COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Report on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive River Basin Management Plans Member State: PORTUGAL Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL The Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive: Actions towards the 'good status' of EU water and to reduce flood risks
Date: 2015-03-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Azores, Madeira, Portugal, chemical product, environmental risk prevention, flood, groundwater, hydrology, pollution from agricultural sources, prevention of pollution, quality of the environment, surface water, water management, water pollution













EUR-Lex - 52015SC0055 - EN











|



52015SC0055

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Report on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive River Basin Management Plans Member State: PORTUGAL Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL The Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive: Actions towards the 'good status' of EU water and to reduce flood risks /* SWD/2015/0055 final */









TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.       General
information.. 4
2.       Status of River Basin
Management Plan reporting and compliance.. 6
2.1.         Main Strengths. 6
2.2.         Main Gaps. 7
3.       Governance.. 8
3.1.         Timeline of implementation.. 8
3.2.         Administrative arrangements - river basin
districts and competent authorities. 8
3.3.         RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal
status. 10
3.4.         Consultation of the public, engagement of
interested parties. 12
3.5.         Cooperation and coordination with third
countries. 13
3.6.         Integration with other sectors. 14
4.       Characterisation of
river basin districts. 15
4.1.         Water categories in the RBD.. 15
4.2.         Typology of surface waters. 15
4.3.         Delineation of surface water bodies. 18
4.4.         Identification of significant pressures
and impacts. 19
4.5.         Protected areas. 23
5.       Monitoring.. 26
5.1.         General description of the monitoring
network. 26
5.2.         Monitoring of surface waters. 30
5.3.         Monitoring of groundwater. 32
5.4.         Monitoring of protected areas. 33
6.       Overview of status
(ecological, chemical, groundwater). 35
6.1.         Assessment of ecological status of
surface waters. 63
6.2.         Ecological status assessment methods. 63
6.3.         Application of methods and ecological
status results. 68
6.4.         River basin specific pollutants. 69
7.       Designation of heavily
modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential  71
7.1.         Designation of HMWBs. 73
7.2.         Methodology for setting good ecological
potential (GEP). 75
7.3.         Results of ecological potential
assessment in HMWB and AWB.. 76
8.       Assessment of chemical
status of surface waters. 76
8.1.         Methodological approach to the assessment. 76
8.2.         Substances causing Exceedance. 77
9.       Assessment of
groundwater status. 79
9.1.         Groundwater quantitative status. 79
9.2.         Groundwater chemical status. 80
9.3.         Protected areas. 81
10.          Environmental
objectives and exemptions. 81
10.1.       Additional objectives in protected areas. 81
10.2.       Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and
4(5). 82
10.3.       Exemptions according to Article 4(6). 85
10.4.       Exemptions according to Article 4(7). 85
10.5.       Exemptions to Groundwater Directive. 85
11.          Programmes of
measures. 85
11.1.       Programme of measures – general. 86
11.2.       Measures related to agriculture. 87
11.3.       Measures related to hydromorphology. 90
11.4.       Measures related to groundwater. 92
11.5.       Measures related to chemical pollution.. 93
11.6.       Measures related to Article 9 (water
pricing policies). 96
11.7.       Additional measures in protected areas. 99
12.          Climate change
adaptation, water scarcity and droughts, flood risk management and other
emerging and linked issues as part of the rbmp.. 100
12.1.       Water Scarcity and Droughts. 100
12.2.       Flood Risk Management. 101
12.3.       Adaptation to Climate Change. 101
13.          Recommendations. 102

1.                      
General information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin Districts
   ||   ||   || International River Basin Districts (within EU) 
   ||   ||   || International River Basin Districts (outside EU) 
   ||   ||   || National River Basin Districts (within EU) 
   ||   ||   || Countries (outside EU) 
   ||   ||   || Coastal Waters 
Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)
Portugal is a republic comprised of a
continental part and two autonomous regions. The total landmass area of
Portugal is 92 072 km², and the economic exclusive zone spans
1 727 408 km². The population in 2011 (date of last census) is about
10.6 million[1]. The Azores autonomous
region has a population of 246 thousand across 9 islands, while the Madeira
autonomous region has a population of 268 thousand across 2 islands.
There are three different administrative jurisdictions
governing the Water Framework Directive (WFD) implementation in Portugal:
mainland Portugal (PTRH1 to PTRH8) and the Azores (PTRH9) and Madeira (PTRH10)
autonomous regions. At the time of preparation of the River Basin Management
Plans (RBMPs) there were five independent regional water authorities in
mainland Portugal (see below). 
 RBD || Name || Size (km2)[2] || Countries sharing borders 
 PTRH1 || Minho and Lima || 2465* || ES 
 PTRH2 || Cávado, Ave and Leça || 3584 || - 
 PTRH3 || Douro || 19219* || ES 
 PTRH4 || Vouga, Mondego, Lis and Ribeiras do Oeste || 16981 || - 
 PTRH5 || Tejo || 25665 || ES 
 PTRH6 || Sado and Mira || 12149 || - 
 PTRH7 || Guadiana || 11611 || ES 
 PTRH8 || Ribeiras do Algarve || 5511 || - 
 PTRH9 || Açores || 10047 || - 
 PTRH10 || Madeira || 2248 || - 
Table 1.1: Overview of Portugal’s
River Basin Districts
* Area in Portuguese territory
Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[3]:
http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/be/eu/wfdart13
There are some peculiarities in some RBMPs. For PTRH4 there are two RBMPs, one for Vouga,
Mondego, Lis and another for Ribeiras do Oeste. This is because the Ribeiras do
Oeste RBMP was produced and implemented by the regional water authority of Tejo
(PTRH5), while the Vouga, Mondego, Lis RBMP was produced by the water authority
of the Centro (PTRH4)[4]. The Azores archipelago
is composed of nine islands, comprising the PTRH9; there is a Characterisation
and Diagnostic chapter including a study of status, pressures, monitoring and
economic analysis for each island, summarised in the main RBMP. 
Portugal shares four river basin districts with Spain:
Minho and Lima, Douro, Tejo and Guadiana. There are no joint
RBMPs with Spain but there has been some coordination with, in particular, the
relevant Spanish River Basin District (RBD) authorities.
 Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing borders || Co-ordination category 
 2 
 km² || % 
 Miño/Minho || PTRH1 (Minho-Lima) || ES || 817 || 5.0 
 Limia /Lima || PTRH1 (Minho-Lima) || ES || 1220 || 47.1 
 Duero/Douro || PTRH3 (Douro) || ES || 18650 || 19.3 
 Tajo/Tejo || PTRH5 (Tejo) || ES || 25026 || 21.7 
 Guadiana || PTRH7 (Guadiana) || ES || 11599 || 17.3 
Table 1.2: Transboundary river
basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Portugal[5].
Category 1: Co-operation agreement,
co-operation body, RBMP in place.
Category 2: Co-operation agreement,
co-operation body in place.
Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.
Category 4: No co-operation formalised.
Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures
in the major river basin management plans in the EU. Area data was supplied by
the PT authorities after the assessment of the RBMPs had been carried out.
This Annex covers the
RBMPs of mainland Portugal (PTRH1 to PTRH8), and of the Azores (PTRH9) and
Madeira (PTRH10) autonomous regions. 

2.                      
Status of River Basin Management Plan reporting
and compliance

The RBMPs for mainland Portugal were adopted on 22 March
2013 by a Resolution of the Council of Ministers (RCM) and were reported to the
Commission in September 2013. The Azores RBMP was adopted on 27 March 2013
(Resolution of the Council of the Government[6] n.º 24/2013) and reported in September 2013
to the Commission. The Madeira RBMP was adopted on 20 February 2014[7]
(Resolution n.º 81/2014) and was submitted to WISE from 1 to 4 April 2014.
 RBD || RBMP Date of Adoption || RBMP Date of Reporting 
 PTRH1 || 22/03/2013 || 27/09/2013 
 PTRH2 || 22/03/2013 || 27/09/2013 
 PTRH3 || 22/03/2013 || 27/09/2013 
 PTRH4 || 22/03/2013 || 27/09/2013 
 PTRH5 || 22/03/2013 || 27/09/2013 
 PTRH6 || 22/03/2013 || 29/09/2013 
 PTRH7 || 22/03/2013 || 29/09/2013 
 PTRH8 || 22/03/2013 || 29/09/2013 
 PTRH9 || 27/03/2013 || 27/09/2013 
 PTRH10 || 20/02/2014 || 04/04/2014 
Table 2.1: Adoption and reporting
to the Commission of Portugal's RBMPs.
Source:
RBMPs, WISE
While the RBMPs were
reported to WISE in September 2013 (except for Madeira (PTRH10), as mentioned
above), the XML data files had been reported in 2011 and 2012, hence prior to
the conclusion of the RBMP. Data on WISE
does not always match with the actual plans. In this report the source of data
is clearly referenced.

2.1.                
Main Strengths
 The RBMPs are quite complete with detailed
     explanations on methodology, assumptions and approaches, complemented with
     maps, drawings and data tables.
 The RBMPs’ development was subject to public
     participatory processes, including the creation of the multi-stakeholder
     River Basin District Councils for each river basin district. All
     documentation of the public participation, as well as the Strategic
     Environmental Assessment documents, is available at the same website as
     the RBMPs. 
 In almost all river basin districts there is
     limited information on a number of water bodies. In some river basin
     districts, monitoring programmes are not fully set up or only a limited
     number of parameters is monitored. However, the RBMPs show that efforts
     have been made to overcome the lack of data and to achieve classification
     of water bodies through alternative methods, such as modelling, expert
     judgment, etc. The methods used are explained with a fair degree of
     detail. 
 The Programme of Measures is detailed with
     information on which measures will be applied in which water bodies.
     Furthermore, the justification for each measure is provided. This is
     particularly the case for PTRH6, 7 and 8.
 A significant number of measures aim to increase
     knowledge on the water bodies through research and strengthening the
     monitoring network, and through the update or improvement of inventories
     of pressures. The goal is to increase the data available in the next WFD
     programming cycle, and to be able to classify a larger number of water
     bodies and increase the precision of delimitation and classification in
     other cases.
 There has been coordination between Portugal and Spain for the
     international RBDs, although no joint plans or actions have been devised.
2.2.                
Main Gaps
 Overall there is limited information on water
     bodies and several water bodies could not be classified in terms of
     ecological and chemical status (see tables in section 6), or have only
     preliminary classification. 
 Reference conditions for the classification of
     transitional and coastal waters have not yet been defined and the
     classification is thus considered preliminary.
 The monitoring network in Portugal has had
     maintenance challenges since 2009 and as a result has serious limitations,
     mainly for surface waters. In 2014 a new monitoring network contract was
     signed for new and revamped monitoring stations to be operational in 2015.
     For groundwater the monitoring network is more
     representative.
 With regards to biological assessment methods, only
     a few BQEs are used for the classification of water bodies. For example,
     only the phytobenthos and the benthic invertebrates are considered for the
     classification of river water bodies and only phytoplankton parameters (namely, chlorophyll a, total biovolume, % of cyanobacteria
     biovolume and a compositional index) are used in
     the classification of heavily modified water body (HMWB) lakes (there are
     no natural lakes in mainland Portugal). This decision is taken at the
     national level. Even if more BQEs are monitored in some RBMPs, they are
     not used for the assessment.
 There is limited information on the methodology to
     identify significant pressures. Also non-existent or very preliminary is
     the definition of ecological flow[8],
     information on groundwater dependent ecosystems, analysis of trends, and
     other issues requiring the existence of good data sets. 
 The links between pressures, status and measures are not clear.
     The lack of base information, together with a lack of analysis of the
     expected impacts of the measures renders unclear if and what WFD
     objectives will be attained for many water bodies. 

·        
No comprehensive funding has been specifically
secured under RBMPs for the implementation of the Programme of Measures (PoM).
Nevertheless, some of the measures included in the PoM are derived from other
ongoing plans, some of which have funds for implementation. 

 As stated above, the WISE summary reports are not
     always up to date as data was uploaded prior to the conclusion of the
     RBMPs and some changes were introduced in the RBMPs after the submission
     of data to WISE. As a result, some information is missing and there are
     differences between data reported on WISE and data in the RBMPs.
3.                      
Governance
3.1.                
Timeline of implementation
  
 RBD || Timetable || Work programme || Statement on consultation || Significant water management issues || Draft RBMP || Final RBMP 
 Due dates || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/12/2007 || 22/12/2008 || 22/12/2009 
 PTRH1 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2009 || 03/10/2011 || 01/06/2012 
 PTRH2 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2009 || 03/10/2011 || 01/06/2012 
 PTRH3 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2009 || 03/10/2011 || 01/06/2012 
 PTRH4 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2009   || 01/10/2011 || 31/10/2012 
 PTRH5 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2009 || 22/08/2011 || 30/09/2012 
 PTRH6 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2009[9] || 20/06/2011 || 22/03/2012 
 PTRH7 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2009 || 15/07/2011 || 22/03/2012 
 PTRH8 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2009 || 19/09/2011 || 01/06/2012 
 PTRH9 || 01/11/2006 || 01/11/2006 || 01/11/2006 || 01/02/2010 || 15/12/2011 || 15/06/2012 
 PTRH10 || 29/12/2005 || 19/10/2009 || 19/08/2013 || 02/08/2013 || 02/08/2013 || 25/02/2014 
Table 3.1.1: Timeline of the different
steps of the implementation process
Source: WISE Summary 1.3.2 for each RBD

3.2.                
Administrative arrangements - river basin
districts and competent authorities

Between the conception and drafting of the
RBMPs, the time in which the plans were finalised and published and the current
implementation, some major institutional changes occurred, with impacts on the
process. This is mostly reflected in the case of mainland Portugal.
In mainland Portugal the development of the
RBMPs has been undertaken by five River Basin District Administrations
(formerly the ‘RBD Authorities’), vested at the time with administrative and
financial autonomy. There was also the Water Institute which was Portugal´s
National Water Authority. The latter focused on
providing technical assistance and coordination, for example by issuing
national guidelines. 
From July 2011 to July 2013 (during the time in which the RBMPs were
submitted for final review and were approved), there was a Ministry for
Agriculture, Maritime Affairs, Environment and Spatial Planning (MAMAOT) in
charge of defining and coordinating policies related to water (including
coastal waters), as well as farming and fisheries. The organic law (Decree Law
nº 7/2012, of 17 January 2012) set up a new institution – the Portuguese
Environment Agency, I.P. (APA), in which the National Water Institute and the
five River Basin District Administrations were included (Decree Law nº 56/2012,
of 12 March 2012). As a result, the former RBD authorities are currently
regional departments of APA, implementing water policy at a regional level. APA
thus operates now as the single National Water Authority for all of Portugal’s
mainland RBDs.
Shortly after the publication of the RBMPs on 27 July 2013, the
MAMAOT was split into the Ministry of Agriculture and Sea (MAS) responsible for
marine affairs, and the Ministry of Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy
(MAOTE), which included the water and coastal zone management legal
competences. This is the present situation, whereby in particular APA retained
its competences. 
According to the water authority (APA), relations
and contacts between the two ministries are excellent and constant (“helped by
the fact that officials have worked together for decades”). Efforts are being
made to consider coastal and transitional waters as a common concern. In
particular, coordination and cooperation efforts are focused on: 
•    “Development of monitoring programmes and indicators, especially in
the context of marine waters, including coastal waters, where the Portuguese
challenges are higher considering the large area of jurisdiction and its deep
sea nature; 
•    Reporting, including harmonised schedules and formats;
•    Establishment of programmes of measures, including the required
economic analysis and management procedures.”
A further key player in Portugal’s water
management is the Water and Waste Services Regulatory Entity (ERSAR),
established in 2006. ERSAR plays a crucial role in the definition of urban
water cycle water tariffs, and also importantly in the implementation of the
water resources tax. The regulator has newly revised statutes published by Law
10/2014 of 6 March 2014.
Other bodies, established by the Water Law
(Law nº 58/2005), are the River Basin District Councils. The councils have an
advisory role and played important roles in the development of the RBMPs,
particularly in terms of technical assistance and advice. However, their
competencies, composition and functioning will be set up in a specific legal
act (yet to be published). 
The General Direction of Natural Resources
and Maritime Safety and Services (DGRM) of MAS is responsible for the licensing
of activities in the public maritime space, as well as for the regulation,
inspection, surveillance, coordination and control of the protection of marine resources,
fisheries, aquaculture, maritime and port safety. Monitoring of the coastal and
transitional waters is undertaken by the recently created Portuguese Institute
of the Sea and Atmosphere (which integrates the functions of the previous
meteorology institute and the marine research institute).
The competences of the RBD authority of the
Azores Autonomous Region have been approved by the Regional Regulatory Decree
nº 23/2011/A, which establishes that the Competent Authority is the Regional
Secretariat of Environment and the Sea, which as of March 2014 has become
Regional Secretariat of Natural Resources (SRRN). Water is managed by the
Directorate of Environment which is part of the SRRN. There is also a Regional
Water and Waste Services Regulatory Entity established by Regional Legal Decree
nº 8/2010/A of 5 March 2010.
The competences of the RBD authority of the
Madeira Autonomous Region have been approved by the Regional Legislative Decree
nº 33/2008/M, which establishes that the Regional Water Authority is the
Regional Directorate of Environment, and that the coastal zone and safety
issues (floods, safety and security related to dams) are administered by the
Regional Secretariat of Social Equipment, except in ports in which the
authority is the Port Administration of the Autonomous Region of Madeira.

3.3.                
RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

Usually, the RBMPs for Portugal are composed of specific parts, and
in each part specific chapters. The specific parts consist of characterisation
and diagnosis, objectives and exemptions, prospective scenarios, economic
analysis, the programme of measures, monitoring and evaluation. Each part has
written documents, as well as complementary documents with maps and drawings.
Each of the chapters within the parts can have hundreds of pages followed by
annexes. The documents on complementary processes such as Strategic
Environmental Analysis, Public Participation and Information Systems of Support
to Decision Making, as well as a Non-technical summary are provided at the
website of the Water Authority where the RBMP can be easily located[10].

The RBMPs are sectoral plans subject to the Spatial
Planning legal regime, according to which their development
is subject to guidelines set by the
national programme planning policy, and shall also be
compatible with regional plans.
RBMPs stand at an intermediate level between the National Water Plan (the strategic water management which they implement) and the
specific River Basin Management Plans that include measures to protect and
enhance water resources. RBMPs cannot contradict national guidelines or
decisions as their territorial scope is limited to the river basin and they are
subject to the relevant applicable laws.
The Water Law (Law 58/2005) transposes the Water Framework Directive
into Portuguese law, and also applies to the Azores and Madeira autonomous
regions (Article 101). In the case of Madeira, the Regional Legislative Decree
nº 33/2008/M adapts the water law to Madeira and DL 77/2006 complements it. 
Article 63 of the Water Law (Law 58/2005) defines the following
conditions and requirements for attribution of the right to use water: compliance with the standards and principles
of the Water Law; compliance with the provisions of the RBMPs; compliance with
the instruments of territorial planning and specific water expanses management;
and compliance with quality standards and discharge
standards.
Article
62 of the Water Law establishes that the following activities in the private
water domain require a previous licence and are specifically subject to the
RBMPs: discharge of wastewater; waste immersion; recharge and artificial
injection in groundwater; extraction of inert; landfills and excavations.
The legal regime for water uses was established by DL 226-A/2007,
which is extended to the Azores by Regional
Order Nº 67/2007. Madeira does not have an equivalent legislative act. The
regime establishes that the competent authority may temporarily
modify the titles for water use (licence or concession) whenever it is required
to ensure their compliance with the RBMPs (Article 28 (d), DL 226-A/2007), or
in case of drought or other natural disaster or force majeure (Article
67 (3), Water Law). 
As a
general rule the planning cycle defined under the Water Law is reflected in the
legal regimes for the different uses specified below. In fact, water use
requirements are mandatory for all water uses for which a permit is issued
under the Water Law by the National Water Authority. This permit is necessary
to gain an operating permit by activity
sector. 
However, regarding concessions, the DL 226-A/2007 which regulates
water uses states that the new regime does not impact on the existing
contracts. There are causes for modification or revocation of concessions; the
obligation to comply with the applicable laws and regulations and with the
instructions of the granter is one of them, but the compliance with the RBMP is
not expressly mentioned in old concessions. The method followed in Portugal is
to make amendments to requirements when concessions are renewed. The majority
of the existing dams are old and in most cases their permits have several
decades duration. 
Dams for hydropower and/or for agriculture constitute examples of
the above. Currently, in order to operate a new dam, a water use permit issued
by the line minister for environment is a pre-requisite to the final licence.
The old concessions were established by the line ministers of Energy (and/or
Economy), Agriculture, or other.
Generally
the period of time of the permits for water use and sectorial activity permits
are compatible or the same. The Minister in charge of Agriculture shall grant
concessions to use of public irrigation infrastructure for a period of 20 years
in accordance with Order 1473/2007.[11] In these concessions there is a general clause stating that the
granter reserves the right to review the concession’s conditions in order to
ensure their compliance, and any modification to the applicable legislation and
rules on management of the hydro agriculture uses, water resources and
environmental policy (Basis VI, Order 1473/2007).
The
license for exploitation of an IPPC installation and its modifications can only
be issued after the environmental license administrative decision which aims at
ensuring prevention and control of pollution establishing the measures required
to avoid, or if that is not possible, reduce emissions. Minimising water
discharge is a sine qua non condition for the operation of the
installation. Supplementary conditions in order to ensure compliance with the
objectives of environmental quality (Article 18, DL 173/2008) are explicitly
foreseen. The use of water resources by an IPPC installation can be requested
by the operator directly to the APA regional department, and the permit is
annexed to the environmental license and shall comply with the
legal regime for water uses (DL 226-A/2007 as amended) and the Water Law
(Article 26, DL 173/2008).

3.4.                
Consultation of the public, engagement of
interested parties

The section below takes into account that the River Basin District
Authorities existed while the consultation process occurred. See above sections
for information on changes that are ongoing. The details of future consultation
processes are still not known in detail, although by-and-large they will reportedly
follow established legal requirements and practice. 
 
The general principle of participation is established under Article
84 of the Water Law according to which the State shall, through the Portuguese
Water Authority and the River Basin District Authorities (RBDAs) (both now
integrated into APA), promote active participation of natural and legal persons in
establishing, reviewing and updating the RBMPs. This
task is attributed to the Regional Secretariat dealing with Environment in the
Azores and Madeira Autonomous Regions. Stakeholders are to be involved in
drafting, reviewing and evaluating
the RBMPs through the process of public discussion and representation of the
users in water management advisory bodies. 
The opening of the period of public discussion was announced through a note published in Portugal´s official journal
and disseminated through the media[12].
This note includes the following information: (i) period of consultation (it
has been fixed at six months for each RBMP); (ii) the scope of consultation
(draft version of the RBMP including technical report and non-technical summary
for each river basin; the environmental reports; and the non-technical
summaries of the SEA); (iii) the competent authorities’ websites. After the public discussion period, each RBDA shall
assess the results and prepare the final
version. The RBMP shall indicate the measures of information and public consultation including
the results and amendments made to the plans
accordingly.
In each RBD, the River Basin District Councils (RBDCs) play a
central role in the public consultation process during the elaboration of the
RBMPs. They are an advisory body of the RBDAs and can
also receive claims and complaints from individual and legal persons. RBDCs include representatives from: the ministries; other bodies of
public administration; municipalities with a direct interest; representative bodies of main users related to the consumptive and
non-consumptive uses of water in the respective river basin - associations from
different sectors such as users of water resources, agriculture, fisheries,
tourism; technical and scientific organisations on environment and water
resources; and non-governmental organisations on environment and water
resources. The RBDC composition and operation is to be established in the
Statute of each RBDA in accordance with the characteristics of each river basin
district[13]. The frequency of
meetings is to be determined by the President of the RBDC in accordance with
the general rules applicable to collective bodies under the Code of
Administrative Procedures. The RBDC of the RBDA of Tejo, for instance, met
three times in 2009 and 2010 and twice in 2011 - the reports and lists of
participants are publicly available.[14] 
The consultation period for all Portuguese RBMPs was compliant with
the law referred to above and the WFD. Information for
public consultation was provided through the media, internet, printed material
and invitations to any interested parties. The consultation process took place
through face-to-face meetings, written consultation and web-based submissions.
Workshops and meetings with relevant sectors were held, as well as workshops
for the general public. 
The stakeholders involved in the consultation process included water
companies, energy companies, farmers, ports, fisheries, industries,
conservation bodies, local planning authorities, NGOs, consumer groups,
universities and the general public. 
The impact of the consultation process on the final plans resulted
in changes to measures and changed information. There was also a parallel
strategic environmental assessment with public participation. 
The existing documentation for some RBMPs does not allow a clear
distinction between the impact of the direct public consultation on the RBMPs
and that of the SEA.

3.5.                
Cooperation and coordination with third
countries

Portugal has four international RBDs shared with Spain: Minho,
Douro, Tejo and Guadiana. No international RBMPs have been adopted or are being
developed. However, there has been some cooperation between homologous water
authorities.
Cooperation was
arranged in terms of participation by Spanish and Portuguese water authorities
in public meetings organised both in Spain and in Portugal on Significant Water
Management issues, and by submission of comments by the Portuguese and the
Spanish authorities on each other’s RBMPs. This has occurred for PTRH1 and
PTRH3 with Miño-Sil (ES010) and Duero (ES020); PTRH5 with Tajo (ES030); and
PTRH7 with Guadiana (ES040).
Besides this,
there is a bilateral agreement on the shared water resources safeguarding
quantity and quality of water at the border[15]: the Convenção
de Albufeira, 1998, revised in 2008 by Parliament Resolution (Resolução da
Assembleia da República) nº 62/2008. Within the framework of the bilateral
meetings of the Convention, the delimitation of the water bodies and river and
reservoir typologies has been agreed. 
An information platform is in place and several joint studies have
been carried out. However, so far there has been no joint implementation of
PoMs in Portugal and Spain. In some cases the
Portuguese RBMP contains an overall measure which relates to Spanish
authorities implementing their RBMP in order for the surface and groundwater at
the border to be in good ecological status. 
As the Portuguese Water Authorities report, for the new planning
cycle (2015-2021), Portugal and Spain have agreed at the December 2013 plenary
session of the Commission for the Implementation and Development of the
Albufeira Convention (CADC), to enhance communication and coordination in the
various stages of the process, in particular on:
·     
Updating the delimitation of boundary and trans
boundary water bodies; 
·     
Updating the classification systems; 
·     
Status assessment of boundary and trans boundary
water bodies; 
·     
Defining common environmental objectives for
boundary and trans boundary water bodies and related compliance timeframes; 
·     
Harmonisation of PoMs; 
·     
Definition of common elements for public
participation processes of each RBMP (eg. Non-technical Summary, joint public
meetings, etc.);
·     
 Coordination on pressures and impacts, water
body status and initial objectives (planned for October 2014).

3.6.                
Integration with other sectors

Water planning is subject, inter alia, to the principle of
integration in accordance with which it shall be compatible with other
administrative planning instruments at the same hierarchical rank in the
environmental, spatial and economic fields.
The National Programme of Spatial Planning Policy (PNPOT), approved
by Law nº 58/2007[16],
prevails over all other instruments of spatial planning in force, establishing
the guidelines for the elaboration of new sectoral plans. The PNPOT and the
National Water Plan shall be coordinated in order to ensure the proper
integration and compatibility of their policy options. On the other hand, the
sectoral plans and programmes with significant water impacts shall integrate
the objectives and measures foreseen in the water planning instruments. The
water planning instruments are binding on the Public Administration and include
development plans of public water reservoirs, coastal zone management plans and
estuaries management plans. 
The “National Programme of Dams with High Hydropower Potential”
approved in October 2007, identifies and prioritises investments in
hydroelectric power plants for the period 2007-2020, in order to meet European
and national renewable energy and climate change targets – including post-2020.
The general objective of the Portuguese Government is to achieve a total of 7
000 MW installed hydroelectric power by 2020, in order to accomplish the goals
of Directive 2001/77/EC and Directive 2009/28/EC (31% of renewable energy in
final energy consumption). The RBMPs specifically refer to this Programme with
regard to sectoral policy guidelines to which the RBMP must comply. The
implementation of this Programme will have a strong impact on the RBD and some
water bodies will have to be reclassified, particularly in PTRH3.
Besides links to the sectors above, the RBMP contains links to other
policy sectors such as nature conservation, agriculture (including livestock
and forest), rural development, maritime issues, climate change, water supply
and wastewater services, solid waste management, tourism, and transport. 

4.                      
Characterisation of river basin districts
4.1.                
Water categories in the RBD

Nine of the ten
assessed RBDs in Portugal contain rivers, lakes, transitional waters, and
coastal waters. In mainland Portugal there are no natural lakes and the
reservoirs are considered heavily modified lakes (see further below). For
PTRH10 Madeira, there are only rivers and coastal waters and, although there
are artificial waters (the “levadas”), the lack of information prevents their
delimitation and characterisation. 
The Azores (PTRH9) is a volcanic
archipelago composed of nine islands. This characteristic explains the high
number of coastal water bodies. The RBMP also explains that due to orographic
and hydrologic characteristics of the islands, the lakes are represented in a
larger number than rivers. 
Water bodies
were delineated according to the guidance in the CIS document “Identification of Waterbodies” – WFD CIS Guidance Document nº 2
(2003) and WFD CIS Guidance Document nº 4 (Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water
Bodies), in conjunction with a clustering method that takes
into account natural characteristics, such as morphology or salinity and
anthropogenic pressures, such as phosphorous and nitrogen loads and their
impacts, organic matter load and dissolved oxygen.

4.2.                
Typology of surface waters
  
 RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal 
 PTRH1 || 5 || 1 || 1 || 1 
 PTRH2 || 4 || 1 || 1 || 1 
 PTRH3 || 6 || 2 || 1 || 2 
 PTRH4 || 6 || 2 || 1 || 2 
 PTRH5 || 10 || 3 || 1 || 2 
 PTRH6 || 4 || 1 || 1 || 2 
 PTRH7 || 4 || 2 || 1 || 1 
 PTRH8 || 5 || 1 || 1 || 3 
 PTRH9 || 1 || 2 || 3 || 3 
 PTRH10 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 2 
Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types
at RBD level
Source: WISE Summary 2.2.2 
All river water
bodies were considered to have a minimum length of 2 km and drainage basin of
10 km2. For the lake category a threshold of 0.4 km2
(area) was used to identify water bodies. Thus, no natural lake water bodies
were identified in mainland Portugal; reservoirs were identified as water
bodies and subsequently they were identified and designated as HMWB Lakes. As
this was not in line with the WFD CIS guidance n°4 this will be changed in the
second cycle and reservoirs will be considered as HMWB Rivers for reporting
purposes.
For mainland
Portugal the types of Rivers and reservoirs have been defined using System B of
Annex II of the WFD to establish abiotic typology. Afterwards, the typology was
checked against biological communities to see if they were compliant with the
distribution of the biological quality elements in order to ensure that water
status assessment was not biased by typology problems. Some adjustments were
made in the case of some river types. The method is
established in the national guidance document Critérios para a classificação
do estado das massas de água superficiais – rios e albufeiras issued in
2009 by the former Portuguese Water Institute. 
For rivers, the
biological elements that were used are those typical of this water body
category, i.e. benthic invertebrates, phytobenthos, macrophytes and fish
populations. Data obtained from sampling conducted at reference points in the
2004 - 2005 campaigns was taken into account. The process led to the definition
of 15 types of rivers for mainland Portugal. 
The definition
of the type of reservoirs was based on system B involving multivariate
statistical analysis of 23 abiotic variables. The end result was the definition
of three major types: North, South and Main Course. 
For transitional
waters, the process of typology definition was composed of a top-down expert
judgment approach and a bottom-up cluster analysis approach using the tool
"Deluxe Integrated System for Clustering Operations" (DISCO) Based on
the guidance document “WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 5” (2003 ), mandatory and
optional factors for water bodies greater than 1 km2 were selected .
In the expert approach, classification of transitional waters was performed by
the B system. A team of national and international experts reached consensus on
a list of types. Cluster analysis included obligatory and optional factors of
the B system. The final typology was achieved through a comparison of the types
obtained with the expert approach and cluster analysis. This resulted in two
types: A1 - Stratified Mesotidal Estuary, present in the north of Portugal,
where the rainfall regime is uniformly distributed over the winter months; and
A2 - Homogeneous Mesotidal Estuary in the central and southern regions of the
country, where intense precipitation episodes occur leading to irregular river
flows. 
The definition
of types of coastal water bodies was performed using a similar methodology as
for transitional waters. The definition of the types has been done by the
project “Ticor: Typology and Reference Conditions for Portuguese Transitional
and Coastal Waters.” By applying the B system, five types of coastal waters
have been identified for mainland Portugal: two that correspond to coastal
lagoons (A3 - Semi - closed Mesotidal pond and A4 – Shallow Mesotidal Pond) and
three types for the open coast (A5 – Exposed Mesotidal Atlantic Coast, A6 -
Moderately Exposed Mesotidal Atlantic Coast and A7 - Sheltered Mesotidal
Atlantic Coast).
Both coastal and
transitional water bodies’ typologies were checked against biology using the
methodology described in Bettencourt et al., (2004).[17]
According to the respective RBMPs, the water bodies of
the archipelagos of Azores and Madeira present unique characteristics, not
allowing a comparison with mainland water bodies or with the broad EU-types
defined in the intercalibration exercise. In the Azores, system A of Annex II
of the WFD was applied to transitional and coastal waters and system B was
applied in natural lakes and rivers. In Madeira, system B was used for rivers,
with the crucial differentiation parameter being precipitation, while system A
was used for coastal waters, with the differentiation factor being depth (200
m).
The RBMP of the Azores states that although it would be
logical to establish two types of river water body, according to altitude and
variation of biological communities, the border between the two types could not
be established due to limited available information (low number of monitoring points).
Therefore, only one type of river water body was considered in the RBMP. For
lakes, two types were defined according to geographical and physical factors
and anthropogenic pressures, and relative abundance of the planktonic
communities in relation to the coastal benthonic communities (phytobenthos and
benthic fauna). Transitional waters are small coastal ponds, which receive
freshwater inputs mainly from groundwater and constitute unique ecosystems.
Three types of transitional water were defined: A-T-O/P Oligohaline waters with
salinity in the range 0.5-5%, A-T-M/P Mesohaline water with salinity in the
range 5-18%, and A-T-P/P Polihaline waters with salinity in the range 18-30%.
The three types of coastal waters depend on depth: shallow, intermediate depth,
and deep. For transitional and coastal waters the typologies were not checked
against biology.
Madeira has defined
three types of rivers according to the geographic location, altitude, geology,
dimension (drainage basing larger than 1km2 in Madeira and 0.5km2
in Porto Santo), and precipitation. The typologies were not checked
against ecological and chemical conditions. Two types of coastal waters have
been defined, using salinity, depth and ecoregion as parameters. The
differentiation factor of the two types is the 200m bathymetric level; the
other two parameters are alike in the two types. The RBMP states that the 200 m
bathymetric was used as it is the limit of the eutrophic zone where the
majority of fisheries resources occur.
Regarding reference conditions,
the work is not completed in several RBDs of Portugal, in relation with the
existing gaps in monitoring and development of assessment methods. The work is
more advanced in mainland Portugal. For the Azores and Madeira there is less
data and the water bodies are different from the ones in the mainland and
unique to the islands. Whenever possible Madeira used parameters’ reference
values as specified in the national guidance documents. In other cases
reference values were obtained using expert judgement, results from different
studies and ad-hoc methodologies. However, much work on defining reference
conditions is yet to be done.

4.3.                
Delineation of surface water bodies

A
minimum size threshold has been set for each category of surface water. Most of
the delineation of the water bodies was based on the CIS EU Guidance No. 2, but
there were some exceptions. For rivers, the threshold was set at a catchment
area of 10 km2 in mainland Portugal and in the Azores, but at 1 km2
in Madeira Island. All reservoirs with an area
larger than 0.4 km2 were considered HMWB Lakes, in addition to some
reservoirs with a smaller area, used for water supply. In the Azores a minimum surface area within the range of 0.01-0.5
km2 was considered. Small
water bodies with the same type and status were incorporated into adjacent
water bodies. After that, based on expert analysis, water bodies were
iteratively grouped so as to lead to a minimum number of water bodies for which
it is possible to clearly establish the environmental quality objectives. For
transitional and coastal waters, the typology described in Bettencourt et al.
(2004)[18] does not consider the
existence of small water bodies. However, the minimum size of water bodies
considered is 1 km2. In the second RBMPs, delineation of water
bodies will be revised in all RBDs to account for improved data on
hydromorphological pressures and consideration for smaller water bodies where
relevant.
 RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater 
 Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal 
 Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)[19] 
 PTRH1 || 56 || 9 || 3 || 5 || 10 || 4 || 2 || 29 || 2 || 1203 
 PTRH2 || 69 || 10 || 7 || 6 || 6 || 1 || 1 || 222 || 4 || 840 
 PTRH3 || 361 || 14 || 17 || 5 || 3 || 2 || 2 || 181 || 3 || 6274 
 PTRH4 || 236 || 16 || 9 || 3 || 10 || 13 || 8 || 387 || 30 || 510 
 PTRH5 || 395 || 17 || 24 || 6 || 4 || 92 || 2 || 191 || 12 || 2236 
 PTRH6 || 195 || 11 || 19 || 5 || 9 || 24 || 3 || 688 || 8 || 1050 
 PTRH7 || 222 || 14 || 16 || 20 || 5 || 7 || 2 || 9 || 9 || 1300 
 PTRH8 || 64 || 14 || 3 || 2 || 3 || 3 || 10 || 176 || 23 || 163 
 PTRH9 || 13 || 63* || 24 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 27 || 286 || 54 || 43 
 PTRH10 || 94 || 6 || - || - || - || - || 8 || 181 || 4 || 196 
 Total || 1705 || 17,4 || 122 || 6 || 53 || 16 || 65 || 235 || 149 || 13815 
Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies,
groundwater bodies and their dimensions 
Source: WISE (Summary 2.2.1.1 and 2.3.1.1 for each
RBD)
* In PTRH9 all water courses inside the catchment area were considered for the
overall length of the water bodies.
In PTRH7, the large size
of lakes (reservoirs) is due to the Alqueva reservoir, the largest reservoir in
Europe. In the first RBMP this reservoir was considered as one water body
because not enough data was available to divide it into several water bodies. This
will change in the second RBMP.
In PTRH5 the large size of transitional
waters is due to the Tagus estuary, one of the largest estuaries in Portugal.

4.4.                
Identification of significant pressures and
impacts

The methodology used for identification of significant
pressures generally follows a national approach regarding the pressures to
consider (Decree Law 77/2006). However, limited data regarding pressures,
namely in inventories of point source pollution, water abstraction and
hydromorphological pressures affect the results. The methodology to assess
significant pressures includes a combination of numerical tools and expert
judgment based on existing information which varies between RBDs. It is stated
that significant pressures are those that produce an impact on the water bodies
that causes the non-compliance with at least one of the established criteria
for the classification of the Ecological Status/Potential and Chemical Status,
and consequently contributes to status worse than "Good". The RBMPs do
not provide information on all numerical values used and for some types of
pressures (e.g. hydromorphological), different RBDs used different criteria. 
For hydromorphological pressures, the decision of what
is significant is done at RBD level but the rationale is not explained. National guidelines to assess hydromorphological pressures and
impacts were developed, but they are broad and the rules used to assess
significance are unclear. Besides this, the level of the existing information
was not the same in each RBD and, as a result, RBDs have chosen some of the
impacts (but never all of them) based on expert judgement and on limited
information. For example, in PTRH3, hydromorphological
pressures are moderate if there is at least one dam with a wall of 5 m, or the
pressure is considered significant if at least one of the dams does not have a
fish passage. In PTRH7, however, if a water body has a dam with a wall of 2 m
it is considered that there is a significant pressure. Similarly, for the
extension of a regulated stretch of river; for PTRH7 the existence of a
regulated stretch of 500 m or more is significant; in the case of PTRH3 it is
significant if the 500 m is bordered by vertical walls, or the riverbed is
waterproof. 
In PTRH9 there are some significant hydromorphological
pressures, particularly in two water bodies with dam walls of 3 m (one of which
is a cascade of dams). However, no HMWB was defined. In PTRH10 Madeira, 27 out
of 97 river flow regulations were considered significant pressures (since they
have an extension greater than 500 m), and two dams were considered to
impose significant pressures as their wall is higher than 2 m (these data
are included as river management in Table 4.4.1). However, no HMWB were defined
in Madeira. The non-definition of HMWBs might be related to lack of data, but
no further explanation could be found in the RBMP.
Flow regulation was assessed using expert judgment, along with GIS
maps and pressure datasets, including the River Habitat Survey and their
corresponding indicators (Habitat Modification Score). 
For water abstraction, high regime uses, permits and estimates of
self-use were taken into account. The RBDs acknowledge that the inventory of water abstraction is incomplete in terms of the number
of abstractions and their characteristics, as a result of the available data at
the time of the development of the first RBMPs. Meanwhile, there has been an
improvement in the licensing procedures and it is expected that this data will
improve for the second RBMPs. 
Reported data from point sources was used to assess pollution
pressure. Where there was no data, coefficients related to production in the
municipality were considered. For the ports, a qualitative analysis was
undertaken. In protected areas, “significant” means that the point sources
prevent the quality norms of specific legislation from being achieved. For
point sources, discharge permit values were converted to load values for
different substances and concentrations were compared to relevant standards to
identify risks to WFD compliance. For diffuse sources, information on land use
cover, agricultural census data and water quality classification was used to
provide a risk category. 
The analysis shows that all
existing pressures were unevenly covered in the different RBDs without
harmonised criteria. The National Water Authority has committed to address this
in the update of the analysis required under WFD Article 5.
The following chart indicates the
significant pressures seen in Portugal. There is some regional variation. Given
the difference in the number of water bodies in each RBD, it is better to look
at the proportion of RBDs affected.
 RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures 
 No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % 
 PTRH1 || 52 || 73 || 1 || 1.41 || 10 || 14 || 0 || 0 || 12 || 17 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 7.04 
 PTRH2 || 61 || 73 || 9 || 10.84 || 17 || 20 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 13 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1.2 
 PTRH3 || 265 || 69 || 17 || 4.44 || 103 || 27 || 0 || 0 || 80 || 21 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 24 || 6.27 
 PTRH4 || 174 || 66 || 52 || 19.77 || 62 || 24 || 0 || 0 || 26 || 10 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 10 || 3.8 
 PTRH5 || 217 || 51 || 138 || 32.47 || 208 || 49 || 3 || 0.7 || 76 || 18 || 10 || 2.35 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH6 || 31 || 14 || 132 || 58.41 || 183 || 81 || 9 || 4 || 77 || 34 || 1 || 0.44 || 7 || 3.1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH7 || 16 || 7 || 138 || 56.33 || 209 || 85 || 6 || 2.5 || 155 || 63 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0.82 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH8 || 3 || 4 || 34 || 42.5 || 76 || 95 || 4 || 5 || 58 || 73 || 1 || 1.3 || 4 || 5 || 1 || 1.25 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH9 || 42 || 63 || 0 || 0 || 19 || 28 || 1 || 1.5 || 4 || 6 || 3 || 4.5 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2.99 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH10 || 63 || 62 || 7 || 7 || 10 || 10 || 3 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 28 || 27 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 Total || 924 || 48 || 521 || 27 || 887 || 46 || 23 || 1.2 || 499 || 26 || 15 || 0.8 || 13 || 0.7 || 3 || 0.2 || 40 || 2.1 
Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of
surface water bodies affected by significant pressures
Source: WISE SWB_PRESSURE
Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of
surface water bodies affected by significant pressures
1 = No pressures
2 = Point source
3 = Diffuse source
4 = Water abstraction
5 = Water flow
regulations and morphological alterations
6 = River management
7 = Transitional and coastal water
management
8 = Other morphological alterations
9 = Other pressures
Source: WISE SWB_PRESSURE (PTRH10 is not in
SWB_PRESSURE WISE report. Data therefore extracted directly from WISE database)
The sectors
which contribute most to chemical pollution include: wastewater treatment
plants (WWTPs) and agriculture including livestock, particularly pig farming.
In some RBDs abandoned mines or industrial sites needing environmental
rehabilitation also pose pressures.
Point and
diffuse source pollution are considered stronger pressures in the south of
Portugal. In the Azores point source pollution is not considered a pressure.
However, looking at the number of water bodies affected it is clear that PTRH3
and PTRH5 are affected by diffuse source pollution. PTRH5 also has a large
number of water bodies affected by point source pollution, as is expected due
to existing industry and pig farming as well as human agglomerations. Water
flow regulations and morphological alterations are considered significant
pressures in the Douro (PTRH3) and Tejo (PTRH5) river basins due to the
hydropower dams. Similarly, dams are significant pressures in PTRH7 due to the
Alqueva-Pedrógão system and an upstream dam in Spain, and the south of Portugal
in Alentejo (PTRH6) and Algarve (PTRH8) due to water scarcity and the dams and
reservoirs required for agriculture and human consumption. For the Azores major
pressures are related with diffuse source pollution (28%). The level of
significant pressures from water abstraction is surprisingly low. According to
the Portuguese water authority the abstraction inventory is incomplete in terms
of the number of abstractions and their characteristics, as a result of the
data available at the time of the development of the first RBMPs. With the
improvements made on the licensing procedures it is expected that data will
improve for the second RBMPs.

4.5.                
Protected areas

The following tables
identify the protected areas within the scope of the Water Framework Directive
in Portugal. Table 4.5.1 is derived from a different source to the subsequent
tables and some differences do exist. Tables 4.5.2 onwards were provided by the
Portuguese Water Authorities and did not include Madeira. 
 RBD || Number of PAs 
 Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT 
 PTRH1 || 33 || 15 || 2 ||   || 7 || 6 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH2 || 35 || 46 || 1 ||   || 11 || 2 ||   ||   || 1 ||   ||   
 PTRH3 || 79 || 46 || 5 ||   || 9 || 13 ||   ||   ||   ||   || 4 
 PTRH4 || 56 || 106 || 5 ||   || 22 || 14 ||   ||   || 2 ||   || 2 
 PTRH5 || 43 || 57 || 9 ||   || 19 || 16 ||   ||   || 2 ||   || 2 
 PTRH6 || 23 || 33 || 10 ||   || 5 || 8 ||   ||   ||   ||   || 2 
 PTRH7 || 52 || 4 || 11 ||   || 6 || 7 ||   ||   || 2 ||   || 1 
 PTRH8 || 18 || 103 || 4 ||   || 2 || 8 ||   ||   || 2 ||   || 1 
 PTRH9 || 193 || 52 || 15 ||   ||   || 22 || 78 ||   || 8 || 34 ||   
 PTRH10 || 164 || 31 || 4 || 3 ||   || 11 ||   || 5 ||   ||   ||   
 Total || 696 || 493 || 66 || 3 || 81 || 107 || 78 || 5 || 17 || 34 || 12 
Table 4.5.1: Number of protected
areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and
groundwater[20]
Source: WISE (PA_NB) and RBMPs for PTRH9 and PTRH10
 GWB: Number of Protected Areas || Number of GWB with Protected Areas 
 RBD || Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Nitrates || RBD || Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Nitrates 
 PTRH1 || 25 || 0 || PTRH1 || 2 || 0 
 PTRH2 || 23 || 1 || PTRH2 || 2 || 1 
 PTRH3 || 29 || 0 || PTRH3 || 1 || 0 
 PTRH4 || 25 || 2 || PTRH4 || 25 || 2 
 PTRH5 || 12 || 2 || PTRH5 || 12 || 3 
 PTRH6 || 19 || 0 || PTRH6 || 6 || 0 
 PTRH7 || 43 || 2 || PTRH7 || 3 || 3 
 PTRH8 || 16 || 2 || PTRH8 || 1 || 5 
 PTRH9 || 207 || 0 || PTRH9 || 39 || 0 
 Total || 399 || 9 || Total || 91 || 14 
Table 4.5.2: Number of protected
areas in groundwater bodies in each RBD and number of groundwater bodies with
protected areas 
Source: Additional information provided by the PT
authorities after assessment of RBMPs.
 SWB: Number of Protected Areas 
 RBD || Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || Nitrates || Shellfish 
 PTRH1 || 8 || 15 || 19 || 0 || 15 || 41 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH2 || 12 || 46 || 4 || 0 || 25 || 21 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH3 || 50 || 46 || 92 || 4 || 24 || 146 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH4 || 31 || 106 || 20 || 3 || 61 || 54 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH5 || 31 || 57 || 42 || 0 || 76 || 88 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH6 || 4 || 33 || 33 || 2 || 28 || 74 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH7 || 9 || 4 || 81 || 1 || 22 || 85 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH8 || 2 || 103 || 37 || 1 || 9 || 53 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH9 || 3 || 51 || 24 || 0 ||   || 42 || 125 || 13 || 79 
 Total || 150 || 461 || 352 || 11 || 260 || 604 || 125 || 13 || 79 
Table 4.5.3: Number of protected
areas in surface water bodies in each RBD 
Source: Additional information provided by the PT
authorities
 Number of SWB with Protected Areas 
 RBD || Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || Nitrates || Shellfish 
 PTRH1 || 6 || 5 || 19 || 0 || 15 || 39 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH2 || 9 || 6 || 4 || 0 || 24 || 21 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH3 || 43 || 14 || 91 || 4 || 22 || 137 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH4 || 21 || 26 || 20 || 3 || 53 || 51 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH5 || 26 || 19 || 42 || 0 || 69 || 86 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH6 || 4 || 4 || 31 || 2 || 28 || 72 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH7 || 9 || 3 || 76 || 1 || 22 || 84 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH8 || 2 || 9 || 35 || 1 || 9 || 45 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH9 || 3 || 13 || 19 || 0 || 0 || 31 || 38 || 13 || 25 
 Total || 123 || 99 || 337 || 11 || 242 || 566 || 38 || 13 || 25 
Table 4.5.4: Number of surface water
bodies with protected areas in each RBD 
Source: Additional information provided by the PT
authorities
In mainland Portugal bivalve
production areas were not designated as protected areas. This is because
Portugal considers that they can only be classified as a direct result of the
application of Directive 79/923/CE. However, specific associated constraints
were considered in the application of other Directives, including the Urban
Wastewater Treatment Directive and the licensing of wastewater discharges. For
the second RBMPs the areas identified for production of shellfish
(Dispatch Nº 15264/2013, 2nd grade, Nº 227 – 22 November 2013) will
be classified as protected areas. 

5.                      
Monitoring
5.1.                
General description of the monitoring network. 

   
Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and
groundwater (right) monitoring stations
   || • ||   || River monitoring stations 
   || • ||   || Lake monitoring stations 
   || • ||   || Transitional water monitoring stations 
   || • ||   || Coastal water monitoring stations 
   || • ||   || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations 
   || • ||   || Groundwater monitoring stations 
   ||   ||   ||  River Basin Districts 
   ||   ||   ||  Countries outside EU 
Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 
The RBMPs do not show
progress in comparison with the 2009 implementation report. Monitoring networks
in several RBDs are not considered representative, and the PoMs for all RBDs
include measures to strengthen the monitoring network.
 RBD || Rivers || Lakes 
 QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants 
 PTRH1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 PTRH2 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 PTRH3 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 PTRH4 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 PTRH5 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 PTRH6 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 PTRH7 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 PTRH8 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 PTRH9 || - || - ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 PTRH10 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
                                                                                                  
 RBD || Transitional || Coastal 
 QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants 
 PTRH1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 PTRH2 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 PTRH3 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 PTRH4 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 PTRH5 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 PTRH6 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 PTRH7 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 PTRH8 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 PTRH9 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 PTRH10 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - 
Table 5.1: Quality elements monitored
   || QE Monitored 
   || QE Not monitored 
 - ||   || Not Relevant 
Source:
WISE 4.1.7 and 4.1.8
 RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater 
 Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant 
 PTRH1 || 19 || 7 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 0 || 4 
 PTRH2 || 16 || 23 || 6 || 2 || 7 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 9 || 23 || 8 
 PTRH3 || 58 || 62 || 4 || 12 || 3 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 12 || 0 || 10 
 PTRH4 || 65 || 62 || 4 || 5 || 9 || 0 || 3 || 2 || 117 || 57 || 86 
 PTRH5 || 83 || 84 || 10 || 14 || 3 || 5 || 1 || 2 || 222 || 52 || 163 
 PTRH6 || 21 || 31 || 2 || 7 || 9 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 20 || 0 || 8 
 PTRH7 || 16 || 41 || 3 || 9 || 4 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 30 || 52 || 26 
 PTRH8 || 20 || 12 || 3 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 59 || 31 || 115 
 PTRH9 || 23 || 0 || 23 || 15 || 3 || 0 || 42 || 0 || 100 || 0 || - 
 PTRH10 || 22 || 0 || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0 || - || - || - 
 Total by type of site || 343 || 322 || 56 || 64 || 42 || 5 || 54 || 4 || 575 || 215 || 420 
 Total number of monitoring sites[21] || 665 || 120 || 47 || 58 || 1117 
Table 5.2: Number of monitoring
sites by water category.
Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant =
Quantitative
Source: Portuguese Water Authority (June 2014) and
RBMP of Madeira (PTRH10)

5.2.                
Monitoring of surface waters

In Portugal there are approximately 500 surveillance monitoring
stations, and 400 operational monitoring stations. However, there are still approximately 1100 surface water bodies that are not monitored at
all. The time series length varies between stations and some parameters are
measured only in a limited number of stations and are not retained in the
monitoring programme of the first cycle (despite data being collected). Madeira
(PTRH10) is the most serious case, since only 22 river water bodies are
monitored and only for general parameters. 
For surveillance monitoring the WFD requires the assessment of all
quality elements which are relevant for the respective water category. 
Mainland Portugal
Parameters
and monitoring frequency of the surveillance and operational monitoring for the
surface water network and the network of quantitative and chemical status of
groundwater is defined in Annexes VI and VII of Decree Law nº 77/2006, of 30
March 2006, which complements the transposition of the WFD. In situations where
the monitoring stations simultaneously fit the criteria for the surveillance
and operational monitoring networks, it has been decided to integrate them in
the operational programme since the water bodies are considered to be at risk.
Once the water bodies achieve Good Status or Good Ecological Potential, they
will be integrated into the surveillance network. There is no international
monitoring programme for surface waters in place for the international RBDs.
The limited
knowledge on transitional water bodies led to the adoption of a surveillance
monitoring programme that is more demanding than the operational programme.
Stations were selected according to the following criteria: a) all water bodies
whose typology was not covered by the intercalibration exercise, aiming at
validating class boundaries of biological status of defined metrics and at confirmation
of the ecological and chemical status[22]; b) all water bodies
classified as in doubt or at risk within the intercalibration exercise systems,
to confirm the degree of risk; c) representativeness of the water; d)
transition points for coastal waters. The risk analysis on the chemical status
was updated based on the draft Directive on Environmental Quality Standards and
based on new monitoring data.
For
coastal waters the selection of stations followed the same criteria of
transitional waters. The locations were selected in order to: i) enable an
overall assessment of the state of ecological and chemical quality; ii) detect
significant pressures for the delineation of programmes of measures; iii)
detect temporal changes in ecological and chemical status due to natural or
anthropogenic factors; iv) verify compliance of the quality status with
national and diverse EU legislation (EU Directives); and v) exchange
information within the EU.
Regarding
biological quality elements, for rivers, surveillance
monitoring does not include phytoplankton since the high variability of the
natural conditions of the Mediterranean Rivers, does not allow for the
establishment of stable phytoplankton communities in Portuguese rivers.
Therefore, Portugal considers it is not possible or adequate to use this
biological quality element to assess water body status in the majority of
Portuguese rivers. In reservoirs the surveillance monitoring excludes
macrophytes, phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates. According to the RBMPs this
is because macrophytes and phytobenthos are limited in abundance and diversity
in reservoirs, and the communities of benthic invertebrates at the margin are
not representative of the water body situation.
A crucial aspect
of operational monitoring concerns the selection of the biological quality
element(s) considered to be most sensitive to a pressure. For rivers, where organic pressures and nutrients are the most
important pressures benthic invertebrates are monitored each Spring,
physico-chemical supporting elements and specific pollutants are monitored
every three months. Where water bodies are also subject to important
hydromorphological pressures (as well as the two pressures mentioned above),
benthic invertebrates and fish fauna are monitored together with supporting
hydromorphologic elements. For reservoirs it has been considered that organic
pollution and nutrients were the most meaningful pressures, thus phytoplankton
and physico-chemical supporting elements are monitored. Moreover, with regard
to the hydromorphological quality elements and given the important nature of
the residence time, it has been decided to also monitor the hydrological
regime. Specific pollutants are monitored when they are expected to be
discharged in significant quantities. The monitoring stations are located where
concentrations of priority substances higher than the quality standards
included on the proposal for a Directive on Environmental Quality Standards are
known to have occurred. 
According to the
National Water Authority (June 2014), monitoring networks have been revamped
and updated in order to fill some of the gaps identified in the first cycle
plans. This revision retained the monitoring programmes of all the elements of
the WFD and included water bodies that had not yet been monitored. Human and
financial resources to address gaps in monitoring networks, in terms of
coverage of surface water bodies and inclusion of all required biological,
physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements, are still the main
constraints. Recently, financial resources were approved to carry out the
foreseen monitoring programmes and a new service provider contract was signed
so as to ensure the new monitoring network is operational from 2015 onward.
Azores
The PTRH9 RBMP
states that overall the monitoring network is insufficient to respond to the
legal and technical requirements for an adequate evaluation of the ecological
and chemical status of the surface water bodies. 
The operational
network in the Azores aims to evaluate the spread of cyanobacteria and the
concentration of its toxins. The network covers 15 lake water bodies. The
operational monitoring is done in the same stations as the surveillance
monitoring, where the cyanobacteria toxins are measured every 3 months. There
is no investigative monitoring in the Azores.
 
Madeira
The
surveillance monitoring occurs only in 19% of the water bodies of Madeira,
although they cover 67% of the RBD. Only the physico-chemical elements are
monitored (except phosphates). There is no operational monitoring network, nor
is there a monitoring network for coastal waters.

5.3.                
Monitoring of groundwater

The monitoring networks are based on the existing ones
from the former National Water Institute, or the Regional Environmental
Directorate of the Azores, prior to the Water Framework Directive. Hence their
planning followed a common methodology. For most RBDs the monitoring network is
not considered representative (as stated in the RBMPs).
A quantitative groundwater monitoring programme has been
established in all RBDs of mainland Portugal. In PTRH9
(Azores) there is no quantitative monitoring network. 
In PTRH10 (Madeira) there is no groundwater
(quantitative or qualitative) monitoring network, and the piezometric and
quality parameters levels are only monitored by the regional water supply
company (a public company whose shareholders are the Madeira regional
government and municipalities) at the abstraction zones. This monitoring occurs
in protected areas for water abstraction for human consumption.
The monitoring of groundwater chemical status is
designed to be able to detect significant and sustained upward trends, in
particular for nitrates. This is considered to be the most problematic
parameter. In the Azores there is a qualitative surveillance network, but pesticides are not
monitored. 32 of the 34 monitored water bodies have a representative index
below 80%.
In some RBDs, operational monitoring programmes are in
place only in the water bodies considered at risk. The usual parameter being
monitored is nitrates. Some RBDs have no water bodies considered at risk. 
No international
monitoring programme for groundwater is in place. In fact, the
geological formations in the border of Portugal and Spain consist mainly of
igneous and metamorphic formations, which correspond to fractured media with
low hydraulic conductivities and reduced yields. The average flow of
exploitation in this type of rock does not generally exceed the 1 L/s
threshold, creating aquifers only with local importance. In these
circumstances, transboundary groundwater bodies between Portugal and Spain were
not identified.
Portugal recognised the
need to increase the density of monitoring sites to improve the quantitative
and chemical assessment of groundwater bodies, as well as maintaining the
frequency and continuity of sampling sites. This is, however, subject to the
available financial resources. For the second RBMPs Portugal intends to carry
out the assessment of trend reversals for the groundwater bodies identified
with poor chemical status in the first RBMPs.

5.4.                
Monitoring of protected areas

Figure 5.2: Map of monitoring stations for protected areas 
Source: WISE database
The specific monitoring network for protected areas was
not reported to WISE, and it is only possible to capture it in the RBMPs. 
 RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water 
 Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Birds sites || Fish || Habitats sites || Nitrates[23] || Shell- fish || UWWT 
 PTRH1 || 11 || 11 || 15 || 5 || 6 || 5+18 ||   || 2+6 || - || 6 
 PTRH2 || 13 || 13 || 46 || 1 || 16 || 1+10 || 22 (GWB) ||   || 7 || 9 
 PTRH3 || 50 || 50 || 47 || 32 || 9 || 40+30 || 7[24] (GWB) || 7+9 || 9 || 12 
 PTRH4 || 38 || 38 || 106 || 16 || 23 || 16 || 4(GWB) || 21 || 8 || 44 
 PTRH5 || 26 || 26 || 57 || 27 || 20 || 53 || 2 (GWB) || 35 || 10 || 88 
 PTRH6 || 6 || 6 || 36 || 13 || 6 || 40 || 4 (GWB) || 5 || 5 || 16 
 PTRH7 || 9 || 9 || 6 || 27 || 8 || 45 || 1 (GWB) || 6 || 8 || 13 
 PTRH8 || 3 || 3 || 103 || 16 || 3 || 25 || 3 (GWB) || 2 || 2 || 1 
 PTRH9 || 2 || 2 || 53 || 18 ||   ||   || 15 ||   ||   || 98 
 PTRH10 || - ||   || 31 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 27 
 Total || 158 || 158 || 392 || 27 || 91 || 283 || 15 (SWB) 43(GWB) || 93 || 49 || 314 
Table 5.3: Number of monitoring
stations in protected areas[25].
Legend: surveillance + operational
monitoring
Source: RBMPs, and PT Water Authority after assessment
of RBMPs. The data provided on WISE is not correct.
Regarding protected areas designated for the abstraction
of water intended for human consumption, the process of defining their
protection perimeters is still ongoing. These perimeters need to be enacted by
a legal instrument. As a result, many of the monitoring points referred in the
table above are for monitoring of drinking water and not necessarily for
drinking water protected areas.
According to the Portuguese National Water Authority:
·     
“Areas designated for the protection of
economically significant aquatic species” – these areas are designated by the
Freshwater Fish Directive (2006/44/EC). Until 2013 these areas were monitored
according to the Directive (parameters and frequency). In 2014, the monitoring
sites were all included in the surveillance or operational monitoring
programmes.
·     
“Bodies of water designated as recreational
waters, including areas designated as bathing waters under Directive 2006/7/EC”
– Portugal monitors all the bathing waters as required by the Bathing Waters
Directive.
·     
“Nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas
designated as Vulnerable Zones under Directive 91/676/EEC and areas designated
as Sensitive Areas under Directive 91/271/EEC” – These areas are included in
the surveillance or in the operational monitoring programmes, and a specific
set of parameters and their monitoring frequency were defined for the sites
located in these areas.
·     
“Areas designated for the protection of habitats
or species where the maintenance or improvement of the status of water is an
important factor in their protection, including relevant Natura 2000 sites
designated under Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 79/409/EEC”. The
specificities of these areas were considered in the definition of the
surveillance and operational monitoring programmes, particularly in selecting
monitoring sites. However, no other monitoring requirements were considered
besides the ones already included in the surveillance and operational
monitoring programmes.

6.                      
Overview of status (ecological, chemical,
groundwater)

 RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown 
 No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) 
 PTRH1 || 61 || 0 || 0 || 44 || 72 || 10 || 16 || 5 || 8 || 1 || 2 || 1 || 2 
 PTRH2 || 65 || 1 || 2 || 33 || 51 || 16 || 25 || 9 || 14 || 5 || 8 || 1 || 2 
 PTRH3 || 356 || 1 || 0 || 251 || 71 || 79 || 22 || 21 || 6 || 3 || 1 || 1 || 0 
 PTRH4 || 239 || 5 || 2 || 150 || 63 || 41 || 17 || 25 || 10 || 5 || 2 || 13 || 6 
 PTRH5 || 368 || 20 || 5 || 178 || 48 || 56 || 15 || 30 || 8 || 15 || 4 || 69 || 19 
 PTRH6 || 171 || 4 || 2 || 71 || 42 || 69 || 40 || 23 || 13 || 3 || 2 || 1 || 1 
 PTRH7 || 206 || 4 || 2 || 85 || 41 || 71 || 34 || 41 || 20 || 2 || 1 || 3 || 1 
 PTRH8 || 70 || 6 || 9 || 29 || 41 || 17 || 24 || 6 || 9 || 3 || 4 || 9 || 13 
 PTRH9 || 67 || 27 || 40 || 16 || 24 || 16 || 24 || 7 || 10 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1 
 PTRH10 || 102 || 25 || 25 || 24 || 24 || 18 || 18 || 21 || 21 || 0 || 0 || 14 || 14 
 Total || 1705 || 93 || 5% || 881 || 52% || 393 || 23% || 188 || 11% || 37 || 2% || 113 || 7% 
Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface
water bodies.
Source: River Basin Management Plans.
The data provided on WISE is not correct. 
 RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown 
 No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) 
 PTRH1 || 10 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 50 || 4 || 40 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 10 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH2 || 18 || 0 || 0 || 8 || 44 || 5 || 28 || 4 || 22 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 6 
 PTRH3 || 27 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 26 || 17 || 63 || 1 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 7 
 PTRH4 || 23 || 0 || 0 || 8 || 35 || 10 || 43 || 4 || 17 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 4 
 PTRH5 || 57 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 31 || 54 || 10 || 18 || 2 || 4 || 14 || 25 
 PTRH6 || 65 || 0 || 0 || 22 || 34 || 25 || 38 || 7 || 11 || 3 || 5 || 8 || 12 
 PTRH7 || 54 || 0 || 0 || 17 || 37 || 21 || 39 || 10 || 19 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 11 
 PTRH8 || 10 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 70 || 1 || 10 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 20 
 PTRH9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH10 || 0 || 0 || [*] || 0 || [*] || 0 || [*] || 0 || [*] || 0 || [*] || 0 || [*] 
 Total || 264 || 0 || 0 || 74 || 28% || 114 || 43% || 36 || 13% || 6 || 2% || 34 || 13% 
Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and
heavily modified water bodies.
Source: River Basin
Management Plans. The data provided on WISE is not correct. 
[*] The RBMP states
that there are artificial water bodies (“levadas”) but there is no data
available to define them.
 RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown 
 No. || % || No. || % || No. || % 
 PTRH1 || 61 || 15 || 25 || 0 || 0 || 46 || 75 
 PTRH2 || 65 || 18 || 28 || 3 || 5 || 44 || 68 
 PTRH3 || 356 || 63 || 18 || 4 || 1 || 289 || 81 
 PTRH4 || 239 || 166 || 70 || 6 || 3 || 67 || 28 
 PTRH5 || 368 || 16 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 352 || 96 
 PTRH6 || 171 || 25 || 15 || 2 || 1 || 144 || 88 
 PTRH7 || 206 || 21 || 10 || 0 || 0 || 185 || 90 
 PTRH8 || 70 || 26 || 37 || 1 || 1 || 43 || 61 
 PTRH9 || 67 || 67 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH10 || 102 || 49 || 48 || 0 || 0 || 53 || 52 
 Total || 1705 || 466 || 27% || 16 || 1% || 1223 || 72% 
Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water
bodies.
Source: River Basin Management Plans. The
data provided on WISE is not correct. 
 RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown 
 No. || % || No. || % || No. || % 
 PTRH1 || 10 || 5 || 50 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 50 
 PTRH2 || 18 || 8 || 44 || 0 || 0 || 10 || 55 
 PTRH3 || 27 || 13 || 48 || 0 || 0 || 14 || 52 
 PTRH4 || 23 || 7 || 30 || 0 || 0 || 16 || 70 
 PTRH5 || 57 || 15 || 26 || 1 || 2 || 41 || 72 
 PTRH6 || 65 || 16 || 24 || 0 || 0 || 49 || 75 
 PTRH7 || 54 || 10 || 19 || 0 || 0 || 44 || 81 
 PTRH8 || 10 || 5 || 50 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 50 
 PTRH9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH10 || [*] || [*] || - || [*] || - || [*] || - 
 Total || 264 || 79 || 30% || 1 || 0 || 184 || 70% 
Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily
modified surface water bodies.
Source: River Basin District Management Plans. The data provided on WISE is not correct.

[*] The RBMP states that there are artificial water bodies (“levadas”) but there is no data
available to define them.
 RBD || Good || Poor || Unknown 
 No. || % || No. || % || No. || % 
 PTRH1 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH2 || 2 || 50 || 2 || 50 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH3 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH4 || 21 || 75 || 7 || 25 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH5 || 8 || 67 || 4 || 33 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH6 || 7 || 88 || 1 || 13 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH7 || 6 || 67 || 3 || 33 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH8 || 19 || 83 || 4 || 17 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH9 || 50 || 93 || 4 || 7 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH10 || 3 || 75 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 25 
 Total || 121 || 82% || 25 || 17% || 1 || 1% 
Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies.
Source: River Basin Management Plans.
The data provided on WISE is not correct. 
 RBD || Good || Poor || Unknown 
 No. || % || No. || % || No. || % 
 PTRH1 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH2 || 4 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH3 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH4 || 27 || 96 || 1 || 4 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH5 || 12 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH6 || 8 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH7 || 8 || 89 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 11 
 PTRH8 || 22 || 96 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 4 
 PTRH9 || 54 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH10 || 4 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 Total || 144 || 98% || 1 || 1% || 2 || 1% 
Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater
bodies.
Source: River Basin Management Plans.
The data provided on WISE is not correct. 
 RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Global status 2021 || Global status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs) 
 Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7 
 No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || % 
 PTRH1 || 71 || 45 || 63 || 45 || 63 || 0 || 53 || 75 || 71 || 100 || 18 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH2 || 83 || 39 || 47 || 40 || 48 || 1 || 70 || 84 || 78 || 94 || 41 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH3 || 383 || 257 || 67 || 273 || 71 || 4 || 296 || 77 || 383 || 100 || 26 || 0 ||   || 3 
 PTRH4 || 262 || 159 || 61 || 166 || 63 || 2 || 206 || 79 || 237 || 90 || 26 || 0 ||   || 1.5 
 PTRH5 || 425 || 197 || 46 || 266 || 63 || 17 || 318 || 75 || 341 || 80 || 16 || 0 ||   || 2 
 PTRH6 || 236 || 97 || 41 || 125 || 53 || 12 || 202 || 86 || 228 || 97 || 50 || 0 ||   || 0.5 
 PTRH7 || 260 || 109 || 42 || 112 || 43 || 1 || 196 || 75 || 247 || 95 || 53 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH8 || 80 || 42 || 53 || 50 || 63 || 10 || 61 || 76 || 69 || 86 || 29 || 0 ||   || 1.3 
 PTRH9 || 67 || 44 || 66 || 48 || 72 || 6 || 61 || 91 || 67 || 100 || 28 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH10 || 102 || 49 || 48 || 57 || 56 || 8 || 60 || 59 || 80 || 78 || - || - ||   ||   
 Total || 1969 || 1038 || 53% || 1182 || 60% || 7% || 1523 || 77% || 1801 || 91% || 31 || 0 ||   || 1 
Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status
in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027
Waterbodies with good status in 2009
fall into the following category:
1. Ecological status is high or good and
the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered
Waterbodies expected to achieve good
status in 2015 fall into the following categories:
1. Ecological status is high or good and
the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered
2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological
status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions
3. Ecological status is high or good,
and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical
exemptions
4. Ecological status is moderate or
below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no
ecological nor chemical exemptions
Note: Waterbodies with
unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are
not considered
Source: RBMPs (data in the RBMPs differs
from WISE).
 RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs) 
 Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7 
 No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || % 
 PTRH1 || 61 || 42 || 69 || 46 || 75 || 6 || 48 || 79 || 61 || 100 || 16 ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH2 || 65 || 31 || 48 || 32 || 49 || 1 || 60 || 92 || 64 || 98 || 42 ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH3 || 356 || 251 || 71 || 242 || 68 || -3 || 264 || 74 || 356 || 100 || 24 ||   ||   || 3 
 PTRH4 || 239 || 151 || 63 || 164 || 69 || 6 || 199 || 84 || 222 || 93 || 24 || 0.4 ||   || 2 
 PTRH5 || 368 || 198 || 54 || 243 || 66 || 12 || 282 || 77 || 299 || 81 || 15 ||   ||   || 1 
 PTRH6 || 171 || 75 || 44 || 100 || 58 || 14 || 154 || 90 || 171 || 100 || 49 ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH7 || 206 || 89 || 43 || 100 || 49 || 6 || 168 || 82 || 206 || 100 || 51 ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH8 || 70 || 35 || 50 || 41 || 59 || 9 || 52 || 74 || 60 || 86 || 33 ||   ||   || 1 
 PTRH9 || 67 || 44 || 66 || 48 || 72 || 6 || 61 || 91 || 67 || 100 || 28 ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH10 || 102 || 49 || 48 || 57 || 56 || 8 || 60 || 59 || 80 || 78 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Total || 1705 || 965 || 56% || 1073 || 63% || 7% || 1348 || 79% || 1586 || 93% || 29 || 0.1 || 0 || 1 
Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological
status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027
Source:
RBMPs (data in the RBMPs differs from WISE). 

 RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs) 
 Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7 
 No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || % 
 PTRH1 || 61 || 15 || 25 || 46 || 75 || 50 || 48 || 79 || 61 || 100 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH2 || 65 || 18 || 28 || 32 || 49 || 21 || 60 || 92 || 64 || 98 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH3 || 356 || 63 || 18 || 242 || 68 || 50 || 264 || 74 || 356 || 100 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH4 || 239 || 151 || 63 || 164 || 69 || 6 || 199 || 83 || 222 || 93 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH5 || 368 || 16 || 4 || 244 || 66 || 62 || 283 || 77 || 300 || 82 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH6 || 171 || 25 || 15 || 50 || 29 || 14 || 104 || 61 || 121 || 71 || 1 ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH7 || 206 || 21 || 10 || 32 || 16 || 6 || 100 || 49 || 137 || 67 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH8 || 70 || 21 || 30 || 41 || 59 || 29 || 52 || 74 || 60 || 86 || 1 ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH9 || 67 || 67 || 100 || 67 || 100 || 0 || 67 || 100 || 67 || 100 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH10 || 102 || 49 || 48 || 57 || 56 || 8 || 60 || 59 || 80 || 78 || - || - || - || - 
 Total || 1705 || 446 || 26% || 975 || 57 || 31% || 1237 || 73 || 1468 || 86% || 0.2 || 0 || 0 || 0 
Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical
status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027
Source: RBMPs (data in the RBMPs differs
from WISE).
 RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good Global status 2021 || Good Global status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs) 
 Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7 
 No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || % 
 PTRH1 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH2 || 4 || 3 || 75 || 3 || 75 || 0 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || 25 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH3 || 3 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH4 || 30 || 23 || 77 || 24 || 80 || 3 || 29 || 97 || 30 || 100 || 23 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH5 || 12 || 8 || 67 || 9 || 75 || 8 || 11 || 92 || 12 || 100 || 25 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH6 || 8 || 7 || 88 || 7 || 88 || 0 || 7 || 88 || 8 || 100 || 0 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH7 || 9 || 6 || 67 || 6 || 67 || 0 || 8 || 89 || 9 || 100 || 33 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH8 || 23 || 19 || 83 || 19 || 83 || 0 || 22 || 96 || 23 || 100 || 17 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH9 || 54 || 50 || 93 || 50 || 93 || 0 || 54 || 100 || 54 || 100 || 7 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH10 || 4 || 3 || 75 || 3 || 75 || 0 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Total || 149 || 124 || 83% || 126 || 85% || 2% || 144 || 97% || 149 || 100% || 14 || 0 ||   ||   
Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in
2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027
Source: RBMPs (data in the RBMPs differs
from WISE).
 RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs) 
 Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7 
 No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || % 
 PTRH1 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH2 || 4 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || 0 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || 0 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH3 || 3 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH4 || 30 || 29 || 97 || 29 || 97 || 0 || 30 || 100 || 30 || 100 || 3 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH5 || 12 || 12 || 100 || 12 || 100 || 0 || 12 || 100 || 12 || 100 || 0 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH6 || 8 || 8 || 100 || 8 || 100 || 0 || 8 || 100 || 8 || 100 || 0 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH7 || 9 || 8 || 89 || 8 || 89 || 0 || 9 || 100 || 9 || 100 || 0 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH8 || 23 || 22 || 96 || 22 || 96 || 0 || 22 || 96 || 23 || 100 || 4 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH9 || 54 || 54 || 100 || 54 || 100 || 0 || 54 || 100 || 54 || 100 || 0 || 0 ||   ||   
 PTRH10 || 4 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || 0 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || - || - ||   ||   
 Total || 149 || 146 || 98% || 146 || 98% || 0 || 148 || 99% || 149 || 100% || 3 || 0 ||   ||   
Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status
in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027
Source: RBMPs (data in the RBMPs differs
from WISE).
 RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB) 
 Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7 
 No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || % 
 PTRH1 || 10 || 5 || 50 || 7 || 70 || 20 || 8 || 80 || 10 || 100 || 30 ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH2 || 18 || 8 || 44 || 8 || 44 || 0 || 10 || 56 || 18 || 100 || 39 ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH3 || 27 || 7 || 26 || 7 || 26 || 0 || 8 || 30 || 27 || 100 || 56 ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH4 || 23 || 8 || 35 || 12 || 52 || 17 || 17 || 74 || 23 || 100 || 44 ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH5 || 57 || 12 || 21 || 36 || 63 || 42 || 49 || 86 || 55 || 96 || 21 ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH6 || 65 || 22 || 34 || 25 || 38 || 4 || 48 || 74 || 57 || 88 || 51 ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH7 || 54 || 20 || 37 || 22 || 41 || 4 || 38 || 70 || 52 || 96 || 62 ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH8 || 10 || 5 || 50 || 8 || 80 || 30 || 8 || 80 || 8 || 80 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH9 || 0 || 0  ||   || 0  ||   ||   ||  0 || 0 || 0  ||  0 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH10 || [*] ||  [*] ||   || [*]  ||   ||   || [*]  ||   || [*]  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Total || 264 || 87 || 33% || 125 || 47% || 14% || 186 || 70% || 250 || 95% || 58 || 0 || 0 || 0 
Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water
bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015,
2021 and 2027[26]
Source: RBMPs (data in the RBMPs differs
from WISE).
[*] The RBMP states that there are
artificial water bodies (“levadas”) but there is no data available to define
them.
 RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB) 
 Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7 
 No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || % 
 PTRH1 || 10 || 5 || 50 || 7 || 70 || 20 || 8 || 80 || 10 || 100 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH2 || 18 || 8 || 44 || 8 || 44 || 0 || 10 || 56 || 18 || 100 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH3 || 27 || 13 || 48 || 13 || 48 || 0 || 13 || 48 || 27 || 100 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH4 || 23 || 7 || 0 || 11 || 48 || 48 || 16 || 70 || 22 || 96 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH5 || 57 || 15 || 26 || 29 || 51 || 25 || 42 || 74 || 48 || 84 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH6 || 65 || 16 || 25 || 19 || 29 || 4 || 42 || 65 || 51 || 78 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH7 || 54 || 10 || 19 || 12 || 22 || 3 || 28 || 52 || 42 || 78 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH8 || 10 || 5 || 50 || 8 || 80 || 30 || 8 || 80 || 10 || 100 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 ||   || 0 || 0 || 0 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH10 || [*] || [*] ||   || [*] ||   ||   || [*] ||   || [*] ||   || - || - || - || - 
 Total || 264 || 79 || 30% || 107 || 41% || 11% || 167 || 63% || 228 || 86% || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water
bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[27]
Source: RBMPs (data in the RBMPs differs
from WISE).
[*] The RBMP states that there are
artificial water bodies (“levadas”) but there is no data available to define
them.
Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural
surface water bodies 2009 
Figure 6.2:
Map of ecological status
of natural surface water bodies 2015
   ||   ||   || High 
   ||   ||   || Good 
   ||   ||   || Moderate 
   ||   ||   || Poor 
   ||   ||   || Bad 
   ||   ||   || Unknown 
   ||   ||   || River Basin Districts 
   ||   ||   || Countries outside EU 
Note: Standard colours based on WFD
Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). 
Source: RBMPs, Eurostat (NB: some RBMPs
do not contain sufficient detail to create accurate maps showing a detailed
breakdown of status in 2015).
Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial
and heavily modified water bodies 2009 
Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial
and heavily modified water bodies 2015
   ||   ||   || Good or better 
   ||   ||   || Moderate 
   ||   ||   || Poor 
   ||   ||   || Bad 
   ||   ||   || Unknown 
   ||   ||   || River Basin Districts 
   ||   ||   || Countries outside EU 
Note: Standard colours based on WFD
Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii). 
Source: RBMPs, Eurostat (NB: some RBMPs
do not contain sufficient detail to create accurate maps showing a detailed
breakdown of status in 2015).
Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface
water bodies 2009 
Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface
water bodies 2015
   ||   ||   || Good 
   ||   ||   || Failing to achieve good 
   ||   ||   || Unknown 
   ||   ||   || River Basin Districts 
   ||   ||   || Countries outside EU 
Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article
1.4.3. 
Source: RBMPs, Eurostat
Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and
heavily modified water bodies 2009 
Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and
heavily modified water bodies 2015
   ||   ||   || Good 
   ||   ||   || Failing to achieve good 
   ||   ||   || Unknown 
   ||   ||   || River Basin Districts 
   ||   ||   || Countries outside EU 
Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article
1.4.3. 
Source: RBMPs, Eurostat 
Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater
bodies 2009 
Figure
6.10: Map of chemical
status of groundwater bodies 2015
   ||   ||   || Good 
   ||   ||   || Poor 
   ||   ||   || Unknown 
   ||   ||   || River Basin Districts 
   ||   ||   || Countries outside EU 
Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article
2.4.5. 
Source: RBMPs, Eurostat 
Figure
6.11: Map of quantitative
status of groundwater bodies 2009 
Figure
6.12: Map of quantitative
status of groundwater bodies 2015
   ||   ||   || Good 
   ||   ||   || Poor 
   ||   ||   || Unknown 
   ||   ||   || River Basin Districts 
   ||   ||   || Countries outside EU 
Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article
2.2.4. 
Source: RBMPs, Eurostat 

6.1.                
Assessment of ecological status of surface
waters

The assessment of ecological status of surface waters
generally follows a national approach. In mainland Portugal, for rivers and
lakes, it has been defined in a document titled: Critérios
para a classificação do estado das massas de água superficiais – rios e
albufeiras, issued in 2009 by the former National
Water Institute. Assessment methods are only partially
developed for rivers and reservoirs. Natural lakes only exist in the Azores
(PTRH9) and these have not been considered in the national approach. However,
the RBMP for PTRH9 took the national guidelines into consideration as much as
possible. The RBMP for PTRH10 also takes into account the national methodology
in terms of the specific pollutants to establish the chemical status. 
While the RBMPs were being finalised, a project (Avaliação
do Estado Ecológico das Massas de Água Costeiras e de Transição Adjacentes e do
Potencial Ecológico das Massas de Água Fortemente Modificadas,
POVT-12-0233-FCOES-000017) was ongoing at the national level, aiming to
establish the assessment methods and threshold values for the characterisation
of coastal and transitional waters, as well as determining the reference
conditions for the ecological potential of HMWBs. It is therefore stated in the
RBMPs that classifications are only preliminary. Some RBMPs classify these two
categories of water using methodologies that vary for different RBDs as
explained in the RBMP. Some RBMPs used preliminary results from the above
mentioned study in the classification of some water bodies. Others used ad-hoc
methods specifically developed for the RBD. For some other RBDs, no classification
is achieved. 
Overall, data is quite limited. Monitoring
networks are not considered to be representative and available remaining data
are scarce (see above comparison between number of water bodies and monitoring
stations). The majority of water bodies have been classified using alternative
methods derived in each RBD, according to available data, modelling, pressures
analysis, bibliography analysis and/or expert judgment. The level of precision
in these cases is rather low. In fact most of the PoMs contain measures such as
further research and improved monitoring and inventory of pressures to be able
to confirm the classifications of the water bodies and increase confidence and
precision. 
Since the elaboration of the RBMPs there have been changes in the
licensing regime, as well as progress on the inventories of pressures, and the
monitoring network has been improving. Hence it is expected that detection and
reporting of pressures will be more precise for the second RBMPs.

6.2.                
Ecological status assessment methods

The one-out-all-out principle was used in all
classifications. It can be stated that, with the exceptions of transitional
waters, very large rivers and HMWBs, the vast majority of national types have a
classification system (although not for all QEs). There are considerable gaps
regarding full compliance with the WFD requirements. This section ends with a
list of remaining gaps.
In mainland Portugal, following national procedures,
only phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates are considered in the
classification of river water bodies[28]. For reservoirs only
phytoplankton is used. For coastal waters phytoplankton, macroalgae and benthic
invertebrates are used, where available, in the classification. 
In the Azores the classes for the BQEs of phytobenthos,
macrophytes and benthic invertebrates in rivers are still to be developed. In
lakes phytoplankton, phytobenthos, macrophytes and benthic invertebrates are
used in the classification, but the classes for macrophytes are still being
developed. In cases where no monitoring data exists, the analysis was done via
pressures analysis and expert judgment. For transitional[29]
and coastal waters, at the time of developing the RBMPs there were preliminary
results for classification but no official data. In coastal waters, no BQEs
were considered in the classification due to lack of data. All Azorean freshwater fish are introduced, so an autochthonous
freshwater fish community does not exist. Since fish are absent in pristine
situations, reference conditions for fish fauna cannot be set, and therefore
cannot be used to assess water body status in the fresh water bodies of Azores.
In Madeira, for 33% of the river water bodies, the
biological elements used were benthic invertebrates and bryoflora
(macrophytes). It is not stated if the methods are fully developed. In cases
where no monitoring data exists, the analysis was done via pressures analysis
and expert judgment. For coastal waters only phytoplankton is used in the
characterisation. The RBMP states that the indicators used are those that were
intercalibrated with Azores (PT) and Canary Islands (ES).
For rivers and reservoirs, environmental quality
standards (EQSs) have been set for some national chemical specific pollutants,
and for some physico-chemical parameters. For the former, the guidance document
states that “work still needs to be done with the Portuguese Environmental
Agency (which is currently the National Water Authority) to define threshold
values for some specific pollutants in accordance with 1.2.6 of Annex V of the
WFD”. For the latter, only border values between good and moderate and only for
some parameters were defined. The national guidance document (also followed in
Azores and Madeira) lists the parameters and the threshold values, but no
information is found on the methodology to achieve them – hence it is not
possible to ascertain whether the standards have been set in accordance with
the procedure in the WFD Annex V 1.2.6. Transitional waters were monitored but
no classification was established. For coastal waters the RBMPs state that the
physico-chemical reference conditions are not yet established.
Regarding hydromorphology for rivers, the borders
between classes were defined through relations between BQEs and expert
analysis. The national guidance states that the River Habitat Survey
methodology (version 2003) and its indicators Habitat Modification Score and
Habitat Quality Assessment are to be used, but at the time of publication of
the guidance, they were still being translated and adapted to the Portuguese
situation. In mainland Portugal it was not possible to take hydromorphology
into account in the classification of Ecological Potential. 
In the Azores (PTRH9) where there are natural lakes, all
water bodies were considered as having hydromorphological conditions suitable
to support aquatic life. For transitional and coastal waters, there are no
official limits for the classification of ‘excellent’ regarding
hydromorphological elements. The bases of the analysis used were the
significant morphological and hydrodynamic pressures used in the
characterisation of significant pressures and anthropogenic incidences. In
PTRH9 the RBMP states that despite the lack of information it was possible to
assess that hydromorphological pressures were not significant.
In Madeira, there is neither monitoring nor assessment
of the hydromorphological quality elements. For rivers, some hydromorphological
elements have been used in the final classification of the non-monitored water
bodies (namely the existence of bridges and jetties, and channelisation). For
coastal waters no hydromorphological elements were used as "there is no
available representative dataset". There is no information on when it is
expected to have definitive classification criteria and it is not stated if all
hydromorphological QEs will be developed in the future.
Portugal successfully intercalibrated the national
classification methods for phytobenthos and macroinvertebrates in rivers
(Official Intercalibration Decision document), the class boundaries are given
in WISE 3.1.1, but the class boundaries vary slightly (some slightly more
stringent, others slightly more relaxed) from those given in the IC Official
Decision. For reservoirs the class boundaries given in WISE 3.1.1 are
consistent with the intercalibrated class boundaries in the new official IC
decision from 2013. For coastal waters the class boundaries given in WISE 3.1.1
are all compliant with the Intercalibrated class boundaries reported in the
Official Intercalibration Decision from 2009. For transitional waters the
intercalibration exercise is still on-going. The border values were
intercalibrated and, where necessary, adjusted taking into account the COM
Decision 2008/915/EC. 
The Azores RBD (PTRH9) participates in the national
intercalibration exercise, but cannot apply those results since the water types
that exist in this RBD are different from the mainland water types and cannot
be compared with another Member State. The RBMP describes the methods used to
derive the threshold values. The RBMP of Madeira (concluded in 2013) states
that there has been an intercalibration exercise with Azores and the Canary
Islands regarding Coastal Waters.
According to the National Water Authority, the following gaps remain
(some work is in progress to be used in the second generation of RBMPs which
are being prepared):
Rivers: i) the classification system for
very large rivers will be finished after the conclusion of the ongoing
Intercalibration exercise; ii) for the remaining river types, gaps still exist
in physico-chemical elements. Boundaries for all quality classes are still not
available (only good/moderate boundary values were established) and thresholds
for some parameters were not established. The work to review and to establish
new standards for physico-chemical parameters is now starting.
Reservoirs - i) boundaries for all
parameters of BQE phytoplankton for Southern Reservoirs are lacking (only
chlorophyll a thresholds were established); ii) for run-of-river
reservoirs the ecological potential assessment system is still not developed.
This work is currently in progress; iii) gaps still exist in physico-chemical
elements. Thresholds for some parameters were not established. The work to
review and to establish new standards for physico-chemical parameters is now
starting; iv) the assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements
are still not developed in reservoirs. This work is currently in progress at a
national level, as well as at the ECOSTAT level. 
HMWB (Rivers) – i) the development of
the ecological potential assessment method will be finished after the
conclusion of the work in progress for the harmonisation on GEP methods, which
is being developed by the WG ECOSTAT.
Transitional and Coastal Waters – i) the
Intercalibration Exercise will be finalised and a complete assessment system
will be developed.
In the Azores, the process of enlarging the monitoring network[30]
in rivers and lakes in all islands began in 2011, and it is expected to be
concluded in the whole of PTRH9 in 2015. This will substantially increase the
amount of data available to improve characterisation and assessment methods. 
 RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal 
 Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological 
 PTRH1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH2 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH3 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH4 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH5 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH6 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH7 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH8 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH9 || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PTRH10 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
Table 7.2.1: Availability of biological assessment methods
   || Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs 
   || Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs 
   || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided 
 - ||   || Water category not relevant 
Source: RBMPs 

6.3.                
Application of methods and ecological status
results

For mainland water bodies, the situation is generally as
follows:
·        
Rivers: Although macrophytes and fish are
monitored in the surveillance monitoring programme, there are still no class
boundaries determined for these BQEs and they cannot be used for the assessment
of ecological status in this first RBMP. 
·        
Reservoirs: For lakes (reservoirs) the
phytoplankton, fish, general physico-chemical QEs and national specific
pollutants are included in the surveillance monitoring, but only phytoplankton
and general physico-chemical QEs and national specific pollutants are used for
classification, as there is no classification system for fish. 
·        
Transitional: although all QEs are included in
the surveillance monitoring the classification system developed for all QEs
except benthic invertebrates is preliminary and hence not validated by the
national water authority for classification purposes. 
·        
Coastal: All QEs are included in the
surveillance monitoring but only phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates, general
physico-chemical QEs and hydromorphological QEs were used for classification.
As in transitional waters, it is stated that these are preliminary results.
Usually there is no long-term operational monitoring for
coastal and transitional waters and classification is based on surveillance
monitoring, rather than operational monitoring. For rivers and reservoirs, the
parameters tend to be the BQEs used in the classification, together with
hydromorphological data, physico-chemical data, and specific pollutants.
In mainland Portugal some parameters are measured but
not used in the classification. This can occur when further investigations are
conducted to assess reasons for a water body not achieving good status or, in
other cases, to assess the consistency of some biological sampling results
(e.g. electric conductivity to check electrofishing efficiency). Moreover, some
QEs and BQEs are still not included in the national guidelines of
classification, but are measured to be integrated in the future.
In the Azores (PTRH9) for all water categories the
number of monitored parameters is higher than the parameters used for
classification. The BQE fish has not been monitored or used because autochthonous freshwater fish communities do not exist in Azores
waters. In the Azores, rivers are classified using
phytobenthos, as well as general parameters (Q3-1) and the non-priority
specific pollutants (Q3-3). Lakes are classified using only phytoplankton,
general physico-chemical QEs and non-priority specific pollutants. Transitional
waters are classified using only phytoplankton, hydromorphology and general
physico-chemical QEs, although the WISE report states that all BQEs of the
transitional water bodies are monitored. In coastal water bodies, only
phytoplankton, hydromorphology and general physico-chemical QEs are used for
classification. Operational monitoring is only carried out for lakes. The QEs
being monitored and used for classification of ecological status are: QE1-1,
plus physico-chemical data. Other parameters are monitored but not used for
classification.
As stated above, there is no operational monitoring in
Madeira (PTRH10), and the surveillance monitoring is very limited and does not
include BQEs. In contrast, general parameters (QE3.1) are monitored in 18
stations, but they are not used in the classification.

6.4.                
River basin specific pollutants 

The main pollutants causing failure of good status in
Portugal are phosphorus, ammonia and nitrates. BOD5 is also causing failure to
achieve good ecological status/potential in many RBDs.
Nonylphenol is an issue in the transitional waters of
PTRH1, while fluorine is present in some dams of PTRH3. PTRH5 and PTRH6 have
occurrences of tributyltin compounds and the southernmost RBD, PTRH8, has
issues with lead and its compounds. 
It should be noted that the uncertainty is high
regarding the extent of these pollutants. This is more commonly due to lack of
monitoring data, the monitoring network covering only a small part of each
RBD’s water bodies, or results being based in a single study and not on a time
series. As such, no percentages are provided on the extent of the pressure.
The RBMP of
PTRH9 states that the majority of specific pollutants are not included in the
physico-chemical quality elements monitored in Azores rivers and lakes; the
monitoring of transitional and coastal waters is considered rather incomplete
and, for the moment, insufficient to draw conclusions.
There is also a lack of monitoring data in Madeira. For
coastal waters no specific pollutants were taken into account. For rivers,
there are some monitoring stations – particularly linked to water abstraction –
and no specific pollutants were found. Historic data showed high dissolved lead
in one station, but more recent data do not confirm this value. It is the only
water body where such an occurrence was detected.
 RBD || CAS Number || Substance || Percentage Water Bodies Failing Status (%)* 
 PTRH1 ||   || Total Nitrogen || Rivers 
 PTRH1 ||   || Total Phosphorus || Rivers and reservoirs 
 PTRH1 ||   || BOD5 || Rivers 
 PTRH1 ||   || Non-ionised ammonia || Transitional natural and HMWB 
 PTRH1 || 104-40-5 || Nonylphenol || Transitional natural 
 PTRH2 ||   || Total Ammonium ||   
 PTRH2 ||   || Total Phosphorus ||   
 PTRH2 ||   || BOD5 ||   
 PTRH3 ||   || Total Nitrogen || Rivers 
 PTRH3 ||   || Total Phosphorus || Rivers and reservoirs 
 PTRH3 ||   || BOD5 || Rivers 
 PTRH3 ||   || Non-ionised Ammonia || Transitional natural and HMWB 
 PTRH3 ||   || Phosphate || Transitional natural and HMWB 
 PTRH3 || 86-73-7 || Fluorine || Reservoirs 
 PTRH3 ||   || Nitrate || Reservoirs 
 PTRH4 ||   || BOD5 || 7 RWB 
 PTRH4 ||   || Total Ammonium || 7RWB 
 PTRH4 ||   || Nitrates || 1 RWB 
 PTRH4 ||   || Total Phosphorus || 3 HMWB 
 PTRH5 || 36643-28-4 || Tributyltin || Reservoirs 
 PTRH6 || 36643-28-4 || Tributyltin compounds ||   
 PTRH6 ||   || Total Phosphorus ||   
 PTRH6 ||   || Total Nitrogen ||   
 PTRH6 ||   || BOD5 ||   
 PTRH7 ||   || BOD5 || - 
 PTRH7 ||   || Total Phosphorus || - 
 PTRH7 ||   || Total Nitrate || - 
 PTRH8 ||   || BOD5 ||   
 PTRH8 ||   || Total Phosphorus || - 
 PTRH8 ||   || Total Nitrate || - 
 PTRH8 || 7439-92-1 || Lead and its compounds || Rivers 
 PTRH9 ||   || Total Phosphorus || Rivers and Lakes 
 PTRH9 ||   || Total Nitrogen || Rivers and Lakes 
 PTRH9 ||   || COD || Rivers and Lakes 
Table 7.4.1: River basin specific
pollutants causing failure of status
Source: RBMPs.
* it is not useful to express in % since the classification of the majority of
water bodies did not use monitoring data

7.                      
Designation of heavily modified water bodies
(hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential

The Article 5 (WFD) analysis, based on reports submitted
in 2005 for mainland Portugal, indicated a number of artificial and heavily
modified water bodies of 90 rivers downstream from dams: 97 are
dams/reservoirs, 15 are transitional waters and one is a coastal water. There
are a further 23 artificial water bodies in rivers and one in transitional
waters.
The figures have since changed and in the 2009 RBMPs
there are 102 rivers (6% of total rivers), 98 lakes (80% of lakes in the whole
of Portugal; 100% of lakes in mainland Portugal), 14 transitional waters (26%)
and 1 coastal water (<1%) that are designated as heavily modified water
bodies. The number of artificial water body rivers decreased to 14 (< 1%)
and the artificial transitional water has maintained its designation. 
PTRH9 has not defined HMWBs. Indeed, the PTRH9 RBMP highlights that some coastal water bodies were considered
natural although they are in the areas of influence of ports and might need to
be changed. As the characterisation of reference conditions of ecological
status is being developed, it has not yet been possible to identify HMWBs in
this RBD. Nevertheless, the available data does not seem to indicate
significant hydromorphological changes derived from physical changes in the coastal
water bodies of PTRH9.
In Madeira there are “levadas”, man-made channels that
derive from the geological characteristics of the island. However, the PTRH10
RBMP states that due to lack of data it has not been possible to delimit and
characterise these water bodies.  
Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial
waterbodies by River Basin District
   ||   ||   || 0 – 5 % 
   ||   ||   || 5 – 20 % 
   ||   ||   || 20 – 40 % 
   ||   ||   || 40 – 60% 
   ||   ||   || 60 – 100 % 
   ||   ||   || No data reported 
   ||   ||   || River Basin Districts 
   ||   ||   || Countries outside EU 
Source: WISE, Eurostat 

7.1.                
Designation of HMWBs
 
 HMWB or AWB || RBD || Water category 
 Rivers || Lakes || Transitional water || Coastal water || All water bodies 
 Number || % of category || Number || % of category || Number || % of category || Number || % of category || Number || % 
 HMWB || PTRH1 || 3 || 5.36 || 3 || 100 || 4 || 40 || 0 || 0 || 10 || 14 
 PTRH2 || 9 || 13.04 || 7 || 100 || 1 || 16.67 || 0 || 0 || 17 || 20 
 PTRH3 || 6 || 1.66 || 17 || 100 || 2 || 66.67 || 0 || 0 || 25 || 7 
 PTRH4 || 9 || 3.81 || 9 || 100 || 4 || 40 || 0 || 0 || 22 || 8 
 PTRH5 || 26 || 6.58 || 24 || 100 ||  0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 50 || 12 
 PTRH6 || 28 || 14.36 || 19 || 100 || 2 || 22.22 || 0 || 0 || 49 || 22 
 PTRH7 || 18 || 8.11 || 16 || 100 ||  0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 35 || 14 
 PTRH8 || 3 || 4.69 || 3 || 100 || 1 || 33.33 || 1 || 33.33 || 7 || 9 
 PTRH9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH10 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 Total || 102 || 6.33% || 98 || 80.3% || 14 || 26.42% || 1 || 1.75% || 215 || 12% 
 AWB || PTRH1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 16.67 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1 
 PTRH3 || 2 || 0.55 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 1 
 PTRH4 || 3 || 1.27 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 1 
 PTRH5 || 7 || 1.77 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 2 
 PTRH6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH8 || 2 || 3.12 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 3 
 PTRH9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH10 || * || * || - ||   || - ||   || - ||   || - ||   
 Total || 14 || 0.87% || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1.89% || 0 || 0 || 15 || 1% 
Table 8.1.1: Number and percentage of HMWBs and AWBs.
Source: WISE 
*Although Artificial water bodies do exist, lack of data prevents their
delimitation and characterisation.
In mainland Portugal, the RBMPs state the water uses
which have led to water bodies being designated as heavily modified or
artificial. The most common water uses referred to are: navigation, storage for
drinking water, storage for power generation, storage for irrigation and
urbanisation of river banks. The types of physical modification that are considered
for designation include weirs/dams/reservoirs, channelisation/straightening/bed
stabilisation, bank reinforcement, land reclamation/coastal
modifications/ports.
The methodology used for the designation of HMWBs has
followed the stepwise approach of the CIS Guidance nº 4 in all RBDs that
defined HMWB. 
A water body from the river category was designated as a HMWB when:
1)      As a result of the construction of a dam, significant changes occur
on the water body in terms of hydromorphological characteristics: i) on the
water body part downstream of a dam, as a consequence of the alteration on the
hydrological regime; ii) on the water body part upstream of a dam, as a result
of the creation of a reservoir (change of a lotic ecosystem to a lentic
ecosystem), implying a “substantial change in character” of the water body and
preventing it from reaching good ecological status, as defined for that river
type; iii) urban river stretches, or transitional and coastal waters with
significant physical and hydromorphological alterations; iv) ports and
navigation channels. 
All
reservoirs with an area larger than 0.4 km2 were considered HMWB.
Some reservoirs with a smaller area, used for water supply, were also included.
2)      The elimination of a dam would imply a “significant adverse effect
on the water uses” that cannot be guaranteed by other options, being also “the
better environmental option” when a dam was constructed for: 
i)         
Hydroelectric production:
a.       Allows a rapid response to the increase of energy consumption at
peak hours that cannot be reached by other sources of energy;
b.      Contributes to the goal defined by the Portuguese Government and the
EU 2020 climate-energy legal framework concerning the proportion of electricity
which is produced from renewable sources of energy: 31% in 2020;
c.       Allows the use of wind energy in low energy demand periods
(pump-storage reservoirs).
ii)       
Water supply and/or irrigation: due to the high
variability of the hydrological regime in Portugal, it is essential to have an
interannual and annual regulation of the hydrological regime to satisfy the
water necessities for domestic consumption, industry and irrigation. This is
guaranteed by reservoirs.
Portugal considered as permanent morphological changes:

 The existence of dams for water supply, irrigation, hydroelectricity
     and navigation; 
 The existence of flood protection dikes and other longitudinal
     structures such as ports, long and significant channels and other
     infrastructures.
 River stretches downstream of a dam were considered as
     substantially changed if mitigation measures, such as ecological flows or
     fish ways, are not present.

The RBMPs assume that the use of existing dams and reservoirs will
not be discontinued due to implementation of WFD. The RBMPs do not contain
information regarding the consideration of all possible restoration measures
that may allow good ecological status to be achieved without causing
significant adverse effects on the water use or the wider environment. In
particular the approach used by Portugal for implementation of ecological flows
requirements[31] is as follows: i) All
new dams (since 2008) must have an ecological flow established through the use
of ecologically based methods; ii) When renewing permits for old dams, a
revision or implementation of ecological flows established through the use of
ecologically based methods is mandatory. Moreover the PT water authority states
that if a water body has been designated as HMWB one cannot set measures that
for reasons of technical feasibility or disproportionate costs may jeopardise
the beneficial objectives for which the HMWB was designated.             
There is no explicit mention of uncertainty in
designation, but a quality check of the results of the designation process is
described. 
Fourteen transitional water bodies and one coastal water
body are considered HMWB in mainland Portugal. Although there are coastal
defences along the coast, they are often considered to have a localised effect
that is insufficient to consider the whole water body as heavily modified. 

7.2.                
Methodology for setting good ecological
potential (GEP)

At the time of developing the RBMP, the project Massas
de Água Costeiras e de Transição Adjacentes e do Potencial Ecológico das Massas
de Água Fortemente Modificadas (POVT-12-0233-FCOES-000017 - ERDF) was
ongoing at a national level, trying to establish reference conditions for the
ecological potential of HMWBs in different water types.
GEP is being defined at the national level. The GEP for
reservoirs is the most developed, but it has still not been defined for all
types of reservoir. The northern reservoirs are mostly hydropower dams and for
water supply, while the southern reservoirs are mostly used for water supply
and irrigation (several reservoirs serve two or more purposes). The biological
component of GEP for lakes derives from the inter-calibration exercise, and
following the second phase of the intercalibration exercise it has been
possible to define GEP with all components of phytoplankton (Chlorophyll a
concentration, total Biovolume, % Biovolume of Cyanobacteria, and group of
algae). For the southern reservoirs, only chlorophyll a
(from BQEs) is currently integrated in the assessment of GEP. For the priority substances the threshold values are the same as
those used in natural rivers. Regarding hydromorphological conditions, although
the indicators are already defined, no reference values are yet established.
According to the National Water Authority, Portugal is
developing a complete phytoplankton assessment system for southern reservoir
types as well as for the third reservoir type existing in Portugal, the
run-of-the-river reservoirs type.
For the majority of river types, GEP is assessed through the same
requirements considered for ecological status. According to the National Water
Authority, Portugal is currently working on the hydromorphological changes
associated with hydropower, in order to include ecological flow (which is
already in place) or hydropeaking mitigation (where in place) in GEP assessment
of water bodies downstream from dams. However, this work will probably not be
ready in time for the second RBMPs.

7.3.                
Results of ecological potential assessment in
HMWB and AWB

As stated above, there is not yet a clear and complete
definition of GEP for each water category. There is work in progress, but in
many instances the GES references are supposed to be used also in GEP. As there
are no natural lakes in mainland Portugal no GES references were defined, hence
the RBMPs state that the definition of GEP depends on intercalibration
exercises. At the time the RBMPs were published only one type of reservoir, out
of the existing three, had all definitions for chlorophyll.

8.                      
Assessment of chemical status of surface waters
8.1.                
Methodological approach to the assessment

Guidelines for the methodology are provided by a
national document. It states that the relevant QEs for the determination of
chemical status are: priority substances indicated in Directive 2008/105/CE for
which standards have been established; other hazardous substances for which
standards have been defined at the national or EU level.
Overall, monitoring data is scarce and, as an
alternative, historic data is used. Not all substances are measured and
measurements are not carried out in all water bodies. The standards applied are
those of the national legislation that transposes the Directive and are similar
to those of the Directive. With the exception of PTRH4 and PTRH5, where on
average 25% are not classified, in the RBDs of mainland Portugal
indetermination is always larger than 67%, with three RBDs with a level of indetermination
greater than 80%. 
For PTRH9 it is stated in the RBMP that there is no data
on the presence of most priority substances in the surface water bodies. The
few water bodies that have been monitored (e.g. for zinc, cadmium and mercury)
have concentration values below the limits of detection of the methods used.
Despite the lack of knowledge, it was considered that all the surface water
bodies have good chemical status.
In PTRH10, only ten river water bodies and two coastal
waters had chemical monitoring data from a hazardous chemicals monitoring
programme. There is very limited data to allow a WFD compliant
characterisation. There are 17 substances and groups of substances of List I,
and 114 substances and groups of substances of List II of Directive 76/464/EC
which are analysed in this programme. Several List II substances showed
concentrations above the ‘water for human consumption’ quality standards in
rivers, and some showed concentrations above the shellfish water quality
standards in coastal waters. However, the RBMP considers that there is no
chemical risk in PTRH10. The only water body classified as uncertain is one
river water body in which higher concentrations of dissolved lead occurred in
2009 but did not occur in 2010 and 2011. The large majority of water bodies had
no data and their classification (low certainty level) was achieved using a
statistical model, the knowledge of pressures and expert judgment.
Overall, for all Portuguese RBDs no methodology is
supplied for dealing with background concentrations. Atmospheric deposition was
not taken into consideration. EQSs were not defined for mercury and
hexachlorobutadiene. For hexachlorobenzene a sampling campaign has taken place
in 12 beaches of mainland Portugal and results were below the limit of
quantification. No reference could be found in the texts concerning how
bioavailability factors of metals are considered in the assessment of
compliance with EQS.
According to the National Water Authority Portugal has
implemented a sediment monitoring network in order to evaluate monitoring
trends of priority substances. Results are available from 2013 onwards and will
be included in the second cycle of RBMPs.

8.2.                
Substances causing Exceedance

The substances causing water bodies to fail good chemical status are
shown in Table 8.2.1.
 Substance causing exceedance || Exceedances per RBD 
 PTRH1* || PTRH2 || PTRH3 || PTRH4 || PTRH5 || PTRH6 || PTRH7* || PTRH8 || PTRH9* || PTRH 10 
 Lead ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 (1%) ||   || Prevent classification as good** 
 Nonylphenol ||   || 1 (1%) ||   || 5 (2%) ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Tributyltin compounds ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 (0.2%) || 2 (0.9%) ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Nickel ||   ||   || 1 (0.3%) ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
Table 8.2.1: Substances responsible for exceedances
Source: WISE 5.5.b
* No data reported for this RBD
** Dissolved lead occurring in 2009 in one RBD 
There is no
indication in the RBMPs that mixing zones are being used. The National Water
Authority states that “there are no plans to designate mixing zones at a
national level. However, whenever justified, some mixing zones are being
defined at a local level and linked with the wastewater discharge permits. The
CIS Mixing Zones Guidelines and the Discharge Test software are being applied
and until now all cases were tier 2 type.”

9.                      
Assessment of groundwater status
 
 Status || Poor chemical status || Poor quantitative status || Good status 
 PTRH1 || 0 || 0 || 2 (100%) 
 PTRH2 || 1 (25%) || 0 || 3 (75%) 
 PTRH3 || 0 || 0 || 3 (100%) 
 PTRH4 || 7 (23%) || 1 (3%) || 22 (73%) 
 PTRH5 || 3 (25%) || 0 || 9 (75%) 
 PTRH6 || 1 (12%) || 0 || 7 (88%) 
 PTRH7 || 3 (33%) || 1 unknown || 5 (56%) 
 PTRH8 || 4 (17%) || 0 || 19 (83%) 
 PTRH9 || 4 (7%) || 0 || 50 (93%) 
 PTRH10 || 1 unknown || 0 || 3 (75%) 
 Total || 23 (15%) || 1 (0.7%) || 123 (84%) 
Table 9.1: Number and percentage of groundwater bodies and their
status.
Source: WISE GWB_STATUS and WISE database

9.1.                
Groundwater quantitative status

Of the classified groundwater bodies, only one is in
poor quantitative status and one undetermined. The methodology to assess the
quantitative status of a water body is established in Order nº 1115/2009. This states that good quantitative status is achieved
when the annual average abstraction rate is lower than 90% of the long-term annual average rate of overall recharge. 
Analysing the text of the Order nº
1115/2009 and the specificities of the evaluation
presented in the RBMPs, it can be concluded that Article 2.27 of the WFD is
used. There is still very little knowledge about the needs of the terrestrial
ecosystems associated with groundwater bodies. The general approach in Portugal
was to establish that the ecological flow necessary for
aquatic ecosystems and associated terrestrial ecosystems is 10% of the
long-term annual average of recharge.
The impacts of abstractions have been considered by
looking at the balance between the long-term annual average rate of abstraction
compared with the available groundwater resource. For all groundwater bodies an
analysis of the piezometric level tendencies was performed. Saline or other
intrusions were also included in the assessment. In PTRH8 where the cases of
water shortage in dry years were more frequent, actual and potential legitimate
uses and functions of groundwater have also been considered.
In the case of the northern RBDs, the RBMPs state that
such knowledge has not been necessary to this assessment since by using other
parameters (namely rate of abstraction much lower than the 90% limit) it has
been determined that the water bodies are in good quantitative status. In
southern mainland Portugal (PTRH7 and PTRH8) it is stated that some surface
waters associated with groundwater and groundwater-dependent terrestrial
ecosystems have been identified. There are measures in the POMs of all RBMPs
aiming to increase knowledge on the groundwater dependent ecosystems.

9.2.                
Groundwater chemical status

It is important to note that for many RBDs the
monitoring networks are considered non-representative. There are some water
bodies without monitoring data, other water bodies have one single monitoring
point. Only one of the water bodies is considered to have moderate precision
data. 
The groundwater chemical status assessment followed the principles
of Guidance Document nº 18 (Guidance on Groundwater Status and Trend Assessment).The
following procedure was followed and described in the RBMPs:
ü The mean value for each relevant parameter and monitoring site in
the groundwater bodies was calculated;
ü If at least one monitoring point registered a mean value higher than
the threshold value (TV) or quality standard (QS) an “appropriate
investigation” (TESTS) was carried out;
ü The relevant TESTS were applied – saline or other intrusion, surface
water, groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems, general quality
assessment;
ü
In the general quality assessment TEST, when the
extent of the exceedance occurs in an area greater than 20% of the GWB the GWB
was considered to have poor status. In general, the interpolation method used
was the Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW).
The tool used for trend assessment is regression
analysis. If the concentration of the parameter gets above 75% of the
parametric value of quality or TV, the environmental objectives are considered
to be at risk. It is clearly stated that no specific procedure was considered
for the assessment of trend reversal.
TVs were established for the 10 parameters of part B
Annex II of DL nº 208/2008 that transposes Directive 2006/118/EC to Portuguese
law. There is a national document setting the procedure for the establishment
of TVs. For one groundwater body situated in PTRH6 TVs were established for
several hydrocarbons (21) including PAH. These TVs can also be used at a
national level when necessary.
The causes of exceeding values are determined by
analysis of causes and expert judgment. Background concentrations are
considered. For example in PTRH1 there is a naturally high concentration of
arsenic. For the analysis of background values specific studies were undertaken
in the RBD.
The estimates and evaluations are done at the locations
where data exist, and focus more on the parameters found above thresholds and
its comparison with background levels, namely frequency of occurrence and
concentration. Nitrate was considered to be the most challenging factor. The
significant pressure is therefore agriculture and livestock.
Associated surface waters and groundwater-dependent
terrestrial ecosystems are considered in the assessment of chemical status.
However, the existing knowledge is reduced and, as stated above, a research
study is currently ongoing.

9.3.                
Protected areas

The procedures used for analysis of the water status in protected
areas are not clear.
It should be noted that the delimitation of protection areas for
drinking water consumption (“protection perimeters”), shall be established in
specific legislation. The data listed below often correspond to water bodies in
which such perimeters will be established. 
For PTRH9 and PTRH10 the protection perimeters were still not
published, thus the RBMPs show no data on the status of groundwater protected
areas. In the case of Madeira, as the chemical monitoring is undertaken at the
areas where water for human consumption is abstracted, there are quality data.
Out of three groundwater bodies, two are in good quality (Category A1 of Annex
I of DL 236/98) and one presents some non-compliances. 
Groundwater bodies designated as vulnerable zones in the scope of
the Nitrates Directive have been classified with status less than good.
 RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown 
 PTRH1 || 0 || 4 || 21 
 PTRH2 || 0 || 0 || 23 
 PTRH3 || 0 || 1 || 28 
 PTRH4 || 18 || 2 || 5 
 PTRH5 || 12 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH6 || 0 || 0 || 19 
 PTRH7 || 0 || 0 || 43 
 PTRH8 || 12 || 1 || 3 
 PTRH9 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH10 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 Total || 42 || 8 || 142 
Table 9.2: Status of groundwater
drinking water protected areas
Source: WISE database

10.                  
Environmental objectives and exemptions
10.1.            
Additional objectives in protected areas

For surface waters and groundwater abstraction zones,
objectives were established regarding the quality level of water until 2015,
and the objective is to comply with the corresponding legislation (namely DL
236/98 on setting water quality uses in accordance with their uses; biological
and physicochemical parameters established in Annex X of DL 236/98 are more
stringent than the WFD). One of the main measures is to finalise the protection
perimeters around abstraction areas. In specific water bodies subject to
pressures, measures are undertaken for the fast resolution of problems.
There are no shellfish protected areas in Portugal.
However, there are shellfish zones, in which there is legislation on food
security (Decree-Law nº 293/98, which transposes
91/492/EEC amended by Directive nº 97/61/EC of the Council) and control measures are taken. 
For bathing waters the additional objectives are related
to the maintenance of conformity of water bodies with specific legislation
until 2015. Particularly in transitional water bodies and in reservoirs more
stringent objectives are considered. Specific measures are defined.
The objectives of the zones designated for the
protection of habitats and species are the same as the environmental objectives
defined for the surface water bodies. The most recent definition of these
protected areas are the Council of Ministers Resolutions 76/2000 and 135/2004
and the DL 49/2005. Portugal has decided that no other
requirements besides good status are necessary to fulfil the objectives of the
Birds and Habitats Directives.

10.2.            
Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5)

It is important to keep in mind that the data available
to be used in the RBMPs is limited. Some water bodies were not classified
(transitional waters) and others were provisionally classified (coastal
waters). Overall in many cases the precision of the classification is low or
moderate also for rivers and dams. For the water bodies in which status is
undetermined, often no objectives were established. This is mirrored in the
tables of section 6 of the present report.
Although WISE reports a derogation under Article 4(5),
the RBMPs do not include any such derogation[32]. Also there
are discrepancies between the exemptions due to Article 4(4) between data
reported on WISE and data in the RBMPs. One example is PTRH4 which has two
RBMPs, one for Ribeiras do Oeste and another for Vouga/Mondego/Lis. According
to the RBMP, Ribeiras do Oeste applies Article 4(4) to 47 water bodies and
Vouga/Mondego/Lis applies that Article to 41 water bodies; however only 68 are
reported for the RBD as a whole in WISE. 
The justifications for the use of exemptions under
Article 4(4) are technical feasibility and natural conditions. In PTRH10 there
is also justification based on disproportionate costs[33].

Measures are technically infeasible if a problem takes longer to fix
than there is time available, if no technical solution is available, or if
there is no information on the cause of the problem. The
use of the “Article 4(4) - Natural conditions” refers to some water bodies
where the ecological status is failing to achieve "good" due to
biological quality elements. In some cases measures are foreseen, but it is
uncertain that good status can be achieved by 2015 since the biological
communities need an unknown period of time to recover to thresholds compatible
with "good" status. In these cases the response from the biological
communities to the implemented measures is not immediate. 
 RBD || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) 
 R || L || T || C || GW || R || L || T || C || GW 
 PTRH1 || 12 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH2 || 33 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH3 || 87 || 13 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH4 || 57 || 3 || 8 || 0 || 4 || 1* || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH5 || 66 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH6 || 108 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH7 || 121 || 8 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH8 || 23 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH9 || 7 || 12 || 2 || 0 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH10 || 39 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Total || 514 || 44 || 10 || 0 || 9 || 1* || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
Table 10.2.1: Exemptions for Article 4(4) and 4(5)
*value believed to
be an error when compared to the RBMP. 
Source: WISE
(SWB_STATUS_EXEMPTIONS and GWB_STATUS_EXEMPTIONS), and information provided by
the National Water Authority after assessment of the RBMPs.
 RBD || Global[34] 
 Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions 
 Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) 
 PTRH1 ||   ||   ||   ||   || 13 ||   
 PTRH2 ||   ||   ||   ||   || 34 ||   
 PTRH3 ||   ||   ||   ||   || 100 ||   
 PTRH4 || 66 || 1 ||   ||   || 2 ||   
 PTRH5 || 68 ||   ||   ||   || 0 ||   
 PTRH6 || 25 ||   ||   ||   || 111 ||   
 PTRH7 || 21 ||   ||   ||   || 124 ||   
 PTRH8 || 1 ||   ||   ||   || 23 ||   
 PTRH9 || 23 ||   ||   ||   || 2 ||   
 PTRH10 || 1 ||   ||   ||   || 39 ||   
 Total || 222 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 448 || 0 
Table 10.2.2: Number of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions
Source: WISE database and RBMPs for PTRH8 and PTRH9
Figure
10.2.1: Numbers of Article
4(4) and 4(5) exemptions
T = Technical feasibility
D = Disproportionate costs
N = Natural conditions
Source: WISE database
The data in Table
10.2.2 and Figure 10.2.1 (above) have been extracted from WISE, while the data
in Table 10.2.3 (below) was provided as additional information by the national
water authority. There are discrepancies between the two sources of data.
 RBD || Global 
 Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions || New modification 
 Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5)[35] || Article 4(7) 
 PTRH1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 13 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 34 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 100 || 0 || 11 
 PTRH4 || 66 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 4 
 PTRH5 || 68 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 
 PTRH6 || 23 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 111 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH7 || 21 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 124 || 0 || 0 
 PTRH8 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 23 || 0 || 1 
 PTRH9 || 23 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 0 
 Total || 201 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 410 || 0 || 18 
Table 10.2.3: Number of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions
Source: Additional information
provided by the PT authorities

As a result of the communication process
between the European Commission and national authorities, guidance has been
issued stating that “Natural conditions should not be invoked when measures are
not being implemented due to other reasons (e.g. lack of funds)”. This might
explain the discrepancies between tables 10.2.2 and 10.2.3.

10.3.            
Exemptions according to Article 4(6)

Article 4(6) has not been applied.

10.4.            
Exemptions according to Article 4(7)

According to the RBMPs, in mainland Portugal there was a
significant number of water bodies in which Article 4(7) was applied due to
planned construction of dams. In PTRH3 there are 30 river water bodies with
derogations due to future hydropower dams, one in construction and the others
with favorable EIAs. PTRH4 applied Article 4(7) in four water bodies; PTRH5 also applied this article in four water
bodies. Data reported to WISE is different from what is reported in the RBMPs.
Some other RBMPs state that derogations are foreseen. In
PTRH7 there is a plan for water transfer to PTRH6, which will also probably
lead to derogations.
As the common cause of the application of Article 4(7) is dams of
medium to large dimensions, it is likely there will be reclassification of
water bodies in the next planning exercise. This is particularly the case of
PTRH7 where the Alqueva reservoir was considered as one
water body because there was insufficient data available to divide it into
several water bodies, but this will be changed for the second round of RBMPs.
As stated above, the RBMPs do not present any analysis on how there
could be mitigation measures so that the impacts of the foreseen dams are
reduced (namely in water bodies downstream of the dams), nor do they assess
alternatives to the construction of dams. It is stated that many foreseen dams
have approved Environmental Impact Assessments.

10.5.            
Exemptions to Groundwater Directive

No information was supplied on the use of exemptions to
the Groundwater Directive in the RBDs of Portugal.

11.                  
Programmes of measures

According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMPs should
contain a summary of the programmes of measures (PoMs), including the ways in
which Member States expect to achieve the objectives of Article 4 of the WFD.
The programmes should have been established by 2009 and were required to become
operational by December 2012. 
The assessment in this section is based on the PoMs as
summarised by the Member State in its RBMPs, and the compliance of this with
the requirements of Article 11 and Annex VII of the WFD only. The assessment
focuses in particular on key sets of measures. 
Member States reported to the Commission by December
2012 on the implementation of their PoMs, including on the progress in the
implementation of basic measures as required by Article 11(3). The report
submitted by Portugal had limited information.

11.1.            
Programme of measures – general

Measures focus mostly on identified pressures: point and
diffuse source pollution, water availability, etc. The RBMPs include a
cost-efficiency analysis, but the results presented are very broad. It is stated
in some RBMPs that the prioritisation is not necessarily done on
cost-effectiveness alone, but also on benefit or urgent need, but there is no
clear indication on the criteria used for prioritisation. There is no clear
evidence, particularly on the basic measures, that they will be applied with
priority or more intensively on problematic water bodies. 
A significant part of the measures relates to increasing
knowledge on the water bodies, strengthening and expanding the monitoring
network and improving the inventory of pressures. It is expected that once this
is achieved, there can be progress on the assessment methods, on the
establishment of reference conditions, on planning for water body objectives,
and on monitoring the impact of the measures. 
Measures are presented by type (basic, supplementary,
complementary and additional); by operational programme (national programmes
and plans); by theme (water quantity, water quality, monitoring, research,
etc.); and by responsible entity. Information on the geographical scope of the
measures is provided at a national, sub-basin or water body level, depending on
the nature of the measure (contained in a national programme, or specific to
the RBD). 
It should also be noted that several RBMPs include as
part of the PoM measures from existing plans and programmes, and investments in
measures implemented since 2009. The entities responsible are public and
private (mainly large companies dealing with water supply and sanitation or
with hydropower generation). Agricultural measures will also have shared
responsibility, being led by national authorities, but implemented by farmers
and enterprises.
For the measures specifically created for
the RBMPs, funds are often not secured and the RBMPs cite as possible sources of
funding: structural, cohesion and rural development funds; other EU funds;
state budget; and private investments. The economic and social crisis that has affected
Portugal caused a reduction of public spending, and the collapse of many
industries and agricultural businesses, and the situation also has an impact on
the mobilisation of funds for the implementation of measures. However,
according to the Portuguese Water Authority, the merging of water resource
management and other environmental matters into APA allowed for an increase of
the percentage of the organisation’s overall budget that is dedicated to water
resource management. This reflects water management’s relative priority in
terms of public environmental policy against the general backdrop of dwindling
public resources both in human and financial terms.  
There has not been any coordination between Portugal and
Spain on the PoMs. 
The National Water Authority recognises that the
analysis of possible effectiveness of measures is a challenge. Nonetheless,
since October 2012 a licensing system is in use that will greatly improve the
knowledge on pressures and that checks in real time how many uses are present
in a water body. According to DL 226-A/2007 water abstraction and wastewater
discharges are subject to a permit process and other smaller scale uses need to
be previously communicated. The National Water Authority states that a
verification process is currently in preparation to evaluate if the identified
measures are sufficient to address the identified pressures, particularly
measures related to agricultural pressures and those related to chemical
pressures (based on inventories of chemical pollution sources), and to clarify
links between hydromorphological measures and specific hydromorphological
pressures. This will be achieved through monitoring (including self-monitoring)
and inspection. There is ongoing communication and information sharing with the
agriculture authorities and with the water and waste services regulator as well
as with River Basin District Councils.

11.2.            
Measures related to agriculture

Agriculture is assessed as leading to pressures on water
quality including eutrophication, water quantity, and hydromorphological
changes. In mainland Portugal 386 surface water bodies and 11 groundwater
bodies fail to meet good status due to pressures from agriculture (21% and 8%
respectively).
Agricultural measures are often included in the measures
aimed at reducing diffuse source pollution, and particularly in the RBMPs of
southern mainland Portugal, there are also agricultural measures to address
quantitative pressures. Measures addressing livestock are often included in the
reduction of point source pollution measures. Measures are also included on
communication and governance, and consist of awareness raising and training
regarding best practices on agriculture (reduced use of fertilisers and
pesticides, efficient water use, soil protection, etc.) 
There have been consultative meetings and thematic
meetings on agriculture during the preparation of the RBMPs. However, final
measures have been revised in 2012, while finalising the RBMPs, with a view to
reduce investments, and it is not possible to ascertain what key changes might
have occurred.
A combination of technical measures, economic instruments
and non-technical measures has been selected to address the pressures from
agriculture in all the RBMPs of Portugal (See table 11.2.1).
Measures are generally designed for the RBD or sub-RBD.
In the case of specific remediation projects, the scale can go to site or area.
Information is provided on the timing for the implementation of the measures,
or at least the period of implementation, e.g. until 2015.
The cost of measures has been broadly identified in some
RBDs (e.g. PTRH7), but in others there is more detail (e.g. PTRH5). When only
broad information is provided, the cost is identified for groups of measures,
not for each single measure.
There is no clear financial commitment to implement
several measures, gaps exist in the basic measures necessary to address
agricultural pressures (pollution, abstraction, morphology) and Rural
Development Programmes are considered the main instrument to support WFD
measures in agriculture.
It is unclear to what extent the measures proposed for
agriculture will be sufficient to address the pressures arising from this
sector. Moreover, adequate resources to provide advice,
control and enforce legislation and measures are not evident. 
An ecologically-based flow regime is not defined for many water
bodies and there are no national guidelines. As stated above this is
being done at the time of renewing the concession contracts. For the time
being, not all dams are proven to be compatible with the WFD objectives.
 Measures || PTRH1 || PTRH2 || PTRH3 || PTRH4 || PTRH5 || PTRH6 || PTRH7 || PTRH8 || PTRH9 || PTRH10 
 Technical measures ||   ||   
 Reduction/modification of fertiliser application ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || ü || ü || ü || ü ||   
 Reduction/modification of pesticide application ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || ü || ü || ü || ü ||   
 Change to low-input farming ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Hydromorphological measures ||   || ü || ü || ü ||   || ü || ü || ü ||   ||   
 Measures against soil erosion ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || ü || ü || ü ||   ||   
 Multi-objective measures ||   || ü || ü || ü ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Water saving measures || ü || ü || ü || ü ||   || ü || ü || ü || ü ||   
 Economic instruments ||   ||   
 Compensation for land cover ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || ü || ü || ü ||   ||   
 Co-operative agreements ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Water pricing ||   || ü || ü || ü ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Nutrient trading ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Fertiliser taxation ||   ||   || ü ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Non-technical measures ||   ||   
 Implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation ||   || ü || ü || ü ||   || ü || ü || ü || ü ||   
 Controls ||   || ü || ü ||   ||   || ü || ü || ü ||   ||   
 Institutional changes ||   ||   ||   ||   || ü ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Codes of agricultural practice || ü ||   ||   || ü ||   || ü || ü || ü ||   ||   
 Advice and training || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü 
 Awareness raising || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||   || ü 
 Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making ||   ||   ||   ||   || ü || ü || ü || ü ||   ||   
 Certification schemes ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Zoning ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Specific action plans/programmes ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Land use planning ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Technical standards ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Specific projects related to agriculture ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Environmental permitting and licensing ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
Table 11.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural
pressures, as described in the PoM
Source: RBMPs

11.3.            
Measures related to hydromorphology

The hydromorphology measures contained in the
RBMPs are often broad in scope, such as habitat restoration or restoration of
bank structure. These measures aim to realise the potential of natural water
retention. Another measure that is contained in almost all RBMPs is setting minimum ecological flow requirements. In fact, although it
has been a requirement of Portuguese legislation since 1989 namely in small
dams, and since 2007 for all hydraulic structures, there is still limited
knowledge of the different water bodies, particularly regarding dependent
ecosystems and habitats. 
Dredging has been a problem particularly in
northern mainland Portugal, and management plans for sand and other inert
extraction from public water domains are envisaged. 
For some RBDs (particularly in mainland
Portugal) the measures are those indicated in the environmental impact
statements, particularly for large structures: this is the case for measures
setting up fish ladders and bypass channels.
For many RBMPs the measures related to
hydromorphological pressures are limited. This might be linked with the fact
that there is limited knowledge of the impact of such pressures.
 Measures || PTRH1 || PTRH2 || PTRH3 || PTRH4 || PTRH5 || PTRH6 || PTRH7 || PTRH8 || PTRH9 || PTRH10 
 Fish ladders || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||   ||   
 Bypass channels || ü || ü || ü || ü ||   ||   ||   || ü ||   ||   
 Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas || ü || ü || ü || ü ||   || ü || ü || ü ||   || ü 
 Sediment/debris management || ü || ü || ü || ü ||   ||   ||   ||   || ü ||   
 Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || ü || ü ||   || ü ||   
 Reconnection of meander bends or side arms ||||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Lowering of river banks ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Restoration of bank structure || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||   || ü 
 Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü || ü ||   
 Operational modifications for hydropeaking ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Inundation of flood plains ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Construction of retention basins ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Reduction or modification of dredging || ü || ü || ü || ü ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Restoration of degraded bed structure ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || ü ||   
 Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || ü ||   ||   
Table 11.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological
pressures, as described in the PoM
Source: RBMPs 

11.4.            
Measures related to groundwater

It is noted that both basic and supplementary measures
are implemented in order to tackle groundwater over-exploitation, and to
prevent inputs of any harmful substances which would affect groundwater quality
in all RBMPs. Some measures may not be specific for groundwater, but
nonetheless have an impact on achieving the objectives.
The basic measures implemented to address groundwater
over-exploitation include controls on over abstraction and artificial recharge,
and limits to licenses for groundwater use in the water bodies in which the
annual volume of water abstracted is greater than 70% of the annual recharge.
In those cases the permits are limited to water for human consumption. Other
basic measures include:
·        
Promotion of water reuse, e.g. use of treated
water in irrigation, reuse of industrial plants' treated water, and use of
treated water in tourism (golf courses); 
·        
Control the limit on the groundwater abstracted
in function of the culture and the climate;
·        
Limit the use of potable water for uses other
than human consumption in urban and peri-urban areas; 
·        
Rehabilitation of community irrigation perimeters;

·        
Extension of services to promote efficient use; 
·        
Promotion of more efficient technologies on
water distribution; 
·        
Economic incentives to efficient use; and 
·        
The revision of the scarcity coefficient for the
calculation of the Water Resources Tax. 
Supplementary measures include evaluation of the
piezometric tendencies, and prevention and control of abstraction in water
bodies known to be vulnerable. 
In PTRH9, the prevention of saline intrusion into groundwater bodies
in the RBD is related to over-exploitation. A study is ongoing with participation of the University of the Azores, in order to
characterise groundwater salinisation in Pico and Graciosa islands where some
groundwater bodies are in poor chemical status. The objectives of this project are
to: (1) characterise groundwater composition in the basal aquifer and the
effects of mixture with seawater through major, minor and trace elements, as
well as isotopic tools, (2) develop a hydrogeochemical model, (3) proceed to
seawater intrusion risk mapping, and (4) define operational monitoring
networks. Results are to be complemented by an overall analysis of this issue
in the archipelago. The results will be the basis of an overall analysis of
sustainable pumping rates in order to avoid bad practices and, if needed, to
locate new wells to be drilled when necessary.
The basic measures implemented to prevent and limit
inputs of pollution to groundwater include (from point source or diffuse source
pollution):
·       Strengthen requirements and monitoring/inspection regarding pig
farming wastewater treatment; 
·       Control of some closed and sealed landfill sites; 
·       Control of end-of-life vehicles deposit sites; 
·       Control of abandoned mines;
·       Incentive to replace septic tanks with more efficient systems,
depending on the type of wastewater and the vulnerability of the surrounding
environment to infiltration (diffuse pollution); 
·       Implementation of measures in areas vulnerable to nitrate pollution
(diffuse); and
·       Technical advice to farmers on best practices of irrigation and
fertilisation (diffuse).
No RBMPs reported specific measures being
established in a part of a groundwater body where quality standards or
threshold values were exceeded although the groundwater body is in good status.

11.5.            
Measures related to chemical pollution

The main contributors to chemical pollution reported in
the RBMPs are households (via WWTP), industry, livestock, fuel stations (all
mainly impacting on surface water), mining and waste deposits and uncontrolled
landfill sites (mainly impacting on groundwater). Diffuse pollution originates
mostly in agriculture, livestock, golf courses, aquaculture and ports. 
Several RBMPs established an inventory of sources of
pollution, taking into account national conditions and circumstances. Some of
the inventories include diffuse pollution. The most complete ones have priority
substances and certain other pollutants, non-priority specific pollutants or
main pollutants identified at the RBD-level and nutrients. However, in some
RBDs only nutrients were considered.
Measures include:
·        
Identification of problems in WWTP and intensive
pig farming; 
·        
Establish cooperation protocols with timetables
and targets to achieve in order to solve problems; 
·        
Implementation of actions aiming at compliance
with the law; 
·        
Improvement of urban wastewater treatment
plants, improvement of sewerage, improvement of the treatment systems, works
for the control of non-authorised discharges; 
·        
Incentives to the implementation of measures to
reuse the waste (WWTP sludge, liquid discharges); 
·        
Improvement of WWTP of wine producing plants; 
·        
Revision and control of the effluent discharge
conditions of industry; 
·        
Implementation of auto-control measures for
WWTP; 
·        
Licensing of WWTP discharges;
·        
Establishment of systems of alert for cases in
which the flow arriving to the WWTP is higher than its capacity, in order to
minimise discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater;
·        
Definition of good practice codes and technical
guidelines for farmers; 
·        
Code of good practice for the agro-livestock
industry and monitoring of its implementation;
·        
De-contamination of aquifers and prohibition of
direct discharge into aquifers; 
·        
Strengthening inspections of the activities
prone to affect water bodies; 
·        
Prevention and minimisation of the effects of
accidental pollution;
·        
Optimisation of the control of emissions; 
·        
Monitoring of pressures of abandoned mining
sites; 
·        
Strengthening the control and improving the WWTP
of intensive pig farming; 
·        
Development of pilot projects for the
application of WWTP sludge and organic waste in farming and golf courses; 
·        
Information to farmers on adequate use of
fertilisers and watering to increase production; 
·        
Compensation to farmers for using
agri-environment practices; and,
·        
Improvement of the inventory of pressures.
Even if there might be some measures related to specific
substances, the RBMPs do not make such links. However, the National Water
Authority reports the substances identified as
exceeding their EQS in Table 11.5.1. 
 RBD || SWB || SWB_NAME || Category* || Chemical Status || Chemical Exceedances 
 PTRH2 || PTCOST2 || CWB-I-1B || CW || 3 || 3.10 Nonylphenol 
 PTRH3 || PT03DOU0367 || Rio Tinto || RW || 3 || 1.4 Nickel 
 PTRH4 || PTCOST4 || CWB-II-1B || CW || 3 || 3.10 Nonylphenol 
 PTRH4 || PTCOST6 || CWB-II-2 || CW || 3 || 3.10 Nonylphenol 
 PTRH4 || PT04LIS0704 || Lis || TW || 3 || 3.10 Nonylphenol 
 PTRH4 || PT04VOU0536 || Ria Aveiro-WB4 || TW || 3 || 3.10 Nonylphenol 
 PTRH4 || PT04VOU0547 || Ria Aveiro-WB2 || TW || 3 || 3.10 Nonylphenol 
 PTRH5 || PT05TEJ0939 || Albufeira Nisa - Povoa || LW || 3 || 4.17 Tributyltin compounds 
 PTRH6 || PT06SAD1195 || Ribeira da Marateca || RW || 3 || 4.17 Tributyltin compounds 
 PTRH6 || PT06SAD1229 || Rio Xarrama || RW || 3 || 4.17 Tributyltin compounds 
 PTRH8 || PT08RDA1706 || Ribeira da Quarteira || RW || 3 || 1.2 Lead 
Table 11.5.1: Substances identified as exceeding their
EQS
Source: Additional information provided by the Portuguese authorities
These occurrences are being addressed by the implementation of the
following measures:

 Environmental remediation of abandoned metallurgical and
     chemical industry mining constituting historic pollution hotspots;
 Strengthening licensing requirements:
  Revision of water use permits for the activities responsible
      for chemical pollution;
  Revision of discharge limits for industrial units connected to
      municipal sewers;
  Issuance of unfavourable decisions for the application of
      sludge to agricultural land affecting water bodies; and 
  Requiring rehabilitation and construction of industrial
      wastewater treatment plants.
 Improving Inspection through:
  Increased controls;
  Evaluation of the implementation status of the Best Available
      Techniques provided in the context of Environmental Licenses (IPPC); and
  Increased control of port activities, namely effluents
      produced by activities such as maintenance and repair of boats.

Besides the above, Ordinance n. º 50/2005, of 20 January 2005
approved reduction programmes and controls for the following hazardous
substances in the aquatic environment: anthracene, 2,4-D
(2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), MCPA (2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic),
simazine, tributyltin oxide, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, ammonia, phosphorus
compounds, nitrites, 1,2-dichloropropane, Linuron, Naphthalene, 2,4,5-T
(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid), atrazine, cyanides.

11.6.            
Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing
policies)

Cost recovery levels were calculated for urban water supply systems
(AA) and drainage and wastewater treatment (DTAR) and for water supply (AA) in
Agriculture. For the urban water system, total cost recovery has been
calculated: AA; DTAR; DTAR + AA (combination of the two[36]).
Each of these three items has been disaggregated into two groups: (i) domestic
sector; (ii) other sectors. The latter (other sectors) includes manufacturing /
industry and all other sectors served in the context of urban systems (e.g.,
commercial, tourism, services, institutions, agriculture and livestock).
Regarding self-service water supply and sanitation regimes, it has
been assumed that this includes fisheries, aquaculture, golf and extraction of
public water resources. For the industry under self-service, a full cost
recovery of the investments (assuming that there are no subsidies) was assumed.
Total costs were separated from non-subsidised costs in the case of hydropower.
For agriculture, cost recovery data focuses on the special public irrigation
perimeters whose name can be translated as State Hydro Agriculture Potentials (AHCE).

Cost recovery is essentially based on financial costs
(capital costs, depreciation, operational & maintenance costs, replacement
costs). At the time of developing the RBMPs, Portugal
did not have enough reliable information to estimate environmental and resource
costs. Although a water resources tax integrated to
some extent environmental and resource costs, the tax was quite new at the time
of finalisation of the RBMPs and its implementation analysis was preliminary.
The Water Resources Tax (Taxa de Recursos Hídricos – WRT)
implements the basic idea that the user of water resources must compensate the
cost generated to the community and/or restore the benefit the community grants
(polluter pays and user pays principles). The WRT is due on a yearly basis, and
the debtor entity is the user of water resources. The WRT compensates: (1) the
advantage resulting from the private use of public water, (2) the environmental
costs related to the activities likely to cause a significant impact on water
resources, and (3) the administrative costs regarding planning, management,
supervision and water quality and quantity assurance. 
The five components of the WRT correspond to: (1) the different
contribution that each economic sector should be required to provide for
sustainable management of water resources, (2) the different shortage of water
resources in different parts of the territory; (3) concerns among user groups
in terms of social and economic distress. The five components are as follows:
A -
The abstraction of public water for private uses. It is calculated by
multiplying the base value of the respective use by the volume of water drawn,
diverted or used expressed in cubic meters, and by the applicable shortage
coefficient. The coefficient of shortage is applied differently by River Basin
Region (1 for PTRH1, PTRH2 and PTRH3; 1.1 for PTRH4 and PTRH5 and 1.2 PTRH6,
PTRH7 and PTRH8). This component is applicable to the following sectors:
agriculture, fish farming, aquaculture, mariculture, hydraulic energy production,
thermal energy production, public water supply systems and other cases;
E -
The direct or indirect discharge of effluents on water resources which may
cause significant impact. It is calculated by multiplying the base value of the
effluent to the quantity of toxicity or pollution loads contained in the
discharge, expressed in kilograms for oxidisable matter, total nitrogen and
total phosphorus;
I -
The aggregate extraction of public water resources, calculated by multiplying
the base value by the volume of aggregate extracted, expressed in cubic meters;
O -
The land occupation of the public water resources and/or the occupation and
creation of water expanses, calculated by multiplying the base value of the
respective use by the occupied area, expressed in square meters. This component
is applicable to the following sectors / situations: electric power production,
fish farming equipment located in the sea, creation of water expanses (e.g. a
dam); agriculture, fish farming, aquaculture, mariculture, infrastructure and
support equipment to traditional fisheries, sanitation, public water supply and
electricity generation; industry; residential/dwellings; temporary beach
constructions and casual occupations of commercial, tourist or recreational
nature for profit purposes; permanent beach constructions and lasting
occupations of commercial, tourist or recreational nature for profit purposes
and other cases;
U -
The private use of water, whatever its nature or statutory regime, subject to
planning and public management, which may cause significant impact. It is
calculated by multiplying the base value of the respective use by the volume of
water drawn, diverted or used, expressed in cubic meters. This component is
applicable to the following sectors: agriculture, fish farming, aquaculture,
mariculture, hydraulic energy production, thermal energy production, public
water supply systems and other cases.
The tax rate of the WRT is determined on the basis of
self-monitoring and values estimated by users (effective use) or, failing that,
by the maximum values included in the permits issued by APA as the water
authority as all water resource uses must be subject to a permit. Indirect
calculation methods, including users’ indicators by activity sector and similar
production methods are also used in cases lacking evidence of use.
The WRT collects funds for public environmental purposes[37],
and has a clear intention of guiding private users´ behaviour: (1) towards more
efficient water use and (2) to favour water use in more worthy economic
activities. The WRT covers costs related to public urban water services (using
tariffs); hydro-agricultural irrigation collective supply (HAICS);
environmental costs and resource costs (by river basin region and by sector);
the abstraction of public water for private uses; the direct or indirect
discharge of effluents to water resources; the aggregate extraction of public
water resources; the land occupation of the public water resources and / or
water expanses.
Diffuse pollution from agriculture is very difficult to measure in
physical terms and has not been included in the RBMP. In fact, there are no
direct economic mechanisms to evaluate diffuse pollution but there are some
indirect measures (such as taxation and other economic instruments) related to
a negative incentive that can be applied to substances that pollute water and
soil. The costs of pollution reduction include the costs of lab analysis (from
sampling in vulnerable zones designated under the Nitrates Directive); the loss
of income because of the adoption of antipollution measures that implies
production reduction, can be captured by the Water Resources Tax “O” component.

Incentive water pricing and social considerations have
been reflected in block tariffs combining the increasing price per cubic metre
of water with increasing water consumption. 
In Portugal, municipalities or companies provide water
to the end user. These service providers establish the price of water. Recently
the water and waste regulator issued guidelines for an assessment trying to
harmonise the water price, in which variations can occur for less favoured
people or regions.
Cross-subsidisation exists but is not explicit in the NRC estimates.
In the case of investment subsidies, only the net depreciation allowance is
incorporated in the tariff. However, regarding operational and maintenance
costs, cross-subsidisation was not considered. In fact, operating subsidies are
considered in total annual revenues. Although Portugal considers that
cross-subsidisation in the supply of water and waste services should be
avoided, it is still present in several operators when the income level of
service is insufficient to cover the cost level. According to the National
Water Authority, in the next generation of RBMPs, Portugal will seek to
demonstrate that cross-subsidies are explicit in the cost recovery calculation.
As there were no derogations, Article 9(4) is not applied.
In Portugal all users supplied by public systems pay for water
services individually. Water bills make explicit the type of services paid as
well as the metering and volume of water consumed. Water services providers
charge a service access fee, a progressive rate on water consumption (which
means that higher tariffs are charged in the higher consumption blocks) and a
wastewater rate. In the case of industry, pricing is derived from
self-measurement of volumes or the maximum volume awarded in a water
abstraction permit. In the case of agriculture, water consumption is measured
through self-monitoring, by the volume awarded by the water abstraction permit,
or through volumes provided by farmers’ associations. The measures and
incentives to promote efficient water use focus on information, education and
teaching of good practices to all citizens and sectors, as well as
institutional public capacity building in efficient water use. The National
Plan for the Efficient Use of Water[38] (PNUEA) 2012-2020 is
focused on reducing water losses and optimising water use. The focuses of the
PNUEA are urban, agricultural and industrial sectors and the Plan aims at
minimising the impacts of climate change and water stress and at the same time
promote the conservation and protection of natural resources. In addition the
PNUEA highlights the importance of reducing direct or indirect discharge of
effluents on water resources which may cause significant impact on the
environment.
The measures foreseen on efficient tariffs and incentives for
efficient water use were tariff analysis, collection and processing information
for all operators, regulation of service quality and regulation of water
quality, issuing of recommendations, and tariff regulation. The publication of
information on service quality benchmarking induces operators to be more
efficient in the various stages of the value chain of service. This has been
done for 2011, 2012 and 2013.

11.7.            
Additional measures in protected areas

Measures in protected areas are essentially aiming at increasing
knowledge of the pressures, strengthening supervision and monitoring of the
activities that could affect water bodies, improving hydromorphological
conditions of surface water bodies; and conserving and rehabilitating river
systems, coastal areas, estuaries and wetlands.
The specific measures foreseen in the PoMs regarding protected areas
are the following:
Surface water and groundwater abstraction areas 

 Legal definition of the protection perimeters for drinking
     water abstraction zones, for both surface and groundwater, and the use of
     restrictions for these areas.
 Priority use in licensing procedures and management of water
     resources.

Bathing waters

 Development of bathing water profiles and implementation of a
     review process according to the periodicity established in Decree-Law no.
     135/2009, of 3 June 2009.
 Making operational an alert system against accidental pollution
     incidents, including bathing water contamination. 

Fresh waters to support fish life

 Measures to improve ecological status.

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including vulnerable zones and sensitive
areas 

 Update of the vulnerable zones and sensitive areas.
 Implementation of action programmes.
 Implementation of auto control programmes and reinforcement of
     the inspection of wastewater discharges from wastewater treatment plants,
     with priority to the wastewater treatment plants which serve a population
     equal to or greater than 10,000 population equivalent, particularly the
     ones which discharge into sensitive areas.

Protected areas (habitats and birds)

 There are several measures coming from the Protected Areas
     Management Plans which aim to fulfil the guidelines of the Habitats
     Directive and the Biodiversity and Conservation of Nature National
     Strategy (e.g. Recovery of the peat bog of Bertiandos and São Pedro de
     Arcos Protected Landscape).
 Development of a study to define the hydrologic regimes in
     lagoons, hydrographic networks and peat bogs.
 Development of a management plan regarding the natural habitats
     of marsh, rush bed, cane thicket, riparian gallery, humid slacks, etc.).

As seen above, Portugal has not established shellfish protected areas.
However, areas for shellfish production are classified according to different
legislation (food security/safety). Protection of classified sensitive areas
for shellfish is ensured under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive
(91/271/EEC), criteria c) areas where further treatment than that prescribed in
Article 4 of this Directive is necessary to fulfil Council Directives. This
means that UWWTP discharging into sensitive areas must comply with additional
parameters under national licensing procedures.
It is clearly stated in the RBMPs that zones at risk in protected
areas will be given priority in the implementation of the programme of
measures. 

12.                  
Climate change adaptation, water scarcity and
droughts, flood risk management and other emerging and linked issues as part of
the rbmp
12.1.            
Water Scarcity and Droughts

Water scarcity is relevant in PTRH5 and in all RBDs to
the south of it. Droughts are also relevant in PTRH7 and PTRH8. Episodes of
water scarcity occur mainly due to lack of storage capacity in the south where
rain is more concentrated in fewer days during the year, and the
"normal" year corresponds closely to a "dry" year. 
Usually, even in the driest years, there is no water
deficit if the whole year is considered. However, in the Algarve (PTRH8) where
the problem is more significant, a proportion of the used water comes from
inter-basin water transfer. If there was no water regulation, water deficit
could happen. 
Regarding droughts, in PTRH7 about 7000 inhabitants (3%
of the population of the RBD) live in areas potentially affected by droughts,
about 4% of the total urban areas are located in zones with drought risk, and
about 11% of the areas under construction in the RBD are in zones with higher
risk of occurrence of droughts. 
In PTRH8 water scarcity and drought is compensated by
exploitation of one groundwater body in which the level of abstraction is 144%
of its long term recharging capacity. Water use for tourism, particularly
irrigation of golf courses, is an increasing pressure. This already accounts
for 5% of the surface water consumed in the RBD.
Future water demand and availability or trend scenarios
were done for all the RBMPs. The analysis describes scenarios for the different
water uses: agriculture, households (including trade and services), industry,
tourism, including self-service. The scenarios include pressures on surface
water and on ground water. According to the RBMPs, there is no water shortage
foreseen even in the worst case scenario regarding water availability (PTRH8).
However, water regulation needs to be foreseen in order to avoid water shortage
or the need to transfer water from PTRH7.
There are concrete measures for: protection of the
maximum infiltration zones; control of over-exploitation of surface water and
groundwater; reformulation of the water quantity monitoring network; studies,
research and pilot projects to solve water scarcity problems and improve the
response to drought; reformulation of water tariffs and water use permits.
There are also measures related to aquifer recharge,
including: assessment of the best potential sites for aquifer recharge;
establishing a monitoring protocol for artificial aquifer recharge; analysing
the possibility on karstic areas (namely in flooding areas) to inject water
into the aquifers; pilot studies for a potential increase of groundwater
reserves through artificial aquifer recharge.
In PTRH9 water scarcity and droughts do not
constitute a significant issue. The worse cases are five cases of severe
drought on Pico Island and three cases of extreme droughts in S. Miguel Island
between 1980-2010, as measured by the Standardised Precipitation Index which
measures standard deviation in relation to historic average.
PTRH10 is composed of the inhabited islands
of Madeira and Porto Santo. While in the island of Madeira there are sufficient
groundwater resources, and groundwater enters into the surface water system in
a natural way, in Porto Santo there is water scarcity. Most of the fresh water
in Porto Santo derives from desalination and water reuse.

12.2.            
Flood Risk Management

Floods are mentioned in a number of places in the RBMPs.
Flood protection is listed as a reason for designation of HMWBs, and increased
flooding is listed as a risk under climate change scenarios. However, flooding
is not listed as a pressure related to hydromorphological measures. 

12.3.            
Adaptation to Climate Change

There is a national climate change strategy and national
plan of action. Water resources are one of the priorities. There have been two
studies SIAM and SIAM II (Climate Change in Portugal: Scenarios, Impacts and
Adaptation Measures) and studies by the former National Water Institute (INAG)
specific for PTRH7. In addition, there is the Integrated Coastal Zone
Management Strategy which includes climate change measures. 
The RBMPs address climate change, and refer to the above
mentioned documents. The climate change section is part of the
‘Characterisation’ volume. The issues discussed include: impacts on water
status due to climate change (water quality and biodiversity in aquatic
systems); uncertainties related to climate change (e.g. with respect to status
assessment or effects of measures); impacts on coastal zones; water
availability and water demand; drought risks; water scarcity and flood risks.
The PoMs identify the measures which are directly or
indirectly considered as adaptation to climate change. However, the plans do
not indicate whether a 'climate check' of the PoMs has been carried out.
Examples of measures related to adaptation include: measures to control the
demand and security of water distribution; measures aiming at the good status
of the water bodies (control of point source and diffuse pollution, law
enforcement, recharge of aquifers, protection of surface water and
rehabilitation of aquifers); increasing knowledge and monitoring; measures of
information, education and communication; measures of increasing cooperation
with Spain; and (for the coastal zone), the implementation of the Integrated
Coastal Zone Management Strategy, which includes climate change.
The National Water Authority states that in the next round of RBMPs
there will be a full integration of climate change in assessing the evolution
of the status of water bodies, the risks of floods and droughts and the
definition of the PoMs’ protection and enhancement of water resources. Portugal
will include information on adaptation to climate change pursuant to the 2010
National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change (Resolution of the Council
of Ministers Nº 24/2010), which includes a set of four strategic objectives and
13 specific objectives, on which measures will be derived.

13.                  
Recommendations 

Portugal should:

 Make basic measures should be legally binding and clearly
     identified in the 2nd RBMPs to allow for a clear assessment of
     the need for additional measures, e.g. on agriculture or wastewater
     treatment.
 Promote good coordination between public administration and
     other stakeholders, in particular involving the existing River Basin
     Councils, to improve the planning and implementation of PoMs and to
     monitor their effectiveness.
 Develop the RBMPs for international RBDs in close cooperation
     with Spain, in particular for what concerns identification of pressures
     and impacts, design of monitoring networks, methodologies used to assess
     status and development of PoMs.
 Complete the development of methods for the status assessment
     of water bodies and determination of reference conditions and apply them
     through the implementation of robust monitoring programmes. An adequate
     WFD-compliant assessment and monitoring framework is a necessary
     pre-requisite to design effective PoMs and ultimately to achieve the WFD
     objectives.
 Include in the 2nd RBMPs estimations of when WFD
     objectives will be achieved. 
 Include in the RBMPs the justification for the exemptions applied.
     Portugal should in particular improve the justifications regarding the
     disproportionate costs and the technical feasibility, as well as the
     cost-efficiency analysis.
 Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify the gap to good status,
     and that the PoMs are designed and implemented to close that gap.
     Exemptions should be adequately justified at water body level (in
     particular, natural conditions should not be invoked when measures are not
     being implemented due to other reasons, such as lack of funding). 
 Ensure that diffuse sources of pollution in the agricultural
     sector are controlled, including mandatory requirements for farmers where
     necessary.
 Deal with phosphate pollution and not just nitrates. Portugal
     should ensure that measures taken will be sufficient to address
     agriculture nutrient pressures to the level needed to secure nutrient
     conditions consistent with good status.
 Review all existing permits for abstractions and flow
     regulations, including dams and, where necessary, amend them to ensure
     that they are compatible with the WFD objectives.
 Improve the designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies and
     avoid the automatic designation of water bodies downstream big dams. A
     methodology to establish Good Ecological Potential should be developed.
     Its application should be documented in the RBMPs.
 New hydro-morphological modifications, such as new hydropower
     plants, should comply with the requirements for exemptions of Article 4(7)
     and should be adequately justified, in particular for the assessment of
     alternative options and include all necessary mitigation measures.
 Consider and prioritise the use of green infrastructure and/or
     natural water retention measures that provide a range of environmental
     (improvements in water quality, increase water infiltration and thus
     aquifer recharge, flood protection, habitat conservation etc.), social and
     economic benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey
     infrastructure.
 Develop fully the economic analysis of water use, including the
     calculation of Environmental and Resource Costs and ensure that the
     combination of water tariffs and the Water Resources Tax lead to adequate
     recovery of the costs of water services. 
 Ensure that the measures foreseen are clearly prioritized in
     terms of cost-effectiveness, whether measures are voluntary or obligatory
     and available funding, exploring the possibility of using EU funds (e.g.
     RDP funds, Structural and Investment funds and LIFE Integrated Projects)
     to implement PoMs.
 Ensure that climate change is adequately considered in the
     assessment of pressures and status of water bodies and that the objectives
     of the National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change are properly
     taken into account in the design of the PoMs.

[1] www.INE.pt 
[2] Data was supplied by the PT authorities after the assessment of the
RBMPs had been carried out.
[3] It should be noted that as submission of data to WISE occurred
prior to the publication of the RBMP, and some changes were introduced between
the two dates. Hence, there are some discrepancies between the information
reported in the RBMPs and in WISE.
[4] See section 3.2 on administrative arrangements. According to the
National Water Authority (June 2014) for the next programming cycle, the
Ribeiras do Oeste water bodies will be integrated into PTRH5. 
[5] Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of
pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU
(Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms).
[6]
Resolução do Conselho do Governo in the original. 
[7] The formal public consultation process of
the PTRH10 RBMP was held from 19th August 2013 to 18th
February 2014 – the RBMP states that only three written comments were received
during the formal public consultation period. The last RBMP preparation public
meeting was held on 4th February 2014.
[8] The PT water authorities understand eflows as the water that dams
have to release downstream in order to minimise environmental impacts
(including to achieve WFD objectives).
[9] According to PT authorities "There is a reporting mistake in
WISE since all mainland Portugal significant water management issues were
subject to public participation processes at the same time 01/02/2009"
[10] Mainland Portugal: http://www.apambiente.pt/?ref=16&subref=7&sub2ref=9&sub3ref=834; Azores: http://www.azores.gov.pt/Gra/srrn-drotrh/conteudos/livres/PGRH-A%C3%A7ores.htm; Madeira: http://drota.gov-madeira.pt/berilio/berwpag0.listctn?pCtn=83 
[11] Order 1473/2007, of 15 November 2007 which approves the template of
the concession contracts for the conservation and exploitation of hydro
agriculture works http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2007/11/22000/0850608514.pdf as amended by Order 1001/2009 of 8 September 2009: http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2009/09/17400/0611706117.pdf.
[12] Example of the
announcement by the RBDA North: http://dre.pt/pdf2sdip/2011/10/195000000/4018140182.pdf.
[13] Order 394/2008 of 5 June, approves the
Statues of the RBDA as last amended by Order 1311/2010 of 24 December.
http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2008/06/10800/0328603311.pdf
http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2010/12/24800/0592005922.pdf 
The competences
of the RBDA of Azores have been approved by Regional Regulatory Decree
23/2011/A[13] which approves the organic structure of the Regional Secretariat of
The Environment and Sea http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2011/11/22300/0497705006.pdf 
The competences of the RBDA of Madeira have been approved by
Regional Legislative Decree 33/2008/M[13] which adapts to the autonomous region of Madeira Law 58/2005 of 29
December which approves the Water Law, as well as the DL 77/2006 of 30 March
which complements its legal regime http://www.dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2008/08/15700/0563705645.PDF 
[14] http://www.apambiente.pt/index.php?ref=16&subref=7&sub2ref=757  
[15] http://snirh.pt/index.php?idMain=6&idItem=1 
[16] Law 58/2007, approves the Programme of Land Policy Planning
http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2010/12/24800/0592005922.pdf 
[17] Bettencourt, A. M., S. B. Bricker, J. G. Ferreira, A.
Franco, J. C. Marques, J. J. Melo, A. Nobre, L. Ramos, C. S. Reis, F. Salas, M.
C. Silva, T. Simas, W. J. Wolff (2004). Typology and Reference Conditions for Portuguese
Transitional and Coastal Waters Development of
Guidelines for the Application of the European Union Water Framework Directive. Ministério das Cidades, do Ordenamento do Território e Ambiente,
Instituto da Água, I.P., e IPIMAR.
98 pp.
[18] Ibid. 17
[19] Data
supplied by the PT authorities after the assessment of the RBMPs had been
carried out
[20] This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas
under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the
obligations of other Directives.
[21] The total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of
monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose.
[22] Many transitional water bodies of the different RBDs are only
provisionally classified, until further development of assessment methods and
definition of reference conditions. 
[23] In mainland PT nitrate vulnerable zones were only designated in
terms of groundwater.
[24] Additional monitoring in the influence zones
[25] Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no
data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at
programme level.
[26] Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027
established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.
[27] Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027
established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs.
[28] According to PT Water Authority only the biological elements
intercalibrated in the first exercise were used in the first cycle of the
RBMPs.
[29] In the
Azores there are only three transitional water bodies, and all are located in
the S. Jorge island.
[30] http://servicos.srrn.azores.gov.pt/morhi/geografia.asp 
[31] An ecologically-based flow regime
is established and implemented in many Portuguese water bodies, guidelines
about ecological flow do exist and, where necessary, further guidelines about
ecological flow establishment can be given by the Portuguese Environment Agency
upon request. Some measures concerning ecological flow foreseen in the PoMs are
already in place, others are in the process of implementation.
[32] This might be an error as even in WISE Article 4(5) is referred to only
once, while if it existed, it should be mentioned in several entries. There are
however derogations related to Article 4(7).
[33]
Madeira reports 39 derogations in WISE, all related to natural
conditions. In the PTRH10 RBMP, the number of derogations in water bodies is
40, with the justification provided in Table 11.2.2. 
[34] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status
[35] The
values of this table are different from WISE. There was a mistake in the
information initially provided. Article 4(5) was not used. 
[36] It
often occurs that cost recovery from AA is larger than 100% while DTAR is not
fully recovered.
[37]
According to Water Authority, the WRT was based on the estimated costs
supported by APA in order to manage water resources. These costs were estimated
at approximately 40 M€/year, approximately half of which are reinvested in
water resource management in Portugal by public and private entities through
the Fund for the Protection of Water Resources (FPRH).
[38] http://www.apambiente.pt/index.php?ref=16&subref=7&sub2ref=9&sub3ref=860