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













EUR-Lex - 52015SC0056 - EN











|



52015SC0056

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Report on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive River Basin Management Plans Member State: SPAIN Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL The Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive: Actions towards the 'good status' of EU water and to reduce flood risks /* SWD/2015/0056 final */









TABLE OF CONTENTS
1        GENERAL
INFORMATION.. 4
2        STATUS
OF REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE.. 8
2.1          Main
strengths. 9
2.2          Main
weaknesses. 9
3        GOVERNANCE.. 10
3.1          River
Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) – Structure, completeness, legal status. 10
3.2          Consultation.. 10
4        CHARACTERISATION
OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICTS. 13
4.1          Typology
of Surface Water. 13
4.2          Delineation
of Surface Water Bodies. 14
4.3          Identification
of significant pressures and impacts. 16
4.4          Protected
areas. 20
5        MONITORING.. 22
5.1          Monitoring
of Surface Waters. 24
5.2          Monitoring
of Ground Waters. 25
5.3          Monitoring
of Protected Areas. 25
6        STATUS. 30
7        ASSESSMENT
OF ECOLOGICAL STATUS OF SURFACE WATERS. 50
7.1          Assessment
methods. 51
7.2          Results. 54
8        DESIGNATION
OF HMWB AND SETTING OF GOOD ECOLOGICAL POTENTIAL (GEP). 55
8.1          Designation
of HMWB.. 55
8.2          Methodology
for Good Ecological Potential (GEP). 55
8.3          Results
HMWB and AWB.. 56
9        ASSESSMENT
OF CHEMICAL STATUS OF SURFACE WATER.. 59
9.1          Methodology. 59
9.2          Substances
causing exceedances. 59
9.3          Mixing
zones. 62
10     ASSESSMENT
OF GROUNDWATER STATUS. 62
10.1        Quantitative
status. 63
10.2        Chemical
status. 63
10.3        Protected
Areas. 63
11     OBJECTIVES
AND EXEMPTIONS. 65
11.1        Introduction.. 65
11.2        Protected
Areas. 66
11.3        Articles 4(4) and 4(5). 67
11.4        Article
4(6). 70
11.5        Article
4(7). 70
11.6        Exemptions
under the Groundwater Directive. 71
12     PROGRAMME
OF MEASURES. 71
12.1        Programme
of Measures - General. 71
12.2        Measures
related to agriculture. 75
12.3        Measures
related to hydromorphology. 78
12.4        Measures
related to groundwater. 81
12.5        Measures
related to chemical pollution.. 82
12.6        Measures
related to Article 9. 82
13     CLIMATE
CHANGE.. 86
13.1        Water
scarcity and droughts. 86
13.2        Flood
risk management. 86
13.3        Adaptation
to climate change. 86
14     RECOMMENDATIONS. 87
List of acronyms
 AWB || Artificial Water Body 
 BQE || Biological Quality Element 
 CW || Coastal waters 
 CWB || Coastal Water Bodies 
 DMP || Drought Management Plans 
 DWPA || Drinking Water Protected Areas 
 Eflows || Ecological flows 
 GEP || Good Ecological Potential 
 GWB || Groundwater Bodies 
 HMWB || Heavily Modified Water Body 
 IPH || Instrucción de Planificación Hidrológica (Hydrological Planning Instruction) 
 LSO || Less Stringent Objectives 
 LW || Lakes 
 LWB || Lake Water Bodies 
 PA || Protected area 
 PoM || Programme of Measures 
 QE || Quality Element 
 RBD || River Basin District 
 RBMP || River Basin Management Plan 
 RPH || Reglamento de Planificación Hidrológica (Hydrological Planning Regulation) 
 RW || Rivers 
 RWB || River Water Bodies 
 SEA || Strategic Environmental Assessment 
 SWB || Surface Water Bodies 
 TW || Transitional waters 
 TWB || Transitional Water Bodies 
 WFD || Water Framework Directive 
 WISE || Water Information System for Europe 

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)
The
transposition of the WFD (Directive 2000/60/EC) into Spanish law was made by
Article 129 of Law 62/2003 regarding fiscal, administrative and social measures
(Spanish Official Gazette (BOE) No. 313 of 31 December 2003) which amended the
consolidated text of the Water Act, approved by Royal Legislative Decree
1/2001. A number of minor regulations closed transposition gaps and enabled the
planning process in the first cycle. In this context, the following Royal
Decrees (RDs) are of relevance:
·        
Regulation of Hydrological Planning (Reglamento de
Planificación Hidrológica (RPH) (Real Decreto 907/2007, de 6 julio, por el que
se aprueba el Reglamento de la Planificación Hidrológica, BOE 07-07-2007); and
its subsequent modification by RD 1161/2010 de 17 de septiembre).
·        
Definition of the limits of River Basin Districts
(RBDs) (by RD 125/2007, de 2 de febrero, que fija el ámbito territorial de las
demarcaciones hidrográficas (artículo 16 bis 5 del TRLA)).
·        
Competent Authorities (RD 126/2007, de 2 de
febrero, que regula la composición, funcionamiento y atribuciones de los
Comités de Autoridades Competentes de las demarcaciones hidrográficas con
cuencas intercomunitarias (artículo 36 bis del TRLA)).
The Ministerial Order for Hydrological
Planning (ORDEN ARM/2656/2008 sobre Instrucción de Planificación Hidrológica
(IPH)) is a complementary intra-ministerial regulation tool that defines
precisely the procedures for the planning process and other substantial
obligations such as the conditions for granting exceptions and the monitoring
and classification of the ecological and chemical status of surface waters.
However, the IPH applies only –to rivers that flow through different regions[1] (ES010, ES017, ES018,
ES020, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES070, ES080, ES091), and not to rivers that are
completely within the territory of one region[2]
(ES014, ES060, ES063, ES064, ES100, ES110 and ES12X). This is due to the
distribution of competences between State and regions established by the
Spanish Constitution (Articles 149.1.22 and 148.1.10), where catchments shared
by more than one Region are the exclusive competence of the State, and
intra-community catchments are the exclusive competence of the Regions.
National Laws and Decrees are considered (in full or in part) as basic rules
that apply across the country, but Ministerial Orders do not bind Regions.
Additional legislation at Regional level is therefore needed to ensure that
Spanish legislation fully complies with the Directive[3]. Nevertheless, the IPH
has been used as a “guidance document” in the development of intra-community
RBMPs. Further guidance documents have been developed and are either available
as draft or final versions, both at National or Regional levels, in particular
for ES100.
At Regional level, several Water Laws have been approved in the past
decade to adapt legislation to comply with the WFD, including Catalonia (2003),
Basque Country (2006), Andalusia (2010) and Galicia (2010 and 2015).
Spain has a long track record of water quantity focused Hydrological
Planning, aimed at ensuring adequate water supply for existing and future
demands. This process delivered RBMPs for all RBDs (different from the current
delimitation) in the late 1990s, plus a National Hydrological Plan approved in
2001. This Plan was partially derogated (Ebro-Segura inter-basin transfer) in
2004.
 RBD || Name || Size (km2)* || Countries sharing borders 
 ES010 || Minho-Sil || 17619 || PT 
 ES014 || Galician Coast || 12988 || - 
 ES017 || Cantábrico Oriental || 6405 || FR 
 ES018 || Cantábrico Occidental || 19002 || - 
 ES020 || Duero || 78889 || PT 
 ES030 || Tagus || 55781 || PT 
 ES040 || Guadiana || 55528 || PT 
 ES050 || Guadalquivir || 57228 || - 
 ES060 || Andalusia Mediterranean Basins || 20010 || - 
 ES063 || Guadalete and Barbate || 5969 || - 
 ES064 || Tinto, Odiel and Piedras || 4729 || - 
 ES070 || Segura || 19025 || - 
 ES080 || Jucar || 42735 || - 
 ES091 || Ebro || 85570 || AD, FR 
 ES100 || Internal Basins of Catalonia || 16438 || FR 
 ES110 || Balearic Islands || 4968 || - 
 ES120 || Gran Canaria || 1558 || - 
 ES122 || Fuerteventura || 1660 || - 
 ES123 || Lanzarote || 836 || - 
 ES124 || Tenerife || 2033 || - 
 ES125 || La Palma || 706 || - 
 ES126 || La Gomera || 370 || - 
 ES127 || El Hierro || 269 || - 
 ES150 || Ceuta || 20 || MA 
 ES160 || Melilla || 24 || MA 
Table 1.1: Overview of Spain’s
River Basin Districts
* Area in Spanish territory.
Source: WISE, River Basin Management Plans and information provided by Spain
(2014)[4]
 Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing borders || Co-ordination category 
 2 || 4 
 km² || % || km² || % 
 Miño/Minho || ES010 || PT || 16226 || 95.0 ||   ||   
 Duero/Douro || ES020 || PT || 78859 || 80.7 ||   ||   
 Guadiana || ES040 || PT || 55454 || 82.7 ||   ||   
 Ebro || ES091 || AD, FR || 85534   || 99 ||   ||   
 Segre (Sub-Basin Ebro/Rhone) || ES091 || AD, FR || 18750 || 95.2 ||   ||   
 Catalan || ES100 || FR || 16438 || 99,9 ||   ||   
 Lima/Limia || ES010 || PT || 1326 || 52.9 ||   ||   
 Tajo/Tejo || ES030 || PT || 55772 || 78.3 ||   ||   
 Garonne || ES017/ES091 || FR || 555 || 0.7 ||   ||   
 Nive (Sub-Basin Adour-Garonne RBD) || ES017 || FR || 121 || 19.0 ||   ||   
 Nivelle (Sub-Basin Adour-Garonne RBD) || ES017 || FR || 70 || 12.0 ||   ||   
 Bidasoa (Sub-Basin Adour-Garonne RBD) || ES017 || FR || 689 || 97.0 ||   ||   
 Ceuta || ES150 || MA ||   ||   || 20 || 100 
 Melilla || ES160 || MA ||   ||   || 24 || 100 
Table 1.2: Transboundary river
basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Spain[5]
Category 1: Co-operation agreement,
co-operation body, RBMP in place.
Category 2: Co-operation agreement,
co-operation body in place.
Category 3: Co-operation agreement in
place.
Category 4: No co-operation formalised.
Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river
basin management plans in the EU, and Information provided by Spain.
Regarding the shared catchments with other
MS/third countries, the following overview information can be provided:
·        
With Portugal – Miño (ES010), Duero (ES020),
Tagus (ES030) and Guadiana (ES040); regulated by the Albufeira Convention[6].
·        
With France – Cantábrico Oriental (ES017),
Ebro (ES091) and Catalonia (ES100). Since 2003 annual co-ordination meetings have taken
place, and since 2006 the Toulouse Agreement is in place according to Art 3
WFD. ES017 provides information that there is no need to establish a
common international RBMP. A Co-ordination Committee for the follow-up of the
WFD implementation and water management in transboundary rivers is in place.
·        
With Andorra – Ebro (ES091).
·        
With Morocco – Ceuta (ES150) and Melilla
(ES160).

2          
STATUS OF REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE

At the time of compiling this report, Spain
has adopted and reported the following 18 RBMPs to the European Commission (by
year of adoption): ES100 (2011); ES014, ES060, ES063 and ES064 (2012); ES010,
ES017, ES018, ES020, ES040, ES050, ES110, ES150, and ES160 (2013); and ES030,
ES070, ES080 and ES091 (2014)[7]. RBMPs have not yet been adopted (December 2014) for the following
7 RBDs: ES120, ES122, ES123, ES124, ES125, ES126 and ES127. Full details are
provided in the following table.
 RBD || RBMP Date of Adoption || RBMP Date of Reporting 
 ES010 || 19/04/2013 || 28/06/2013 
 ES014 || 14/09/2012 || 28/06/2013 
 ES017 || 07/06/2013 || 12/02/2014 
 ES018 || 07/06/2013 || 21/10/2013 
 ES020 || 21/06/2013 || 15/11/2013 
 ES030 || 11/04/2014 || 03/11/2014 
 ES040 || 17/05/2013 || 01/07/2013 
 ES050 || 17/05/2013 || 16/07/2013 
 ES060 || 14/09/2012 || 01/08/2013 
 ES063 || 14/09/2012 || 01/08/2013 
 ES064 || 14/09/2012 || 28/06/2013 
 ES070 || 11/07/2014 || 20/10/2014 
 ES080 || 11/07/2014 || 05/11/2014 
 ES091 || 28/02/2014 || 30/10/2014 
 ES100 || 05/09/2011[8] || 24/02/2014 
 ES110 || 06/09/2013 || 17/10/2014 
 ES120 || Not yet adopted ||   
 ES122 || Not yet adopted ||   
 ES123 || Not yet adopted ||   
 ES124 || Not yet adopted ||   
 ES125 || Not yet adopted ||   
 ES126 || Not yet adopted ||   
 ES127 || Not yet adopted ||   
 ES150 || 27/09/2013 || 29/10/2014 
 ES160 || 27/09/2013 || 29/10/2014 
Table 2.1: Adoption and reporting
to the Commission of Spain's RBMPs.
Source: RBMPs, Official Public
Gazette and River Basin Autorities' websites, WISE and Information provided by Spain
(2014).
A summary of the main strengths and
weaknesses of the Spanish RBMPs is presented below:

2.1        
Main strengths
 There has been an extensive technical
     work carried out by the river basin authorities in the preparation of the
     RBMPs.
 The RBMPs are complete and structured
     documents, which generally include numerous annexes with a significant
     amount of detailed information and background documents. 
 Quantitative aspects are considered, with
     water balances done for each RBD and ecological flows calculated for many
     river stretches.
 Significant efforts have been made to
     ensure a broad public participation in the process of development of the
     RBMP.
 All RBMPs have gone through a strategic
     environmental assessment.


2.2        
Main weaknesses
 The late approval of RBMPs[9] (Canary Islands not approved yet – December 2014). Spain
     should ensure the timely adoption of the next RBMPs.
 Further work is needed to ensure WFD is
     fully transposed in all intra-community RBDs.
 The gaps on characterisation, the
     deficiencies in monitoring programmes and in the status assessment methods
     have resulted in an important number of water bodies with unreliable or
     unknown status. This undermines the whole planning process and compromises
     the definition of the necessary measures and the achievement of
     environmental objectives. Furthermore, environmental objectives are
     missing for a relatively high number of water bodies, or are delayed until
     3rd planning cycle (2027) without proper justification.
 Quantitative management of water is
     linked to quality objectives through the establishment of ecological flows
     in many river stretches, but these are generally not clearly linked to the
     achievement of good status. 
 High number of new infrastructure
     projects are planned, but the conditions for application of exemptions
     (WFD Article 4(7)) have not been included in the RBMPs and the potential
     impacts on the status are generally not reflected in the environmental
     objectives of water bodies.
 Cost recovery instruments have not been
     adapted to the WFD requirements. As a consequence, there is a lack of
     adequate incentives for efficient use of the resource and the adequate
     contribution to the recovery from different users is not guaranteed.
     Environmental and resource costs are high but not included in the
     recovery. River basin authorities do not have sufficient resources to
     exert an effective control of water uses in the RBDs. 
 Despite its importance for management and
     planning purposes, the register of water abstractions is not yet completed
     in Spain. Metering of water uses should be generalised. 
 The consideration of water dependent
     protected areas should be improved. Specific objectives, monitoring and
     measures need to be included in the RBMPs in order to ensure the
     favourable conservation status of water-dependent protected habitats and
     species.
3          
GOVERNANCE


3.1        
River
Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) – Structure, completeness, legal status

RBMPs are adopted by the Government through
a Royal Decree, which is published in the Spanish Official Gazette, except for
the Canary Islands (RBDs ES12X), for which the RBMPs are finally adopted by a
Decree of the regional government. Regionally-managed RBDs are preceded by
approval by the Regional Government. The legal part of the RBMPs is therefore
binding for third parties. 
The RBMPs consist of a package of documents
including the main text (several hundreds of pages), and a varying number and
length of Annexes and Appendices, that sometimes include preparatory or
background documents (e.g. detailed characterisation studies of certain groundwater
bodies (GWB)), thus often amounting several thousands of pages. They are
usually well structured, with different degrees of technical detail between the
main text and the Appendices. 
Nonetheless, some information is missing or
has not been identified in the screening assessment of some of the RBMPs, such
as the result of the public consultation and its integration in the RBMP; links
between pressures, objectives and measures; information at water body level
(pressures, status, objectives and measures); or the results of the
tasks/studies carried out (e.g. status classification by different quality
elements, modelling exercises, cost-effectiveness analysis). 

3.2        
Consultation

Though Spain had previous experience in
managing water at the river basin level and establishing RBMPs, the WFD process
started late in all RBDs. 
The establishment of RBDs and competent
authorities (due in 2003) was done late and the Commission took Spain to Court[10]. The case was not
closed until 2011. 
Table 3.2.1 provides an overview of the
dates of the WFD Article 14 consultation steps and the dates of adoption of the
RBMPs. The dates reflect the delay in implementation in respect to the
deadlines foreseen in the WFD. 
Regarding the publication of the final
RBMPs, the first plan (ES100) was formally approved on 02/09/2011, almost 2
years late compared to the deadlines set in the WFD (December 2009). The rest
of the RMPs have been approved since then, with increasing delay regarding the
deadlines and the public consultation process (more than 2 years difference in
many cases). The adoption of the Canary Islands RBMPs (ES12X) is still pending
at the time of finalising this report (December 2014). 
 RBD || Timetable, work programme and statement on consultation measures || Significant water management issues || Draft RBMP || Final  adoption RBMP 
 Due dates || 22/12/2006 || 22/12/2007 || 22/12/2008 || 22/12/2009 
 ES010 || 26/07/2007 || 31/07/2008 || 15/12/2010 || 19/04/2013 
 ES014 || 28/04/2008 || 28/01/2009 || 20/08/2010 || 14/09/2012 
 ES017 || 26/07/2007 || 31/07/2008 || 04/05/2011 || 07/06/2013 
 ES018 || 26/07/2007 || 31/07/2008 || 04/05/2011 || 07/06/2013 
 ES020 || 26/07/2007 || 31/07/2008 || 15/12/2010 || 21/06/2013 
 ES030 || 26/07/2007 || 31/07/2008 || 20/03/2013 || 11/04/2014 
 ES040 || 26/07/2007 || 31/07/2008 || 25/05/2011 || 17/05/2013 
 ES050 || 26/07/2007 || 31/07/2008 || 15/12/2010 || 17/05/2013 
 ES060 || 02/07/2008 || 28/05/2009 || 22/05/2010 || 14/09/2012 
 ES063 || 01/02/2008 and 22/05/2010 || 28/05/2009 || 22/05/2010 || 14/09/2012 
 ES064 || 01/02/2008 and 22/05/2010 || 28/05/2009 || 22/05/2010 || 14/09/2012 
 ES070 || 26/07/2007 || 31/07/2008 || 07/06/2013 || 11/07/2014 
 ES080 || 26/07/2007 || 18/12/2009 || 07/08/2013 || 11/07/2014 
 ES091 || 26/07/2007 || 31/07/2008 || 12/05/2012 || 28/02/2014 
 ES100 || 01/11/2006 || 01/12/2007 || 16/12/2009 || 02/09/2011 
 ES110 || 10/2006 || 06/2007 || 01/09/2008 09/11/2011 || 06/09/2013 
 ES120 || 03/2009 || 21/12/2009 || 10/10/2013 ||   
 ES122 || 25/12/2009 ||   || 04/12/2013 ||   
 ES123 || 20/05/2009 ||   || 09/10/2013 ||   
 ES124 ||   ||   || 05/05/2010 ||   
 ES125 || 28/11/2008 || 22/05/2010 || 07/08/2012 ||   
 ES126 || 12/03/2009 || 15/05/2012 || 09/08/2013 ||   
 ES127 || 18/12/2009 || 2011 || 15/12/2012 ||   
 ES150 || 30/10/2012 || 01/12/2012 || 28/12/2012 || 27/09/2013 
 ES160 || 30/10/2012 || 30/11/2012 || 28/12/2012 || 27/09/2013 
Table 3.2.1: Timeline of
the different steps of the consultation process
Source: WISE, RBMPs and ES websites and Information provided by Spain (2014). Note that the dRBMP ES110 has been
consulted twice.
Though the timing of consultation has in
general been delayed, all RBMPs have respected the 6 months required length of
consultation during the drafting process. All RBMPs provide details of the
consultation process, and some (e.g. ES100, ES010, ES020, ES050, ES080) publish
also overviews and summary data on the key impact of public consultation on the
contents of the RBMP. During the consultation, usually several hundreds of
formal comments have been received on the consulted documents, and many plans
provide a sub-classification of items within each of the comments. Some RBMPs
(e.g. ES080, ES100) provide a clear and transparent response on whether and how
each individual comment has been integrated within the plans, but others do
not.
During the RBMP drafting process, many RBDs
started significant processes of active involvement directed at the public
(e.g. brochures, campaigns), stakeholders (geographical, sector or topic
workshops) and other meetings. The efforts in ES091 to develop events at local
level and in ES100 to draft plans/PoMs at river-stretch level should be noted.
Some RBMPs (e.g. ES091, ES110 – with two
consultation periods) have significantly changed the content of their draft
versions, and changes in information, criteria and text have been reported for
several RBMPs, though not necessarily documented in WISE or corresponding
summaries (e.g. ES020). 
All RBMPs have undergone a SEA process.
In addition to the formal public
consultation, the Spanish legislation foresees a number of consultation and
decision making steps before adoption of the RBMPs. The Committee of Competent
Authorities[11],
aimed at promoting co-operation between national, regional and local
organisations in the application of the WFD, approves the RBMPs before
submission to the RBD Water Advisory Boards for their opinion. These RBD Boards
are composed by representatives of authorities, water users and stakeholders[12]. It should be noted
that despite a majority supporting the plans, significant votes against the
RBMPs occurred in ES050 (by the Regional Government of Andalusia) and ES091 (by
the Regional Government of Catalonia) at the respective RBD Board meetings (see
Figure 3.2.1). Reports of the Board meetings are neither included in the RBMPs
nor available at the RBDs websites.
Figure 3.2.1: Support within the
National Water Advisory Board to RBMPs
Source: Information provided by Spain (2014).

4          
CHARACTERISATION OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICTS


4.1        
Typology of Surface Water

The general methodology for the
establishment of types and reference conditions has been regulated by the IPH
(section 2.2.1.3 and 2.2.1.4 and Annexes II and III) following a
spatially-based technical proposal by Spanish Research Centre CEDEX. The IPH
establishes 32 river types, 30 lake types, 13 transitional water types and 20
coastal water types. 
Additional types have been established by
River Basin Authorities (RBAs) (e.g. coastal types in ES070 and river types in
ES110 - this latter still in process). The following number of surface water
(SW) types has been considered in the RBMPs:
 RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal 
 ES010 || 9 || 3 || 1 || 1 
 ES014 || 7 || 0 || 3 || 7 
 ES017 || 6 || 3 || 3 || 1 
 ES018 || 12 || 5 || 6 || 3 
 ES020 || 17 || 7 ||   ||   
 ES030 || 27 || 8 ||   ||   
 ES040 || 14 || 12 || 1 || 2 
 ES050 || 17 || 12 || 3 || 2 
 ES060 || 13 || 7 || 4 || 4 
 ES063 || 7 || 4 || 2 || 3 
 ES064 || 6 || 1 || 3 || 2 
 ES070 || 10 || 4 || 2 || 5 
 ES080 || 12 || 7 || 2 || 6 
 ES091 || 9 || 19 || 2 || 1 
 ES100 || 15 || 12 || 3 || 8 
 ES110 || 2 || 0 || 4 || 4 
 ES120 || 0 || 0 || 0 ||   
 ES122 || 0 || 0 || 0 ||   
 ES123 || 0 || 0 || 0 ||   
 ES124 || 0 || 0 || 0 ||   
 ES125 || 0 || 0 || 0 ||   
 ES126 || 0 || 0 || 0 ||   
 ES127 || 0 || 0 || 0 ||   
 ES150 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 
 ES160 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 2 
 Sum || 32 || 30 || 13 || 21 
Table 4.2.1: Surface water body
types at RBD level
Source: WISE and Information provided by Spain.
For river type water bodies, system B has
been chosen for all categories based on a variety of data (hydrological,
geological, physical, climatic, etc.) and it is not clear if they have been
tested against biological data. Occasionally, system A has also been used. 
Tabulated values for reference conditions
and class boundaries have been established by the IPH for rivers but not for
all surface water body types. The IPH does not include values for lake and
transitional water body types[13].
It is also unclear how the IPH reference conditions and class boundaries have
been established. After the IPH approval, the Spanish Ministry of the
Environment carried out complementary work to preliminarily establish reference
conditions for additional types.
 

4.2        
Delineation of Surface Water Bodies

General criteria for the delineation of
water bodies are also included in the IPH (section 2.2.1.1), again based on
work performed by CEDEX (river and lake water categories). Each RBD has applied
the criteria depending on its particular conditions.
The following overview table 4.3.1 gives
information on the number of water bodies. ES122 and ES123 share a common
coastal water body (Eastern Islands), but this has only be assigned to ES122 in
the table 4.3.1 (and in the following ones) to avoid double counting. 
 RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater 
 Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal 
 Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) 
 ES010 || 270 || 16.49 || 3 || 0.48 || 4 || 6.33 || 1 || 15.98 || 6 || 2934.1 
 ES014 || 411 || 10.63 || 0 || 0 || 22 || 4.77 || 29 || 110.26 || 18 || 729.5 
 ES017 || 109 || 14.23 || 11 || 0.41 || 14 || 3.46 || 4 || 144.43 || 28 || 205.0 
 ES018 || 250 || 15.39 || 7 || 0.23 || 21 || 4.37 || 15 || 103.75 || 20 || 693.6 
 ES020 || 696 || 19.95 || 14 || 0.89 ||   ||   ||   ||   || 64 || 1232.6 
 ES030 || 308 || 29.44 || 16 || 0.95 ||   ||   ||   ||   || 24 || 910.1 
 ES040 || 249 || 35.95 || 58 || 1.05 || 4 || 12.85 || 2 || 31.31 || 20 || 1124.1 
 ES050 || 392 || 27.68 || 35 || 27.11 || 13 || 10.64 || 3 || 163.56 || 60 || 624.6 
 ES060 || 133 || 16.79 || 8 || 2.59 || 7 || 2.14 || 27 || 76.53 || 67 || 155.2 
 ES063 || 65 || 17.19 || 10 || 0.23 || 10 || 12.26 || 12 || 44.65 || 14 || 304.5 
 ES064 || 48 || 19.57 || 5 || 0.25 || 11 || 14.33 || 4 || 43.69 || 4 || 257.5 
 ES070 || 90 || 19.13 || 6 || 6.39 || 1 || 25.17 || 17 || 71.13 || 63 || 243.8 
 ES080 || 304 || 18.60 || 19 || 2.22 || 4 || 3.69 || 22 || 97.09 || 90 || 453.6 
 ES091 || 700 || 19.10 || 110 || 0.74 || 8 || 19.42 || 3 || 103.40 || 105 || 521.5 
 ES100 || 261 || 15.28 || 27 || 0.15 || 25 || 0.08 || 33 || 48.47 || 39 || 288.6 
 ES110 || 94 || 6.16 || 0 || 0 || 36 || 1.23 || 42 || 89.18 || 90 || 52.6 
 ES120 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 549.90 || 10 || 155.8 
 ES122 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 444.70 || 4 || 413.2 
 ES123 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 375.70 || 1 || 846.1 
 ES124 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 72.68 || 4 || 508.2 
 ES125 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 55.00 || 5 || 142.0 
 ES126 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 41.00 || 5 || 73.6 
 ES127 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 261.48 || 3 || 89.7 
 ES150 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 13.48 || 1 || 11.2 
 ES160 || 1 || 5.35 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 3.54 || 3 || 5.0 
 Total || 4.381 || 19.76 || 329 || 3.76 || 180 || 5.54 || 260 || 105.88 || 748 || 482.8 
Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies,
groundwater bodies and their dimensions 
Source: WISE, RBMPs and
information provided by Spain (2014). 
Spain has delineated 4,381 River Water
Bodies (RWB), 329 Lake Water Bodies (LWB), 180 Transitional Water Bodies (TWB)
and 260 Coastal Water Bodies (CWB). The average length of RWB is 19 km, and the
average surface of LWB is 3 km2, of TWB 5 km2 and of CWB
105 km2. Significant larger averages have been identified for RWBs
in ES030, ES040 and ES050. The reasons for such differences are not clear. 
Spain has delineated 748 GWB, with an
average size of 482 km2; a significantly larger average size has
been applied in ES010. The reasons for these differences are not clear.
The minimum size of small water bodies has
been set at 5 km length for RWB, 0.5 km2 for LWB (or 0.08 km2
if the lake is deeper than 3 metres, or whatever dimensions if protected in the
Ramsar list), 0.5 km2 for TWB and 5 km length of coastline for CWB. 
Following the National CEDEX guidance,
minor lakes are frequently aggregated to conform a LWB (e.g. lagoon complex),
thus reflecting much better the large number of small LWB in Spain. Similarly,
small river stretches of different typology may be added to connecting larger
ones.
In the case of TWB, limits are established
following geographical parameters (public coastal maritime domain), but
consider also chemical aspects such as the salinity gradient in the river, and
the penetration of freshwater into the sea, and other criteria associated with
the description of the status of the TWB.

4.3        
Identification of significant pressures and
impacts

The identification of the pressures and
impacts of human activity on water bodies was done for the first time in the
context of the IMPRESS study on the basis of the “Guidance to identifying
pressures and impact analysis in surface waters (2005)” (hereinafter in this
chapter referred to as the Guidance). This study included the identification
and the assessment of pressures and impacts associated with point and non-point
pollution, significant water withdrawals and returns, regulation works,
hydromorphological alterations, and other significant anthropogenic impacts on water
bodies. The approach relied first on a qualitative assessment and, in a second
stage, on a quantitative assessment based on a simplified model. The objective
of this study was to identify the water bodies at risk of failing the WFD
environmental objectives.
For the purpose of the qualitative
assessment, the Guidance included thresholds of significance for the various
pressure categories. The impact was estimated or measured and assessed as
"confirmed" "probable", "no impact" or "no
data".  On this basis the final assessment of risk of failing
environmental objectives was established, which depended on the characteristics
of each water body. 
The 2008 IPH[14], on the basis of which
the RBMPs were to be developed, included further thresholds for the purpose of
including a comprehensive inventory of pressures in the RBMPs. The link to
significance in terms of risk, however, is no longer evident, as there is no
reference to impact or risk assessment in the IPH. Indeed the Spanish
legislation (RPH, IPH) does not require for surface water the identification of
water bodies at risk of failing the environmental objectives due to significant
pressures. According to the WFD this risk assessment should be based on all
available information on pressures, impacts and status as well as trends in the
water uses. The result of this assessment should then be used to inform the
design of the monitoring programmes and the programmes of measures. The risk
assessment is essential to complement the information on status gathered in the
previous cycle, to identify potential risk of deterioration of water bodies due
to increasing pressures and to target effectively the monitoring efforts.
Abstractions larger than 20000 m3/yr
are defined as significant. Cumulative abstractions in rivers are being dealt
with by assessing upstream abstractions compared with natural flows,
considering a 40% (or other RBD-specific) threshold as significant. Prolonged
drought periods are considered as the natural flow is calculated using long
term averages.
Thresholds for the inventory of
hydromorphological pressures (dams, transfers, dikes, etc.) are defined in the
IPH. Other pressures like the introduction of invasive species, polluted
sediments, or land drainage (or angling, recreation, ES020) are listed for
identification, but no guidance is given for when considering them as
“significant” pressures and they are judged on a case by case basis at RBD
level. 
The IPH establishes a list of categories of
point and diffuse sources that need to be included in the inventory. Thresholds
are provided for a few of these categories (for example discharges from
aquaculture facilities larger than 100000 m3/yr)[15]. Criteria for the main
diffuse sources are generally not given in the IPH, but have been defined by
each RBMPs. However, the method used to establish the significance is not
clear.
In general, for the preparation of the
RBMPs, and in order to consider cumulative effects, the inventory of pressures
was used as input for modelling tools. 
The identification of (significant) impacts
is generally well linked to pressures (e.g. water uses) when dealing with water
abstractions and point source pollution, and some plans provide comprehensive
overviews on all pressures related to water bodies (e.g. ES080). In the case of
diffuse pollution (e.g. ES070) or hydromorphological alterations (e.g. ES030,
ES070), the picture is often more complicated, and no clear relationship with
impacts has been described for these pressures within many RBMPs at water body
level.
Significant point source pressures have
been identified for more than 1750 water bodies, namely for ES014, ES018,
ES020, ES050, ES091 and ES100 which are RBDs with significant urban and
industrial developments.
Significant diffuse source pressures have
been identified in more than 1200 water bodies. The pressures are particularly
prevalent in the RBDs ES014, ES080, ES091 and ES100. Some agricultural land-use
intensive RBDs, however, like ES040 and ES070 have not reported significant
diffuse source pressures. 
High percentages of water bodies subject to
significant water abstraction have been identified in one northern river basin
district (ES018) and some southern river basin districts (ES040, and ES050).
Despite water quantity being a significant problem in some of the river basins,
these have not identified large numbers of water bodies affected by significant
abstraction pressures (e.g. ES063, ES064, ES070, ES080, ES091, and ES110). 
According to the Spanish authorities,
this apparent mismatch between the relatively low percentages of water bodies
reported as subject to significant pressures and the severity of the perceived
problem is, at least in part, due to the fact that Spain reported to WISE only
the result of the qualitative pressure and impact assessment, which is not
accurate in case of diffuse sources of pollution or water abstraction. However,
this casts doubt about the reliability of the thresholds of significance used
for the pressure inventories and the usability of the information reported. It
is not clear why there are so large differences across the different basins if
they were supposed to use the same thresholds (as included in the IPH). And it
is also unclear why Spain did not report to WISE the result of the final and
complete assessment of pressures and impacts, although it may have to do with
the fact that the risk assessment resulting from the pressure and impact
analysis is not required by the Spanish legislation, as explained above, and is
therefore wrongly seen as a one-off exercise that was due only in 2005 as part
of the preparation of the first RBMP. 
Significant water flow regulations and
hydromorphological alterations have been identified for more than 1550 surface
water bodies most likely caused by the high number of large dams in Spain (1350),
and many other hydromorphological alterations. A high proportion of surface
water bodies (>60%) affected by such pressures can be found in ES017, ES018,
and ES020. Relatively low values (<20%) have been reported for ES010, ES014,
ES030, ES050, ES060, and ES091, despite the large number of dams and river
infrastructure existing in most of these basins. Again, there is no plausible
explanation for these large differences unless approaches used in the RBDs were
significantly different. 
River management as a significant
pressure appears to be interpreted in different ways in the RBDs, as a few of
the RBMPs report significant pressures (e.g. ES017, ES018) and others no single
significant pressure (e.g. ES010, ES020, ES030, ES040, ES063, ES064, ES080,
ES091 and ES100).
Transitional and coastal water management
have been identified as significant pressures for 117 water bodies (40 % of TW
and CW). Significant pressures have been reported mainly for ES018, ES060, and
ES070. No such pressures were identified for ES010, ES040, ES050, ES063 ES064,
ES080, ES091 and ES110, though ports and navigation, as well as recreational
activities and sand dredging are present in the RBDs, and despite the fact that
inventories of pressures include as relevant connectivity alterations,
channelling, sluices, land occupation, dredging and beach regeneration.
Other pressures have been identified for
a large number of surface water bodies (more than 1000), in particular in
ES014, ES018, ES080 and ES100.
No pressures have been identified in more
than 1900 Spanish surface water bodies. ES018 and ES070 report only less than
20 surface water bodies with no significant pressure; and large numbers of
surface water bodies with no pressures are reported from ES010, ES030, ES050
and in particular ES091 (77% of the surface water bodies have no pressure).
When compared to the status, it is nonetheless surprising that in ES030, ES091
and ES110 there appears to be a much lower number of surface water bodies in
good status in 2009 than the number of water bodies with no pressure (ES030:
243 water bodies without pressure vs. 170 water bodies in good status; ES091:
635 water bodies without pressure vs. 226 water bodies in good status; and
ES110: 129 water bodies without pressure vs. 73 water bodies in good status).
This comparison indicates an inconsistency in the planning process, either
within the identification of pressures or the classification of status. And
again, figures show significant differences in approach that questions the
effectiveness of the harmonisation efforts.
There is a significant difference between data included in many of
the RBMPs and provided via WISE, hampering a good understanding of the
challenges faced in the RBDs, e.g. ES020 RBMP develops a significant analysis
of diffuse pollution, meanwhile according to WISE no water body is affected by
such type of pressures. This may be due to the fact that only the qualitative
analysis was reported but it is unclear and confusing.

 RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures 
 No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % 
 ES010 || 200 || 71.9 || 58 || 20.9 || 34 || 12.2 || 49 || 17.6 || 47 || 16.9 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 30 || 10.8 
 ES014 || 63 || 13.6 || 178 || 38.5 || 181 || 39.2 || 3 || 0.6 || 54 || 11.7 || 22 || 4.8 || 18 || 3.9 || 0 || 0.0 || 277 || 60.0 
 ES017 || 25 || 18.1 || 75 || 54.3 || 33 || 23.9 || 74 || 53.6 || 89 || 64.5 || 77 || 55.8 || 12 || 8.7 || 0 || 0.0 || 59 || 42.8 
 ES018 || 12 || 4.1 || 177 || 60.4 || 17 || 5.8 || 189 || 64.5 || 198 || 67.6 || 156 || 53.2 || 31 || 10.6 || 0 || 0.0 || 175 || 59.7 
 ES020 || 160 || 22.5 || 264 || 37.2 || 92 || 13 || 74 || 10.4 || 439 || 61.8 || 0 || 0.0 ||   ||   || 0 || 0.0 || 1 || 0.1 
 ES030 || 243 || 75.0 || 67 || 20.7 || 18 || 5.6 || 45 || 13.9 || 20 || 6.2 || 0 || 0.0 ||   ||   || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 
 ES040 || 36 || 11.5 || 136 || 43.5 || 23 || 7.3 || 166 || 53.0 || 113 || 36.1 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 68 || 21.7 
 ES050 || 210 || 47.4 || 163 || 36.8 || 78 || 17.6 || 147 || 33.2 || 84 || 19.0 || 57 || 12.9 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 29 || 6.5 
 ES060 || 20 || 11.4 || 119 || 68.0 || 87 || 49.7 || 86 || 49.1 || 32 || 18.3 || 12 || 6.9 || 28 || 16.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 11 || 6.3 
 ES063 || 54 || 55.7 || 33 || 34.0 || 40 || 41.2 || 26 || 26.8 || 35 || 36.1 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 1 || 1.0 
 ES064 || 38 || 55.9 || 22 || 32.4 || 25 || 36.8 || 17 || 25.0 || 26 || 38.2 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 10 || 14.7 
 ES070 || 14 || 12.3 || 38 || 33.3 || 73 || 64.0 || 40 || 35.1 || 34 || 29.8 || 32 || 28.1 || 13 || 11.4 || 0 || 0.0 || 42 || 36.8 
 ES080 || 64 || 18.3 || 122 || 35.0 || 201 || 57.6 || 78 || 22.3 || 140 || 40.1 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 145 || 41.5 
 ES091 || 635 || 77.3 || 147 || 17.9 || 155 || 18.9 || 39 || 4.8 || 120 || 14.6 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 5 || 0.6 || 1 || 0.1 
 ES100 || 54 || 15.6 || 159 || 46.0 || 117 || 33.8 || 62 || 17.9 || 109 || 31.5 || 0 || 0.0 || 14 || 4.0 || 17 || 4.9 || 185 || 53.5 
 ES110 || 129 || 75.0 || 18 || 10.5 || 32 || 18.6 || 9 || 5.2 || 11 || 6.4 || 10 || 5.8 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 13 || 7.6 
 ES120 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES122 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES123 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES124 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES125 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES126 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES127 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES150 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES160 || 1 || 25.0 || 2 || 50.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 2 || 50.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 1 || 25.0 || 0 || 0.0 || 0 || 0.0 
 Total || 1958 || 38.3 || 1778 || 34.8 || 1206 || 23.4 || 1104 || 21.4 || 1553 || 30.4 || 366 || 7.2 || 117 || 2.3 || 22 || 0.4 || 1047 || 20.5 
Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of
surface water bodies affected by significant pressures.
Source: WISE and information provided by Spain (2014). No data available for ES12X, and ES150.
Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of
surface water bodies affected by significant pressures
1 = No pressures
2 = Point source
3 = Diffuse source
4 = Water abstraction
5 = Water flow regulations and
morphological alterations
6 = River management
7 = Transitional and coastal water
management
8 = Other morphological alterations
9 = Other pressures
Source: WISE. No data available for ES12X, and ES150. 

4.4        
Protected areas

More than 28800 Protected Areas have been
reported for those RBDs with WISE data available, an average of 5 Protected
Areas per water body. 
Of these, by far the largest number corresponds
to the more than 21000 Protected Areas for abstraction for drinking water, an
average of 4.9 such Protected Areas per water body. The Ebro (ES091) is the RBD
with the largest number of such areas. 
More than 1600 bathing water Protected
Areas have been reported, mainly for ES014, ES060 and ES100.
More than 1100 areas protected for their
habitats and more than 500 for their birds are reported. They account for an
average of 0.28 protected area for every water body, with higher values in
ES150, ES070, ES091 and ES030.
401 Nitrate Vulnerable Zones have been
reported, 218 shellfish areas (mainly in ES014), and 462 UWWT Protected Areas
(especially relevant for ES110 and ES100).
The information included in the RBMPs
regarding Protected Areas usually refers to a list of the Protected Areas,
their classification, and an overview map of their location within the RBD,
displayed as points. Nonetheless, in general no information is provided on the
following features: the specific protection elements (e.g. shellfish, habitats
and birds), the conservation status of the protected area, the pressures or
threats that affect the protected area, and the overlap of Protected Areas with
water bodies (e.g. for use in the delimitation of water bodies). Exceptionally,
some additional information might be found on specific Protected Areas in the
Appendices (e.g. ES040 regarding the Tablas de Daimiel protected area and the
underlying GWBs).
 RBD || Number of PAs ||   
 Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT || Total 
 ES010 || 754 || 32 || 11 || 0 || 8 || 20 || 83 || 166 || 0 || 1 || 6 || 1081 
 ES014 || 2183 || 448 || 9 || 7 || 8 || 37 || 142 || 12 || 0 || 95 || 2 || 2943 
 ES017 || 106 || 36 || 4 || 0 || 9 || 36 || 80 || 80 || 0 || 3 || 12 || 366 
 ES018 || 123 || 99 || 16 || 3 || 14 || 79 || 152 || 111 || 0 || 17 || 8 || 622 
 ES020 || 3518 || 26 || 53 || 2 || 21 || 78 || 0 || 493 || 10 || 0 || 36 || 4237 
 ES030 || 476 || 32 || 63 || 0 || 15 || 85 || 0 || 60 || 7 || 0 || 53 || 791 
 ES040 || 1521 || 26 || 43 || 11 || 23 || 61 || 0 || 168 || 10 || 6 || 19 || 1888 
 ES050 || 954 || 32 || 13 || 12 || 16 || 38 || 0 || 152 || 9 || 6 || 13 || 1245 
 ES060 || 882 || 237 || 21 || 10 || 3 || 70 || 39 || 72 || 14 || 36 || 3 || 1387 
 ES063 || 109 || 53 || 14 || 3 || 3 || 25 || 0 || 37 || 3 || 7 || 3 || 257 
 ES064 || 86 || 25 || 6 || 2 || 0 || 19 || 0 || 38 || 3 || 5 || 3 || 187 
 ES070 || 119 || 116 || 33 || 0 || 1 || 73 || 0 || 141 || 9 || 7 || 7 || 506 
 ES080 || 1980 || 176 || 44 || 0 || 4 || 83 || 8 || 96 || 280 || 7 || 30 || 2708 
 ES091 || 7072 || 43 || 132 || 11 || 15 || 292 || 0 || 143 || 23 || 5 || 29 || 7765 
 ES100 || 1292 || 208 || 24 || 66 || 19 || 56 || 261 || 85 || 20 || 18 || 113 || 2162 
 ES110 || 80 || 26 || 24 || 0 || 0 || 71 || 316 || 0 || 13 || 4 || 125 || 659 
 ES120 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 0 
 ES122 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 0 
 ES123 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 0 
 ES124 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 0 
 ES125 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 0 
 ES126 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 0 
 ES127 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 0 
 ES150 || 5 || 7 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 17 
 ES160 || 21 || 8 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 31 
 Total || 21281 || 1630 || 514 || 127 || 159 || 1125 || 1081 || 1854 || 401 || 218 || 462 || 28852 
Table 4.5.1: Number of Protected
Areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and
groundwater[16]
Source: WISE and Information
provided by Spain. No data
available for ES12X.

5          
MONITORING

Some estimated 18000 monitoring sites have
been reported by Spain, mainly for rivers and groundwater bodies. The average
number of monitoring sites per water body is 18 for GWB, 4.3 for CWB, 4(4) for
TWB, 1.5 for RWB and 0.8 for LWB. 
The information provided in the RBMPs and
WISE regarding monitoring systems is not always fully consistent. The RBMPs
usually include the legal texts and maps showing the monitoring sites, but no
information on the methodology for the design of the network (e.g. how pressure
and impact analysis has been used to design the monitoring programmes).
Information on gaps or the status of implementation is also missing, although
it appears a significant issue given the high percentage of water bodies with
unknown status (see next chapter).
In fact, additional information gathered through
the bilateral meeting held in November 2014 shows that monitoring programmes
are not being implemented as reported and, due to budgetary cuts, monitoring
efforts have significantly reduced since 2010. 
No information on operational monitoring
sites has been provided for several RBDs/water categories (ES010 and ES070 re
CW; ES019, ES017, ES050 re LW operational sites; ES060, ES063 and ES064 re GW
quantitative sites). In some cases operational monitoring is not in place
because there are no water bodies identified at risk (ES040, ES050 re CW; ES014
and ES018 re GW quantitative sites).
Generally, there is no or unclear
information about grouping of water bodies (e.g. ES014, ES017, ES018, ES040,
ES100), despite larger number of RWB and LWB than monitoring sites (in the
overall figures). Differences exist between the number of water bodies
monitored for each quality element as indicated in the monitoring programmes
and the number of water bodies where information on status of each quality
element is provided (e.g. ES017, ES018 for fish, ES020). The reason for these
differences is not clear. 
International monitoring programmes are set
up for ES020 and ES040 with PT, and though they have not been established for
ES010 with PT or for ES017 with FR, transboundary coordination is in place.
 RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater 
 Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant 
 ES010 || 86 || 74 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 44 || 18 || 8 
 ES014 || 519 || 29 || 0 || 0 || 68 || 0 || 70 || 0 || 51 || 0 || 51 
 ES017 || 165 || 239 || 6 || 0 || 25 || 4 || 11 || 1 || 38 || 21 || 28 
 ES018 || 505 || 204 || 8 || 3 || 187 || 73 || 106 || 64 || 53 || 0 || 36 
 ES020 || 819 || 726 || 32 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 486 || 140 || 555 
 ES030 || 466 || 169 || 20 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 214 || 59 || 202 
 ES040 || 165 || 217 || 18 || 17 || 8 || 6 || 5 || 0 || 121 || 33 || 207 
 ES050 || 274 || 114 || 4 || 0 || 41 || 20 || 9 || 0 || 155 || 78 || 266 
 ES060 || 48 || 72 || 3 || 2 || 9 || 9 || 46 || 18 || 98 || 98 || 0 
 ES063 || 30 || 79 || 4 || 4 || 21 || 21 || 35 || 35 || 75 || 36 || 0 
 ES064 || 30 || 64 || 5 || 6 || 42 || 42 || 16 || 16 || 42 || 15 || 0 
 ES070 || 101 || 78 || 6 || 1 || 7 || 0 || 31 || 104 || 45 || 368 || 172 
 ES080 || 154 || 101 || 20 || 17 || 31 || 12 || 226 || 113 || 218 || 99 || 287 
 ES091 || 358 || 286 || 40 || 22 || 42 || 41 || 36 || 36 || 1693 || 0 || 377 
 ES100 || 301 || 111 || 29 || 7 || 28 || 7 || 31 || 16 || 613 || 867 || 446 
 ES110 || 63 || 33 || 0 || 0 || 31 || 20 || 72 || 15 || 328 || 123 || 126 
 ES120 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES122 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES123 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES124 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES125 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES126 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES127 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES150 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 7 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES160 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 Total by type of site || 4084 || 2597 || 195 || 85 || 545 || 255 || 705 || 425 || 4274 || 1955 || 2761 
 Total number of monitoring sites[17] || 6681 || 280 || 800 || 1130 || 8990 
 Total number compared to the number of corresponding WBs || 1,5 || 0,8 || 4,4 || 4,3 || 18 
Table 5.2: Number of monitoring
sites by water category
Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant =
Quantitative
Source: WISE and Information provided by Spain. No data available for ES12X. There are large differences between the
figures reported in WISE and those corrected by Spanish authorities in 2014.
 || 
Figure
5.1: Maps
of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations
   || • ||   || River monitoring stations 
   || • ||   || Lake monitoring stations 
   || • ||   || Transitional water monitoring stations 
   || • ||   || Coastal water monitoring stations 
   || • ||   || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations 
   || • ||   || Groundwater monitoring stations 
   ||   ||   ||  River Basin Districts 
   ||   ||   ||  Countries outside EU 
Source: WISE (2010), Eurostat
(country borders). No data available for ES12X.

5.1        
Monitoring of Surface Waters

As shown in Figure 5.1 and Table 5.2, a monitoring
programme has been set up.
The following monitoring design and
implementation gaps relating to surveillance monitoring can be identified for
some of the RBDs[18]:
-         
RW: Lack of monitoring QE1-2, QE1-4 and QE3-3
-         
LW: Lack of monitoring in general (e.g. ES010),
QE1-2, QE1-3, QE1-4, QE2, QE3-1 and QE3-3. 
One important gap is the lack of monitoring
for fish in most of the RBDs. 
In terms of operational monitoring,
information on the relationship between pressures, impacts and monitored
biological quality elements (BQEs) is scarce. It can be noted that in ES017 and
ES018 (RW) altered habitats due to abstractions or water flow are not
monitored/related to QE1-4. Information is lacking on how chemical pollution
due to atmospheric deposition will be detected, and it has not been considered
in the design of pollutant sampling in river basins.
Monitoring of sediments and biota is not
specified in most of the RBMPs (e.g. ES017, ES018, ES020, ES040, ES050) but
additional information received from Spain indicates that monitoring of
sediments and biota is being undertaken in all RBDs. 

5.2        
Monitoring of Ground Waters

Significant monitoring networks have been
built up to control groundwater status, in particular based on the existing
quantitative (piezometric) networks, and on average 10 monitoring sites exist
per GWB. The monitoring network is particular dense in the areas with intensive
abstractions. The exception is ES060, ES063 and ES064 where no quantitative
monitoring is reported despite intensive water use.
The groundwater chemical status monitoring
programmes are designed in order to detect significant and sustained upward
trends in pollutants, even though a detailed justification is lacking in the
documents of the RBMPs.

5.3        
Monitoring of Protected Areas

Monitoring in protected areas is required
under WFD Article 8 and section 1.3.5 of Annex V.
A total of 679 monitoring sites have been
reported for Protected Areas (PAs), this is one site per 24 PAs. Most of them
relate to bathing water, drinking water and nitrates. 
It is however not clear whether the
reported monitoring sites are the result of just the geographical overlay of
monitoring sites and protected areas or are genuine sites for the monitoring of
the specific objectives of the relevant protected areas. Generally WISE
reporting identifies specific programmes for the monitoring of some types
protected areas (water bodies for the production of drinking water, bathing
water, shellfish, etc.).
Regarding Drinking Water PA, monitoring
covers only a very small percentage of the total number of such PAs. It is
unclear if all relevant parameters of the Drinking Water Directive are
monitored.
Monitoring of shellfish PAs is focused on
shellfish as economically relevant species, and covers heavy metals and toxic
pollutants. It is reported for only 3 RBDs, although shellfish is a relevant
economic activity in other RBDs as well. 
Monitoring in Nature PAs is not mentioned
in the RBMPs. In general, RBMPs include only a geographic reference of PAs
under the Habitats Directive, without further referring to the specific
conservation status and/or objectives. 
 RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water 
 Surface drinking water abstraction || Bathing water || Fish || Birds sites || Habitats sites || Nitrates || Shell-fish || UWWT 
 ES010 || 55 || 27 || 21 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 9 
 ES014 || 104 || 0 || 13 || 0 || 0 || 138 || 0 || 0 || 44 
 ES017 || 104 || 55 || 10 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 5 || 10 
 ES018 || 103 || 99 || 14 || 16 || 78 || 0 || 17 || 0 || 20 
 ES020 || 143 || 27 || 21 || 268 || 38 || NA || 151 || 144 
 ES030 || 109 || 31 || 15 || * || * || * || NA || * ||   
 ES040 || 63 || 19 || 16 || 32 || 56 || 67 || 1 || 0 || 0 
 ES050 || 50 || 0 || 18 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 80 
 ES060 || 33 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES063 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES064 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES070 || 8 || 55 || 2 || 58 || 63 || 28 || 0 || 0 || 28 
 ES080 || 16 || 5 || 8 || - || - || 107 || - || - || - 
 ES091 || 132 ||   || 15 || - || - || NA || - || 25 || 348 
 ES100 || 45 || 242 || 0 || 19 || 0 || 556 || 0 || 99 || 138 
 ES110 || 76 || 63 || 0 || 54 || 82 || 19 || 8 || 41 || 204 
 ES120 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES122 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES123 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES124 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES125 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES126 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES127 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES150 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES160 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 20 
Table 5.3.1: Number of monitoring
stations in Protected Areas. 
Source: Information provided by Spain (2014). *: No network defined, but parameters are
being controlled by other monitoring networks. 
Figure 5.2: Map of monitoring stations for Protected
Areas 
Source: WISE (2010)
NB. For Groundwater, no information was supplied by ES020,
ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES063, ES064, ES070, ES100 and ES110 on Protected
Area Monitoring Points. For surface waters, information was supplied about
Drinking Water Protected Areas only for ES020, ES030, ES050, ES060, ES100 and
ES110. Partial information on other Protected Areas was supplied by ES018,
ES040, ES063, ES064, ES070, ES080 and ES091. The remaining RBDs supplied
information on all types of Protected Area. Monitoring for Drinking water PAs
has been established in all RBDs, although the information is
unclear/contradictory for ES014.
 RBD || Rivers || Lakes 
 QE1.1 Phytoplankton [19] || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3  Non priority specific  Pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific  pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants 
 ES010 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 ES014 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES017 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES018 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES020 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES030 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES040 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES050 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 ES060 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 ES063 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 ES064 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 ES070 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - 
 ES080 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES091 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - 
 ES100 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES110 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES120 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES122 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES123 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES124 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES125 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES126 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES127 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES150 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES160 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 RBD || Transitional || Coastal 
 QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants 
 ES010 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 ES014 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 ES017 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES018 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES020 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES030 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES040 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES050 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES060 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES063 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 ES064 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES070 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES080 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES091 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES100 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES110 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 ES120 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES122 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES123 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES124 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES125 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 ES126 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   || - || - ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES127 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES150 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   || - 
 ES160 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   
Table 5.1: Quality elements
monitored - Source: Information provided by
Spain (2014).
   ||   || QE Monitored 
   ||   || QE Not monitored 
 - ||   || Not Relevant 

6          
STATUS

The ecological status of natural SWBs
presented in the RBMPs shows that 43% are either in high or good status.
Several RBDs have a relatively high proportion (>15%) of water bodies in
high ecological status (ES010, ES014, ES018, ES050, ES070) or in good status
(e.g. ES030, ES050 and ES060). 
A significant number/proportion (>5%) of
water bodies in bad ecological status has been identified in some RBDs (ES030,
ES040, ES050, ES060, ES063 and ES070).
The overall number (727 WBs) and proportion
(17%) of water bodies with unknown ecological status is very high; and in
particular the following RBDs should be mentioned: ES014, ES063, ES064, ES080,
ES091, ES100, ES110, ES123; ES091 presents the largest number of water bodies
with unknown ecological status (322 water bodies). 
Large differences exist in the status
results between RBDs. The following shows the percentage of natural SWB in good
or better status in some of the main RBDs:
ES030 Tagus                           61 
ES050 Guadalquivir               59
ES060 Andalucía Med           54
ES070 Segura                         48
ES080 Jucar                            42
ES091 Ebro                             34
ES040 Guadiana                     28
ES020 Duero                          21
There is no plausible explanation for these
differences other than the lack of harmonisation of the status assessment. The
figures question the reliability of the status assessments and the use that has
been made of the EU intercalibration results.
 RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown 
 No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) 
 ES010 || 227 || 69 || 30,4 || 101 || 44,5 || 37 || 16,3 || 13 || 5,7 || 2 || 0,9 || 5 || 2,2 
 ES014 || 422 || 74 || 17,5 || 137 || 32,5 || 67 || 15,9 || 19 || 4,5 || 3 || 0,7 || 122 || 28,9 
 ES017 || 101 || 4 || 4,0 || 49 || 48,5 || 29 || 28,7 || 15 || 14,9 || 2 || 2,0 || 2 || 2,0 
 ES018 || 258 || 51 || 19,8 || 143 || 55,4 || 51 || 19,8 || 7 || 2,7 || 3 || 1,2 || 3 || 1,2 
 ES020 || 620 || 28 || 4,5 || 105 || 16,9 || 441 || 71,1 || 39 || 6,3 || 7 || 1,1 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES030 || 198 || 10 || 5,1 || 111 || 56,1 || 46 || 23,2 || 9 || 4,5 || 10 || 5,1 || 12 || 6,1 
 ES040 || 244 || 6 || 2,5 || 63 || 25,8 || 131 || 53,7 || 25 || 10,2 || 19 || 7,8 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES050 || 325 || 52 || 16,0 || 140 || 43,1 || 71 || 21,8 || 33 || 10,2 || 29 || 8,9 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES060 || 130 || 11 || 8,5 || 60 || 46,2 || 37 || 28,5 || 11 || 8,5 || 9 || 6,9 || 2 || 1,5 
 ES063 || 67 || 0 || 0,0 || 13 || 19,4 || 6 || 9,0 || 16 || 23,9 || 5 || 7,5 || 27 || 40,3 
 ES064 || 51 || 2 || 3,9 || 16 || 31,4 || 15 || 29,4 || 5 || 9,8 || 1 || 2,0 || 12 || 23,5 
 ES070 || 84 || 13 || 15,5 || 28 || 33,3 || 25 || 29,8 || 6 || 7,1 || 12 || 14,3 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES080 || 289 || 3 || 1,0 || 120 || 41,5 || 61 || 21,1 || 19 || 6,6 || 14 || 4,8 || 72 || 24,9 
 ES091 || 705 || 71 || 10,1 || 169 || 24,0 || 107 || 15,2 || 29 || 4,1 || 7 || 1,0 || 322 || 45,7 
 ES100 || 268 || 5 || 1,9 || 62 || 23,1 || 76 || 28,4 || 26 || 9,7 || 12 || 4,5 || 87 || 32,5 
 ES110 || 158 || 22 || 13,9 || 47 || 29,7 || 12 || 7,6 || 17 || 10,8 || 4 || 2,5 || 56 || 35,4 
 ES120 || 5 || 1 || 20,0 || 4 || 80,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES122 || 5 || 0 || 0,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES123 || 5 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 5 || 100,0 
 ES124 || 6 || 0 || 0,0 || 6 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES125 || 5 || 0 || 0,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES126 || 4 || 0 || 0,0 || 4 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES127 || 3 || 0 || 0,0 || 3 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES150 || 2 || 0 || 0,0 || 2 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES160 || 2 || 0 || 0,0 || 2 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 TOTAL || 4184 || 422 || 10,1 || 1395 || 33,3 || 1212 || 29,0 || 289 || 6,9 || 139 || 3,3 || 727 || 17,4 
Table 6.1: Ecological status of
natural surface water bodies
Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2014). 
Regarding the ecological potential of HMWB
or AWB, 32% is evaluated as high or good status overall, with significant
differences between low values (<15%; ES100) and high percentages (approx.
50%; ES010, ES050, ES070). 185 water bodies still have unknown status (19%),
with especially significant high values in ES091 (110 water bodies, 95%).
 RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown 
 No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) 
 ES010 || 51 || 0 || 0,0 || 25 || 49,0 || 15 || 29,4 || 9 || 17,6 || 2 || 3,9 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES014 || 40 || 0 || 0,0 || 11 || 27,5 || 20 || 50,0 || 3 || 7,5 || 3 || 7,5 || 3 || 7,5 
 ES017 || 37 || 0 || 0,0 || 7 || 18,9 || 15 || 40,5 || 8 || 21,6 || 6 || 16,2 || 1 || 2,7 
 ES018 || 35 || 0 || 0,0 || 15 || 42,9 || 12 || 34,3 || 2 || 5,7 || 4 || 11,4 || 2 || 5,7 
 ES020 || 90 || 0 || 0,0 || 28 || 31,1 || 55 || 61,1 || 5 || 5,6 || 1 || 1,1 || 1 || 1,1 
 ES030 || 126 || 0 || 0,0 || 49 || 38,9 || 32 || 25,4 || 25 || 19,8 || 12 || 9,5 || 8 || 6,3 
 ES040 || 69 || 0 || 0,0 || 18 || 26,1 || 17 || 24,6 || 8 || 11,6 || 12 || 17,4 || 14 || 20,3 
 ES050 || 118 || 0 || 0,0 || 63 || 53,4 || 32 || 27,1 || 16 || 13,6 || 7 || 5,9 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES060 || 45 || 0 || 0,0 || 20 || 44,4 || 16 || 35,6 || 1 || 2,2 || 8 || 17,8 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES063 || 30 || 0 || 0,0 || 9 || 30,0 || 11 || 36,7 || 3 || 10,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 7 || 23,3 
 ES064 || 17 || 0 || 0,0 || 7 || 41,2 || 7 || 41,2 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 3 || 17,6 
 ES070 || 30 || 0 || 0,0 || 14 || 46,7 || 11 || 36,7 || 2 || 6,7 || 2 || 6,7 || 1 || 3,3 
 ES080 || 60 || 0 || 0,0 || 26 || 43,3 || 9 || 15,0 || 7 || 11,7 || 4 || 6,7 || 14 || 23,3 
 ES091 || 116 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 4 || 3,4 || 2 || 1,7 || 0 || 0,0 || 110 || 94,8 
 ES100 || 78 || 0 || 0,0 || 11 || 14,1 || 29 || 37,2 || 14 || 17,9 || 15 || 19,2 || 9 || 11,5 
 ES110 || 14 || 0 || 0,0 || 4 || 28,6 || 1 || 7,1 || 1 || 7,1 || 0 || 0,0 || 8 || 57,1 
 ES120 || 1 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 1 || 100,0 
 ES122 || 0 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES123 || 1 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 1 || 100,0 
 ES124 || 5 || 2 || 40,0 || 2 || 40,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 1 || 20,0 
 ES125 || 0 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES126 || 0 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES127 || 0 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES150 || 1 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 1 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES160 || 2 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 1 || 50,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 1 || 50,0 
 TOTAL || 966 || 2 || 0,2 || 309 || 32,0 || 286 || 29,6 || 107 || 11,1 || 77 || 8,0 || 185 || 19,2 
Table 6.2: Ecological potential of
artificial and heavily modified water bodies
Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain. 
Regarding the chemical status of natural
SWB, a number of RBMPs have classified a large proportion of water bodies in
good status. Some RBDs have significant work to do to improve the assessment of
chemical status of natural SWBs (ES064, ES063). In several other RBDs a
significant number of water bodies still need to be classified (ES010, ES018,
ES091 y ES110 with > 75% unknown), thus the status assessment can be
considered as insufficient to inform adequately the rest of the WFD planning
process. 
 RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown 
 No. || % || No. || % || No. || % 
 ES010 || 227 || 39 || 17,2 || 7 || 3,1 || 181 || 79,7 
 ES014 || 422 || 356 || 84,4 || 34 || 8,1 || 32 || 7,6 
 ES017 || 101 || 62 || 61,4 || 9 || 8,9 || 30 || 29,7 
 ES018 || 258 || 62 || 24,0 || 4 || 1,6 || 192 || 74,4 
 ES020 || 620 || 599 || 96,6 || 21 || 3,4 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES030 || 198 || 192 || 97,0 || 6 || 3,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES040 || 244 || 215 || 88,1 || 2 || 0,8 || 27 || 11,1 
 ES050 || 325 || 282 || 86,8 || 11 || 3,4 || 32 || 9,8 
 ES060 || 130 || 116 || 89,2 || 2 || 1,5 || 12 || 9,2 
 ES063 || 67 || 30 || 44,8 || 10 || 14,9 || 27 || 40,3 
 ES064 || 51 || 22 || 43,1 || 15 || 29,4 || 14 || 27,5 
 ES070 || 84 || 77 || 91,7 || 7 || 8,3 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES080 || 289 || 159 || 55,0 || 8 || 2,8 || 122 || 42,2 
 ES091 || 705 || 0* || 0,0 || 32 || 4,5 || 673 || 95,5 
 ES100 || 268 || 140 || 52,2 || 14 || 5,2 || 114 || 42,5 
 ES110 || 158 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 158 || 100,0 
 ES120 || 5 || 2 || 40,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 3 || 60,0 
 ES122 || 5 || 5 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES123 || 5 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 5 || 100,0 
 ES124 || 6 || 6 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES125 || 5 || 5 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES126 || 4 || 4 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES127 || 3 || 3 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES150 || 2 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 2 || 100,0 
 ES160 || 2 || 2 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 TOTAL || 4184 || 2378 || 56,8 || 182 || 4,3 || 1624 || 38,8 
Table 6.3: Chemical status of
natural surface water bodies
Source: WISE and RBMPs;
information provided by Spain (2014)
* The map on
page 163 of the Ebro RBMP (figure 84) shows surface water bodies in good
chemical status and it is therefore inconsistent with the WISE reporting
reflected on this table.
A similar assessment can be made regarding
the chemical status assessment of AWB/HMWB. 60% are reported as being in good
status but several RBDs include high percentages of “unknown” status: ES010,
ES018, ES080, ES091, ES110). ES091 reports as unknown 114 out of 116 water
bodies. These large percentages of water bodies with unknown status undermine
the subsequent planning process.
 RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown 
 No. || % || No. || % || No. || % 
 ES010 || 51 || 17 || 33,3 || 0 || 0,0 || 34 || 66,7 
 ES014 || 40 || 26 || 65,0 || 11 || 27,5 || 3 || 7,5 
 ES017 || 37 || 19 || 51,4 || 10 || 27,0 || 8 || 21,6 
 ES018 || 35 || 19 || 54,3 || 2 || 5,7 || 14 || 40,0 
 ES020 || 90 || 87 || 96,7 || 3 || 3,3 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES030 || 126 || 121 || 96,0 || 5 || 4,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES040 || 69 || 53 || 76,8 || 0 || 0,0 || 16 || 23,2 
 ES050 || 118 || 101 || 85,6 || 14 || 11,9 || 3 || 2,5 
 ES060 || 45 || 40 || 88,9 || 0 || 0,0 || 5 || 11,1 
 ES063 || 30 || 20 || 66,7 || 2 || 6,7 || 8 || 26,7 
 ES064 || 17 || 6 || 35,3 || 8 || 47,1 || 3 || 17,6 
 ES070 || 30 || 20 || 66,7 || 9 || 30,0 || 1 || 3,3 
 ES080 || 60 || 22 || 36,7 || 9 || 15,0 || 29 || 48,3 
 ES091 || 116 || 0 || 0,0 || 2 || 1,7 || 114 || 98,3 
 ES100 || 78 || 37 || 47,4 || 16 || 20,5 || 25 || 32,1 
 ES110 || 14 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 14 || 100,0 
 ES120 || 1 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 1 || 100,0 
 ES122 || 0 || 0 || - || 0 || - || 0 || - 
 ES123 || 1 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 1 || 100,0 
 ES124 || 5 || 4 || 80,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 1 || 20,0 
 ES125 || 0 || 0 || - || 0 || - || 0 || - 
 ES126 || 0 || 0 || - || 0 || - || 0 || - 
 ES127 || 0 || 0 || - || 0 || - || 0 || - 
 ES150 || 1 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 1 || 100,0 
 ES160 || 2 || 0 || 0,0 || 1 || 50,0 || 1 || 50,0 
 Total || 966 || 592 || 61,3 || 92 || 9,5 || 282 || 29,2 
Table 6.4: Chemical status of
artificial and heavily modified surface water bodies
Source: WISE and RBMPs;
information provided by Spain (2014). 
According to information provided by the
Spanish authorities, in general chemical monitoring has been carried out in
those water bodies receiving industrial discharges or subject to potential
discharges from use of pesticides in agriculture. For the rest good chemical
status has been assumed, or can be assumed in case they have been classified as
“unknown” status. However, this overlooks other relevant sources of chemical
pollution such as urban wastewater and atmospheric deposition.
The information on chemical status of GWB
is much more complete, with only 8 water bodies in “unknown” status, and 33% of
these GWBs in poor status.
 RBD || Good || Poor || Unknown 
 No. || % || No. || % || No. || % 
 ES010 || 5 || 83,3 || 1 || 16,7 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES014 || 18 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES017 || 26 || 92,9 || 2 || 7,1 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES018 || 20 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES020 || 50 || 78,1 || 14 || 21,9 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES030 || 18 || 75,0 || 6 || 25,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES040 || 7 || 35,0 || 13 || 65,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES050 || 44 || 73,3 || 16 || 26,7 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES060 || 32 || 47,8 || 35 || 52,2 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES063 || 5 || 35,7 || 7 || 50,0 || 2 || 14,3 
 ES064 || 2 || 50,0 || 2 || 50,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES070 || 39 || 61,9 || 24 || 38,1 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES080 || 63 || 70,0 || 27 || 30,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES091 || 82 || 78,1 || 23 || 21,9 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES100 || 16 || 41,0 || 23 || 59,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES110 || 55 || 61,1 || 35 || 38,9 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES120 || 2 || 20,0 || 8 || 80,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES122 || 0 || 0,0 || 4 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES123 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 1 || 100,0 
 ES124 || 3 || 75,0 || 1 || 25,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES125 || 4 || 80,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 1 || 20,0 
 ES126 || 3 || 60,0 || 2 || 40,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES127 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 3 || 100,0 
 ES150 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 1 || 100,0 
 ES160 || 0 || 0,0 || 3 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 Total || 494 || 66,0 || 246 || 32,9 || 8 || 1,1 
Table 6.5: Chemical status of
groundwater bodies
Source: WISE and RBMPs;
information provided by Spain (2014). 
The data on quantitative status is also
largely complete, with the important exception of ES063, where a large
percentage of groundwater bodies are in unknown quantitative status. This is
consistent with the lack of quantitative monitoring reported for this RBD.
 RBD || Good || Poor || Unknown 
 No. || % || No. || % || No. || % 
 ES010 || 6 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES014 || 18 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES017 || 28 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES018 || 20 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES020 || 59 || 92,2 || 5 || 7,8 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES030 || 24 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES040 || 9 || 45,0 || 11 || 55,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES050 || 42 || 70,0 || 18 || 30,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES060 || 35 || 52,2 || 32 || 47,8 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES063 || 3 || 21,4 || 3 || 21,4 || 8 || 57,1 
 ES064 || 3 || 75,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 1 || 25,0 
 ES070 || 22 || 34,9 || 41 || 65,1 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES080 || 60 || 66,7 || 30 || 33,3 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES091 || 104 || 99,0 || 1 || 1,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES100 || 33 || 84,6 || 6 || 15,4 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES110 || 53 || 58,9 || 37 || 41,1 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES120 || 1 || 10,0 || 9 || 90,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES122 || 0 || 0,0 || 4 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES123 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 1 || 100,0 
 ES124 || 0 || 0,0 || 4 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES125 || 5 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES126 || 5 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES127 || 3 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES150 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 1 || 100,0 
 ES160 || 0 || 0,0 || 3 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 TOTAL || 533 || 71,3 || 204 || 27,3 || 11 || 1,5 
Table 6.6:
Quantitative status of groundwater bodies
Source: WISE and RBMPs;
information provided by Spain.

3159 SWB are expected to achieve good or
better global status by 2015, with significant increases (>25 %) in 4 RBDs.
Note that most likely a major number of these water bodies will simply be
re-classified from currently “unknown” status. Application of exemptions
according to WFD Article 4(4) affects 30% of SWB with particularly high numbers
in ES040, ES080, ES070 and ES020. Article 4(5) is applied in 8 RBDs affecting
3% of the total number of SWB, with highest percentages in ES020 and ES030.
The forecast for status improvement in 2021
and 2027 is shown in table 6.7 to 6.13. 
 RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Good ecological status 2021 || Good chemical status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Good chemical status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs) 
 Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009-2015 || Art 4(4) || Art 4(5) || Art 4(6) || Art 4(7) 
 No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || % 
 ES010 || 278 || 196 || 70,5 || 232 || 83,5 || 12,9 || 247 || 88,8 || 271 || 97,5 || 275 || 98,9 || 278 || 100 || 15,5 || 1,1 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES014 || 462 || 320 || 69,3 || 397 || 85,9 || 16,7 || 453 || 98,1 || 451 || 97,6 || 462 || 100 || 455 || 98,5 || 12,6 || 1,5 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES017 || 138 || 58 || 42,0 || 96 || 69,6 || 27,5 || 138 || 100 || 138 || 100 || 138 || 100 || 138 || 100 || 30,4 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES018 || 293 || 210 || 71,7 || 253 || 86,3 || 14,7 || 290 || 99,0 || 292 || 99,7 || 293 || 100 || 293 || 100 || 13,7 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,7 
 ES020 || 710 || 161 || 22,7 || 293 || 41,3 || 18,6 || 299 || 42,1 || 710 || 100 || 627 || 88,3 || 710 || 100 || 47,0 || 11,7 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES030 || 324 || 170 || 52,5 || 228 || 70,4 || 17,9 || 262 || 80,9 || 324 || 100 || 296 || 91,4 || 324 || 100 || 21,0 || 5,6 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES040 || 313 || 88 || 28,1 || 88 || 28,1 || 0,0 || 88 || 28,1 || 313 || 100 || 312 || 99,7 || 313 || 100 || 71,6 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES050 || 443 || 252 || 56,9 || 299 || 67,5 || 10,6 || 391 || 88,3 || 441 || 99,5 || 434 || 98,0 || 442 || 99,8 || 30,5 || 2,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES060 || 175 || 91 || 52,0 || 137 || 78,3 || 26,3 || 155 || 88,6 || 175 || 100 || 168 || 96,0 || 175 || 100 || 17,7 || 4,0 || 4,0 || 0,0 
 ES063 || 97 || 35 || 36,1 || 40 || 41,2 || 5,2 || 51 || 52,6 || 78 || 80,4 || 79 || 81,4 || 87 || 89,7 || 40,2 || 1,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES064 || 68 || 25 || 36,8 || 28 || 41,2 || 4,4 || 35 || 51,5 || 41 || 60,3 || 56 || 82,4 || 63 || 92,6 || 41,2 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES070 || 114 || 52 || 45,6 || 58 || 50,9 || 5,3 || 95 || 83,3 || 101 || 88,6 || 114 || 100 || 114 || 100 || 49,1 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES080 || 349 || 149 || 42,7 || 152 || 43,6 || 0,9 || 196 || 56,2 || 332 || 95,1 || 349 || 100 || 349 || 100 || 56,4 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES091 || 821 || 226 || 27,5 || 552 || 67,2 || 39,7 || 553 || 67,4 || 624 || 76,0 || 628 || 76,5 || 636 || 77,5 || 9,0 || 1,5 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES100 || 346 || 76 || 22,0 || 195 || 56,4 || 34,4 || 197 || 56,9 || 318 || 91,9 || 346 || 100 || 346 || 100 || 43,6 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES110 || 172 || 73 || 42,4 || 73 || 42,4 || 0,0 || 73 || 42,4 || 0 || 0,0 || 73 || 42,4 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES120 || 6 || 5 || 83,3 || 5 || 83,3 || 0,0 || 5 || 83,3 || 2 || 33,3 || 6 || 100 || 6 || 100 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES122 || 5 || 5 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 0,0 || 5 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES123 || 6 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES124 || 11 || 10 || 90,9 || 11 || 100 || 9,1 || 11 || 100 || 11 || 100 || 11 || 100 || 11 || 100 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES125 || 5 || 5 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 0,0 || 5 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 5 || 100 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES126 || 4 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || 0,0 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES127 || 3 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 0,0 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES150 || 3 || 2 || 66,7 || 2 || 66,7 || 0,0 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 33,3 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES160 || 4 || 2 || 50,0 || 3 || 75,0 || 25,0 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || 25,0 || 0,0 || 25,0 || 0,0 
 Total || 5150 || 2218 || 43,1 || 3159 || 61,3 || 18,3 || 3563 || 69,2 || 4646 || 90,2 || 4691 || 91,1 || 4764 || 92,5 || 29,6 || 2,7 || 0,2 || 0,0 
Table 6.7: Surface water bodies:
overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027. 
Water bodies with good status in
2009 are those where ecological status is high or good and the chemical status
is good, and exemptions are not considered. Water bodies expected to achieve
good status in 2015 fall into the following categories: ecological status is
high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered;
chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no
ecological exemptions; ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status
is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions; and ecological
status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but
there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions. Note: Water bodies with
unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are
not considered
Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2014).
 RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs) 
 Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4(4) || Art 4(5) || Art 4(6) || Art 4(7) 
 No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || % 
 ES010 || 227 || 170 || 74,9 || 189 || 83,3 || 8,4 || 198 || 87,2 || 225 || 99,1 || 15,9 || 0,9 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES014 || 422 || 211 || 50,0 || 398 || 94,3 || 44,3 || 422 || 100,0 || 422 || 100,0 || 5,7 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES017 || 101 || 53 || 52,5 || 77 || 76,2 || 23,8 || 101 || 100,0 || 101 || 100,0 || 23,8 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES018 || 258 || 194 || 75,2 || 234 || 90,7 || 15,5 || 257 || 99,6 || 258 || 100,0 || 9,3 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES020 || 620 || 133 || 21,5 || 253 || 40,8 || 19,4 || 258 || 41,6 || 556 || 89,7 || 48,9 || 10,3 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES030 || 198 || 121 || 61,1 || 165 || 83,3 || 22,2 || 178 || 89,9 || 190 || 96,0 || 12,6 || 2,5 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES040 || 244 || 69 || 28,3 || 67 || 27,5 || -0,8 || 67 || 27,5 || 243 || 99,6 || 72,1 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES050 || 325 || 192 || 59,1 || 200 || 61,5 || 2,5 || 281 || 86,5 || 316 || 97,2 || 35,7 || 2,8 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES060 || 130 || 71 || 54,6 || 107 || 82,3 || 27,7 || 120 || 92,3 || 127 || 97,7 || 15,4 || 2,3 || 2,3 || 0,0 
 ES063 || 67 || 13 || 19,4 || 29 || 43,3 || 23,9 || 34 || 50,7 || 54 || 80,6 || 37,3 || 1,5 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES064 || 51 || 18 || 35,3 || 19 || 37,3 || 2,0 || 24 || 47,1 || 39 || 76,5 || 39,2 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES070 || 84 || 41 || 48,8 || 44 || 52,4 || 3,6 || 76 || 90,5 || 84 || 100,0 || 47,6 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES080 || 289 || 123 || 42,6 || 126 || 43,6 || 1,0 || 165 || 57,1 || 289 || 100,0 || 56,4 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES091 || 705 || 240 || 34,0 || 551 || 78,2 || 44,1 || 551 || 78,2 || 626 || 88,8 || 10,6 || 1,4 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES100 || 268 || 67 || 25,0 || 173 || 64,6 || 39,6 || 173 || 64,6 || 268 || 100,0 || 35,4 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES110 || 158 || 69 || 43,7 || 69 || 43,7 || 0,0 || 69 || 43,7 || 69 || 43,7 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES120 || 5 || 5 || 100,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES122 || 5 || 5 || 100,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES123 || 5 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES124 || 6 || 6 || 100,0 || 6 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 6 || 100,0 || 6 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES125 || 5 || 5 || 100,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES126 || 4 || 4 || 100,0 || 4 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 4 || 100,0 || 4 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES127 || 3 || 3 || 100,0 || 3 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 3 || 100,0 || 3 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES150 || 2 || 2 || 100,0 || 2 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 2 || 100,0 || 2 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES160 || 2 || 2 || 100,0 || 2 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 2 || 100,0 || 2 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 Total || 4184 || 1817 || 43,4 || 2733 || 65,3 || 21,9 || 3006 || 71,8 || 3899 || 93,2 || 27,9 || 2,2 || 0,1 || 0,0 
Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in
2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027. 
Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2014). 
 RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs) 
 Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4(4) || Art 4(5) || Art 4(6) || Art 4(7) 
 No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || % 
 ES010 || 227 || 39 || 17,2 || 220 || 96,9 || 79,7 || 220 || 96,9 || 227 || 100,0 || 3,1 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES014 || 422 || 356 || 84,4 || 391 || 92,7 || 8,3 || 422 || 100,0 || 422 || 100,0 || 7,3 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES017 || 101 || 62 || 61,4 || 95 || 94,1 || 32,7 || 101 || 100,0 || 101 || 100,0 || 5,9 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES018 || 258 || 62 || 24,0 || 256 || 99,2 || 75,2 || 258 || 100,0 || 258 || 100,0 || 0,8 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES020 || 620 || 599 || 96,6 || 620 || 100,0 || 3,4 || 620 || 100,0 || 620 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES030 || 198 || 192 || 97,0 || 198 || 100,0 || 3,0 || 198 || 100,0 || 198 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES040 || 244 || 215 || 88,1 || 244 || 100,0 || 11,9 || 244 || 100,0 || 244 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES050 || 325 || 282 || 86,8 || 324 || 99,7 || 12,9 || 324 || 99,7 || 324 || 99,7 || 0,0 || 0,3 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES060 || 130 || 116 || 89,2 || 130 || 100,0 || 10,8 || 130 || 100,0 || 130 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES063 || 67 || 30 || 44,8 || 52 || 77,6 || 32,8 || 52 || 77,6 || 59 || 88,1 || 10,4 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES064 || 51 || 22 || 43,1 || 31 || 60,8 || 17,6 || 31 || 60,8 || 46 || 90,2 || 29,4 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES070 || 84 || 77 || 91,7 || 79 || 94,0 || 2,4 || 79 || 94,0 || 84 || 100,0 || 6,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES080 || 289 || 159 || 55,0 || 281 || 97,2 || 42,2 || 281 || 97,2 || 289 || 100,0 || 2,8 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES091 || 705 || 0 || 0,0 || 622 || 88,2 || 88,2 || 622 || 88,2 || 634 || 89,9 || 1,7 || 0,3 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES100 || 268 || 140 || 52,2 || 258 || 96,3 || 44,0 || 258 || 96,3 || 268 || 100,0 || 3,7 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES110 || 158 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES120 || 5 || 2 || 40,0 || 2 || 40,0 || 0,0 || 2 || 40,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES122 || 5 || 5 || 100,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES123 || 5 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES124 || 6 || 6 || 100,0 || 6 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 6 || 100,0 || 6 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES125 || 5 || 5 || 100,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES126 || 4 || 4 || 100,0 || 4 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 4 || 100,0 || 4 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES127 || 3 || 3 || 100,0 || 3 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 3 || 100,0 || 3 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES150 || 2 || 0 || 0,0 || 2 || 100,0 || 100,0 || 2 || 100,0 || 2 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES160 || 2 || 2 || 100,0 || 2 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 2 || 100,0 || 2 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 Total || 4184 || 2378 || 56,8 || 3830 || 91,5 || 34,7 || 3869 || 92,5 || 3936 || 94,1 || 2,5 || 0,1 || 0,0 || 0,0 
Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009
and expected status in 2015, 2012 and 2027
Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2014). As regards the increase of the number of
Natural SWB in good chemical status by 2015, the figures of Table 6.9 might be
misleading, as they include the expected re-classification of the currently
“unknown” status of water bodies (see Table 6.3).
 RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs) 
 Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4(4) || Art 4(5) || Art 4(6) || Art 4(7) 
 No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || % 
 ES010 || 6 || 5 || 83,3 || 5 || 83,3 || 0,0 || 6 || 100,0 || 6 || 100,0 || 16,7 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES014 || 18 || 18 || 100,0 || 18 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 18 || 100,0 || 18 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES017 || 28 || 26 || 92,9 || 27 || 96,4 || 3,6 || 28 || 100,0 || 28 || 100,0 || 3,6 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES018 || 20 || 20 || 100,0 || 20 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 20 || 100,0 || 20 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES020 || 64 || 50 || 78,1 || 48 || 75,0 || -3,1 || 48 || 75,0 || 50 || 78,1 || 3,1 || 21,9 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES030 || 24 || 18 || 75,0 || 18 || 75,0 || 0,0 || 22 || 91,7 || 24 || 100,0 || 25,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES040 || 20 || 7 || 35,0 || 7 || 35,0 || 0,0 || 7 || 35,0 || 20 || 100,0 || 65,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES050 || 60 || 44 || 73,3 || 49 || 81,7 || 8,3 || 55 || 91,7 || 60 || 100,0 || 18,3 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES060 || 67 || 32 || 47,8 || 46 || 68,7 || 20,9 || 55 || 82,1 || 62 || 92,5 || 23,9 || 7,5 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES063 || 14 || 5 || 35,7 || 7 || 50,0 || 14,3 || 7 || 50,0 || 12 || 85,7 || 35,7 || 14,3 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES064 || 4 || 2 || 50,0 || 2 || 50,0 || 0,0 || 4 || 100,0 || 4 || 100,0 || 50,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES070 || 63 || 39 || 61,9 || 37 || 58,7 || -3,2 || 38 || 60,3 || 53 || 84,1 || 25,4 || 15,9 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES080 || 90 || 63 || 70,0 || 63 || 70,0 || 0,0 || 72 || 80,0 || 87 || 96,7 || 26,7 || 3,3 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES091 || 105 || 82 || 78,1 || 82 || 78,1 || 0,0 || 82 || 78,1 || 103 || 98,1 || 20,0 || 1,9 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES100 || 39 || 16 || 41,0 || 18 || 46,2 || 5,1 || 18 || 46,2 || 39 || 100,0 || 53,8 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES110 || 90 || 55 || 61,1 || 64 || 71,1 || 10,0 || 75 || 83,3 || 87 || 96,7 || 25,6 || 3,3 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES120 || 10 || 2 || 20,0 || 2 || 20,0 || 0,0 || 2 || 20,0 || 2 || 20,0 || 0,0 || 80,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES122 || 4 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES123 || 1 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES124 || 4 || 3 || 75,0 || 3 || 75,0 || 0,0 || 4 || 100,0 || 4 || 100,0 || 25,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES125 || 5 || 4 || 80,0 || 4 || 80,0 || 0,0 || 4 || 80,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 20,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES126 || 5 || 3 || 60,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 40,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES127 || 3 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 3 || 100,0 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES150 || 1 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 1 || 100,0 || 1 || 100,0 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES160 || 3 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 3 || 100,0 || 3 || 100,0 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 Total || 748 || 494 || 66,0 || 525 || 70,2 || 4,1 || 574 || 76,7 || 696 || 93,0 || 22,9 || 6,8 || 0,0 || 0,0 
Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and
expected status in 2015, 2012 and 2027
Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2014). 
 RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs) 
 Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4(4) || Art 4(5) || Art 4(6) || Art 4(7) 
 No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || % 
 ES010 || 6 || 6 || 100,0 || 6 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 6 || 100,0 || 6 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES014 || 18 || 18 || 100,0 || 18 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 18 || 100,0 || 18 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES017 || 28 || 28 || 100,0 || 28 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 28 || 100,0 || 28 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES018 || 20 || 20 || 100,0 || 20 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 20 || 100,0 || 20 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 5,0 
 ES020 || 64 || 59 || 92,2 || 59 || 92,2 || 0,0 || 59 || 92,2 || 60 || 93,8 || 1,6 || 6,3 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES030 || 24 || 24 || 100,0 || 24 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 24 || 100,0 || 24 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES040 || 20 || 9 || 45,0 || 9 || 45,0 || 0,0 || 9 || 45,0 || 20 || 100,0 || 55,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES050 || 60 || 42 || 70,0 || 43 || 71,7 || 1,7 || 52 || 86,7 || 60 || 100,0 || 28,3 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES060 || 67 || 35 || 52,2 || 45 || 67,2 || 14,9 || 54 || 80,6 || 67 || 100,0 || 32,8 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES063 || 14 || 3 || 21,4 || 14 || 100,0 || 78,6 || 14 || 100,0 || 14 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES064 || 4 || 3 || 75,0 || 4 || 100,0 || 25,0 || 4 || 100,0 || 4 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES070 || 63 || 22 || 34,9 || 22 || 34,9 || 0,0 || 24 || 38,1 || 63 || 100,0 || 65,1 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES080 || 90 || 60 || 66,7 || 60 || 66,7 || 0,0 || 63 || 70,0 || 90 || 100,0 || 33,3 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES091 || 105 || 104 || 99,0 || 104 || 99,0 || 0,0 || 104 || 99,0 || 105 || 100,0 || 1,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES100 || 39 || 33 || 84,6 || 37 || 94,9 || 10,3 || 37 || 94,9 || 39 || 100,0 || 5,1 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES110 || 90 || 53 || 58,9 || 88 || 97,8 || 38,9 || 89 || 98,9 || 90 || 100,0 || 2,2 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES120 || 10 || 1 || 10,0 || 1 || 10,0 || 0,0 || 10 || 100,0 || 10 || 100,0 || 90,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES122 || 4 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES123 || 1 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES124 || 4 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES125 || 5 || 5 || 100,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES126 || 5 || 5 || 100,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES127 || 3 || 3 || 100,0 || 3 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 3 || 100,0 || 3 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES150 || 1 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 1 || 100,0 || 1 || 100,0 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES160 || 3 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 3 || 100,0 || 3 || 100,0 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 Total || 748 || 533 || 71,3 || 595 || 79,5 || 8,3 || 632 || 84,5 || 735 || 98,3 || 18,7 || 1,6 || 0,0 || 0,1 
Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and
expected status in 2015, 2012 and 2027
Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2014). 
 RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB) 
 Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4(4) || Art 4(5) || Art 4(6) || Art 4(7) 
 No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || % 
 ES010 || 51 || 25 || 49,0 || 43 || 84,3 || 35,3 || 49 || 96,1 || 50 || 98,0 || 13,7 || 2,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES014 || 40 || 11 || 27,5 || 25 || 62,5 || 35,0 || 31 || 77,5 || 40 || 100,0 || 37,5 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES017 || 37 || 7 || 18,9 || 19 || 51,4 || 32,4 || 37 || 100,0 || 37 || 100,0 || 48,6 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES018 || 35 || 15 || 42,9 || 20 || 57,1 || 14,3 || 33 || 94,3 || 35 || 100,0 || 42,9 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 5,7 
 ES020 || 90 || 28 || 31,1 || 40 || 44,4 || 13,3 || 41 || 45,6 || 71 || 78,9 || 34,4 || 21,1 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES030 || 126 || 49 || 38,9 || 63 || 50,0 || 11,1 || 84 || 66,7 || 106 || 84,1 || 34,1 || 10,3 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES040 || 69 || 18 || 26,1 || 21 || 30,4 || 4,3 || 21 || 30,4 || 69 || 100,0 || 69,6 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES050 || 118 || 63 || 53,4 || 99 || 83,9 || 30,5 || 110 || 93,2 || 118 || 100,0 || 16,1 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES060 || 45 || 20 || 44,4 || 30 || 66,7 || 22,2 || 35 || 77,8 || 41 || 91,1 || 24,4 || 8,9 || 8,9 || 0,0 
 ES063 || 30 || 9 || 30,0 || 11 || 36,7 || 6,7 || 17 || 56,7 || 25 || 83,3 || 46,7 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES064 || 17 || 7 || 41,2 || 11 || 64,7 || 23,5 || 11 || 64,7 || 17 || 100,0 || 35,3 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES070 || 30 || 14 || 46,7 || 15 || 50,0 || 3,3 || 19 || 63,3 || 30 || 100,0 || 50,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES080 || 60 || 26 || 43,3 || 26 || 43,3 || 0,0 || 31 || 51,7 || 60 || 100,0 || 56,7 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES091 || 116 || 0 || 0,0 || 2 || 1,7 || 1,7 || 2 || 1,7 || 2 || 1,7 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES100 || 78 || 11 || 14,1 || 24 || 30,8 || 16,7 || 24 || 30,8 || 78 || 100,0 || 69,2 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES110 || 14 || 4 || 28,6 || 4 || 28,6 || 0,0 || 4 || 28,6 || 4 || 28,6 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES120 || 1 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 1 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES122 || 0 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES123 || 1 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES124 || 5 || 4 || 80,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 20,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES125 || 0 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES126 || 0 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES127 || 0 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES150 || 1 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 1 || 100,0 || 1 || 100,0 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES160 || 2 || 0 || 0,0 || 1 || 50,0 || 50,0 || 2 || 100,0 || 2 || 100,0 || 50,0 || 0,0 || 50,0 || 0,0 
 Total || 966 || 311 || 32,2 || 459 || 47,5 || 15,3 || 557 || 57,7 || 792 || 82,0 || 34,4 || 3,8 || 0,5 || 0,2 
Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial
water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in
2015, 2012 and 2027
Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2014). 
 RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB) 
 Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4(4) || Art 4(5) || Art 4(6) || Art 4(7) 
 No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || % 
 ES010 || 51 || 17 || 33,3 || 51 || 100,0 || 66,7 || 51 || 100,0 || 51 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES014 || 40 || 26 || 65,0 || 29 || 72,5 || 7,5 || 29 || 72,5 || 33 || 82,5 || 10,0 || 17,5 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES017 || 37 || 19 || 51,4 || 30 || 81,1 || 29,7 || 37 || 100,0 || 37 || 100,0 || 18,9 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES018 || 35 || 19 || 54,3 || 33 || 94,3 || 40,0 || 34 || 97,1 || 35 || 100,0 || 5,7 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES020 || 90 || 87 || 96,7 || 90 || 100,0 || 3,3 || 90 || 100,0 || 90 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES030 || 126 || 121 || 96,0 || 126 || 100,0 || 4,0 || 126 || 100,0 || 126 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES040 || 69 || 53 || 76,8 || 69 || 100,0 || 23,2 || 69 || 100,0 || 69 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES050 || 118 || 101 || 85,6 || 117 || 99,2 || 13,6 || 117 || 99,2 || 118 || 100,0 || 0,8 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES060 || 45 || 40 || 88,9 || 45 || 100,0 || 11,1 || 45 || 100,0 || 45 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES063 || 30 || 20 || 66,7 || 26 || 86,7 || 20,0 || 26 || 86,7 || 28 || 93,3 || 6,7 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES064 || 17 || 6 || 35,3 || 10 || 58,8 || 23,5 || 10 || 58,8 || 17 || 100,0 || 41,2 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES070 || 30 || 20 || 66,7 || 22 || 73,3 || 6,7 || 22 || 73,3 || 30 || 100,0 || 26,7 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES080 || 60 || 22 || 36,7 || 51 || 85,0 || 48,3 || 51 || 85,0 || 60 || 100,0 || 15,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES091 || 116 || 0 || 0,0 || 2 || 1,7 || 1,7 || 2 || 1,7 || 2 || 1,7 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES100 || 78 || 37 || 47,4 || 60 || 76,9 || 29,5 || 60 || 76,9 || 78 || 100,0 || 23,1 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES110 || 14 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES120 || 1 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 1 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES122 || 0 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES123 || 1 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES124 || 5 || 4 || 80,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 20,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 5 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES125 || 0 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES126 || 0 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES127 || 0 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES150 || 1 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 1 || 100,0 || 1 || 100,0 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 ES160 || 2 || 0 || 0,0 || 2 || 100,0 || 100,0 || 2 || 100,0 || 2 || 100,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 
 Total || 966 || 592 || 61,3 || 768 || 79,5 || 18,2 || 777 || 80,4 || 828 || 85,7 || 6,1 || 0,7 || 0,0 || 0,0 
Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies:
chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2012 and 2027. 
Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2014). 
Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water
bodies 2009 
Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water
bodies 2015
   ||   ||   || Good or better 
   ||   ||   || Less than Good or Unknown 
   ||   ||   || River Basin Districts 
   ||   ||   || Countries outside EU 
Source: WISE, RBMPs, Eurostat (country borders);
information provided by Spain.  
Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial
and heavily modified water bodies 2009
Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily
modified water bodies 2015
   ||   ||   || Good or better 
   ||   ||   || Less than Good or Unknown 
   ||   ||   || River Basin Districts 
   ||   ||   || Countries outside EU 
Source: WISE, RBMPs, Eurostat (country borders); information provided by Spain.
Figure
6.5: Map of chemical
status of natural surface water bodies 2009 
Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water
bodies 2015
   ||   ||   || Good 
   ||   ||   || Failing to achieve good or Unknown 
   ||   ||   || River Basin Districts 
   ||   ||   || Countries outside EU 
Source: WISE, RBMPs, Eurostat (country borders); information provided by Spain.
Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily
modified water bodies 2009 
Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily
modified water bodies 2015
   ||   ||   || Good 
   ||   ||   || Failing to achieve good or Unknown 
   ||   ||   || River Basin Districts 
   ||   ||   || Countries outside EU 
Source: WISE,
RBMPs, Eurostat (country borders); information provided by Spain.
Figure
6.9: Map of chemical
status of groundwater bodies 2009 
Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015
   ||   ||   || Good 
   ||   ||   || Less than Good or Unknown 
   ||   ||   || River Basin Districts 
   ||   ||   || Countries outside EU 
Source: WISE,
RBMPs, Eurostat (country borders); information provided by Spain.
Figure
6.11: Map of quantitative
status of groundwater bodies 2009
Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015
   ||   ||   || Good 
   ||   ||   || Less than Good or Unknown 
   ||   ||   || River Basin Districts 
   ||   ||   || Countries outside EU 
Source: WISE,
RBMPs, Eurostat (country borders); information provided by Spain.

7          
ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL STATUS OF SURFACE
WATERS

The IPH (5.1.2) establishes a common
baseline for the status assessment which has been implemented, in general, in
all RBDs[20].
The assessment framework for ecological status is however incomplete as the IPH
does not include boundary values for all quality elements, water categories and
types. Moreover, the way the boundaries are set is not binding for RBDs. The
IPH states that the boundaries included have to be used “in general” and RBDs
can depart from them if justified in the RBMP. In addition, the IPH exempt the
application of the boundaries for biological quality elements in case of
prolonged drought, which is not in line with the WFD and ignores the mechanisms
that the WFD includes to handle such exceptional meteorological situations
(Article 4(6)). Finally, the values can be different depending on the sampling
protocol. All these flexibilities built in the IPH lead to lack of transparency
and clarity on what is actually the assessment framework applied by each RBD[21].
In principle the normative part of the
RBMPs include the boundaries for good status for the types in each RBD. In some
cases the use of the boundaries are qualified in a way that is not in line with
WFD, such as in ES070 (Article 20.2: "the reference conditions will not be
considered in the assessment of good status if failure is due only to natural
conditions"; one-out all-out is not applied to the IPS diatom index). In ES030 Tajo and ES040 Guadiana some boundaries in the normative
part of the RBMP have been significantly changed to less protective values than
the IPH values (e.g. for types 5 and 8). On the other hand ES091 Ebro and ES070
Segura use stricter values for some types (e.g. type 12) than ES080 Jucar and
ES030 Tajo. The good-moderate boundary values for ES100 are also different for
the same types.
It has not been possible to find a coherent
justification for such discrepancies. The values used should have reflected the
legally binding boundaries of the 2008 Commission Decision on Intercalibration[22]. The translation of
the intercalibration results into the Spanish classification scheme is unclear.
The purpose of the typology is to group water bodies with the same abiotic
characteristics and therefore sharing reference conditions and boundaries. The
discrepancies appear to indicate that either typology is not adequate for the
purpose (it should be tested against biological data to ensure consistency) or
the boundaries used by the RBDs are not consistent. The reference conditions
seem to vary as well between RBDs for the same types. 
In general, all RBMPs include
(standardised) general statements on the legal and theoretical framework for
the classification of ecological status; but not necessarily information on the
practical steps undertaken (e.g. the non-consideration of certain BQEs, like
fish) or detailed information on classification per water body. 

7.1        
Assessment methods

The IPH (5.1.2 and Annex III) shows that
there are some important gaps in the classification system:
-         
For RW there is no classification system for
macrophytes (QE1-2-3) and fish (QE1-4); phytoplankton (QE1-1) has been considered
as not relevant for Spanish river types, although the technical justification
provided has not been considered sufficient to discard this quality element
from all Spanish rivers[23];
-         
For LW only phytoplankton (QE1-1) is developed
for reservoirs; fish (QE1-4) has been considered as not relevant for Spanish
lakes, although the technical justification provided has not been considered
sufficient to discard this quality element23. 
-         
For TW only benthic fauna is developed (QE1-3,
M-AMBI) and phytoplankton (QE1-1) is partly developed (chlorophyll a);
-         
For CW the system is fully developed.
Of the above-mentioned, it is particularly
worrying that QE1-4 (fish) has not been developed, as this BQE is particularly
relevant for assessing many of the pressures, in particular water abstraction,
hydrological alteration, morphological changes and pollution. 
   || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal 
 Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macrophytes || Phytobenthos || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Fish || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological || Phytoplankton || Macroalgae || Angiosperms || Benthic invertebrates || Physico-Chemical || Hydromorphological 
 ES010 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES014 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES017 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES018 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES020 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES030 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - 
 ES040 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES050 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES060 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES063 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES064 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES070 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES080 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES091 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES100 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES110 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES120 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES122 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES123 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES124 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES125 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES126 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES127 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES150 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES160 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
Table 7.1.1 Availability of biological assessment methods as reflected in the
RBMPs. Notes: based on the information presented
in the RBMPs and reported in WISE. Green means that a method is available but
it does not necessarily mean that it is WFD compliant. If a method is presented
but not used the cell is marked in yellow. Spain provided in 2014 updated
information showing the progress in the development of some of the methods but
it is not reflected here.
   || Assessment methods developed || 
   || Assessment methods partially developed or under development || 
   || Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear or inconsistent information provided 
 - ||   || Water category not relevant || 
Source: RBMPs and WISE.
There is no homogeneous methodology for
grouping of water bodies and the extrapolation of status for non-monitored
water bodies. It is not clear how this is done.
The assessment methodology for supporting
physico-chemical quality elements has been developed by the IPH Chapter 5.1.2,
but still requires further work for being type-specific  (including standards
for reservoirs, such as on phosphorous) and consistent with the biological
boundaries. 
The following BQEs have been considered sensitive to the indicated
impacts in the RBMPs:
   || RW || LW || TW || CW 
 Nutrient enrichment || 1-1 (ES014, ES017, ES018, ES020, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES100) 1-2 (ES014, ES017, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES091, ES100) 1-3 (ES014, ES017, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES091, ES100) 1-4 (ES014, ES017, ES020, ES040, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES100) 1-5 (ES014) || 1-1 (ES017,  ES030, ES060, ES070, ES080) 1-2 (ES070) 1-3 (ES060) 1-4 (ES017) 1-5 (ES100) || 1-1 (ES014, ES060,  ES063, ES064, ES070) 1-2 (ES014) 1-3 (ES060, ES064, ES070) 1-4 (ES014) 1-5 (ES100) || 1-1 (ES014, ES017, ES060, ES070, ES100) 1-2 (ES014, ES017, ES070) 1-3 (ES017, ES060, ES070) 
 Organic enrichment || 1-1 (ES014, ES017, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES100) 1-2 (ES014, ES017, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES091, ES100) 1-3 (ES014, ES017, ES018,  ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES091, ES100) 1-4 (ES014, ES017, ES040, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES100) 1-5 (ES014, ES018) || 1-1 (ES018, ES030, ES070) 1-2 (ES070) || 1-1 (ES014, ES018, ES063, ES064, ES070) 1-2 (ES014, ES018) 1-3 (ES018, ES064, ES070) 1-4 (ES014, ES018) || 1-1 (ES014, ES017, ES018, ES070, ES100) 1-2 (ES014, ES017, ES018, ES070) 1-3 (ES017, ES018, ES070) 
 Contamination by priority substances || 1-1 (ES014, ES017, ES030, ES050, ES060, ES070) 1-2 (ES014, ES017, ES020, ES030, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES091, ES100) 1-3 (ES014, ES017, ES018, ES020, ES030, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES091, ES100) 1-4 (ES014, ES017, ES020, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES100) 1-5 (ES014, ES017) || 1-1 (ES070) 1-2 (ES070) || 1-1 (ES014, ES017, ES018, ES064, ES070) 1-2 (ES014, ES017, ES018) 1-3 (ES017, ES018, ES064, ES070) 1-4 (ES014, ES017, ES018) || 1-1 (ES014, ES064, ES070) 1-2 (ES014, ES070) 1-3 (ES064, ES070) 
 Contaminated sediments || 1-1 (ES070) 1-2 (ES070) 1-3 (ES070) 1-4 (ES070)   || 1-3 (ES080) || 1-1 (ES014, ES017) 1-2 (ES014, ES017) 1-3 (ES017) 1-4 (ES014, ES017) || 1-1 (ES014, ES070) 1-2 (ES014, ES070) 1-3 (ES070)   
 Acidification || 1-2 (ES080) 1-3 (ES014, ES080) 1-4 (ES080) 1-5 (ES014) ||   ||   ||   
 Saline intrusion || 1-1 (ES060) 1-2 (ES060, ES070) 1-3 (ES060, ES070) 1-4 (ES060) || 1-2 (ES070)   || 1-3 (ES070)   || 1-2 (ES070) 1-3 (ES070)   
 Elevated temperatures || 1-1 (ES080) 1-3 (ES080) 1-4 (ES080) || 1-1 (ES080)   ||   ||   
 Altered habitats[24] || 1-1 (ES014, ES017, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080) 1-2 (ES014, ES017, ES020, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES100) 1-3 (ES014, ES017, ES018, ES020, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES100) 1-4 (ES014, ES017, ES020, ES040, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES100) 1-5 (ES014, ES017, ES070, ES080) || 1-1 (ES018, ES020, ES040, ES060, ES070, ES080) 1-2 (ES020, ES070) 1-3 (ES020, ES040, ES060) 1-4 (ES018, ES020, ES040) 1-5 (ES100) || 1-1 (ES014, ES017, ES040) 1-2 (ES014, ES017, ES040) 1-3 (ES017, ES040) 1-4 (ES014, ES017, ES040) 1-5 (ES100) || 1-1 (ES014, ES070, ES100) 1-2 (ES014, ES070) 1-3 (ES070) 
 Other impacts || 1-1 (ES030, ES050, ES060, ES070) 1-2 (ES014, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES091, ES100) 1-3 (ES014, ES017, ES018, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES091, ES100) 1-4 (ES014, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES100) 1-5 (ES014, ES017, ES070) || 1-1 (ES018, ES030,  ES060, ES070) 1-2 (ES070) 1-3 (ES060) || 1-1 (ES050) 1-3 (ES050) || 1-1 (ES070, ES100) 1-2 (ES070) 1-3 (ES070)   
Table 7.1.2: Summary of the BQEs used in operational
monitoring in relation to the significant pressures and main impacts on water
bodies in RBDs. Information provided by Spain (2014).
The linkages established comparing the
different RBMPs are varied. It appears that there is no common understanding on
how the different quality elements respond to impacts. 

7.2        
Results

The results show the following distribution
of status (see Table 6.8): 1817 natural SWB (43%) are considered in good or
better status in 2009; with better than average results in some RBDs (ES010,
ES014, ES017, ES018, ES050 and ES060) and even better results in a couple of
RBDs (75%: ES010 y ES018). Low percentages of SWB in good or better status
(≤25%) are found in ES063, ES020 and ES100.
In general, there is a lack of information
about the uncertainties in classification (in particular in the RBMPs, where no
RBD raises uncertainty issues) and disparity regarding the confidence on the
classification results (reported under WISE). One RBD (ES040) reports 100%
classifications as high confidence, despite the fact that its RBMP mentions how
lack of data on a specific QE or lack of data on all QE in a specific water
body have been handled, e.g. referring to an expert judgment meeting in May
2009, assessing available data, developing trend analyses and thus proposing a
classification. ES020 distributes confidence 50:50 between high and low,
without providing further information on uncertainties. ES018 classifies almost
all water bodies with medium confidence. Other RBDs do not provide any
information on confidence.
Though official co-ordination mechanisms
are in place and technical co-operation is taking place (explicitly described
in the RBMP ES040, and implicitly for ES010, ES020, and ES030), transboundary
co-ordination can be improved for classification of status, e.g. the Bidasoa
river estuary shared between Spain and France reflects how neighbouring water
bodies (e.g. ES111T012010 and French Estuarie Bidasoa) are classified with
different results (in Spanish plan it fails due to biological status and in
French plan due to chemical), leading to different measures.

8          
DESIGNATION OF HMWB AND SETTING OF GOOD
ECOLOGICAL POTENTIAL (GEP)


8.1        
Designation of HMWB

Designation of heavily modified water
bodies (HMWB) has generally followed a complete three stepwise approach as
established in the national regulation (IPH), based on CIS Guidance Document nº
4. However, some exceptions and gaps should be noted:
-         
One RBMP (ES110) only provides brief overview
information on the results of the final designation, without adding any
complementary information on the methodology, and the stepwise assessment.
-         
In one RBMP (ES014), HMWBs have been established
after verification of the preliminary identification (step 2 of 3), and step 3
is still missing. In fact, the RBMP states that "the final designation
will be completed when the programme of measures is fully developed". 
-         
In most RBMPs, criteria (or thresholds) for
defining significant adverse effects on the use are not clearly stated (though
adverse effects are listed; ES080 recognises in one case lack of data to
support this test) and expert judgment has been extensively used. ES091 does
not provide the results of the assessment of significant adverse effects for
transitional water bodies. 
-         
Similarly, the identification of “better
environmental options” and analysis criteria for this step are not always
clear, may be absent (e.g. ES100, ES110), or too generic and poorly developed
(most of the RBMPs include only a few lines of generic statements).
Some RBMPs (e.g. ES040) classify water
bodies to be affected by dams currently under construction (Alcollarín,
Búrdalo) as HMWBs, instead of  justifying a derogation according to WFD Article
4(7).

8.2        
Methodology for Good Ecological Potential (GEP)

In most RBMPs, good ecological potential
(GEP) has been defined following a general methodology established at national
level in the IPH which, in turn, follows the reference-based approach suggested
by the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance document number 4. The IPH sets
some quality elements, indicators and thresholds for two types of HMWBs:
-         
Reservoirs: phytoplankton boundaries are given
(biomass and composition) for different types of monomictic reservoirs 
-         
Coastal and transitional water bodies affected
by ports: boundary values are given for some types of water bodies for
phytoplankton (biomass only), pollution by nutrients and organic matter (same
values for all types), turbidity, dissolved oxygen and total hydrocarbons.
The indicators chosen are more linked to
water quality than sensitive to the physical modification of the water bodies.
Therefore, it is unclear how this scheme can be used to set objectives and
drive improvements to ecological condition in HMWBs beyond water quality
considerations. From the available information it is not possible to understand
the setting of reference values nor to assess how mitigation measures to
achieve GEP have been considered. 
Some RBMPs establish additional boundaries
for HMWBs. For example ES070 includes boundary values
for biological quality elements in channelled rivers (although without
differentiating typologies). ES080 establishes different values for diatoms IPS
index in heavily modified rivers. The rationale of this is again questionable
as the IPS index is mainly responding to water quality alterations, and not to
physical modification. 
More work has apparently been developed for
reservoirs that for other categories of HMWBs. In conclusion, a full
methodology is still missing.

8.3        
Results HMWB and AWB

Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial
water bodies by River Basin District
   ||   ||   || 0 – 5 % 
   ||   ||   || 5 – 20 % 
   ||   ||   || 20 – 40 % 
   ||   ||   || 40 – 60% 
   ||   ||   || 60 – 100 % 
   ||   ||   || No data reported 
   ||   ||   || River Basin Districts 
   ||   ||   || Countries outside EU 
Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders).
The overall number of HMWBs is 908. The
total number of river HMWBs is 737, 17% of all RWBs (though still significantly
below the overall number of large dams in Spain); and the overall number of
artificial water bodies (AWBs) is 58 (1% of total SWB). HMWB are relatively
important in TW (33%), and several RBDs classify all their TWB as HMWB. AWB
refer mainly to the LW category, considering e.g. small reservoirs or ponds
that are not connected to rivers. 
   || RBD || Water category 
 Rivers || Lakes || Transitional water || Coastal water || All water bodies 
 No || % of category || No || % of category || No || % of category || No || % of category || No || % 
 HMWB || ES010 || 49 || 18,1 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 49 || 17,6 
 ES014 || 33 || 8,0 || - || - || 0 || 0,0 || 7 || 24,1 || 40 || 8,7 
 ES017 || 23 || 21,1 || 8 || 72,7 || 4 || 28,6 || 0 || 0,0 || 35 || 25,4 
 ES018 || 27 || 10,8 || 0 || 0,0 || 5 || 23,8 || 1 || 6,7 || 33 || 11,3 
 ES020 || 80 || 11,5 || 2 || 14,3 || - || - || - || - || 82 || 11,5 
 ES030 || 116 || 37,7 || 0 || 0,0 || - || - || - || - || 116 || 35,8 
 ES040 || 54 || 21,7 || 1 || 1,7 || 1 || 25,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 56 || 17,9 
 ES050 || 102 || 26,0 || 1 || 2,9 || 13 || 100,0 || 0 || 0,0 || 116 || 26,2 
 ES060 || 31 || 23,3 || 0 || 0,0 || 4 || 57,1 || 8 || 29,6 || 43 || 24,6 
 ES063 || 14 || 21,5 || 0 || 0,0 || 10 || 100,0 || 4 || 33,3 || 28 || 28,9 
 ES064 || 8 || 16,7 || 0 || 0,0 || 6 || 54,5 || 2 || 50,0 || 16 || 23,5 
 ES070 || 21 || 23,3 || 2 || 33,3 || 1 || 100,0 || 3 || 17,6 || 27 || 23,7 
 ES080 || 43 || 14,1 || 3 || 15,8 || 4 || 100,0 || 6 || 27,3 || 56 || 16,0 
 ES091 || 63 || 9,0 || 43 || 39,1 || 3 || 37,5 || 0 || 0,0 || 109 || 13,3 
 ES100 || 69 || 26,4 || 1 || 3,7 || 3 || 12,0 || 5 || 15,2 || 78 || 22,5 
 ES110 || 3 || 3,2 || - || - || 6 || 16,7 || 5 || 11,9 || 14 || 8,1 
 ES120 || - || - || - || - || - || - || 1 || 16,7 || 1 || 16,7 
 ES122 || - || - || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES123 || - || - || - || - || - || - || 1 || 16,7 || 1 || 16,7 
 ES124 || - || - || - || - || - || - || 5 || 45,5 || 5 || 45,5 
 ES125 || - || - || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES126 || - || - || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES127 || - || - || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 
 ES150 || - || - || - || - || - || - || 1 || 33,3 || 1 || 33,3 
 ES160 || 1 || 100,0 || - || - || - || - || 1 || 33,3 || 2 || 50,0 
 Total || 737 || 16,8 || 61 || 18,5 || 60 || 33,3 || 50 || 19,2 || 908 || 17,6 
 AWB || ES010 || 0 || 0,0 || 2 || 66,7 || - || - || - || - || 2 || 0,7 
 ES014 || 0 || 0,0 || - || - || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0,0 
 ES017 || 0 || 0,0 || 2 || 18,2 || - || - || - || - || 2 || 1,4 
 ES018 || 0 || 0,0 || 2 || 28,6 || - || - || - || - || 2 || 0,7 
 ES020 || 8 || 1,1 || 0 || 0,0 || - || - || - || - || 8 || 1,1 
 ES030 || 1 || 0,3 || 9 || 56,3 || - || - || - || - || 10 || 3,1 
 ES040 || 0 || 0,0 || 13 || 22,4 || - || - || - || - || 13 || 4,2 
 ES050 || 0 || 0,0 || 2 || 5,7 || - || - || - || - || 2 || 0,5 
 ES060 || 1 || 0,8 || 1 || 12,5 || - || - || - || - || 2 || 1,1 
 ES063 || 0 || 0,0 || 2 || 20,0 || - || - || - || - || 2 || 2,1 
 ES064 || 1 || 2,1 || 0 || 0,0 || - || - || - || - || 1 || 1,5 
 ES070 || 0 || 0,0 || 3 || 50,0 || - || - || - || - || 3 || 2,6 
 ES080 || 4 || 1,3 || 0 || 0,0 || - || - || - || - || 4 || 1,1 
 ES091 || 2 || 0,3 || 5 || 4,5 || - || - || - || - || 7 || 0,9 
 ES100 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 || 0,0 || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0,0 
 ES110 || 0 || 0,0 || - || - || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0,0 
 ES120 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0,0 
 ES122 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0,0 
 ES123 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0,0 
 ES124 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0,0 
 ES125 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0,0 
 ES126 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0,0 
 ES127 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0,0 
 ES150 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0,0 
 ES160 || 0 || 0,0 || - || - || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0,0 
 Total || 17 || 0,4 || 41 || 12,5 || - || - || - || - || 58 || 1,1 
Table 8.1.1: Number and percentage of HMWBs and AWBs
Source: WISE; information provided by Spain. 

9          
ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICAL STATUS OF SURFACE WATER 

Chemical status (Tables 6.3 and 6.9;
Figures 6.5 and 6.7) is good in the majority of SWB for most Spanish RBDs. Some
RBDs report large numbers of SWBs in “unknown” status, which are significant
(>100 water bodies) for ES010, ES018, ES080, ES091, ES100 and ES110; and the
proportions are also high (>30 %) for ES063, ES123, and ES150. According to
additional information provided by Spain (2014), in ES010 and ES018 water
bodies which were identified as not subject to direct discharges from priority
substances were not monitored and were classified as “unknown” instead of
“good”. This seems to ignore important potential sources of pollution such as
atmospheric deposition or urban waste water discharges. It is recognised that
in ES060, ES080, ES100 and ES110 the monitoring network might be insufficient.
No explanation has been provided for ES091, which alone sums almost 40% of all
SWBs with “unknown” chemical status, including rivers, and all transitional and
coastal water bodies. At least for these RBDs, the assessment is incomplete,
which has a direct impact on the subsequent planning steps, and is not
developed according to the requirements of the WFD that requests a fully
compliant monitoring and classification system in place by 2006.

9.1        
Methodology

The methodology for chemical assessment is
reflected in the transposition of the EQS Directive (Royal Decree 60/2011), as
well as in the RPH (Annex IV) and IPH (Chapter 5.1.2.2).

9.2        
Substances causing exceedances

The substances most commonly causing
exceedance of environmental quality standards are heavy metals, present mainly
in ES014 (in this RBD industrial pollutants are also relevant), ES017, ES020,
ES064 and ES100, where mining and industrial activities are quite prevalent.
Pesticides cause exceedances mainly in ES050, ES080 and ES100, which are
characterised by intensive agriculture and industry. Pesticides, as substances causing
exceedances have not been reported significantly for other basins with
intensive agriculture (e.g. ES040, ES060, ES063 and ES064). Table 9.2.1
includes a list of pollutants causing exceedance in the RBDs.
Lead and mercury are the substances found
in the largest number of WBs (47 and 49 respectively), followed by nickel and
various pesticides.
 Substance causing exceedance || Exceedances per RBD 
 ES010 || ES014 || ES017 || ES018 || ES020 || ES030 || ES040 || ES050 || ES060 || ES063 || ES064 || ES070 || ES080 || ES091 || ES100 || ES110 || ES120 || ES122 || ES123 || ES124 || ES125 || ES126 || ES127 || ES150 || Sum 
 1. Heavy metals -  aggregated ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 2 || 18 || 3 ||   ||   || 4 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 27 
 1.1 Cadmium || 2 || 2 || 5 ||   || 1 ||   ||   || 1 ||   || 1 || 14 || 1 || 2 ||   || 2 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 31 
 1.2 Lead ||   || 24 || 5 || 1 || 3 ||   ||   || 1 ||   ||   || 2 || 5 || 2 || 2 || 2 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 47 
 1.3 Mercury ||   || 10 || 3 || 1 || 19 ||   ||   || 3 ||   || 2 || 4 || 2 || 1 || 4 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 49 
 1.4 Nickel || 4 ||   || 3 ||   ||   || 3 ||   ||   ||   || 1 || 4 || 4 || 4 || 1 || 18 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 42 
 2 Pesticides – aggregated || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 4 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 5 
 2.1 Alachlor ||   ||   ||   || 1 ||   ||   || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 3 
 2.2. Atrazina ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 
 2.3 Chlorpyriphos ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 ||   ||   || 2 || 1 || 3 ||   ||   || 12 || 4 || 4 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 27 
 2.4 Chlorvenfinphos ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 2 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 3 
 2.5 Diuron || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 14 ||   ||   || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 16 
 2.6 Endosulfan ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 ||   || 3 ||   ||   ||   || 2 ||   || 4 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 10 
 2.7 Isoproturon ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 
 2.8 Hexachlorocyclohexane || 2 ||   || 2 ||   ||   || 5 ||   ||   || 1 ||   ||   || 2 || 2 || 2 || 13 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 29 
 2.9 Pentachlorobenzene ||   ||   || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 2 
 2.10 Simazine ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 2 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 4 
 3 Industrial Pollutants - aggregated ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 3 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 4 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 7 
 3.1 Anthracene ||   || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 
 3.7 Dichloromethane ||   ||   ||   || 2 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 2 
 3.10 Nonylphenol ||   || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 2 ||   ||   ||   || 37 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 40 
 3.11 Octylphenol ||   || 2 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 2 ||   || 2 ||   || 6 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 12 
 3.12. Tetracloroetileno ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 2 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 2 
 3.14. Triclorometano ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 ||   || 2 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 3 
 4 Other pollutants - aggregated ||   || 6 ||   ||   ||   || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 2 ||   ||   || 4 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 || 14 
 4.1 Aldrin || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 
 4.6 para-para-DDT ||   ||   || 1 ||   ||   || 2 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 4 
 4.7 Fluoranthene ||   || 1 ||   || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 2 
 4.8. Hexaclorobenzeno ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 2 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 2 
 4.12 Benzo(a)pyrene ||   || 3 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 3 
 4.13 Benzo(b)fluoranthene ||   || 5 ||   || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 6 
 4.14 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ||   || 5 ||   || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 6 
 4.15 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ||   || 7 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 7 
 4.16 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ||   || 7 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 8 
 Totals || 11 || 74 || 20 || 8 || 25 || 16 || 2 || 25 || 2 || 10 || 47 || 21 || 29 || 22 || 104 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 417 
Table 9.2.1: Substances responsible for exceedances
Source: Information provided by Spain (2014)
Although data have been extracted from
WISE, it is difficult to track substances in the reported information, and this
is particularly true for the RBMPs, where lists of legislative thresholds are
provided but little or no information on the pollutants present in the RBD, or
those causing poor chemical status (e.g. ES018). 
In general there are large differences in
the number of exceedances in different RBDs that appear related to different
intensities of monitoring rather than reflecting differences in the occurrence
of substances. 

9.3        
Mixing zones

Only in ES100 mixing zones are used. This
RBMP states that mixing zones have been considered for rivers and coastal waters.
In coastal waters the zones have a radius of 50 metres around the outflow of
the submarine emissary. In rivers the mixing zones comprise a stretch of river
from the wastewater discharge point to 50 metres downstream.

10      
ASSESSMENT OF GROUNDWATER STATUS

Approximately 57% of the 748 Spanish GWBs
are in good status, and the rest in poor or unknown status (11 for quantitative
status, according to Table 6.6; and 8 for chemical status, according to table
6.5).
 Status || Poor chemical status || Poor quantitative status || Good status || Total 
 ES010 || 1 || 0 || 5 || 6 
 ES014 || 0 || 0 || 18 || 18 
 ES017 || 2 || 0 || 26 || 28 
 ES018 || 0 || 0 || 20 || 20 
 ES020 || 14 || 5 || 48 || 64 
 ES030 || 6 || 0 || 18 || 24 
 ES040 || 13 || 11 || 5 || 20 
 ES050 || 16 || 18 || 33 || 60 
 ES060 || 35 || 32 || 27 || 67 
 ES063 || 7 || 3 || 5 || 14 
 ES064 || 2 || 0 || 2 || 4 
 ES070 || 24 || 41 || 16 || 63 
 ES080 || 27 || 30 || 50 || 90 
 ES091 || 23 || 1 || 82 || 105 
 ES100 || 23 || 6 || 14 || 39 
 ES110 || 35 || 37 || 47 || 90 
 ES120 || 8 || 9 || 0 || 10 
 ES122 || 4 || 4 || 0 || 4 
 ES123 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 
 ES124 || 1 || 4 || 0 || 4 
 ES125 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 5 
 ES126 || 2 || 0 || 3 || 5 
 ES127 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 
 ES150 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 
 ES160 || 3 || 3 || 0 || 3 
 Total || 246 || 204 || 423 || 748 
Table 10.1: Number of groundwater bodies and their status
Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by
Spain (2014). 

10.1    
Quantitative status

The quantitative status of GWBs has been
defined for all except 11 GWBs in Spain, and “unknown” status has only been
assigned to GWBs in ES063, ES064, ES123 and ES150. In particular in ES063 and
ES064 (57 and 25% unknown respectively), the current assessment is incomplete,
and hampers the further planning process. This is particularly worrisome
bearing in mind the high intensity of water use in both RBDs.
The majority of GWBs are reported to be in
good status in 2009 (533 GWBs, corresponding to 71%) (Tables 6.6 and 6.11).
Several RBDs in Northern Spain have reported all GWBs to be in good
quantitative status. In terms of absolute numbers, ES060, ES080 and ES110 have
reported the largest numbers of GWBs in poor status; and additionally ES040,
ES120, ES124 and ES160 show high percentages (>50%).

10.2    
Chemical status

Almost all GWB have been classified and
only 8 GWBs remain “unknown” chemical status. Only two RBDs have all their GWB
in good chemical status (ES014, ES018), but overall poor status is present in a
large number of GWBs, with some RBDs showing significant percentages of water
bodies in poor chemical status (>50%). The RBDs with the largest number
(> 20) of GWB in poor status are ES060, ES070, ES080, ES091, ES100, and
ES110, thus covering the whole Mediterranean area.

10.3    
Protected Areas

Regarding the status of Protected Areas
(PAs), information has mainly been provided for Drinking Water Protected Areas
(DWPAs). The status of the vast majority of these PAs is unknown, with no
classification provided for any PA in most of the RBMPs, including some of the
RBDs where DWPAs are particularly relevant in number. Only a few RBDs provide a
more detailed analysis including data on DWPAs in good status or failing to
achieve good status. 
There are striking differences in total
number of DWPAs across the different RBDs.
 RBD || Good || Failing to achieve good || Unknown 
 ES010 || 0 || 0 || 531 
 ES014 || 0 || 0 || 1954 
 ES017 || 12 || 0 || 14 
 ES018 || 20 || 0 || 0 
 ES020 || 2508 || 794 || 0 
 ES030 || 0 || 0 || 141 
 ES040 || 99 || 27 || 268 
 ES050 || 0 || 0 || 809 
 ES060 || 0 || 0 || 714 
 ES063 || 0 || 0 || 78 
 ES064 || 0 || 0 || 28 
 ES070 || 91 || 12 || 0 
 ES080 || 1961 || 0 || 0 
 ES091 || 0 || 0 || 99 
 ES100 || 0 || 0 || 1108 
 ES110 || 26 || 54 || 0 
 ES120 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES122 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES123 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES124 ||   ||   ||   
 ES125 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES126 || 0 || 0 || 5 
 ES127 || 0 || 3 || 0 
 ES150 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES160 || 0 || 0 || 20 
 Total || 4717 || 890 || 5769 
Table 10.3.1: Status of groundwater
Drinking Water Protected Areas
Source: information provided by Spain (2014). No data available for
ES124. 
Beyond drinking
water aspects, Protected Areas have only been listed for the RBDs and
represented with a map in the RBMP. It is unclear if Protected Areas have been
considered further in the rest of the planning steps of the RBMP. 

11       OBJECTIVES AND EXEMPTIONS


11.1    
Introduction

Spain has set an objective to achieve good
or better status by 2015 in 3159 surface water bodies (61%), with a 18%
increase compared with the 2009 figures (Table 6.7).
Relatively more ambitious RBDs are ES017
and ES060 that plan to increase the number of SWBs in good status in 2015 by
more than 25%. The high increase figures for ES091 (+39%) and ES100 (+34%) are
most likely influenced by the high number of water bodies in unknown status in
2009.
According to the reported data, the least
ambitious RBD in terms of the number of SWBs in good or better status in 2015
are ES040 (28%), and in relative terms (comparing the increase) ES040 (with 0 %
increase for 2015 and 2021) and ES110, followed closely by ES060, ES063, ES064
and ES080. This relatively small improvement is a matter of concern, in particular
bearing in mind the significant financial resources planned to be invested
during the first planning cycle; reflecting apparently a low
cost-effectiveness.
As regards
natural SWBs (Table 6.2 and 6.8), good or better ecological status will
achieved in 2015 in 2733 water bodies. There is a statistically forecasted 21%
increase, influenced by the high number of water bodies which status category
was “unknown” in 2009. Particular concern can be raised in ES040, where the
number of SWBs in good or better ecological status decreases between 2009 and
2015 by 2 water bodies, and large improvements are forecasted for 2027 only
(increase from 67 to 243 SWBs). There is no clear justification for this sharp
increase expected in the last WFD planning cycle.
As regards
natural SWBs (Tables 6.3 and 6.9), good or better chemical status is expected
to be achieved in 2015 in 3830 water bodies. Largely due to high percentages of
SWB in unknown chemical status in 2009, an increase of +34% of SWB in good
chemical status is reported for 2015. If the effect of “unknowns” is
discounted, the real improvement expected is of around 3-4%. 
Regarding HMWB
and AWB, the number of water bodies in good ecological potential (Table 6.12)
is expected to increase from 2009 by 15% to 47% (459 water bodies). Some RBDs
are foreseeing significant improvements (ES010, ES014, ES017, and ES050). In
contrast, the objectives established by ES091 do not seem to address adequately
the WFD requirements, as only achieving GEP in 1.7% of its 116 HMWB/AWB by 2027.
This probably reflects the lack of assessment of potential for most of HMWB/AWB
in the first RBMP. Other RBDs with low proportion GEP values (<50%) by 2015
are ES040, ES080, ES100 and ES110). It should also be noticed that in some RBDs
(ES040 and ES080) only marginal improvements are forecasted for the 2021
deadline, and the significant improvements are only expected within the 2027
deadline, which may prove difficult to achieve.
Regarding GWB,
good quantitative status (Tables 6.6 and 6.11) is expected to increase by 8% to
reach 80% by 2015 (595 GWBs). Most RBDs do not increase the number of GWBs in
good quantitative status at all between 2009 and 2015, including those RBDs
with a large proportion in poor status (ES040, ES070, and ES080). It should also
be noticed that in these RBDs with overexploited GWBs only marginal
improvements are forecasted for the 2021 deadline, and the significant
improvements are only expected within the 2027 deadline, which again may prove
very difficult to achieve.
Regarding GWBs,
chemical status (Tables 6.5 and 6.10) is expected to increase by 4% to reach
70% by 2015 (525 GWBs). The data varies across the RBDs: some do not increase
the number of GWBs in good chemical status at all between 2009 and 2015 (e.g.
ES040, ES080 and ES091) and others include significant changes (e.g. +20% in
ES060). Particular concern has to be expressed on the deterioration forecasted
in 2 GWBs each in ES020 and ES070. In ES040, ES060, ES063, ES070, ES080, ES091
and ES100 relevant improvements will only take place in the 3rd
planning cycle by 2027, and no previous milestones for improvements are
reflected in the RBMPs.
Although the
recovery of GWBs may be slow, the reflection of improvements only in the third
RBMP cycle does not appear to be based on a sound assessment.
A particular RBMP (ES091) does not
establish environmental objectives for any transitional or coastal water body,
nor for any of the HMWBs or AWBs. As informed additionally by Spain (2014), the
problem stems from inconclusive work on characterisation, and definition of
water bodies and their types. For this reason, it was not possible to determine
the status or calculate the objectives. However, there is a high number of new
infrastructures foreseen, in particular dams, and there seems to be no
assessment of the impact of those dams in the water bodies. Furthermore, in
many cases the status of the affected water bodies is unknown. For example, in
ES091, a massive development of irrigation is planned, while there are high
percentages of water bodies in unknown status. Until there is a complete
picture of pressures, impacts and status, further development of water uses may
put at risk the environmental objectives of the WFD to an extent which is
unknown. The current setting of ecological flows (see further in chapter 12.3
in the 1st RBMPs) does not guarantee the achievement of the WFD
objectives, as no clear links have been established to the objective of good
ecological status.
In general, the Strategic Environmental
Assessments (SEA) carried out for the RBMPs analyse the effects of 3
alternatives on the achievement of the established environmental objectives for
each water body, using modelling exercises in the RBDs. Nonetheless, it seems
that “non-deterioration” (WFD Article 4.1.a.i) of SWBs has not been analysed
(e.g. ES020, ES030, ES080, ES091), despite the large number of new water
infrastructure included in the RBMPs and their possibly associated increased
pressures. According to the RBMPs, the only indicators for the environmental monitoring
and follow-up related to new dam infrastructure (e.g. ES020, ES030, ES080 and
ES091) is the “surface area occupied/flooded by new dams”, without referring to
more relevant indicators as included within the WFD’s quality elements, such as
fish or hydromorphology.

11.2    
Protected Areas

In general, the RBMPs replicate the
information contained in the specific legislation on PAs regarding Drinking
Water Protected Areas and other PAs. Some RBMPs quote the specific
physico-chemical values of the PAs. No information has been provided on how
these specific objectives relate to other water body-specific objectives within
the RBMPs.
No mention has been found in the RBMPs
regarding specific objectives for Protected Areas included in the Habitats
Directive, except ES080 that states that no specific objectives have been set.
In many RBMPs it is established that during drought events when water
allocation will be reduced for water users, the proportional reduction of
eflows in PAs shall be less than for non-protected areas.
Protected Areas often lack specific
water-management objectives. It is expected that the RBMPs compile the existing
information and identify gaps.It should be noted that in 2009 a study on the
ecological requirements of habitats under the Habitats Directive was published
by the Ministry for the Environment[25],
and no reference to it has been found in any of the RBMPs. 
More work is needed to ensure the
protection of emblematic protected habitats dependent on water. The water
quantity and quality requirements of protected areas need to be assessed and
included as additional objectives in the RBMPs. Measures should then be taken
to ensure that the water dependent habitats and species can achieve favourable
conservation status.
As regards the
additional objectives for areas for shellfish production, the faecal coliform
parameter, which was required in the Shellfish Directive[26], has not been kept in
the Spanish legislation. Microbiological standards should be included in the
RBMPs to effectively ensure the same level of protection for shellfish
protected areas, now that the Shellfish Directive has been repealed.

11.3    
Articles 4(4) and 4(5)

Exemptions for extending deadlines
according to Article 4(4) are foreseen for 1749 water bodies, mostly RWB
followed by GWB. The largest number applies to ES020, ES040 and ES080. LWB
exemptions are mainly applied in ES040, ES050 and ES100, and TWB and CWB in
ES100. In terms of percentage (Table 6.7), most exemptions under Article 4(4)
are applied in ES040 (72% of its SWB).
Several RBMPs postpone the achievement of
the environmental objectives to 2021 and 2027 for significant number of water
bodies. For these, none of the RBMPs reports on expected achievements or
milestones in the intermediate periods (cf. Article 4(4)d). Some RBMPs (e.g.
ES091) refer all temporary exemptions to 2027, without providing any indication
of the expected progress by 2021.
Less stringent environmental objectives
(LSO) according to Article 4(5) are being applied to a total of 195 water
bodies, most of them RWB followed by GWB. The largest numbers in RWB and GWB
are applied in ES020. The methodology for applying LSO is described in the IPH
and is in general replicated by the RBMPs, and complemented with fiches for
each of the corresponding water bodies. 
The justification of exemptions is
insufficient. In most cases the exemptions are justified with some generic
statements, not based on an assessment of the measures needed to achieve good
status. Therefore, the RBMPs are not able to justify whether the measures are
disproportionately costly or technically unfeasible.
The methodology as presented in the RBMPs
seems inappropriate. Indeed, instead of focusing on identifying in the first
place the measures needed to achieve the objectives, the assessment starts by
identifying as candidate for exemptions all water bodies that are in less than
good status considering the measures in place and some considered “viable”
ex-ante[27].
This process is not transparent and does not provide a sound basis for
justifying the exemptions according to the WFD requirements. 
 RBD || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) 
 R || L || T || C || GW || R || L || T || C || GW 
 ES010 || 42 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 2 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES014 || 44 || 0 || 4 || 10 || 0 || 6 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0 
 ES017 || 40 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES018 || 35 || 2 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES020 || 334 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 83 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 14 
 ES030 || 62 || 6 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 17 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES040 || 180 || 44 || 0 || 0 || 15 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES050 || 109 || 16 || 10 || 0 || 25 || 9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES060 || 30 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 21 || 7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5 
 ES063 || 32 || 0 || 7 || 0 || 5 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 
 ES064 || 18 || 0 || 8 || 2 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES070 || 48 || 4 || 0 || 4 || 36 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 10 
 ES080 || 171 || 12 || 4 || 10 || 37 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 
 ES091 || 74 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 21 || 12 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 
 ES100 || 104 || 17 || 16 || 14 || 21 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES110 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 23 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 
 ES120 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 8 
 ES122 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 
 ES123 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES124 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 
 ES125 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES126 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES127 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES150 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES160 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 Total || 1324 || 103 || 54 || 41 || 227 || 137 || 2 || 0 || 1 || 55 
Table 11.1.1: Exemptions for Article 4(4) and 4(5). R: rivers; L:
lakes; T: transitional waters; C: coastal waters; GW: groundwater.
Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by
Spain (2014). 
 RBD || Global[28] 
 Technical feasibility || Disproportionate costs || Natural conditions 
 Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) || Article 4(4) || Article 4(5) 
 ES010 || 38 || 2 || 0 || 1 || 13 || 0 
 ES014 || 74 || 7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES017 || 56 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0 
 ES018 || 43 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES020 || 40 || 98 || 337 || 66 || 2 || 0 
 ES030 || 6 || 18 || 68 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES040 || 169 || 0 || 79 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES050 || 28 || 10 || 136 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES060 || 74 || 7 || 0 || 11 || 0 || 0 
 ES063 || 1 || 2 || 28 || 1 || 48 || 0 
 ES064 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 0 || 77 || 0 
 ES070 || 0 || 0 || 125 || 10 || 0 || 0 
 ES080 || 24 || 3 || 256 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES091 || 32 || 4 || 52 || 10 || 25 || 0 
 ES100 || 128 || 0 || 166 || 0 || 28 || 0 
 ES110 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 2 || 0 
 ES120 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES122 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES123 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES124 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES125 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES126 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES127 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES150 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 ES160 || 5 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 Total || 722 || 151 || 1256 || 99 || 196 || 0 
Table 11.1.2: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions
Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by
Spain. No data available for ES12X.
Disproportionate cost (1256) is the major
reason for applying Article 4(4) exemptions, followed by technical feasibility
(722). The picture is varied across the Spanish RBDs, with some applying both
(e.g. ES100), some only technical (ES014 and ES018), economical (ES070) or
mainly natural (ES064) reasons. It appears that the criteria for applying the
different justifications differ considerably among RBDs. However, for applying
disproportionate costs, the RBMPs generally lack a proper economic analysis
that justifies each exemption. 
Figure 11.2.1: Numbers of Article 4(4) and
4(5) exemptions
T = Technical feasibility
D = Disproportionate costs
N = Natural conditions
Source: WISE.
No data available for ES12X, ES150 and ES160.

11.4    
Article 4(6)

In general, criteria for triggering
exemptions under Article 4(6) have been included in all RBMPs. No Article 4(6)
exemptions have been applied so far.
ES030 lists provisionally all areas
identified under the Floods Directive as potentially under risk (of possible
exemptions under Article 4(6)). 

11.5     Article 4(7)

Most RBMPs state that there is the
possibility of applying exemptions for new modifications, and provide examples
of conditions and examples of those modifications. However, none of these RBMPs
or PoM include any case for which this exemption will be applied to any water
body. According to additional information from Spain, this applies to 3 water
bodies in ES018: Estuario de Avilés, Bahía de Santander-Puerto (TW HMWBs) and
Cuenca Carbonífera Asturiana (GWB). 
Some other RBMPs (e.g. ES020, ES060, ES064,
and ES091) already provide a list of those (infrastructure work) modifications
that are forecasted to be considered under Article 4(7) though no further
information or justification is given. ES020 argues that the Feasibility
reports under Article 46.5 of the Spanish Water Law should be sufficient to
justify Article 4(7) exemptions, though these reports do not cover all the
requirements of the WFD and are not included in the RBMPs. 
It is especially worrying the high number
of planned infrastructure projects, in particular dams, for which Article 4(7)
has not been applied. According to the WFD, the infrastructure that has not yet
been constructed and is liable to cause deterioration of the status of water
bodies or prevent the achievement of the environmental objectives can only be
executed if the conditions of Article 4(7) are fulfilled.
The normative part of the RBMPs includes an
article on the conditions for new modifications that circumvent the application
of article 4(7) to all measures included in the programme of measures. This is
clearly not in line with WFD, considering moreover that many of the measures
included in the Spanish programmes of measures are not linked to the
achievement of environmental objectives, but constitute new infrastructures for
exploitation of water resources. Therefore exempting e.g. the dams included in
the programme of measures from justification under article 4(7) because they
are included in the plan is clearly in contradiction to WFD obligations.

11.6    
Exemptions under the Groundwater Directive

No information is included in the RBMPs on
exemptions under Article 6 of the Groundwater Directive.

12      
PROGRAMME OF MEASURES


12.1    
Programme of Measures - General

Usually, the PoM constitutes an Annex of
the Spanish RBMPs with vast information, and often several Appendices. In
general, there is no evidence in the RBMPs of transboundary co-ordination of
the PoMs or individual measures (e.g. ES018, ES030, ES091), though co-operation
meetings were held in some of the basins in the frame of the international
agreements and/or at technical level. 
The PoMs classify measures regarding
topics/problems (usually “achievement of environmental objectives”,
“satisfaction of water demand”, “risk management – floods and droughts” and
“knowledge and governance”, though this grouping is slightly different between
the individual plans). It is complex or impossible to understand how the PoMs
are linked and respond to the identified pressures and to the status
assessment, and how the measures ensure the achievement of objectives. The
measures to satisfy water demand – which use on average nearly half of the PoMs
budgets - are not targeted to the WFD objectives, and might even hamper their
achievement (see section 11.5).
According to aggregated information provided by Spain, measures addressing the
WFD environmental objectives make up 46% of the PoMs budgets, measures for
water supply 42%, floods and droughts a 9% and 3% is targeting knowledge and
governance.
Among the measures considered by the RBMPs
as contributing to the environmental objectives, there are many for which their
contribution to achieve good status is unclear. In particular the modernisation
of irrigation takes a significant percentage of the budget of the measures to
achieve environmental objectives, but its contribution is generally not
assessed and not quantified. There are general statements that such measures
contribute to the WFD objectives, but these are not justified (see below
section 12.2 Measures related
to agriculture).
The RBMPs are based on estimates and
standard data on water uses ('dotaciones') and not on real data on
consumption because the use of metering is not generalised, in particular in
agriculture. Despite the requirement in the water law to install and maintain
meters, this is not enforced and implemented, and hence there is a lack of real
data on consumption and a lack of adequate control on water use. 
Often, measures are not related to specific
water bodies. Modelling has been used to explore the impact of different
scenarios of measures, and the specific methodology and decision-support-tools
are often included in the Annexes of the RBMPs. Nonetheless, usually the
modelling results (for the different options) have not been published,
resulting in a non-transparent exercise. Measures to achieve environmental
objectives and measures to satisfy demands are assessed together, again not contributing
to present a transparent picture of what is needed to achieve good status. 
In general, uncertainty is not considered
regarding the results of the measures (e.g. ES070, ES080, ES091), except
regarding climate change (e.g. ES017, ES110), though only in an ambiguous
sense.
The budgets of the PoMs vary between 150
and 7000 MEUR for the first cycle; and between 1000 and 18000 MEUR for the
overall period from 2009-2027. It should be noted that these figures include
“non-WFD-targeted” water supply infrastructure works, which are considered in
the Spanish legislation as part of the RBMPs, and as stated above, in some RBDs
cover a significant proportion of the overall budget (e.g. ES091 these measures
are expected to increase water availability by estimated 2000 hm3/year
– a 20 % increase compared to current abstractions). 
At the same time budget constraints are
referred to as being responsible for the reduction in the ambition of the PoMs
and the achievement of WFD environmental objectives.
 RBD || Budget first planning cycle MEUR || Public funding (%) || Private funding (%) || EU funds considered (%, Y/?/N) || Budget all planning cycles MEUR 
 ES010 || 929* || 66,5 || 1 || 32,5 || 988 
 ES014 || 330 (1272*) ||   ||   ||   || 1358 (1392*) 
 ES017 || 1168 || 71 || 1.7 || Y || 2790 (2610*) 
 ES018 || 1461 || 90 || 10 || ? || 2353 
 ES020 || 1497 ||   ||   || ? || 4200 
 ES030 || 4354 || 100 || 0 || Y || 8246 
 ES040 || 798 ||   ||   ||   || 4040 
 ES050 || 1747 ||   ||   ||   || 4099* 
 ES060 || 2818 ||   ||   ||   || 5100 
 ES063 || 338* || 98 || 2 ||   || 1417 
 ES064 || 372* || 98 || 2 ||   || 1376 
 ES070 || 1950 || ? || ? || Y || 4818 
 ES080 || 2020 || 100 || 0 || ? || 5459 
 ES091 || 3915 || 81 || 19 ||   || 18112* 
 ES100 || 6269* ||   ||   ||   || 6269* 
 ES110 || 145 ||   ||   || ? || 2722 
 ES120 || 128* ||   ||   ||   || 128* 
 ES122 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES123 || 40* ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES124 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES125 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES126 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES127 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES150 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES160 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Total || 31543* ||   ||   ||   || 74209* 
Table 12.1.1: Budget and sources of funding 
Source: RBMPs and information provided by
Spain in 2014 (*)
  RBD || Environmental objectives || % || Water supply || % || Floods & Droughts || % || Knowledge and governance || % || Total 
 ES010 || 670 || 68 || 258 || 26 || 36 || 4 || 23 || 2 || 987 
 ES014 || 1180 || 85 || 146 || 11 || 24 || 2 || 40 || 3 || 1390 
 ES017 || 1383 || 53 || 651 || 25 || 521 || 20 || 54 || 2 || 2609 
 ES018 || 1630 || 69 || 468 || 20 || 124 || 5 || 129 || 5 || 2351 
 ES020 || 1991 || 47 || 2064 || 49 || 10 || 0 || 133 || 3 || 4198 
 ES030 || 4390 || 53 || 3633 || 44 || 0 || 0 || 222 || 3 || 8245 
 ES040 || 1968 || 49 || 1651 || 41 || 380 || 9 || 41 || 1 || 4040 
 ES050 || 1643 || 40 || 2026 || 49 || 348 || 8 || 81 || 2 || 4098 
 ES060 || 1377 || 27 || 2797 || 55 || 712 || 14 || 213 || 4 || 5099 
 ES063 || 298 || 21 || 625 || 44 || 461 || 33 || 32 || 2 || 1416 
 ES064 || 249 || 18 || 748 || 54 || 347 || 25 || 31 || 2 || 1375 
 ES070 || 1994 || 41 || 1997 || 41 || 528 || 11 || 298 || 6 || 4817 
 ES080 || 1396 || 26 || 2756 || 50 || 1098 || 20 || 209 || 4 || 5459 
 ES091 || 8958 || 49 || 7502 || 41 || 1400 || 8 || 251 || 1 || 18111 
 ES100 || 2817 || 45 || 3113 || 50 || 339 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 6269 
 ES110 || 1287 || 47 || 540 || 20 || 512 || 19 || 382 || 14 || 2721 
 ES120 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES122 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES123 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES124 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES125 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES126 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES127 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES150 || 182 || 72 || 55 || 22 || 15 || 6 || 1 || 0 || 253 
 ES160 || 466 || 76 || 83 || 14 || 64 || 10 || 1 || 0 || 614 
  Total || 33879 || 46 || 31113 || 42 || 6919 || 9 || 2141 || 3 || 74052 
Table 12.1.2: Budget distribution across major action lines (in MEUR)
Source: Information provided by Spain (2014). 
The timeline for the PoMs varies
significantly, and in general the plans include measures for 2006-2010 (ES100),
2009-2015 or 2010-2015 (though the plans have been approved later than 2009),
and usually also for a latter period (after 2015, after 2016, 2015-2021 and
2022-2027, or 2016-2021). A more detailed timeline is usually not included in
the PoMs. Note that some PoMs (e.g. ES017, ES091 and ES100) do not refer to the
2016-2027 or 2022-2027 periods, but additional information has been provided by
Spain (2014) as included in table 12.1.1. Almost all plans argue that due to
the economic situation, significant changes in the implementation of measures
might be possible. Some plans (e.g. ES070, ES080) include a brief analysis of
the budgetary capacity of the involved authorities. 
Considering the expected (limited)
improvements and the costs, the cost-effectiveness ratio of the 2009-2015 RBMPs
appears quite low. The RBMPs might have to explore other less expensive and
more effective measures to achieve their objectives, in particular those RBMPs
that expect the most relevant achievements of WFD objectives only in the third
planning cycle.
The main sources for funding are public
authorities, namely the national authorities, followed by regional and local
authorities. In some plans no specific division (overview) has been provided.
Some plans (e.g. ES017, ES080) include for a minor proportion of the budgets a
still unknown ownership by assigning budgets to “public authorities to be
determined”. Private contributions are only marginal, except in ES091, where it
makes up 19 % for 2010-2015. Some RBMPs mention the sources from EU co-funding
namely ERDF, EARDF, and LIFE (Table 12.1.1). 
Some plans (e.g. ES017, ES030) mainly
define infrastructure investments, and do not budget in the RBMP other measures
(e.g. governance or training activities), as they might not have been precisely
defined, no direct effect on the status of water bodies is foreseen or they
belong to “general administrative actions”. According to additional information
by Spain (2014), PoM in ES017 includes 54 MEUR and in ES030 422 MEUR to
measures related to governance and knowledge. 
The information available in the PoMs
regarding the details of the measures (e.g. geographical area - RBD, regional,
sub-basin or water body levels -, funding and/or implementing authority, costs
and timing) is quite extensive for some RBDs (e.g. ES040, ES091) but scarce for
others (e.g. ES017, ES018, ES070). Usually measures are not linked to water
bodies (exception e.g. ES091), and are unclear regarding the pressures or
economic sectors (exception e.g. ES080) they address. In some cases, the PoM
provides separate data on basic, other basic, supplementary and additional measure
groups (e.g. ES018). In others this information is provided individually but
not as an overview (e.g. ES080). 
Effectiveness of measures is assessed using
modelling tools such as AQUATOOL, AquaToolDMA, GESCAL and PATRICAL. Some RBMPs
include the results of the assessment for the combination of measures
considered in different scenarios (e.g. ES070) and only a few include
measure-specific analysis (e.g. ES050). A number of RBMPs make only general
methodological statements (e.g. ES017, ES030, ES080, ES091, ES110) without
referring to the evaluated alternatives and/or results of these simulations. In
many RBMPs it is neither clear how measures relate to water bodies nor how much
of the gap to achieve good status is being bridged by the different measures. Therefore
the analysis lacks transparency. Moreover, it is not clear how the selection of
measures to be considered has been done, or why some measures have not been
considered at all. 
A quite common feature in the RBMPs is the
interdependency between RBDs (ES017, ES018, ES040, ES070, ES060, ES080, ES091
and ES100) on transferred water from other basins (ES030, ES091). ES070 states
clearly that the environmental objectives will only be (technically,
economically) achieved if an additional water transfer of minimum 400 hm3/year
from ES030 or other basins is ensured. 
Important gaps have been identified in the
application of basic measures related to urban waste water treatment, in
particular concerning the compliance with Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive[29].

12.2     Measures related to agriculture

The following table includes an overview of
which measures are considered in the RBMPs regarding agriculture. In general,
the variety of measures included is rather poor and focused on abstraction
controls, irrigation efficiency and re-use, and sometimes unclear measures
(e.g. ES018) on pollution reduction. Though there is detailed information on
the expected gross water savings by measures of irrigation efficiency, the
contribution of each measure to achieving the objectives is generally not
specified. 
 Measures || ES010 || ES014 || ES017 || ES018 || ES020 || ES030 || ES040 || ES050 || ES060 || ES063 || ES064 || ES070 || ES080 || ES091 || ES100 || ES110 || ES120 || ES122 || ES123 || ES124 || ES125 || ES126 || ES127 || ES150 || ES160 
 Technical measures ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Reduction/modification of fertiliser application ||   ||   ||   || ? || Y ||   || Y || Y || Y || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Reduction/modification of pesticide application ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   || Y || Y ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Change to low-input farming (e.g. organic farming practices) ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Hydromorphological measures leading to changes in farming practices ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Measures against soil erosion ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop rotation, creation of enhanced buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain management) || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Technical measures for water saving || Y ||   ||   || Y || Y ||   || Y || Y || Y || Y || Y ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Economic instruments ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Compensation for land cover ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Co-operative agreements ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Water pricing specifications for irrigators ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Nutrient trading ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Fertiliser taxation ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Non-technical measures ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Additions regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing EU legislation ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Controls ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Institutional changes ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Codes of agricultural practice ||   ||   ||   || Y || Y ||   ||   || Y || ? ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Farm advice and training ||   ||   ||   || Y || ? ||   ||   || Y ||   || Y || Y ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Raising awareness of farmers ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y || Y || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Measures to increase knowledge for improved decision-making ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Certification schemes ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Zoning (e.g. designating land use based on GIS maps) ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Specific action plans/programmes ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Land use planning ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Technical standards ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Specific projects related to agriculture ||   ||   || ? ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Environmental permitting and licensing ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Others (e.g. new water supply infrastructure) ||   ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   || Y ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural
pressures, as described in the PoMs 
Source: RBMPs
In general, no specific scope is given for
the measures. The timing for the implementation is often missing or refers
generically to first cycle versus other planning cycles, based on the
information in the PoMs budgets, and bearing in mind that for many measures
specific budget allocations are missing. Specific information on the control of
the implementation of agricultural measures is generally not provided.
A key measure in many RBMPs is increased
efficiency of water usage in agriculture, by improving/changing supply
infrastructure (e.g. ES070, ES080, ES110), and the plans usually refer to gross
water savings that are transferred to the water balances. In some cases (e.g.
ES080) a gap between gross and net savings is recognised, but not quantified.
In consequence, the RBMPs are lacking a detailed justification on how these
measures contribute to the achievement of the WFD objectives. Given the
increases in efficiency, the consumption of water after modernisation can
increase, even if abstraction decreases. In these cases the overall pressure on
water resources would actually increase after modernisation. Effective
reduction of water consumption pressures from agriculture is largely not
demonstrated in the RBMPs; and a systematic review of water rights adapted to
WFD objectives appears to lack in all RBMPs. In the public consultation
process, many stakeholders have expressed their concerns regarding the
effectiveness of these measures, and the lack of clarity regarding net water
savings and the lack of clarity on the possible review of related water rights
to ensure that efficiency measures contribute to environmental objectives.
Water re-use in agriculture is also a
measure included in a large number of RBMPs aimed at ensuring a quantitative
water balance. Regarding some specific measures, ES110 establishes water re-use
and savings in the PoM though data contradictions and inconsistencies have been
identified. 
Measures against erosion are largely
lacking in the RBMPs, and it is furthermore unclear how effectively the PoMs
will contribute to reduce diffuse pollution pressures. Basic measures to
address diffuse pollution should go beyond the Nitrates Directive codes of
practice, which are voluntary instruments limited to nitrates, but not
addressing other diffuse agricultural pressures. 

12.3    
Measures related to hydromorphology

The following table includes an overview
which measures are considered in the RBMPs regarding hydromorphology. 
 Measures || ES010 || ES014 || ES017 || ES018 || ES020 || ES030 || ES040 || ES050 || ES060 || ES063 || ES064 || ES070 || ES080 || ES091 || ES100 || ES110 || ES120 || ES122 || ES123 || ES124 || ES125 || ES126 || ES127 || ES150 || ES160 
 Fish ladders ||   || √ || ? ||   ||   ||   ||   || √ || ? ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Bypass channels ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas ||   || √ || √ ||   ||   ||   || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Sediment/debris management ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement || √ || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   || √ ||   || √ || √ || √ ||   ||   ||   || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Reconnection of meander bends or side arms ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Lowering of river banks || √ || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || √ || √ ||   ||   ||   || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Restoration of bank structure ||   || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   || √ || √ || ? ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Setting minimum ecological flow requirements || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ ||   || √ || √ || √ || √ || √ ||   ||   ||   || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Operational modifications for hydropeaking || √ ||   || √ || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Inundation of flood plains || √ || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   || √ ||   ||   || √ || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Construction of retention basins ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Reduction or modification of dredging ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Restoration of degraded bed structure ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Remeandering of formerly straightened water courses ||   ||   || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Other (restoration of transitional and/or coastal waters) ||   || √ || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || √ ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
Table 12.3.1: Types of WFD measures addressing hydromorphological
pressures, as described in the PoMs 
Source: RBMPs
The main measure groups foreseen in the
RBMP are river restoration actions (such as e.g. under the Spanish Strategy for
River Restoration, including habitat restoration, the removal of un-used
infrastructure or the construction of fish ladders), as well as the
establishment of ecological flows (eflows), and some habitat restoration in
coastal and transitional waters.
Environmental water allocation is a
mandatory component of Spanish RBMPs, though non-accomplishment of currently
established regimes is also explicitly recognised in some RBMPs (e.g. ES050,
ES091). Eflows have been established according to the Spanish legislation
(Water Law, RPH and IPH) in all RBMPs for some river stretches, and are
currently in different stages of their process of implementation. 
Though most Spanish RBDs have assessed
eflows, the level of ambition is uneven. According to the Spanish legislation
(IPH), eflows regimes should consist not only in a fixed minimum flow
throughout the year, but also include prescriptions for its seasonal
distribution. Downstream water infrastructures, other eflows components such as
a maximum flow, a flooding regime and a rate of change shall be assessed and
fixed if appropriate. 
Minimum flows have been established by
direct hydraulic and habitat modelling studies or extrapolation for
approximately 2200 strategic SWBs, so that they effectively condition water
allocation in the basin (sometimes also including some wetlands e.g. ES040,
ES060, ES070 or ES080). The regulatory weight of the rest of the eflows
components varies substantially from full adoption in ES040 to a purely
indicative role in ES080, while most RBMPs have not finished the assessments or
are still pending agreement with stakeholders. 
Some plans from Northern Spain (ES010,
ES017 and ES018) include an explicit ban on exploitation patterns of hydropower
facilities causing sharp hydropeaking.
There is also a great variety of formulas
to regulate how eflows regimes will affect existing water rights. In any case,
and in accordance with the Spanish Water Law, the priority of drinking water
supply is reinforced by the RBMPs.
The regulation of eflows in the Spanish
legislation is one of the most comprehensive across the EU and, in the Spanish
implementation context, it is considered an essential tool to link the
quantitative water management with the WFD environmental objectives. However,
the relationship between the eflows and the WFD objectives is unclear. 
The definition in the Water Law[30] states that eflow is
the “flow that maintains, as a minimum, fish life that would naturally live in
the river, as well as the riparian vegetation”. In the RPH the definition is
expanded with a reference to “contribute to achieving good ecological status or
potential in rivers or transitional waters”[31].
The IPH reproduces the same definition but further expands it in the main text[32] to include as an
additional objective the protection of habitats and species protected under
nature legislation. Furthermore, the IPH defines water bodies “with very
altered hydrology” as those suffering from “severe hydrological alteration in
the current situation, presenting conflicts between existing uses and the
eflows regime”. The criteria for setting eflows are less stringent in these
water bodies. This appears to mix ecological criteria and socio-economic
considerations in a not completely transparent way[33]. Moreover, there is no
clear separation between the technical studies that would define the eflow
compatible with achieving good ecological status and the consensus building
process (“concertación”) that underpins the final definition and
implementation of the eflow. As a result, the process lacks transparency on the
relationship between the final eflow and the achievement of WFD objectives and,
in particular, there is no clear relationship between eflows and good
ecological status. 
Furthermore, protected areas, their
habitats and species have only taken into account in a limited way. The
derivation of eflows has considered only three fish species listed in the Birds
and Habitats Directives (Petromyzon marinus, Alosa sp, Chondostroma
sp.).
As mentioned previously, a large number of
new dams and other “grey” water infrastructure (often with unclear descriptions
in the PoMs) are foreseen to minimise the flood risks. It is unclear if
alternative options like the restoration of floodplains, reduction of dredging
and/or remeandering have been considered beyond the few currently existing
initiatives (ES020: Órbigo; ES091: LIFE+ Mink Territory project), and if urban
and land-use planning measures as promoted by the Floods Directive have been
evaluated when setting up the PoM. It has also been noted that despite the
large amount of existing water infrastructures, flooding events are common
throughout Spain in the past years, even downstream of existing dams (e.g.
ES050, ES063, ES091). 

12.4    
Measures related to groundwater

In general, the reported basic measures
related to groundwater are those already established by the Spanish legislation
before the WFD implementation process. They cover the authorisation procedure
and control of abstractions, as well as of point-source discharges. 
Nonetheless, the effective control of
abstractions is still an issue to be resolved. Despite the Spanish Water Law is
in place now for almost 30 years, there are still thousands of water rights not
included in the electronic databases of the Water Register, which according to
the information provided by Spain is only due to completion by 1 January 2020[34]. Furthermore, there is
recurrent evidence of significant illegal water abstractions in water-scarce
areas (e.g. ES050, ES040), and it is unclear if the measures of the RBMPs will
effectively address this issue.
The Spanish law includes the mechanism of
“declaration of overexploitation”. This measure reinforces the administrative
control of abstractions in areas where abstraction exceeds natural recharge and
therefore there is a situation of poor quantitative status of aquifers. This
declaration, however, is not compulsory but can be used at the discretion of
the river basin authorities. In some basins this is being used significantly
(e.g. ES040, ES070) but in others with severe problems of overexploitation is
not (ES110, ES060, ES050). In ES110 the RBMP even allows granting new
concessions for abstractions in groundwater bodies that are in poor
quantitative status, which seems to go against any logic of protection of the
resource included in the WFD.
Some RBMPs (e.g. ES040, ES080, and ES110)
foresee the shift of GW abstractions from one GWB at risk to another one currently
in good quantitative status. Some others foresee a shift from GWB abstraction
to surface water supply (e.g. ES070, ES080).
In some RBMPs, supplementary measures have
been defined like aquifer recharge (e.g. ES020, ES070, and ES080).
Usually, no RBD-specific measures have been
identified to prevent inputs into groundwater of any hazardous substance (from
diffuse or point sources; exception e.g. ES017), but the Spanish licensing
system for control of effluents addresses this issue.

12.5    
Measures related to chemical pollution

The existing regime of authorisation for
control of point source discharges was in place before the adoption of the WFD.

The following measures have been identified
in the RBMPs to deal with chemical pollution: subsidies to industry to improve
wastewater treatment to more stringent levels than those imposed by the WFD
(ES100); decontamination of a river polluted by priority substances due to
industry (ES100); reduction of the pollution caused by salt mining in some
river basins (ES100); measures to control pollution from petrol stations (e.g.
ES030).
Measures to reduce/phase-out the emissions
of specific pollutants have not been identified in the PoMs.

12.6    
Measures related to Article 9

Water pricing measures in the RBMPs largely
draw on the cost recovery instruments that were introduced by the Water Law in
1985, which have remained largely unchanged since then. These ensure a
contribution from users to capital and operation costs of publicly built large
infrastructure for the use of surface water such as dams and main distribution
canals. 
In addition, a number of regional
authorities have introduced cost recovery instruments, mostly to recover costs
for drinking water supply and wastewater treatment (e.g. Catalonia, Andalucia,
Galicia, Basque Country, Asturias) but some also for other uses (e.g. Galicia
for hydropower). The nature and composition of these instruments is very
variable. The information in the RMBPs is generally scarce, mostly limited to
listing the references to the regulations establishing the instruments without
further analysis (see below).
In 2012 a national tax on hydropower was
introduced for the protection of water resources, although paradoxically the
revenue goes into the general budget with only 2% of the tax incomes are
specifically earmarked for the River Basin Authorities. There is furthermore
scarce information about existing (and planned) water pricing systems and
tariffs, in particular regarding agriculture where a large variety of systems
still co-exist (charging on the basis of surface, time or water consumption).
The Water Law Article 40.j and the IPH
(Chapter 1.2.61) define water uses as different types of water consumption and
uses that affect significantly the water status. Some RBMPs (e.g. ES040, ES063,
ES064, and ES091) provide longer lists of uses, including e.g. fisheries,
aquaculture, salt abstraction, navigation and recreational activities. It is
often not specified in the RBMPs how the identification of uses is related to
the analysis of pressures in the RBD. 
The Water Law Article 40bis.i and the IPH
1.2.61 define water services as those activities that enable the use of water
such as abstraction, storage, conduction, and treatment or the discharge; as
well as the protection of humans and goods against floods. In the RBMPs, there
is no homogeneous picture, and sometimes the services are more similar to the
“uses” terms. In most of the RBDs, “environmental
protection” (e.g. ES010, ES014, ES020, ES060, ES070, ES080, ES091, ES110),
“flood protection” (e.g. ES080, ES091) and “water administration” (e.g. ES014,
ES018, ES020, ES060, ES063, ES064, ES080, ES091) are also considered as
services. Self-abstraction is a significant aspect in
many RBDs, in particular for irrigation and industry, and only in some RBMPs
(e.g. ES020; vs. ES080, ES110) considered as a service where costs could be
recovered.
Cost recovery is considered in the Spanish
legislation (Article 42.1 RPH, Regulation for Hydrological Planning,
RD907/2007) as an element that “should be taken” into consideration; and
specific regional legislation has been developed in Andalucía, Galicia,
Catalonia and the Basque Country. Furthermore, documents
compiling economic information have been developed and used as a basis for the
RBMP development (“Precios y costes de los servicios
de agua en España” (2007) and “Análisis de presupuestos y recuperación de
costes por los servicios de agua en España” (2009)).
Regarding cost recovery, usually urban
water supply, industrial uses and agriculture are considered in the RBMPs, with
some differences due to basin-specific circumstances (e.g. ES014 not
considering agriculture and adding “other uses”, ES020 considering hydropower,
ES040 not considering industry, and ES060 adding “golf”). Although explicitly
included in the definition of water services in the Spanish legislation, costs
for “flood protection” are not recovered as it is considered of general
interest.
Frequently there are no adequate incentives
for farmers to use water efficiently as the water consumption is, to a large
extent, not measured and therefore water charges are not linked to real
consumption. There are no charges for self-abstraction, except those incurred
by the user related to pumping and distribution. Energy cost of abstraction
does not seem to provide an adequate incentive as it has not been able to
prevent the over-abstraction of numerous groundwater bodies (more than 200 GWB
are in poor quantitative status, Table 6.6). The environmental and resource
costs are high (large percentages of water bodies in less than good status) but
they are not recovered either. Moreover illegal water abstraction is an
important obstacle for efficient water policy.
A large number of discounts are being
applied when calculating cost recovery. According to the Article 7.3 IPH, flood
protection, and future water users (e.g. of dams) are not considered as
recoverable costs, and different estimations are developed in the plans, though
the information is not always easy to identify. The discounts for flood
protection in dams are not justified and appear arbitrary. In some basins is
always a fixed percentage (e.g. 50% in ES040), in others depend on the dam
(e.g. ES050) and can even evolve within the life cycle of the project (e.g.
ES091 for Biscarrués dam, which has changed from 35% in the EIA statement to
60% in the RBMP), in other basins is zero (ES020). A discount of ca. 80%
appears to be applied in one specific case in ES080, including 50% discount due
to “over sizing of the infrastructure”[35].

Another “discount” that is often applied to
new dams is due to “maintenance of ecological flow” due to its “general
character”. This is often presented as a “benefit” of the dam. According to
WFD, the establishment of eflow in a new dam should be a mitigation measure
that should be taken according to article 4(7)a and would therefore form part
of the objective of achieving GEP. 
In general, and except in a few RBMPs (e.g.
ES020 and ES070), no cost recovery has been estimated for hydropower and
agricultural self-supplies. 
Cost recovery has been calculated based on
supporting documents, case studies (e.g. Besaya in ES018), estimates and
voluntary surveys e.g. with irrigator communities, although often hindered by
low return rates. Lack of (co-ordinated) data is a recognised problem (e.g. ES080,
ES091) and in consequence only estimations have been realised when addressing
local urban or agricultural services (e.g. ES091). In some plans (e.g. ES091)
the cost recovery calculations cannot be easily related to the services
(information is only provided for yes/no/partial) or users. 
In many RBMPs (e.g. ES030, ES040) prices
and revenues from the cost recovery instruments applied in urban water supply
and sanitation cycle are estimated on the basis of the data from the Spanish
Association of Water Supply and Sanitation[36]
companies. It is not clear why real data is not provided by the regional and
local authorities responsible for these instruments. The uncertainty of the
source data (it is based on a voluntary survey) and the extrapolations made, together
with the assumption that revenues match the real costs, raise questions about
the reliability of the information and the cost recovery calculations.
Moreover, the situations within the same RBD can be very different, because
there is no basic national legislation that regulates the cost recovery in the
urban cycle. Many regions have developed different cost recovery mechanisms
that generally are listed in the RBMPs without further analysis of the level of
cost recovery on the basis of real data. The way the analysis is presented in
the RBMPs generally hides those potential differences.
In general, financial costs are considered
and include capital costs for new investments, operating costs, maintenance
costs, and administrative costs. Regarding the consideration of subsidies in
the cost recovery calculations, there is often no explanation given; though
e.g. ES020 includes an example of subsidies in the RBMP. In particular,
possible cross-subsidising between sectors (e.g. in cases where urban water users
pay higher costs for desalinised seawater, due to the reduced water
availability in GWB and SWB over-exploited by agricultural consumption) is not
reflected in the RBMPs.
According to the IPH 7.4, environmental
costs are calculated on the basis of the cost of measures to achieve the
environmental objectives. Most of the RBMPs simply replicate the legal text
without further considerations (e.g. ES050, ES060, ES063, and ES064).
Environmental costs have been calculated (partially) in ES010, ES020, ES070, ES091
and ES110; ES070 and ES091 present a raw figure (without references/sources)
for estimating but without referring to the corresponding cost recovery; and in
ES110 the costs refer explicitly to "the cost to comply with the current
legislation (except WFD)" and were not calculated for agriculture. In
general environmental costs are calculated for the wastewater treatment (i.e.
urban cycle) but not for agriculture, despite significant pressures and impacts
(abstraction, pollution) caused by this sector.
According to the Spanish legislation,
resource costs shall be analysed by the market value of water, and only in some
RBDs a quite academic analysis has been carried out (ES020, ES070 and ES080
which provide figures – 0.13 to 0.28 EUR/m3) without applying the
concept further or discuss any instrument that would recover such costs.
Several RBMPs refer to the fact that no water trading has happened in previous
periods.
In general and apart from overall
statements, no details are provided in the RBMPs on how water pricing fosters
resource efficiency, nor on the application of the polluter-pays principle
(except ES080 including a specific measure addressing coastal water pollution).
The values in table 12.6.1 have been
provided by the Spanish authorities.
   || Environmental costs considered || Resource costs considered || Overall % cost recovery || CR % urban water services || CR % agriculture || CR % industry || CR % others 
 ES010 || Y || N || 24.0–34.1 || 33.8 || 18.8 || 99.8 || - 
 ES014 || N || N || 48.0 || 48.0 || - || 71 || (71, domestic) (31, other uses) 
 ES017 || N || N || 42.0–52.0 (1) || 39.0–49.0 || 39.0–48.0 || 93 || - 
 ES018 || N || N || 45.0–56.0 (2) || 40.0–50.0 || 43.0–53.0 || 81.2 || 82.5 
 ES020 || Y || Y (zero cost) || 45.8–61.8 || 46.3–67.3 || 39.7–46.6 || 64.8 || 64.3 
 ES030 || Y || N || 75.0–77.0 ||  78.0 || 59.0 || 81 || 100 
 ES040 || Y || Y || 81.0–89.0 ||  81.0 || 81.0 || 96 || - 
 ES050 || N || N || 85.2 ||  84.5 || 77.9 || 86.8 || - 
 ES060 || N || N || 84.2 ||  85.7 || 78.0 || 93.2 || 100 
 ES063 || N || N || - ||  92.8 || 76.7 || 92.8 || 68.0 
 ES064 || N || N || - ||  94.6 || 90.5 || 96.3 || 55.0 
 ES070 || Y || N (3) || (4) ||  88.4 || 85.7 || 88.38% (& urban) ||   
 ES080 || Y || N || 85.0 ||  86.0 || 80.0 ||   || 19-25 (5) 
 ES091 ||   || N || - ||  57.0 || 80.0 ||   ||   
 ES100 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || - || - 
 ES110 || N || N || - ||  86.5 || - || - || - 
 ES120 || N || N || 77.0 ||  78.0 || 75.0 ||   ||   
 ES122 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES123 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES124 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES125 || N || N || 15.0–21.0 || 55.0–76.0 || 73.0–119.0 ||   ||   
 ES126 || N || N || - ||  57.0 || 11.0 ||   ||   
 ES127 || N || N || - || - || - ||   ||   
 ES128 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES150 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 ES160 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
Table 12.6.1. Cost recovery in the RBMPs.
Source: Information provided by Spain (2014). Notes on the
table: The intervals correspond to different considerations regarding the
services when calculating cost recovery and, in general, regarding inclusion or
non-inclusion of the environmental costs. (1): The figures rise greatly, if the
demand supplied is included. The total figure to 79.0–82.0. (2): The figures
rise greatly, if the demand supplied is included. The total figure to
73.0–78.0. (3): The analysis does not take into account cost recovery. It is estimated
that it could reach 0.20–0.28 €/m3. (4): Value disaggregated by
uses. (5): Raw water service.

13      
CLIMATE CHANGE


13.1    
Water scarcity and droughts

Water scarcity and droughts are both
relevant topics for almost all Spanish RBDs. 
Water scarcity is a key feature and
significant water management issue of many RBMPs, with dedicated chapters in
all plans. Long term data series of available resources and flows are usually
available (1940-2006). Real consumption data is generally not available (e.g.
the PoM includes measures to improve datasets, controls, modelling of GWB,
etc.) though not recognised as a weakness or uncertainty of the water balances
in the RBMPs.
Almost all plans include a strong measure
package to improve/enlarge water supply to all water users, following the trend
scenarios, and considering water transfers (e.g. ES040, ES060, ES070, to be
detailed further in a National Hydrological Plan), dams (e.g. ES020, ES040,
ES064, ES091), desalination plants (e.g. ES060) or groundwater abstractions
(e.g. ES110). RBMPs also include demand-side measures (e.g. efficiency in
irrigation, awareness-raising). Measures to limit/restrict consumption are
generally not considered. It is not possible to assess the relevance of the
share of the demand and supply-side measures. In any case, for all RBMPs
(except ES070) the mid-term water supply and demand (including eflows
estimations) data match.
In general, Drought Management Plans (DMP)
are either already approved or foreseen in the RBMPs as sub-plans, and they are
more or less detailed in the RBMPs. DMPs have been developed with statistical
or water use relevant thresholds, but it is uncertain to what extent the
thresholds are related to the WFD objectives. Drought indicators will be
applied for requesting Article 4(6) exemptions, if necessary.

13.2    
Flood risk management

In general, the RBMPs acknowledge the
parallel development of the Flood Risk Management Plans. Most plans (see also
chapter 12.3) include also measures targeted to protect against floods, though
the type of measures (floodplain restoration, natural water retention measures,
river channelling, dam infrastructure) cannot often be identified in the PoMs,
as these refer to more abstract concepts like “Extreme Hydrological
Situations”, “Flood Management” or “Measures to prevent and reduce flood
impacts”.

13.3    
Adaptation to climate change

In all inter-community RBMPs and several
regional RBMPs (e.g. ES060, ES110), climate change has been taken into
consideration according to the changes in water availability.  The IPH establishes
in Chapter 3.5.2 that water balances shall include two long-term-average
timelines (1940-2005 and 1980-2005) and analyse their differences, in order to
better understand evolution and increase the robustness of the datasets.
Furthermore, in Chapter 2.4.6 preliminary expected reductions of water
availability by 2027 are fixed between -2 and -11%, pending further detailed
studies (note ES091 refers to another study). Furthermore, the Spanish National
Climate Change Adaptation Plan and/or Regional plans have been listed as
related plans or programmes though without further explaining the relation with
the RBMPs. 
The PoMs do not, in general, include
specific adaptation measures, beyond the scope of DMPs or research and studies
to be carried out, though some exceptions might be mentioned (e.g. ES017’s
project on impacts and adaptation; ES091 mentions that water consumption will
increase due to irrigation of vineyards). No climate check has been carried out
for the RBMPs beyond the analysis of water balances and their match with
climate change predictions. Note that not all plans refer clearly to the
outcomes of this analysis.

14      
RECOMMENDATIONS

Spain should:

 Adopt as soon as possible the outstanding
     RBMPs for Canary Islands
 Ensure the consultation and adoption
     of the 2nd RBMPs according to the WFD timetable, avoiding
     delays.
 Fill as soon as possible the gaps in
     transposition in the intra-community RBDs
 Improve reporting to WISE, ensuring that the information uploaded is the same as
     reflected in the RBMPs. Report for the 2nd RBMPs to WISE the
     complete information as regards significant pressures, including the
     results of the quantitative analysis, translated into the simple
     qualitative report required in WISE.
 Consider the review of the legislation to
     incorporate explicitly the identification of water bodies at risk
     as a result of the pressure and impact analysis.
 Ensure the completion as soon as possible
     of the framework for status assessment considering the following:
  Reference conditions and boundaries for quality
      elements have to be binding. Revise typology if needed to ensure that it
      is fit to serve as a basis for classification.
  Translate the results of the
      intercalibration exercise to the assessment systems in a transparent way
  The complete assessment framework, and
      in particular the intercalibration results of 2013 and the new standards
      introduced by Directive 2013/39/EU for existing priority substances,
      should be considered in the status assessments for the second RBMP. 
  Fill the gaps in assessment systems for
      biological quality and supporting elements, in particular for fish
  Include the complete assessment systems
      for coastal and transitional waters.
  Report transparently the confidence and
      limitations of the assessments as appropriate.
 Fill urgently the gaps in monitoring of
     surface waters and ensure consistent monitoring with appropriate coverage
     (and thereby classify the status of all water bodies). Ensure that monitoring
     is adequately resourced and maintained to inform adequately the RBMPs
     and the decisions on the PoMs.
 Extend chemical monitoring beyond
     water bodies affected by industrial discharges. Consider as well
     atmospheric deposition and urban waste water discharges as relevant
     sources of chemical pollution.
 In the context of designation of HMWBs,
     develop clear criteria/thresholds to define the significant adverse effect
     of the restoration measures on the water uses, and a proper (real)
     assessment of other alternatives that could be better environmental
     option.
 Ensure that GEP is correctly defined
     for all HMWBs and AWBs (in terms of biological condition and
     mitigation measures).
 Ensure that environmental objectives
     are established for all water bodies in the second cycle, including
     for HMWBs and AWBs. If no objectives are defined, appropriate measures
     cannot be established either. 
 Ensure that the assessment of groundwater
     quantitative status considers all aspects of the definition, including
     local falls in the water table that may lead to a risk in water-dependent
     ecosystems, and including protected areas.
 Develop a plan to extend and
     generalise the use of flow meters for all water abstractions and uses,
     and to require users to report regularly to the river basin authorities
     the volumes actually abstracted. Use this information to improve
     quantitative management and planning.
 Ensure that:
  all abstractions are registered and
      permits adapted to the available resources.
  all abstractions are metered and
      subject to control of the river basin authorities
  the necessary amendments to the
      legislation are enacted to require all abstractions to be registered
      and regulated, no matter under which regime they got their permit
      (pre- or post-1985 Law).
 Ensure that the ecological flows
     established guarantee good ecological status. If this is not the
     case, report transparently the deviations and the justifications on the
     basis of technical feasibility or disproportionate costs. In the relevant
     water bodies, consider the objectives of water-dependent protected
     habitats and species in setting eflows.
 Harmonise the consideration of temporary
     streams in the Mediterranean area on the basis of sound
     ecologically-based scientific criteria and methodologies. Ensure the
     distinction between situations of dry rivers due to natural causes
     (temporary streams) from human induced (due to over-abstraction). 
 Provide better justification of
     exemptions. There is no analysis of the measures needed to achieve
     good status. Therefore, it is not possible to justify whether measures are
     disproportionately costly or technically unfeasible. Measures need to be
     taken as far as possible in water bodies where exemptions are applied, and
     report them in the RBMPs. 
 Ensure in the 2nd RBMPs that
     the status of all water bodies is assessed in accordance with the
     WFD before considering any further infrastructure that would be
     liable to cause deterioration of the status of water bodies or prevent the
     achievement of good status. These infrastructures can only be
     authorised if the conditions of article 4(7) are fulfilled. The
     justification needs to be included in the RBMP. The "declaration of
     general interest" in the Spanish legislation cannot be automatically
     equated with the concept of "overriding public interest" in
     article 4(7)(c). This has to be justified case by case in the 2nd
     RBMPs. 
 Avoid presenting the maintenance of ecological
     flow in new dams as an ecological benefit of the dam, but consider it
     as a mitigation measure. Justify the flood protection share on a
     case by case basis, including the justification that there is no better
     environmental option.
 Separate very clearly in 2nd
     RBMPs the measures designed to achieve the environmental objectives
     from others. The latter need to be treated as Article 4(7) exemptions
     whenever appropriate (i.e. modifications to water bodies liable to cause
     deterioration or prevent the achievement of good status or potential).  
 Review the way the modernisation of
     irrigation is considered in the PoMs. Only those projects which
     genuinely contribute to the WFD objectives should be labelled as such.
     Such contribution should be justified and quantified in the RBMPs on a
     case by case basis. The abstraction permits should be reviewed and set to
     meet the environmental objectives and then modernisation is the efficiency
     measure put in place to achieve compliance with the new permit condition. 
 Ensure that there is a proper integration
     of the pressure and impact analysis, the status assessment and the design
     of the programme of measures. Avoid defining the PoMs on the basis of
     business as usual and a non-transparent assessment of “what can be done”,
     but rather on a genuine gap analysis that identifies which measures are
     needed to achieve good status and can also support the justification of
     exemptions.
 Ensure that RBMPs apportion impacts to
     pressures and sources/drivers, to increase the understanding of which
     activities and sectors are responsible –an in which proportion- for
     achieving objectives.
 Ensure that RBMPs provide much more
     information about the measures, such as their location (including the
     number of water bodies), classification (basic, other basic,
     supplementary) and character (voluntary or binding), the targeted sector
     and source, the pressure they address (beyond the current grouping by
     general topics) and the expected specific effects in terms of status
     improvement.
 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
     of 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, as well as other
     restoration measures, removal of dams and other hydro morphological
     barriers.
 Ensure that the process of selecting
     (or not) measures is more sound and transparent, providing in the
     RBMPs not only statements that a cost-effectiveness analysis has been
     carried out, but also informing on the measures that have been considered
     in the analysis, its results and how this assessment has influenced the
     selection of measures.
 Clarify in the RBMPs what technical
     measures are behind legislation and how much they contribute to
     closing the gap to good status as basic measures
     are mostly presented as legislative acts (e.g. articles of the Water Law
     and related regulations).
 Ensure that appropriate basic measures
     are established for control of diffuse pollution. The basic
     measures for diffuse pollution should go beyond the Nitrates Directive
     codes of practice, which are voluntary instruments limited to nitrates
     issues. They do not address other agricultural pressures (phosphates,
     pesticides, etc.). Mandatory measures that are controllable should be
     included in the 2nd RBMPs.
 Ensure that monitoring of drinking
     water protected areas include all relevant parameters of the Drinking
     Water Directive.
 Define the status of protected areas
     to ensure a harmonised approach across the country.
 Carry out a comprehensive study together
     with the responsible authorities for nature to derive the quantitative
     and qualitative needs for protected habitats and species, translated
     into specific objectives for each protected area which should be inserted
     in the RBMPs. Appropriate monitoring and measures should also be included
     in the RBMPs.
 Introduce volumetric abstraction fees
     for all users (including self-abstraction of groundwater) covering
     properly calculated environmental and resource costs. Ensure that the
     cost-recovery instruments are adapted as soon as possible to the WFD to
     ensure that they provide adequate incentives to use the water efficiently.
     In addition, the revenues of cost-recovery instruments should be
     sufficient for the river basin authorities to effectively execute their
     water management tasks (update and maintenance of register of
     abstractions, monitoring, etc.).
 Develop a basic harmonisation of the
     minimum elements to be included in water tariffs for drinking water supply
     and waste water treatment for the 2nd RBMPs to ensure
     long-term sustainability of investments in water protection across the
     country. 
 Consider water use for energy production
     (hydropower and cooling) as water service, and relevant information
     (cost recovery, environmental and resource costs, "discount rates for
     dams") should be transparently presented in the updated RBMPs. 
 Present transparently subsidies and
     cross-subsidies in the 2nd RBMPs
     (i.e. desalinated water, dam construction, etc.) and justify dam discount
     calculation on a case by case basis.
 Extend calculation of environmental
     costs to costs related to energy production (hydropower, cooling) and
     diffuse pollution from agriculture.
 Reinforce the cooperation with
     Portugal and France in shared River Basin Districts (covering
     characterisation, pressures and impacts, monitoring, assessment of status,
     public consultation, measures, etc.), ensuring that there is a common
     understanding for transboundary water bodies and catchments for these
     issues. The outcomes of such cooperation (in particular with Portugal)
     should be reflected in the RBMPs or ad-hoc background documents. 

[1] Called inter-community RBDs.
[2] Called intra-community RBDs.
[3] On this subject see judgement of the EU Court of Justice of 24
October 2013 on case C-512/12 available at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-151/12 
[4] References to 'information provided by Spain in 2014' in this
document relate to information received in the context of the bilateral meeting
held between the Commission services and the Spanish authorities on 10 November
2014 and its follow-up.
[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]    http://www.cadc-albufeira.eu/

[7] A full list is provided at: http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/agua/temas/planificacion-hidrologica/planificacion-hidrologica/planes-cuenca/default.aspx 
[8] The ES100 plan was definitely adopted by a royal decree on 5
September 2011 and published in the Spanish Official Gazette (BOE) on 22
September 2011. Afterwards the decree approving the Catalan RBMP was annulled
by the High Court of Catalonia on 16 May 2013 on procedural grounds. The RBMP
and the PoMs were adopted again by the Regional Government on 23 December 2014.
Adoption by the National Government is pending. 
[9] On this subject see judgement of the EU Court of Justice of 4
October 2012 on case C-403/11 available at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-403/11&td=ALL

[10] On this subject see judgement of the EU Court of Justice of 7 May
2009 on case C-516/07 available at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=c-516/07&td=ALL

[11] As a result of the ruling of the European Court of Justice of 7 May
2009, Royal Decree 29/2011 created an additional coordination body for the
purpose of elaborating the RBMP for the Cantábrico Oriental RBD ES017, composed
of representatives of Central Administration and Basque Country regional
Administration. 
[12]   There is also a National Water Advisory Board which informs the
plans before adoption by the Government.
[13] Spain informed in 2014 that some RBDs have developed reference
conditions and class boundaries for additional quality elements.
[14] It is not clear to what extent the Guidance and the IPH was used in
intra-community RBDs.
[15] According to information provided by Spain, the application of
thresholds has been done on a case by case basis. 
[16] 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.
[17] 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.
[18] The acronyms for the WFD Quality Elements follow the coding adopted
for WISE: QE1 Biological, QE1-1 Phytoplankton, QE1-2 Other aquatic flora, QE1-3
Benthic invertebrates, QE1-4 Fish, QE1-5 Other species, QE2 Hydromorphological
Quality Elements, QE2-1 Hydrological regime-rivers, QE2-2 River continuity,
QE2-3 Morphological conditions-Rivers, QE2-4 Hydrological regime-lakes, QE2-5
Morphological conditions-lakes, QE2-6 Morphological conditions-transitional and
coastal waters, QE2-7 Tidal regime-transitional waters, QE2-8 Tidal
regime-Coastal waters, QE3 Chemical and physico-chemical, QE3-1 General
parameters, QE3-2 Priority substances, QE3-3 Non priority specific pollutants,
QE3-4 Other national pollutants.
[19] The use of phytoplankton as an indicator in
rivers is limited in Spain to reservoirs only. 
[20] As indicated earlier for other aspects of implementation, it is not
clear to what extent the intra-community RBDs have used the IPH.
[21] The Spanish authorities informed that work is on-going on a draft
Royal Decree to consolidate the framework for the assessment of status.
[22] In the meantime additional results of the intercalibration process
became available and the Commission Decision 2008/915/EC has been replaced by a
new Decision 2013/480/EU, to be considered for the 2015 update of the RBMPs.
[23]  Discussed at the ECOSTAT Working Group in 2014. 
[24] Note in some RBMPs (e.g. ES014, ES017, ES020, ES050, ES060) the
“altered habitats” impacts are related to pollution pressures and not to
pressures from “hydromorphological alterations” as originally intended.
[25] Ministry for the Environment (2009): Bases ecológicas preliminares para la conservación de los
tipos de hábitat de interés comunitario en España. http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/espacios-protegidos/red-natura-2000/rn_tip_hab_esp_bases_eco_acceso_fichas.aspx

[26] Directive 79/923/EEC (codified 2006/113/EC), repealed in 2013 by
the WFD.
[27] See for example the way the methodology is explained in RBMP ES030
Tajo, chapter 8 Environmental Objectives, page 80 and Annex VIII section 3.2.2
Objectives, extensions and less stringent objectives, page 10; and RBMP ES091
Ebro, Annex VIII Environmental objectives and exemptions, chapter 3
Methodology, page 23.
[28] Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status
[29] See latest Commission implementation report: Seventh Report on the
Implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC),
COM(2013)574 available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/implementation/implementationreports_en.htm  

[30] Article 42.1.c’ of Consolidated Water Law approved by Legislative
Royal Decree 1/2001.
[31] Article 3.j of Planning Regulation approved by Royal Decree
907/2007.
[32] IPH 1.2.15 and 3.4.1.1.
[33] This 'ex-ante' combination of ecological and socio-economic
considerations seems difficult to reconcile with the WFD approach, that clearly
separates in different steps the definition of the environmental objective of
good status, which is only based on ecological criteria (WFD Article 4(1) and
Annex V), and socio-economic considerations, which play a role in applying the exemptions
(WFD Articles 4(3) to 4(7)). It should therefore be clear how far the
application of exemptions in particular water bodies makes the environmental
objectives depart from the default objective of good status. 
[34] Date included in the Royal Decree 670/2013.
[35] ES080 RBMP Annex 9 on cost recovery argues that only 50% of the
Arenós dam is being used by the water users; nonetheless RBMP Annex 6 on water
balances uses the full capacity of the dam
[36] Asociación Española de Abastecimiento y Saneamiento (AEAS)