again showed the largest decrease from 726 operational sites in rivers for the first RBMPs to 569 sites for the second. There were also increases in operational sites in some RBDs: three RBDs for coastal waters, three RBDs for lakes, seven RBDs for rivers and one RBD for transitional water. The largest increase was for rivers in the Jucar RBD from 101 for the first RBMPs to 262 for the second.

Figure 3.1 Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Spain for the first RBMPs (2010) and second RBMPs (2016). Note no differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.1 shows the percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Spain for the first RBMPs and second RBMPs, while Figure 3.2 shows the share of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are included in surveillance monitoring. In general in Spain, ecological monitoring is undertaken at more sites and in more water bodies than for chemical monitoring in all water categories. Further information was obtained from three RBMPs. The RBMP for the Guadiana RBD reports that no changes have been undertaken in the surface water monitoring programmes. Hhowever, changes are in progress for the third RBMP. The Guadalquivir RBMP explains that there are different reasons for the changes: ·The increase in the number of surveillance monitoring sites in lakes and reservoirs is due to the changes in their programmes. No further explanation is provided. However, it should be noted that the revised set of monitoring sites is not yet operational (it seems that it has been reported as basis for the second RBMP) and that the number of monitoring sites might still change. ·Regarding the changes of the operational monitoring sites, an evaluation was carried out addressing i) location of the monitoring sites, ii) evaluation of the historical dataset to validate their continuity in the programme, iii) validation of non-compliance of the water body and thus continuity of the site in the programme, iv) review of water bodies in worse than good status (first RBMP) and new allocation of monitoring sites. In consequence, 21 monitoring sites have been incorporated from other monitoring programmes for water bodies in worse than good status, in addition to 22 new monitoring sites for water bodies in bad status in the first RBMP. ·Monitoring of fish under the Fresh Water Fish Directive has been supressed. Details obtained from the Ebro RBMP shows an overview table on the numerical changes in the different programmes, and does not provide any textual justification or explanation of changes, though a list of studies that have been carried out in the past year is attached (including fish behaviour studies, fish fauna studies, and ecological status studies in transitional waters). Note that the monitoring programmes for transitional waters in the Ebro RBD are only in an “experimental phase”.



Figure 3.2 Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class which are included in surveillance monitoring in Spain Source: WISE electronic reporting. 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 Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) 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. For the second RBMPs, there were still gaps in the expected biological quality elements to be included in monitoring for all water categories in at least some of the Spanish RBDs. For example, in the Galicia-Coast RBD only phytoplankton were monitored in coastal waters for the second RBMP. In three RBDs (Guadiana, Ebro, Catalan RBD), benthic invertebrates were monitored in coastal waters in the first RBMPs but were not reported as being monitored for the second. On a more positive note, whereas for the first RBMP no biological quality elements were reported to be monitored in the Balearic Islands, for the second all expected biological quality elements were reported. Table 3.3 Quality elements monitored for the second RBMPs in Spain (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants). Note; quality element 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 Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Lakes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Transitional Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Coastal Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No 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 Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Lakes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Transitional Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Coastal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Source: WISE electronic reporting In four RBDs, all expected biological quality elements were included in the monitoring of rivers for the second RBMPs: fish were reported not to be monitored any more in rivers in five RBDs. Though not an expected biological quality element for rivers, phytoplankton was monitored in 14 RBDs for the second RBMPs: in two RBDs phytoplankton had been monitored for the first RBMPs but not the second. There was an increase in the number of