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: 2018-07-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: Spain, chemical pollution, environmental risk prevention, flood, groundwater, hydrology, pollution from agricultural sources, surface water, water management, water pollution

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 17.7.2018  
SWD(2015) 56 final/2 

CORRIGENDUM 
This document corrects document SWD(2015) 56 final of 09.03.2015. 
[Document updated with River Basin Districts ES120, ES122, ES123, ES124, ES125, ES126, 
ES127, corresponding to the Canary Islands in Spain]. 

The text should read as follows:  

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Report on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive River Basin 
Management Plans 
Member State: SPAIN 

Accompanying the document 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

The Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive: Actions towards the 'good 
status' of EU water and to reduce flood risks 

{COM(2015) 120 final}  - {SWD(2015) 50 final}  - {SWD(2015) 51 final}  - 
{SWD(2015) 52 final}  - {SWD(2015) 53 final}  - {SWD(2015) 54 final}  - 
{SWD(2015) 55 final} 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

GENERAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................................................................... 5 

STATUS OF REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE ....................................................................................................... 9 

MAIN STRENGTHS ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 
MAIN WEAKNESSES ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 

GOVERNANCE ............................................................................................................................................................. 11 

RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANS (RBMPS) – STRUCTURE, COMPLETENESS, LEGAL STATUS ............................ 11 
CONSULTATION ........................................................................................................................................................... 11 

CHARACTERISATION OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICTS ........................................................................................ 14 

TYPOLOGY OF SURFACE WATER ............................................................................................................................... 14 
DELINEATION OF SURFACE WATER BODIES .............................................................................................................. 16 
IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT PRESSURES AND IMPACTS .................................................................................... 18 
PROTECTED AREAS ..................................................................................................................................................... 24 

MONITORING ............................................................................................................................................................... 27 

MONITORING OF SURFACE WATERS .......................................................................................................................... 29 
MONITORING OF GROUND WATERS........................................................................................................................... 30 
MONITORING OF PROTECTED AREAS ........................................................................................................................ 30 

STATUS........................................................................................................................................................................... 35 

ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL STATUS OF SURFACE WATERS ................................................................ 56 

ASSESSMENT METHODS ............................................................................................................................................... 57 
RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 60 

DESIGNATION OF HMWB AND SETTING OF GOOD ECOLOGICAL POTENTIAL (GEP) ........................ 61 

DESIGNATION OF HMWB ........................................................................................................................................... 61 
METHODOLOGY FOR GOOD ECOLOGICAL POTENTIAL (GEP) ................................................................................. 61 
RESULTS HMWB AND AWB ...................................................................................................................................... 63 

ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICAL STATUS OF SURFACE WATER ....................................................................... 66 

METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................................... 66 
SUBSTANCES CAUSING EXCEEDANCES ........................................................................................................................ 66 
MIXING ZONES ............................................................................................................................................................ 69 

ASSESSMENT OF GROUNDWATER STATUS ....................................................................................................... 69 

QUANTITATIVE STATUS ............................................................................................................................................... 70 
CHEMICAL STATUS ...................................................................................................................................................... 70 
PROTECTED AREAS ..................................................................................................................................................... 70 

OBJECTIVES AND EXEMPTIONS ............................................................................................................................ 72 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 72 
PROTECTED AREAS ..................................................................................................................................................... 73 
ARTICLES 4(4) AND 4(5) .............................................................................................................................................. 74 
ARTICLE 4(6) ............................................................................................................................................................... 77 
ARTICLE 4(7) ............................................................................................................................................................... 77 
EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE GROUNDWATER DIRECTIVE ............................................................................................. 78 

PROGRAMME OF MEASURES ................................................................................................................................. 78 

PROGRAMME OF MEASURES - GENERAL ................................................................................................................... 78 
MEASURES RELATED TO AGRICULTURE ..................................................................................................................... 82 
MEASURES RELATED TO HYDROMORPHOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 86 
MEASURES RELATED TO GROUNDWATER .................................................................................................................. 89 
MEASURES RELATED TO CHEMICAL POLLUTION ....................................................................................................... 90 

2 

 
 
MEASURES RELATED TO ARTICLE 9 ........................................................................................................................... 90 

CLIMATE CHANGE ..................................................................................................................................................... 95 

WATER SCARCITY AND DROUGHTS ............................................................................................................................ 95 
FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 95 
ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE ........................................................................................................................... 95 

RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 96 

List of acronyms 

AWB 

BQE  

CW 

CWB 

DMP 

Artificial Water Body 

Biological Quality Element 

Coastal waters  

Coastal Water Bodies 

Drought Management Plans 

DWPA 

Drinking Water Protected Areas 

Eflows 

Ecological flows 

GEP 

GWB 

Good Ecological Potential 

Groundwater Bodies 

HMWB 

Heavily Modified Water Body 

IPH 

LSO 

LW 

Instrucción de Planificación Hidrológica (Hydrological Planning Instruction)  

Less Stringent Objectives  

Lakes 

LWB 

Lake Water Bodies 

PA 

PoM 

QE 

RBD 

Protected area 

Programme of Measures 

Quality Element 

River Basin District 

RBMP 

River Basin Management Plan 

RPH 

RW 

RWB 

SEA 

SWB 

TW 

TWB 

WFD 

Reglamento de Planificación Hidrológica (Hydrological Planning Regulation) 

Rivers 

River Water Bodies 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

Surface Water Bodies 

Transitional waters 

Transitional Water Bodies 

Water Framework Directive 

WISE 

Water Information System for Europe 

3 

 
 
 
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)). 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Competent  Authorities  (RD  126/2007,  de  2  de  febrero,  que  regula  la  composición, 
las 

funcionamiento  y  atribuciones  de 
demarcaciones hidrográficas con cuencas intercomunitarias (artículo 36 bis del TRLA)). 

los  Comités  de  Autoridades  Competentes  de 

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 regions1 (ES010, ES017, ES018, ES020, ES030, ES040, ES050, ES070, ES080, ES091), 
and  not  to  rivers  that  are  completely  within  the  territory  of  one  region2  (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  Directive3.  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. 

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  

5 

 
 
                                                            
RBD  

Name 

ES010  Minho-Sil 
ES014  Galician Coast 
ES017  Cantábrico Oriental 
ES018  Cantábrico Occidental 
ES020  Duero 
ES030  Tagus  
ES040  Guadiana 
ES050  Guadalquivir 

Size 
(km2)* 
17619 
12988 
6405 
19002 
78889 
55781 
55528 
57228 

Countries sharing 
borders 
PT 
- 
FR 
- 
PT 
PT 
PT 
- 

ES060 

Andalusia Mediterranean 
Basins 

20010 

- 

ES063  Guadalete and Barbate 
ES064  Tinto, Odiel and Piedras 
Segura 
ES070 
ES080 
Jucar 
ES091  Ebro 
ES100 
ES110  Balearic Islands 
ES120  Gran Canaria 
Fuerteventura 
ES122 
ES123  Lanzarote 
ES124  Tenerife 
ES125   La Palma 
ES126  La Gomera 
ES127  El Hierro 
ES150  Ceuta 
ES160  Melilla 

5969 
4729 
19025 
42735 
85570 
Internal Basins of Catalonia  16438 
4968 
1558 
1660 
836 
2033 
706 
370 
269 
20 
24 

- 
- 
- 
- 
AD, FR 
FR 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
MA 
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 

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. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Name international 
river basin 

National RBD 

Miño/Minho 
Duero/Douro 
Guadiana 
Ebro 

Segre (Sub-Basin 
Ebro/Rhone) 
Catalan 
Lima/Limia 
Tajo/Tejo 
Garonne 
Nive (Sub-Basin Adour-
Garonne RBD) 
Nivelle (Sub-Basin 
Adour-Garonne RBD) 
Bidasoa (Sub-Basin 
Adour-Garonne RBD) 
Ceuta 
Melilla 

ES010 
ES020 
ES040 

ES091 

ES091 

ES100 
ES010 
ES030 
ES017/ES091 

ES017 

ES017 

ES017 

ES150 
ES160 

Countries 
sharing 
borders 
PT 
PT 
PT 

AD, FR 

4 
km²  % 

Co-ordination category 
2 
km²  % 
16226  95.0 
78859  80.7 
55454  82.7 
85534 

99 

AD, FR 

18750  95.2 

16438  99,9 
52.9 
1326 
55772  78.3 
555 

0.7 

121 

19.0 

70 

12.0 

689 

97.0 

FR 
PT 
PT 
FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

MA 
MA 

20 
24 

100 
100 

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Spain5 
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 Convention6. 

•  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). 

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 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
STATUS OF REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE 

At the time of compiling this report, Spain has adopted and reported the 25 RBMPs to the European 
Commission  (by  year  of  adoption):  ES100  (2011);  ES014,  ES060,  ES063  and  ES064  (2012); 
ES010,  ES017,  ES018,  ES020,  ES040,  ES050,  ES110,  ES150,  and  ES160  (2013);  and  ES030, 
ES070, ES080 and ES091 (2014)7 and  ES120, ES122, ES123, ES124, ES125, ES126 and ES127 
(2015). Full details are provided in the following table. 

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 
ES160 

RBMP Date of 
Adoption 
19/04/2013 
14/09/2012 
07/06/2013 
07/06/2013 
21/06/2013 
11/04/2014 
17/05/2013 
17/05/2013 
14/09/2012 
14/09/2012 
14/09/2012 
11/07/2014 
11/07/2014 
28/02/2014 
05/09/20118 
06/09/2013 
01/04/2015 
22/04/2015 
16/11/2015 
06/05/2015 
05/06/2015 
01/04/2015 
07/05/2015 
27/09/2013 
27/09/2013 

RBMP Date of 
Reporting 
28/06/2013 
28/06/2013 
12/02/2014 
21/10/2013 
15/11/2013 
03/11/2014 
01/07/2013 
16/07/2013 
01/08/2013 
01/08/2013 
28/06/2013 
20/10/2014 
05/11/2014 
30/10/2014 
24/02/2014 
17/10/2014 
22/06/2015 
17/06/2015 
04/02/2016 
12/05/2015 
22/06/2015 
21/04/2015 
17/07/2015 
29/10/2014 
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). 

list 

is  provided  at:  http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/agua/temas/planificacion-hidrologica/planificacion-

7  A  full 
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.  

8 

 
 
                                                            
A summary of the main strengths and weaknesses of the Spanish RBMPs is presented below: 

Main strengths 

•  There has been an extensive technical work carried out by the river basin authorities in the 

preparation of the RBMPs. 

•  The  RBMPs  are  complete  and  structured  documents,  which  generally  include  numerous 
annexes with a significant amount of detailed information and background documents.  

•  Quantitative aspects are considered, with water balances done for each RBD and ecological 

flows calculated for many river stretches. 

•  Significant efforts have been made to ensure a broad public participation in the process of 

development of the RBMP. 

•  All RBMPs have gone through a strategic environmental assessment. 

Main weaknesses 

•  The late approval of RBMPs9. Spain should ensure the timely adoption of the next RBMPs. 

•  Further work is needed to ensure WFD is fully transposed in all intra-community RBDs. 

•  No  river,  lake  or  transitional  surface  water  bodies  have  been  designated  in  the  Canary 
Islands  without  providing  a  proper  justification,  despite  the  existence  of  rivers  and  large 
dams.  No  further  work,  such  as  monitoring,  identification  of  pressures,  classification  of 
status or the adoption of measures has been consequently developed. 

•  The gaps on characterisation, the deficiencies in  monitoring programmes and in the status 
assessment methods have resulted in an important number of water bodies with unreliable 
or  unknown  status.  This  undermines  the  whole  planning  process  and  compromises  the 
definition  of  the  necessary  measures  and  the  achievement  of  environmental  objectives. 
Furthermore,  environmental  objectives  are  missing  for  a  relatively  high  number  of  water 
bodies, or are delayed until 3rd planning cycle (2027) without proper justification. 

•  Quantitative management of water is linked to quality objectives through the establishment 
of ecological flows in many river stretches, but these are generally not clearly linked to the 
achievement of good status.  

•  High number of new infrastructure projects are planned, but the conditions for application 
of exemptions (WFD Article 4(7)) have not been included in the RBMPs and the potential 
impacts  on  the  status  are  generally  not  reflected  in  the  environmental  objectives  of  water 
bodies. 

•  Cost  recovery  instruments  have  not  been  adapted  to  the  WFD  requirements.  As  a 
consequence, there is a lack of adequate incentives for efficient use of the resource and the 
adequate contribution to the recovery from different users is not guaranteed. Environmental 

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  

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
and resource costs are high but not included in the recovery. River basin authorities do not 
have sufficient resources to exert an effective control of water uses in the RBDs.  

•  Despite  its  importance  for  management  and  planning  purposes,  the  register  of  water 
abstractions is not yet completed in Spain. Metering of water uses should be generalised.  

•  The  consideration  of  water  dependent  protected  areas  should  be  improved.  Specific 
objectives, monitoring and measures need to be included in the RBMPs in order to ensure 
the favourable conservation status of water-dependent protected habitats and species. 

GOVERNANCE 

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

RBMPs are adopted by the Government through a Royal Decree, which is published in the Spanish 
Official Gazette, except for the Canary Islands (RBDs ES12X), for which the RBMPs are finally 
adopted  by  a  Decree  of  the  regional  government.  Regionally-managed  RBDs  are  preceded  by 
approval by the Regional Government. The legal part of the RBMPs is therefore binding for third 
parties.  

The RBMPs consist of a package of documents including the main text (several hundreds of pages), 
and a varying number and length of Annexes and Appendices, that sometimes include preparatory 
or  background  documents  (e.g.  detailed  characterisation  studies  of  certain  groundwater  bodies 
(GWB)), thus often amounting several thousands of pages. They are usually well structured, with 
different degrees of technical detail between the main text and the Appendices.  

Nonetheless, some information is missing or has not been identified in the screening assessment of 
some of the RBMPs, such as the result of the public consultation and its integration in the RBMP; 
links  between  pressures,  objectives  and  measures;  information  at  water  body  level  (pressures, 
status,  objectives  and  measures);  or  the  results  of  the  tasks/studies  carried  out  (e.g.  status 
classification by different quality elements, modelling exercises, cost-effectiveness analysis).  

Consultation 

Though Spain had previous experience in managing water at the river basin level and establishing 
RBMPs, the WFD process started late in all RBDs.  

The  establishment  of  RBDs  and  competent  authorities  (due  in  2003)  was  done  late  and  the 
Commission took Spain to Court10. 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 

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  

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
the public consultation process (more than 2 years difference in many cases). The adoption of the 
Canary Islands RBMPs (ES12X) has been completed during 2015.  

Timetable, work 
programme and 
statement on 
consultation measures 

Significant 
water 
management 
issues 

Draft RBMP 

Final  
adoption 
RBMP 

22/12/2006 

22/12/2007 

22/12/2008 

22/12/2009 

26/07/2007 

28/04/2008 

26/07/2007 

26/07/2007 

26/07/2007 

26/07/2007 

26/07/2007 

26/07/2007 

02/07/2008 
01/02/2008 and 
22/05/2010  
01/02/2008 and 
22/05/2010 
26/07/2007 

26/07/2007 

26/07/2007 

01/11/2006 

10/2006 

03/2009 

25/12/2009 

20/05/2009 

28/11/2008 

12/03/2009 

18/12/2009 

30/10/2012 

30/10/2012 

31/07/2008 

15/12/2010 

19/04/2013 

28/01/2009 

20/08/2010 

14/09/2012 

31/07/2008 

04/05/2011 

07/06/2013 

31/07/2008 

04/05/2011 

07/06/2013 

31/07/2008 

15/12/2010 

21/06/2013 

31/07/2008 

20/03/2013 

11/04/2014 

31/07/2008 

25/05/2011 

17/05/2013 

31/07/2008 

15/12/2010 

17/05/2013 

28/05/2009 

22/05/2010 

14/09/2012 

28/05/2009 

22/05/2010 

14/09/2012 

28/05/2009 

22/05/2010 

14/09/2012 

31/07/2008 

07/06/2013 

11/07/2014 

18/12/2009 

07/08/2013 

11/07/2014 

31/07/2008 

12/05/2012 

28/02/2014 

01/12/2007 

06/2007 

21/12/2009 

16/12/2009 
01/09/2008 
09/11/2011 
10/10/2013 

02/09/2011 

06/09/2013 

01/04/2015 

04/12/2013 

22/04/2015 

28/06/2011 

09/10/2013 

16/11/2015 

05/05/2010 

06/05/2015 

22/05/2010 

07/08/2012 

05/06/2015 

15/05/2012 

09/08/2013 

01/04/2015 

2011 

15/12/2012 

07/05/2015 

01/12/2012 

28/12/2012 

27/09/2013 

30/11/2012 

28/12/2012 

27/09/2013 

RBD 

Due 
dates 
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 3.2.1: Timeline of the different steps of the consultation process 
Source: WISE, RBMPs and ES websites and Information provided by Spain (2014). Note that the dRBMP ES110 has 
been consulted twice. 

Though  the  timing  of  consultation  has  in  general  been  delayed,  all  RBMPs  have  respected  the  6 
months required length of consultation during the drafting process, with ES124 being consulted for 
9  months.  All  RBMPs provide details of the consultation process, and some (e.g. ES100, ES010, 
ES020,  ES050,  ES080)  publish  also  overviews  and  summary  data  on  the  key  impact  of  public 
consultation  on  the  contents  of  the  RBMP.  During  the  consultation,  usually  several  hundreds  of 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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  Authorities11,  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 stakeholders12. 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. 

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. 

12 

 
 
                                                            
Figure 3.2.1: Support within the National Water Advisory Board to RBMPs 
Source: Information provided by Spain (2014). 

CHARACTERISATION OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICTS 

Typology of Surface Water 

The  general  methodology  for  the  establishment  of  types  and  reference  conditions  has  been 
regulated  by  the  IPH  (section  2.2.1.3  and  2.2.1.4  and  Annexes  II  and  III)  following  a  spatially-
based technical proposal by Spanish Research Centre CEDEX. The IPH establishes 32 river types, 
30 lake types, 13 transitional water types and 20 coastal water types.  

Additional  types  have  been  established  by  River  Basin  Authorities  (RBAs)  (e.g.  coastal  types  in 
ES070 and river types in ES110 - this latter still in process). The following number of surface water 
(SW) types has been considered in the RBMPs: 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
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 

ES160 

Sum 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

9 

7 

6 

12 

17 

27 

14 

17 

13 

7 

6 

10 

12 

9 

15 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

3 

0 

3 

5 

7 

8 

12 

12 

7 

4 

1 

4 

7 

19 

12 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

3 

3 

6 

1 

3 

4 

2 

3 

2 

2 

2 

3 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

7 

1 

3 

2 

2 

4 

3 

2 

5 

6 

1 

8 

4 

5 

4 

5 

7 

4 

4 

3 

2 

2 

32 

30 

13 

2130 

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level 
Source: WISE and Information provided by Spain. 

For river type water bodies, system B has been chosen for all categories based on a variety of data 
(hydrological, geological, physical, climatic, etc.) and it is not clear if they have been tested against 
biological data. Occasionally, system A has also been used.  

Tabulated  values  for  reference  conditions  and  class  boundaries  have  been  established  by  the  IPH 
for  rivers  but  not  for  all  surface  water  body types.  The  IPH  does  not include  values  for  lake  and 
transitional  water  body  types13.  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. 

13  Spain  informed  in  2014  that  some  RBDs  have  developed  reference  conditions  and  class  boundaries  for  additional 
quality elements. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                            
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.  

15 

 
 
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 

ES160 

Total 

Rivers 

Lakes

Transitional

Coastal

Surface Water

Groundwater 

Number 

Average 
Length (km) 

Number 

Average Area 
(sq km) 

Number 

Average Area
(sq km) 

Number 

Average Area 
(sq km) 

Number 

Average Area 
(sq km) 

270 

411 

109 

250 

696 

308 

249 

392 

133 

65 

48 

90 

304 

700 

261 

94 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

4.381 

16.49 

10.63 

14.23 

15.39 

19.95 

29.44 

35.95 

27.68 

16.79 

17.19 

19.57 

19.13 

18.60 

19.10 

15.28 

6.16 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5.35 

19.76 

3 

0 

11 

7 

14 

16 

58 

35 

8 

10 

5 

6 

19 

110 

27 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.48 

0 

0.41 

0.23 

0.89 

0.95 

1.05 

27.11 

2.59 

0.23 

0.25 

6.39 

2.22 

0.74 

0.15 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

22 

14 

21 

4 

13 

7 

10 

11 

1 

4 

8 

25 

36 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6.33 

4.77 

3.46 

4.37 

12.85 

10.64 

2.14 

12.26 

14.33 

25.17 

3.69 

19.42 

0.08 

1.23 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

29 

4 

15 

2 

3 

27 

12 

4 

17 

22 

3 

33 

42 

6 

5 

6 

11 

5 

4 

3 

3 

3 

329 

3.76 

180 

5.54 

260 

15.98 

110.26 

144.43 

103.75 

31.31 

163.56 

76.53 

44.65 

43.69 

71.13 

97.09 

103.40 

48.47 

89.18 

549.90 

444.70 

375.70212 

72.68 

55.00 

41.00 

261.48 

13.48 

3.54 

105.88 

6 

18 

28 

20 

64 

24 

20 

60 

67 

14 

4 

63 

90 

105 

39 

90 

10 

4 

1 

4 

5 

5 

3 

1 

3 

2934.1 

729.5 

205.0 

693.6 

1232.6 

910.1 

1124.1 

624.6 

155.2 

304.5 

257.5 

243.8 

453.6 

521.5 

288.6 

52.6 

155.8 

413.2 

846.1 

508.2 

142.0 

73.6 

89.7 

11.2 

5.0 

748 

482.8 

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions  
Source: WISE, RBMPs and information provided by Spain (2014).  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Spain  has  delineated  4,381  River  Water  Bodies  (RWB),  329  Lake  Water  Bodies  (LWB),  180 
Transitional  Water  Bodies  (TWB)  and  260  Coastal  Water  Bodies  (CWB).  The  average  length  of 
RWB is 19 km, and the average surface of LWB is 3 km2, of TWB 5 km2 and of CWB 105 km2. 
Significant  larger  averages  have  been  identified  for  RWBs  in  ES030,  ES040  and  ES050.  The 
reasons for such differences are not clear.  

Note that in the Canary Islands - following the statement of the regional Water Planning Instruction 
(Decree  165/2015)  -  no  river,  lake  or  transitional  water  bodies  have  been  designated,  despite  the 
existence of rivers14, large dams15 and protected areas16. For example, in ES 125, both Barranco de 
las Angustias and Barranco del Agua could be examples of significant watercourses, candidates to 
be classified as SWB. Note that the whole island is a Biosphere Reserve. 
Spain has delineated 748 GWB, with an average size of 482 km2; a significantly larger average size 
has been applied in ES010. The reasons for these differences are not clear. 
The minimum size of small water bodies has been set at 5 km length for RWB, 0.5 km2 for LWB 
(or 0.08 km2 if the lake is deeper than 3 metres, or whatever dimensions if protected in the Ramsar 
list), 0.5 km2 for TWB and 5 km length of coastline for CWB.  

Following  the  National  CEDEX  guidance,  minor  lakes  are  frequently  aggregated  to  conform  a 
LWB (e.g. lagoon complex), thus reflecting much better the large number of small LWB in Spain. 
Similarly, small river stretches of different typology may be added to connecting larger ones. 

In  the  case  of  TWB,  limits  are  established  following  geographical  parameters  (public  coastal 
maritime domain), but consider also chemical aspects such as the salinity gradient in the river, and 
the penetration of freshwater into the sea, and other criteria associated with the description of the 
status of the TWB. 

Identification of significant pressures and impacts 

The identification of the pressures and impacts of human activity on water bodies was done for the 
first  time  in  the  context  of  the  IMPRESS  study  on  the  basis  of  the  “Guidance  to  identifying 
pressures  and  impact  analysis in  surface  waters (2005)”  (hereinafter in  this  chapter referred to  as 
the Guidance). This study included the identification and the assessment of pressures and impacts 
associated with point and non-point pollution, significant water withdrawals and returns, regulation 
works,  hydromorphological  alterations,  and  other  significant  anthropogenic  impacts  on  water 
bodies.  The  approach  relied  first  on  a  qualitative  assessment  and,  in  a  second  stage,  on  a 
quantitative assessment based on a simplified model. The objective of this study was to identify the 
water bodies at risk of failing the WFD environmental objectives. 

For the purpose of the qualitative assessment, the Guidance included thresholds of significance for 
the various pressure categories. The impact was estimated or measured and assessed as "confirmed" 
"probable",  "no  impact"  or  "no  data".    On  this  basis  the  final  assessment  of  risk  of  failing 

14 E.g. RBMP ES127 refers to one river basin with 13 km2, this means above the WFD thresholds for being considered 
15 The 2006 Art.5 Analysis informs about 116 large dams with 100 hm3 storage capacity. The largest capacity exists in 
ES120 followed by ES124; including in ES120 the large Soria dam with 15hm3 used storage capacityand a watershed 
of 32 km2. 
16 E.g. the Natura 2000 Standard Data Form for ES0000043 (Caldera de Taburiente) refers to its “abundance of springs 
and water courses”. 

17 

 
 
 
                                                            
environmental  objectives  was  established,  which  depended  on  the  characteristics  of  each  water 
body.  
The  2008  IPH17,  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)18. 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 

17 It is not clear to what extent the Guidance and the IPH was used in intra-community RBDs. 
18 According to information provided by Spain, the application of thresholds has been done on a case by case basis.  

18 

 
 
                                                            
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 

19 

 
 
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.  

20 

 
 
 
 
No pressures 

Point source 

Diffuse source 

Water abstraction 

RBD 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

Flow regulations 
and morphological 
alterations 
No 

% 

River management 

No. 

% 

Transitional and 
coastal water 
management 
No. 

% 

Other 
morphological 
alterations 
No. 

% 

Other pressures 

No. 

% 

ES010 

200 

ES014 

ES017 

ES018 

ES020 

ES030 

ES040 

ES050 

ES060 

ES063 

ES064 

ES070 

ES080 

ES091 

ES100 

ES110 

ES120 

ES122 

ES123 

ES124 

ES125  

ES126 

ES127 

ES150 

ES160 

63 

25 

12 

160 

243 

36 

210 

20 

54 

38 

14 

64 

635 

54 

129 

1 

2 

2 

5 

2 

3 

1 

71.9 

13.6 

18.1 

4.1 

22.5 

75.0 

11.5 

47.4 

11.4 

55.7 

55.9 

12.3 

18.3 

77.3 

15.6 

75.0 

0 

20 

33.33 

18.18 

100 

50 

100 

25.0 

58 

178 

75 

177 

264 

67 

136 

163 

119 

33 

22 

38 

122 

147 

159 

18 

5 

4 

4 

6 

0 

2 

0 

2 

20.9 

38.5 

54.3 

60.4 

37.2 

20.7 

43.5 

36.8 

68.0 

34.0 

32.4 

33.3 

35.0 

17.9 

46.0 

10.5 

83.33 

80 

66.67 

54.55 

0 

50 

0 

50.0 

34 

181 

33 

17 

92 

18 

23 

78 

87 

40 

25 

73 

201 

155 

117 

32 

1 

1 

2 

6 

0 

1 

0 

0 

12.2 

39.2 

23.9 

5.8 

13 

5.6 

7.3 

17.6 

49.7 

41.2 

36.8 

64.0 

57.6 

18.9 

33.8 

18.6 

16.67 

20 

33.33 

54.55 

0 

25 

0 

0.0 

49 

3 

74 

189 

74 

45 

166 

147 

86 

26 

17 

40 

78 

39 

62 

9 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

16.9 

11.7 

64.5 

67.6 

61.8 

6.2 

36.1 

19.0 

18.3 

36.1 

38.2 

29.8 

40.1 

14.6 

31.5 

6.4 

0 

0 

0 

72.7 

0 

0 

0 

50.0 

0 

22 

77 

156 

0 

0 

0 

57 

12 

0 

0 

32 

0 

0 

0 

10 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.0 

4.8 

55.8 

53.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

12.9 

6.9 

0.0 

0.0 

28.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

5.8 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.0 

0 

18 

12 

31 

0 

0 

28 

0 

0 

13 

0 

0 

14 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0.0 

3.9 

8.7 

10.6 

0.0 

0.0 

16.0 

0.0 

0.0 

11.4 

0.0 

0.0 

4.0 

0.0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

25.0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

17 

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 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.6 

4.9 

0.0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.0 

30 

277 

59 

175 

1 

0 

68 

29 

11 

1 

10 

42 

145 

1 

185 

13 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

10.8 

60.0 

42.8 

59.7 

0.1 

0.0 

21.7 

6.5 

6.3 

1.0 

14.7 

36.8 

41.5 

0.1 

53.5 

7.6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.0 

17.6 

0.6 

53.6 

64.5 

10.4 

13.9 

53.0 

33.2 

49.1 

26.8 

25.0 

35.1 

22.3 

4.8 

17.9 

5.2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.0 

47 

54 

89 

198 

439 

20 

113 

84 

32 

35 

26 

34 

140 

120 

109 

11 

0 

0 

0 

8 

0 

0 

0 

2 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RBD 

Total 

No pressures 

Point source 

Diffuse source 

Water abstraction 

No. 
1958 

% 
38.2 

No. 
1796 

% 
35.1 

No. 
1118 

% 
21.8 

No. 

% 

1026 

21.420.02 

Flow regulations 
and morphological 
alterations 
No 
1554 

% 
30.3 

River management 

No. 

% 

Transitional and 
coastal water 
management 
No. 

% 

Other 
morphological 
alterations 
No. 

% 

Other pressures 

No. 

% 

365 

7.12 

117 

2.3 

22 

0.4 

1046 

20.4 

Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures. 
Source: WISE and information provided by Spain (2014). No data available for ES150. 

22 

 
 
Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures 
1 = No pressures 
2 = Point source 
3 = Diffuse source 
4 = Water abstraction 
5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations 
6 = River management 
7 = Transitional and coastal water management 
8 = Other morphological alterations 
9 = Other pressures 
Source: WISE. No data available for ES150.  

Protected areas 

More  than  28800  Protected  Areas  have  been  reported  for  those  RBDs  with  WISE  data 
available, an average of 5 Protected Areas per water body.  

Of these, by far the largest number corresponds to the more than 21000 Protected Areas for 
abstraction for drinking water, an average of 4.9 such Protected Areas per water body. The 
Ebro (ES091) is the RBD with the largest number of such areas.  

More than 1600 bathing water Protected Areas have been reported, mainly for ES014, ES060 
and ES100. 

More  than  1100  areas  protected  for  their  habitats  and  more  than  500  for  their  birds  are 
reported.  They  account  for  an  average  of  0.28  protected  area  for  every  water  body,  with 
higher values in ES150, ES070, ES091 and ES030. 

401 Nitrate Vulnerable Zones have been reported, 218 shellfish areas (mainly in ES014), and 
462 UWWT Protected Areas (especially relevant for ES110 and ES100). 

The information included in the RBMPs regarding Protected Areas usually refers to a list of 
the  Protected  Areas,  their  classification,  and  an  overview  map  of  their  location  within  the 
RBD,  displayed  as  points.  Nonetheless,  in  general  no  information  is  provided  on  the 
following  features:  the  specific  protection  elements  (e.g.  shellfish,  habitats  and  birds),  the 

23 

 
 
 
 
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). 

24 

 
 
Number of PAs 

r
o
f
n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
A

r
e
t
a
w
g
n
i
k
n
i
r
d

7
e
l
c
i
t
r
A

754 

2183 

106 

123 

3518 

476 

1521 

954 

882 

109 

86 

119 

1980 

7072 

1292 

80 

30 

0 

35 

5 

11 

5 

g
n
i
h
t
a
B

32 

448 

36 

99 

26 

32 

26 

32 

237 

53 

25 

116 

176 

43 

208 

26 

46 

33 

32 

39 

7 

7 

4 

7 

s
d
r
i
B

11 

9 

4 

16 

53 

63 

43 

13 

21 

14 

6 

33 

44 

132 

24 

24 

5 

7 

7 

7 

1 

6 

3 

2 

21 
2136
2 

8 
1766
1798 

2 
5435
50 

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 

ES160 

Total 

r
e
h
t
O
n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

0 

7 

0 

3 

2 

0 

11 

12 

10 

3 

2 

0 

0 

11 

66 

0 

h
s
i
F

8 

8 

9 

14 

21 

15 

23 

16 

3 

3 

0 

1 

4 

15 

19 

0 

s
t
a
t
i
b
a
H

20 

37 

36 

79 

78 

85 

61 

38 

70 

25 

19 

73 

83 

292 

56 

71 

38 

10 

0 

0 

1811 

17 

28 

26 

9 

2 

0 
1253
1264 

0 

0 

0 

0 

127 

159 

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
N

166 

12 

80 

111 

493 

60 

168 

152 

72 

37 

38 

141 

96 

143 

85 

0 

0 

1 

0 

s
e
t
a
r
t
i

N

0 

0 

0 

0 

10 

7 

10 

9 

14 

3 

3 

9 

280 

23 

20 

13 

7 

0 

1 

1 

2 

1 

0 

0 
1854 

0 
418 

l
a
c
o
L

83 

142 

80 

152 

0 

0 

0 

0 

39 

0 

0 

0 

8 

0 

261 

316 

15 

0 

7 

16 

0 

0 
1119 

h
s
i
f
l
l
e
h
S

1 

95 

3 

17 

0 

0 

6 

6 

36 

7 

5 

7 

7 

5 

18 

4 

0 

1 

0 
218 

T
W
W
U

6 

2 

12 

8 

36 

53 

19 

13 

3 

3 

3 

7 

30 

29 

113 

125 

2 

3 

6 

1 

1 

4 

1 

0 

0 
4744
80 

l
a
t
o
T

1081 

2943 

366 

622 

4237 

791 

1888 

1245 

1387 

257 

187 

506 

2708 

7765 

2162 

659 

113 

83 

056 

107 

38 

67 

29 

17 

31 
2929
3293
49 

Table 4.5.1: Number of Protected Areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and 
groundwater19 
Source: WISE and Information provided by Spain.  

19  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. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
MONITORING 

Some estimated 18000 monitoring sites have been reported by Spain, mainly for rivers and 
groundwater bodies. The average number of monitoring sites per water body is 18 for GWB, 
4.3 for CWB, 4(4) for TWB, 1.5 for RWB and 0.8 for LWB.  

The  information  provided  in  the  RBMPs  and  WISE  regarding  monitoring  systems  is  not 
always  fully  consistent.  The  RBMPs  usually  include  the  legal  texts  and  maps  showing  the 
monitoring sites, but no information on the methodology for the design of the network (e.g. 
how  pressure  and  impact  analysis  has  been  used  to  design  the  monitoring  programmes). 
Information  on  gaps  or  the  status  of  implementation  is  also  missing,  although  it  appears  a 
significant  issue  given  the  high  percentage  of  water  bodies  with  unknown  status  (see  next 
chapter). 

In fact, additional information gathered through the bilateral meeting held in November 2014 
shows  that  monitoring  programmes  are  not  being  implemented  as  reported  and,  due  to 
budgetary cuts, monitoring efforts have significantly reduced since 2010.  

No  information  on  operational  monitoring  sites  has  been  provided  for  several  RBDs/water 
categories (ES010 and ES070 re CW; ES019, ES017, ES050 re LW operational sites; ES060, 
ES063 and ES064 re GW quantitative sites). In some cases operational monitoring is not in 
place  because  there  are  no  water  bodies  identified  at  risk  (ES040,  ES050,  ES120,  ES122, 
ES124, ES125, ES126, ES127 re CW; ES014 and ES018 re GW quantitative sites). 

Generally,  there  is  no  or  unclear  information  about  grouping  of  water  bodies  (e.g.  ES014, 
ES017,  ES018,  ES040,  ES100),  despite  larger  number  of  RWB  and  LWB  than  monitoring 
sites (in the overall figures). Differences exist between the number of water bodies monitored 
for each quality element as indicated in the monitoring programmes and the number of water 
bodies where information on status of each quality element is provided (e.g. ES017, ES018 
for fish, ES020). The reason for these differences is not clear.  

International monitoring programmes are set up for ES020 and ES040 with PT, and though 
they  have  not  been  established  for  ES010  with  PT  or  for  ES017  with  FR,  transboundary 
coordination is in place. 

26 

 
 
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 

ES160 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Groundwater 

Surv 

Op 

Surv 

Op 

Surv 

Op 

Surv 

Op 

Surv 

86 

519 

165 

505 

819 

466 

165 

274 

48 

30 

30 

101 

154 

358 

301 

63 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

74 

29 

239 

204 

726 

169 

217 

114 

72 

79 

64 

78 

101 

286 

111 

33 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

6 

8 

32 

20 

18 

4 

3 

4 

5 

6 

20 

40 

29 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

2 

4 

17 

0 

2 

4 

6 

1 

17 

22 

7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

68 

25 

0 

0 

4 

0 

70 

11 

0 

0 

1 

187 

73 

106 

64 

0 

0 

8 

41 

9 

21 

42 

7 

31 

42 

28 

31 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 

20 

9 

21 

42 

0 

12 

41 

7 

20 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

9 

46 

35 

16 

31 

226 

36 

31 

72 

0 

0 

0 

0 

18 

35 

16 

104 

113 

36 

16 

15 

186 

117 

50 

46 

30 

0 

44 

18 

7 

20 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7 

0 
464 

4 
8308
76 
14351481 

5,65.7 

44 

51 

38 

53 

486 

214 

121 

155 

98 

75 

42 

45 

218 

1693 

613 

328 

24 

36 

1 

54 

16 

8 

17 

0 

0 
4430 

Quant 

8 

51 

28 

36 

555 

202 

207 

266 

0 

0 

0 

172 

287 

377 

446 

126 

60 

36 

1 

36 

6 

5 

17 

0 

0 
2922 

Op 

18 

0 

21 

0 

140 

59 

33 

78 

98 

36 

15 

368 

99 

0 

867 

123 

36 

13 

0 

5 

14 

3 

17 

0 

0 
2043 

7356 

9.8 

Total by type of site 

4084  2597 

195 

85 

545 

255 

Total number of 
monitoring sites20 
Total number 
compared to the 
number of 
corresponding WBs 

6681 

280 

1,5 

0,8 

800 

4,4 

Table 5.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category 
Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant = Quantitative 
Source: WISE and Information provided by Spain. There are large differences between the figures reported in 
WISE and those corrected by Spanish authorities in 2014. 

20 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. 

27 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
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). 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 RBDs21: 

-  RW: Lack of monitoring QE1-2, QE1-4 and QE3-3 
-  LW: Lack of monitoring in general (e.g. ES010), QE1-2, QE1-3, QE1-4, QE2, QE3-1 

and QE3-3.  

One important gap is the lack of monitoring for fish in most of the RBDs.  

In  terms  of  operational  monitoring,  information  on  the  relationship  between  pressures, 
impacts and monitored biological quality elements (BQEs) is scarce. It can be noted that in 
ES017  and  ES018  (RW)  altered  habitats  due  to  abstractions  or  water  flow  are  not 
monitored/related  to  QE1-4.  Information  is  lacking  on  how  chemical  pollution  due  to 
atmospheric  deposition  will  be  detected,  and  it  has  not  been  considered  in  the  design  of 
pollutant sampling in river basins. 

Monitoring  of  sediments  and  biota  is  not  specified  in  most  of  the  RBMPs  (e.g.  ES017, 
ES018,  ES020,  ES040,  ES050,  ES12)  but  additional  information  received  from  Spain 
indicates that monitoring of sediments and biota is being undertaken in all RBDs.  

Monitoring of Ground Waters 

Significant  monitoring  networks  have  been  built  up  to  control  groundwater  status,  in 
particular  based  on  the  existing  quantitative  (piezometric)  networks,  and  on  average  10 
monitoring sites exist per GWB. The monitoring network is particular dense in the areas with 
intensive  abstractions.  The  exception  is  ES060,  ES063  and  ES064  where  no  quantitative 
monitoring  is  reported  despite  intensive  water  use.  ES120  reports  significant  data  gaps  and 
the  lack  of  representativeness  of  the  quantitative  monitoring  network  to  provide  adequate 
data. This data scarcity is a general problem in the whole Canarian archipielago, transfering 
uncertainty to the status assessment and the settlement of objectives. 

The  groundwater  chemical  status  monitoring  programmes  are  designed  in  order  to  detect 
significant and sustained upward trends in pollutants, even though a detailed justification is 
lacking in the documents of the RBMPs. 

Monitoring of Protected Areas 

Monitoring in protected areas is required under WFD Article 8 and section 1.3.5 of Annex V. 

A total of 679 monitoring sites have been reported for Protected Areas (PAs), this is one site 
per 24 PAs. Most of them relate to bathing water, drinking water and nitrates.  

21 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. 

29 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
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 

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 

Surface 
drinking 
water 
abstraction 
55 
104 
104 
103 
143 
109 
63 
50 
33 
0 
0 
8 
16 
132 
45 
76 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
4 
0 

Surface waters 

Bathing 
water 

Fish 

Birds 
sites 

Habitats 
sites 

Nitrates 

Shell-
fish 

UWWT 

Ground-
water 
drinking 
water 

27 
0 
55 
99 
27 
31 
19 
0 
0 
0 
0 
55 
5 

242 
63 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
13 
0 
0 
0 

21 
13 
10 
14 
21 
15 
16 
18 
3 
3 
0 
2 
8 
15 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
16 

* 
32 
0 
0 
0 
0 
58 
- 
- 
19 
54 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

268 

0 
0 
0 
78 

* 
56 
0 
0 
0 
0 
63 
- 
- 
0 
82 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
138 
0 
0 
38 
* 
67 
0 
0 
0 
0 
28 
107 
NA 
556 
19 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
5 
17 
NA 
NA 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
- 
- 
0 
8 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

7 
0 
5 
0 
151 
* 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
- 
25 
99 
41 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

9 
44 
10 
20 
144 

0 
80 
0 
0 
0 
28 
- 
348 
138 
204 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
22 
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.  

30 

 
 
 
 
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. 

31 

 
 
 
 
Rivers 

Lakes 

a
r
o
l
f

c
i
t
a
u
q
a

r
e
h
t
O
2
.
1
E
Q

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
e
t
y
h
p
o
r
c
a
M
3
.
2
.
1
E
Q

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
o
h
t
n
e
b
o
t
y
h
P
4
.
2
.
1
E
Q

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
e
t
a
r
b
e
t
r
e
v
n
i

c
i
h
t
n
e
B
3
.
1
E
Q

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

r
e
h
t
O
5
.
1
E
Q
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

h
s
i
F
4
.
1
E
Q

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
E
Q

l
a
c
i
g
o
l
o
h
p
r
o
m
o
r
d
y
H
2
E
Q

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
r
e
t
e
m
a
r
a
P

l
a
r
e
n
e
G
1
.
3
E
Q

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

c
i
f
i
c
e
p
s

y
t
i
r
o
i
r
p
n
o
N

3
.
3
E
Q

s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
p
l
a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
h
t
O
4
.
3
E
Q

- 

- 

- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

a
r
o
l
f

c
i
t
a
u
q
a

r
e
h
t
O
2
.
1
E
Q

- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

n
o
t
k
n
a
l
p
o
t
y
h
P
1
.
1
E
Q

- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
e
t
y
h
p
o
r
c
a
M
3
.
2
.
1
E
Q

- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
o
h
t
n
e
b
o
t
y
h
P
4
.
2
.
1
E
Q

- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
e
t
a
r
b
e
t
r
e
v
n
i

c
i
h
t
n
e
B
3
.
1
E
Q

- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

r
e
h
t
O
5
.
1
E
Q
- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 

- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

h
s
i
F
4
.
1
E
Q

- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
E
Q

l
a
c
i
g
o
l
o
h
p
r
o
m
o
r
d
y
H
2
E
Q

- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
r
e
t
e
m
a
r
a
P

l
a
r
e
n
e
G
1
.
3
E
Q

- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

c
i
f
i
c
e
p
s

y
t
i
r
o
i
r
p
n
o
N
3
.
3
E
Q

s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
p

- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
p
l
a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
h
t
O
4
.
3
E
Q
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

2
2
n
o
t
k
n
a
l
p
o
t
y
h
P
1
.
1
E
Q

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

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 
ES160 

22 The use of phytoplankton as an indicator in rivers is limited in Spain to reservoirs only.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Transitional 

Coastal 

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 
ES160 

n
o
t
k
n
a
l
p
o
t
y
h
P
1
.
1
E
Q

- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

a
r
o
l
f

c
i
t
a
u
q
a

r
e
h
t
O
2
.
1
E
Q

- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

e
a
g
l
a
o
r
c
i

M
1
.
2
.
1
E
Q

- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s

m
r
e
p
s
o
i
g
n
A
2
.
2
.
1
E
Q

- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
e
t
a
r
b
e
t
r
e
v
n
i

c
i
h
t
n
e
B
3
.
1
E
Q

- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

r
e
h
t
O
5
.
1
E
Q
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

h
s
i
F
4
.
1
E
Q

- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
E
Q

l
a
c
i
g
o
l
o
h
p
r
o
m
o
r
d
y
H
2
E
Q

- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
r
e
t
e
m
a
r
a
P

l
a
r
e
n
e
G
1
.
3
E
Q

- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

c
i
f
i
c
e
p
s

y
t
i
r
o
i
r
p
n
o
N
3
.
3
E
Q

s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
p

- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
p
l
a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
h
t
O
4
.
3
E
Q

- 

- 
- 

- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

Table 5.1: Quality elements monitored - Source: Information provided by Spain (2015). 

  QE Monitored 

  QE Not monitored 

- 

  Not Relevant 

a
r
o
l
f

c
i
t
a
u
q
a

r
e
h
t
O
2
.
1
E
Q

- 
- 

n
o
t
k
n
a
l
p
o
t
y
h
P
1
.
1
E
Q

- 
- 

e
a
g
l
a
o
r
c
i

M
1
.
2
.
1
E
Q

- 
- 

s

m
r
e
p
s
o
i
g
n
A
2
.
2
.
1
E
Q

- 
- 

s
e
t
a
r
b
e
t
r
e
v
n
i

c
i
h
t
n
e
B
3
.
1
E
Q

- 
- 

- 

- 

s
E
Q

l
a
c
i
g
o
l
o
h
p
r
o
m
o
r
d
y
H
2
E
Q

- 
- 

s
r
e
t
e
m
a
r
a
P

l
a
r
e
n
e
G
1
.
3
E
Q

- 
- 

c
i
f
i
c
e
p
s

y
t
i
r
o
i
r
p
n
o
N
3
.
3
E
Q

s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
p

- 
- 

s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
p
l
a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
h
t
O
4
.
3
E
Q
- 
- 

- 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

r
e
h
t
O
5
.
1
E
Q
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

h
s
i
F
4
.
1
E
Q
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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    

ES050 Guadalquivir 

ES060 Andalucía Med 

ES070 Segura  

ES080 Jucar 

ES091 Ebro 

ES040 Guadiana  

ES020 Duero   

61  

59 

54 

48 

42 

34 

28 

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. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
High 

Good 

Moderate 

Poor 

Bad 

Unknown 

No. 

(%) 

No. 

(%) 

No. 

(%)  No. 

(%)  No. 

(%) 

16,0 

140 

RBD 

Total 

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 

227 

422 

101 

258 

620 

198 

244 

325 

130 

67 

51 

84 

289 

705 

268 

158 

5 

5 

55 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

2 

69 

74 

4 

51 

28 

10 

6 

52 

11 

0 

2 

13 

3 

71 

5 

22 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

30,4 

17,5 

4,0 

19,8 

4,5 

5,1 

2,5 

8,5 

0,0 

3,9 

15,5 

1,0 

10,1 

1,9 

13,9 

20,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

No. 

101 

137 

49 

143 

105 

111 

63 

60 

13 

16 

28 

120 

169 

62 

47 

4 

5 

(%) 

44,5 

32,5 

48,5 

55,4 

16,9 

56,1 

25,8 

43,1 

46,2 

19,4 

31,4 

33,3 

41,5 

24,0 

23,1 

29,7 

80,0 

100,0 

05 

83,3 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

2 

100,0 

100,0 

100,0 

100,0 

100,0 

100,0 

37 

67 

29 

51 

441 

46 

131 

71 

37 

6 

15 

25 

61 

107 

76 

12 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

16,3 

15,9 

28,7 

19,8 

71,1 

23,2 

53,7 

21,8 

28,5 

9,0 

29,4 

29,8 

21,1 

15,2 

28,4 

7,6 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

13 

19 

15 

7 

39 

9 

25 

33 

11 

16 

5 

6 

19 

29 

26 

17 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5,7 

4,5 

14,9 

2,7 

6,3 

4,5 

10,2 

10,2 

8,5 

23,9 

9,8 

7,1 

6,6 

4,1 

9,7 

10,8 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

6,9 

2 

3 

2 

3 

7 

10 

19 

29 

9 

5 

1 

12 

14 

7 

12 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

139 

0,9 

0,7 

2,0 

1,2 

1,1 

5,1 

7,8 

8,9 

6,9 

7,5 

2,0 

14,3 

4,8 

1,0 

4,5 

2,5 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

3,3 

5 

2,2 

122 

28,9 

2 

3 

0 

12 

0 

0 

2 

27 

12 

0 

72 

322 

87 

56 

0 

0 

50 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2,0 

1,2 

0,0 

6,1 

0,0 

0,0 

1,5 

40,3 

23,5 

0,0 

24,9 

45,7 

32,5 

35,4 

0,0 

0,0 

100,00
0
0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

722 

17,3 

TOTAL 

4184 

422 

10,1 

1400 

33,5 

1212 

29,0 

289 

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%). 

35 

 
 
RBD 

Total 

High 

Good 

Moderate 

Poor 

Bad 

Unknown 

No. 

(%)  No. 

(%) 

No. 

(%) 

No. 

(%)  No. 

(%) 

No. 

(%) 

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 

51 

40 

37 

35 

90 

126 

69 

118 

45 

30 

17 

30 

60 

116 

78 

14 

1 

0 

1 

5 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

TOTAL 

966 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 

0 

2 

- 

- 

- 

0 

0 

2 

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 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

- 

0,0 

40,0 

- 

- 

- 

0,0 

0,0 

0,2 

25 

11 

7 

15 

28 

49 

18 

63 

20 

9 

7 

14 

26 

0 

11 

4 

0 

- 

0 

2 

- 

- 

- 

0 

0 

49,0 

27,5 

18,9 

42,9 

31,1 

38,9 

26,1 

53,4 

44,4 

30,0 

41,2 

15 

20 

15 

12 

55 

32 

17 

32 

16 

11 

7 

29,4 

50,0 

40,5 

34,3 

61,1 

9 

3 

8 

2 

5 

17,6 

7,5 

21,6 

5,7 

5,6 

25,4 

25 

19,8 

24,6 

8 

11,6 

27,1 

16 

13,6 

35,6 

36,7 

41,2 

1 

3 

0 

2 

7 

2 

2,2 

10,0 

0,0 

6,7 

11,7 

1,7 

2 

3 

6 

4 

1 

12 

12 

7 

8 

0 

0 

2 

4 

0 

3,9 

7,5 

16,2 

11,4 

1,1 

9,5 

0 

3 

1 

2 

1 

8 

0,0 

7,5 

2,7 

5,7 

1,1 

6,3 

17,4 

14 

20,3 

5,9 

17,8 

0,0 

0,0 

6,7 

6,7 

0,0 

0 

0 

7 

3 

1 

0,0 

0,0 

23,3 

17,6 

3,3 

14 

23,3 

110 

94,8 

46,7 

11 

36,7 

43,3 

0,0 

9 

4 

15,0 

3,4 

14,1 

29 

37,2 

14 

17,9 

15 

19,2 

28,6 

0,0 

- 

0,0 

40,0 

- 

- 

- 

0,0 

0,0 

1 

0 

- 

0 

0 

- 

- 

- 

0 

0 

7,1 

0,0 

- 

0,0 

0,0 

- 

- 

- 

0,0 

0,0 

1 

0 

- 

0 

0 

- 

- 

- 

0 

1 

7,1 

0,0 

- 

0,0 

0,0 

- 

- 

- 

0,0 

50,0 

0 

0 

- 

0 

0 

- 

- 

- 

1 

0 

9 

8 

1 

- 

1 

1 

- 

- 

- 

0 

1 

11,5 

57,1 

100,0 

- 

100,0 

20,0 

- 

- 

- 

0,0 

50,0 

185 

19,2 

0,0 

0,0 

- 

0,0 

0,0 

- 

- 

- 

100,0 

0,0 

8,0 

309 

32,0 

286 

29,6 

107 

11,1 

77 

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 
Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain.  

36 

 
 
 
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 

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 

227 

422 

101 

258 

620 

198 

244 

325 

130 

67 

51 

84 

289 

705 

268 

158 

5 

5 

5 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

2 

No. 

39 

356 

62 

62 

599 

192 

215 

282 

116 

30 

22 

77 

159 

0* 

140 

0 

2 

5 

0 

6 

5 

4 

3 

0 

2 

TOTAL 

4184 

2378 

Good 

Poor 

Unknown 

% 

17,2 

84,4 

61,4 

24,0 

96,6 

97,0 

88,1 

86,8 

89,2 

44,8 

43,1 

91,7 

55,0 

0,0 

52,2 

0,0 

40,0 

100,0 

0,0 

100,0 

100,0 

100,0 

100,0 

0,0 

100,0 

56,8 

No. 

7 

34 

9 

4 

21 

6 

2 

11 

2 

10 

15 

7 

8 

32 

14 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

182 

% 

3,1 

8,1 

8,9 

1,6 

3,4 

3,0 

0,8 

3,4 

1,5 

14,9 

29,4 

8,3 

2,8 

4,5 

5,2 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

4,3 

No. 

181 

32 

30 

192 

0 

0 

27 

32 

12 

27 

14 

0 

122 

673 

114 

158 

3 

0 

5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

1624 

% 

79,7 

7,6 

29,7 

74,4 

0,0 

0,0 

11,1 

9,8 

9,2 

40,3 

27,5 

0,0 

42,2 

95,5 

42,5 

100,0 

60,0 

0,0 

100,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

100,0 

0,0 

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. 

37 

 
 
 
the  chemical  status  assessment  of 
A  similar  assessment  can  be  made  regarding 
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 

ES014 

ES017 

ES018 

ES020 

ES030 

ES040 

ES050 

ES060 

ES063 

ES064 

ES070 

ES080 

ES091 

ES100 

ES110 

ES120 

ES122 

ES123 

ES124 

ES125 

ES126 

ES127 

ES150 

ES160 

Total 

51 

40 

37 

35 

90 

126 

69 

118 

45 

30 

17 

30 

60 

116 

78 

14 

1 

0 

1 

5 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

17 

26 

19 

19 

87 

121 

53 

101 

40 

20 

6 

20 

22 

0 

37 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

33,3 

65,0 

51,4 

54,3 

96,7 

96,0 

76,8 

85,6 

88,9 

66,7 

35,3 

66,7 

36,7 

0,0 

0 

11 

10 

2 

3 

5 

0 

0,0 

34 

66,7 

27,5 

27,0 

5,7 

3,3 

4,0 

0,0 

3 

8 

14 

0 

0 

7,5 

21,6 

40,0 

0,0 

0,0 

16 

23,2 

14 

11,9 

3 

5 

8 

3 

1 

29 

0,0 

6,7 

47,1 

30,0 

15,0 

1,7 

114 

0 

2 

8 

9 

9 

2 

47,4 

16 

20,5 

0,0 

0,0 

- 

0,0 

80,0 

- 

- 

- 

0,0 

0,0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0,0 

0,0 

- 

0,0 

0,0 

- 

- 

- 

0,0 

50,0 

25 

14 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

2,5 

11,1 

26,7 

17,6 

3,3 

48,3 

98,3 

32,1 

100,0 

100,0 

- 

100,0 

20,0 

- 

- 

- 

100,0 

50,0 

29,2 

966 

592 

61,3 

92 

9,5 

282 

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. 

38 

 
 
 
 
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. 

39 

 
 
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 

ES160 

Total 

Good 

Poor 

Unknown 

No.  % 

No. 

5 

18 

26 

20 

50 

18 

7 

44 

32 

5 

2 

39 

63 

82 

16 

55 

2 

0 

0 

3 

4 

3 

0 

0 

0 

83,3 

100,0 

92,9 

100,0 

78,1 

75,0 

35,0 

73,3 

47,8 

35,7 

50,0 

61,9 

70,0 

78,1 

41,0 

61,1 

20,0 

0,0 

0,0 

75,0 

80,0 

60,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

14 

6 

13 

16 

35 

7 

2 

24 

27 

23 

23 

35 

8 

4 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

3 

% 

16,7 

0,0 

7,1 

0,0 

21,9 

25,0 

65,0 

26,7 

52,2 

50,0 

50,0 

38,1 

30,0 

21,9 

59,0 

38,9 

80,0 

100,0 

0,0 

25,0 

0,0 

40,0 

0,0 

0,0 

100,0 

494 

66,0 

246 

32,9 

No. 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

3 

1 

0 

8 

% 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

14,3 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

100,0 

0,0 

20,0 

0,0 

100,0 

100,0 

0,0 

1,1 

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies 
Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2014).  

The  data  on  quantitative  status  is  also  largely  complete,  with  the  important  exception  of 
ES063, where a large percentage of groundwater bodies are in unknown quantitative status. 
This  is  consistent  with  the  lack  of  quantitative  monitoring  reported  for  this  RBD. 
Methodological  approaches  for  determining  GWB  status  are  heterogeneous,  not  always 
transparent  nor  attentive  to  the  definition  of  the  WFD  as  stated  in  Annex  V  (2.1.2), 
particularly  with  regard  to  dependent  ecosystems.  A  particular  important  gap  is  found  in 
ES127, where GWB status is rated as “good” even though no specific quantitative threshold 
is set on the basis of “water policy” criteria. 

40 

 
 
 
 
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 

ES160 

Good 

No. 

6 

18 

28 

20 

59 

24 

9 

42 

35 

3 

3 

22 

60 

104 

33 

53 

1 

0 

0 

0 

5 

5 

3 

0 

0 

TOTAL 

533 

% 

100,0 

100,0 

100,0 

100,0 

92,2 

100,0 

45,0 

70,0 

52,2 

21,4 

75,0 

34,9 

66,7 

99,0 

84,6 

58,9 

10,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

100,0 

100,0 

100,0 

0,0 

0,0 

71,3 

No. 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

0 

11 

18 

32 

3 

0 

41 

30 

1 

6 

37 

9 

4 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

204 

Poor 

Unknown 

% 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

7,8 

0,0 

55,0 

30,0 

47,8 

21,4 

0,0 

65,1 

33,3 

1,0 

15,4 

41,1 

90,0 

100,0 

0,0 

100,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

100,0 

27,3 

No. 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

11 

% 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

57,1 

25,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

100,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

100,0 

0,0 

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.  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
Global status (ecological and chemical) 

RBD 

Total 

Good or better 
2009 

Good or better 
2015 

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 
Total 

No. 

196 
320 
58 
210 
161 
170 
88 
252 
91 
35 
25 
52 
149 
226 
76 
73 
5 
5 
05 
10 
5 
4 
3 
2 
2 
2223 

% 

70,5 
69,3 
42,0 
71,7 
22,7 
52,5 
28,1 
56,9 
52,0 
36,1 
36,8 
45,6 
42,7 
27,5 
22,0 
42,4 
83,3 
100 
083,3 
90,9 
100 
100 
100 
66,7 
50,0 
43,2 

No. 

232 
397 
96 
253 
293 
228 
88 
299 
137 
40 
28 
58 
152 
552 
195 
73 
5 
5 
06 
11 
5 
4 
3 
2 
3 
3165 

% 

83,5 
85,9 
69,6 
86,3 
41,3 
70,4 
28,1 
67,5 
78,3 
41,2 
41,2 
50,9 
43,6 
67,2 
56,4 
42,4 
83,3 
100 
100,0 
100 
100 
100 
100 
66,7 
75,0 
61,5 

278 
462 
138 
293 
710 
324 
313 
443 
175 
97 
68 
114 
349 
821 
346 
172 
6 
5 
6 
11 
5 
4 
3 
3 
4 
5150 

Increase 
2009-2015 
% 

12,9 
16,7 
27,5 
14,7 
18,6 
17,9 
0,0 
10,6 
26,3 
5,2 
4,4 
5,3 
0,9 
39,7 
34,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
016,7 
9,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
25,0 
18,3 

Good 
ecological 
status 2021 

No. 

247 
453 
138 
290 
299 
262 
88 
391 
155 
51 
35 
95 
196 
553 
197 
73 
5 
5 
6 
11 
5 
4 
3 
3 
4 
3569 

% 

88,8 
98,1 
100 
99,0 
42,1 
80,9 
28,1 
88,3 
88,6 
52,6 
51,5 
83,3 
56,2 
67,4 
56,9 
42,4 
83,3 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
69,3 

Good 
chemical 
status 2021 

No.  % 

271 
451 
138 
292 
710 
324 
313 
441 
175 
78 
41 
101 
332 
624 
318 
0 
2 
5 
6 
11 
5 
4 
3 
3 
4 
4652 

97,5 
97,6 
100 
99,7 
100 
100 
100 
99,5 
100 
80,4 
60,3 
88,6 
95,1 
76,0 
91,9 
0,0 
33,3 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
90,3 

Good 
ecological 
status 2027 

No. 

275 
462 
138 
293 
627 
296 
312 
434 
168 
79 
56 
114 
349 
628 
346 
73 
6 
5 
6 
11 
5 
4 
3 
3 
4 
4697 

% 

98,9 
100 
100 
100 
88,3 
91,4 
99,7 
98,0 
96,0 
81,4 
82,4 
100 
100 
76,5 
100 
42,4 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
91,2 

Good 
chemical 
status 2027 

No.  % 

278 
455 
138 
293 
710 
324 
313 
442 
175 
87 
63 
114 
349 
636 
346 
0 
6 
5 
6 
11 
5 
4 
3 
3 
4 
4770 

100 
98,5 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
99,8 
100 
89,7 
92,6 
100 
100 
77,5 
100 
0,0 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
92,6 

Global exemptions 2009 (% of all 
SWBs) 

Art 
4(4) 
% 

15,5 
12,6 
30,4 
13,7 
47,0 
21,0 
71,6 
30,5 
17,7 
40,2 
41,2 
49,1 
56,4 
9,0 
43,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
33,3 
25,0 
29,6 

Art 
4(5) 
% 

1,1 
1,5 
0,0 
0,0 
11,7 
5,6 
0,0 
2,0 
4,0 
1,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1,5 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
2,7 

Art 
4(6) 
% 

0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
4,0 
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 
0,0 
0,0 
25,0 
0,2 

Art 
4(7) 
% 

0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,7 
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 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
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; 

42 

 
 
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 

Good or better 2009 

Ecological status 

Good or better 
2015 

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 
Total 

227 
422 
101 
258 
620 
198 
244 
325 
130 
67 
51 
84 
289 
705 
268 
158 
5 
5 
5 
6 
5 
4 
3 
2 
2 
4184 

No. 
170 
211 
53 
194 
133 
121 
69 
192 
71 
13 
18 
41 
123 
240 
67 
69 
5 
5 
0 
6 
5 
4 
3 
2 
2 
1822 

% 
74,9 
50,0 
52,5 
75,2 
21,5 
61,1 
28,3 
59,1 
54,6 
19,4 
35,3 
48,8 
42,6 
34,0 
25,0 
43,7 
100,0 
100,0 
0,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
43,5 

No. 
189 
398 
77 
234 
253 
165 
67 
200 
107 
29 
19 
44 
126 
551 
173 
69 
5 
5 
0 
6 
5 
4 
3 
2 
2 
2738 

% 
83,3 
94,3 
76,2 
90,7 
40,8 
83,3 
27,5 
61,5 
82,3 
43,3 
37,3 
52,4 
43,6 
78,2 
64,6 
43,7 
100,0 
100,0 
0,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
65,4 

Increase 
2009 -2015 
%
8,4 
44,3 
23,8 
15,5 
19,4 
22,2 
-0,8 
2,5 
27,7 
23,9 
2,0 
3,6 
1,0 
44,1 
39,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
21,9 

Good ecological 
status 2021 

Good ecological 
status 2027 

No. 
198 
422 
101 
257 
258 
178 
67 
281 
120 
34 
24 
76 
165 
551 
173 
69 
5 
5 
0 
6 
5 
4 
3 
2 
2 
3011 

% 
87,2 
100,0 
100,0 
99,6 
41,6 
89,9 
27,5 
86,5 
92,3 
50,7 
47,1 
90,5 
57,1 
78,2 
64,6 
43,7 
100,0 
100,0 
0,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
72,0 

No. 
225 
422 
101 
258 
556 
190 
243 
316 
127 
54 
39 
84 
289 
626 
268 
69 
5 
5 
0 
6 
5 
4 
3 
2 
2 
3904 

% 
99,1 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
89,7 
96,0 
99,6 
97,2 
97,7 
80,6 
76,5 
100,0 
100,0 
88,8 
100,0 
43,7 
100,0 
100,0 
0,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
93,3 

Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs) 

Art 4(4) 

% 
15,9 
5,7 
23,8 
9,3 
48,9 
12,6 
72,1 
35,7 
15,4 
37,3 
39,2 
47,6 
56,4 
10,6 
35,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
27,9 

Art 
4(5) 
% 
0,9 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
10,3 
2,5 
0,0 
2,8 
2,3 
1,5 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
2,2 

Art 
4(6) 
% 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
2,3 
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 
0,0 
0,0 
0,1 

Art 
4(7) 
% 
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 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
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).  

43 

 
 
 
RBD 

Total 

Good or better 2009  Good or better 2015 

Chemical status 

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 
Total 

227 
422 
101 
258 
620 
198 
244 
325 
130 
67 
51 
84 
289 
705 
268 
158 
5 
5 
5 
6 
5 
4 
3 
2 
2 
4184 

No. 
39 
356 
62 
62 
599 
192 
215 
282 
116 
30 
22 
77 
159 
0 
140 
0 
2 
5 
5 
6 
5 
4 
3 
0 
2 
2378 

% 
17,2 
84,4 
61,4 
24,0 
96,6 
97,0 
88,1 
86,8 
89,2 
44,8 
43,1 
91,7 
55,0 
0,0 
52,2 
0,0 
40,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
0,0 
100,0 
56,8 

No. 
220 
391 
95 
256 
620 
198 
244 
324 
130 
52 
31 
79 
281 
622 
258 
0 
2 
5 
5 
6 
5 
4 
3 
2 
2 
3830 

% 
96,9 
92,7 
94,1 
99,2 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
99,7 
100,0 
77,6 
60,8 
94,0 
97,2 
88,2 
96,3 
0,0 
40,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
91,5 

Increase 
2009 -2015 
% 
79,7 
8,3 
32,7 
75,2 
3,4 
3,0 
11,9 
12,9 
10,8 
32,8 
17,6 
2,4 
42,2 
88,2 
44,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
100,0 
0,0 
34,7 

Good chemical 
status 2021 

Good chemical status 
2027 

Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs) 

Art 4(4)  Art 4(5)  Art 4(6)  Art 4(7) 

No. 
220 
422 
101 
258 
620 
198 
244 
324 
130 
52 
31 
79 
281 
622 
258 
0 
2 
5 
5 
6 
5 
4 
3 
2 
2 
3869 

% 
96,9 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
99,7 
100,0 
77,6 
60,8 
94,0 
97,2 
88,2 
96,3 
0,0 
40,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
92,5 

No. 
227 
422 
101 
258 
620 
198 
244 
324 
130 
59 
46 
84 
289 
634 
268 
0 
5 
5 
5 
6 
5 
4 
3 
2 
2 
3936 

% 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
99,7 
100,0 
88,1 
90,2 
100,0 
100,0 
89,9 
100,0 
0,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
94,1 

% 
3,1 
7,3 
5,9 
0,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
10,4 
29,4 
6,0 
2,8 
1,7 
3,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
2,5 

% 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,1 

% 
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 
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 
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 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2012 and 2027 
Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2015). As regards the increase of the number of Natural SWB in good chemical status by 2015, the figures of Table 6.9 might be 
misleading, as they include the expected re-classification of the currently “unknown” status of water bodies (see Table 6.3). 

44 

 
 
 
RBD 

Total 

Good or better 2009 

Good or better 
2015 

GW chemical status 

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 
Total 

6 
18 
28 
20 
64 
24 
20 
60 
67 
14 
4 
63 
90 
105 
39 
90 
10 
4 
1 
4 
5 
5 
3 
1 
3 
748 

No. 
5 
18 
26 
20 
50 
18 
7 
44 
32 
5 
2 
39 
63 
82 
16 
55 
2 
0 
0 
3 
4 
3 
0 
0 
0 
494 

% 
83,3 
100,0 
92,9 
100,0 
78,1 
75,0 
35,0 
73,3 
47,8 
35,7 
50,0 
61,9 
70,0 
78,1 
41,0 
61,1 
20,0 
0,0 
0,0 
75,0 
80,0 
60,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
66,0 

No. 
5 
18 
27 
20 
48 
18 
7 
49 
46 
7 
2 
37 
63 
82 
18 
64 
2 
0 
01 
3 
4 
5 
0 
0 
0 
526 

% 
83,3 
100,0 
96,4 
100,0 
75,0 
75,0 
35,0 
81,7 
68,7 
50,0 
50,0 
58,7 
70,0 
78,1 
46,2 
71,1 
20,0 
0,0 
100,0 
75,0 
80,0 
100,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
70,3 

Increase 
2009 -2015 
%
0,0 
0,0 
3,6 
0,0 
-3,1 
0,0 
0,0 
8,3 
20,9 
14,3 
0,0 
-3,2 
0,0 
0,0 
5,1 
10,0 
0,0 
0,0 
100,0 
0,0 
0,0 
40,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
4,3 

Good chemical 
status 2021 

Good chemical 
status 2027 

No. 
6 
18 
28 
20 
48 
22 
7 
55 
55 
7 
4 
38 
72 
82 
18 
75 
2 
0 
1 
4 
4 
5 
0 
1 
3 
575 

% 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
75,0 
91,7 
35,0 
91,7 
82,1 
50,0 
100,0 
60,3 
80,0 
78,1 
46,2 
83,3 
20,0 
0,0 
100,0 
100,0 
80,0 
100,0 
0,0 
100,0 
100,0 
76,9 

No. 
6 
18 
28 
20 
50 
24 
20 
60 
62 
12 
4 
53 
87 
103 
39 
87 
2 
0 
1 
4 
5 
5 
3 
1 
3 
697 

% 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
78,1 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
92,5 
85,7 
100,0 
84,1 
96,7 
98,1 
100,0 
96,7 
20,0 
0,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
93,2 

GW chemical exemptions (% of all 
GWBs) 

Art 
4(4) 
% 
16,7 
0,0 
3,6 
0,0 
3,1 
25,0 
65,0 
18,3 
23,9 
35,7 
50,0 
25,4 
26,7 
20,0 
53,8 
25,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
25,0 
20,0 
0,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
22,9 

Art 
4(5) 
% 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
21,9 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
7,5 
14,3 
0,0 
15,9 
3,3 
1,9 
0,0 
3,3 
80,0 
100,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
6,8 

Art 
4(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 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 

Art 
4(7) 
% 
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 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2012 and 2027 
Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2015).  

45 

 
 
 
Groundwater quantitative status 

Good quantitative 
status 2021 

Good quantitative 
status 2027 

RBD 

Total 

Good or better 
2009 

Good or better 
2015 

% 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
92,2 
100,0 
45,0 
70,0 
52,2 
21,4 
75,0 
34,9 
66,7 
99,0 
84,6 
58,9 
10,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
0,0 
0,0 
71,3 
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).  

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 
Total 

% 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
92,2 
100,0 
45,0 
71,7 
67,2 
100,0 
100,0 
34,9 
66,7 
99,0 
94,9 
97,8 
10,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
0,0 
0,0 
79,5 

Increase 
2009 -2015 
% 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1,7 
14,9 
78,6 
25,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
10,3 
38,9 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
8,3 

No. 
6 
18 
28 
20 
59 
24 
9 
52 
54 
14 
4 
24 
63 
104 
37 
89 
10 
0 
0 
0 
5 
5 
3 
1 
3 
632 

No. 
6 
18 
28 
20 
59 
24 
9 
42 
35 
3 
3 
22 
60 
104 
33 
53 
1 
0 
0 
0 
5 
5 
3 
0 
0 
533 

No. 
6 
18 
28 
20 
59 
24 
9 
43 
45 
14 
4 
22 
60 
104 
37 
88 
1 
0 
0 
0 
5 
5 
3 
0 
0 
595 

6 
18 
28 
20 
64 
24 
20 
60 
67 
14 
4 
63 
90 
105 
39 
90 
10 
4 
1 
4 
5 
5 
3 
1 
3 
748 

% 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
92,2 
100,0 
45,0 
86,7 
80,6 
100,0 
100,0 
38,1 
70,0 
99,0 
94,9 
98,9 
100,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
84,5 

No. 
6 
18 
28 
20 
60 
24 
20 
60 
67 
14 
4 
63 
90 
105 
39 
90 
10 
0 
0 
0 
5 
5 
3 
1 
3 
735 

% 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
93,8 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
98,3 

GW quantitative exemptions (% of all 
GWBs) 

Art 
4(4) 
% 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1,6 
0,0 
55,0 
28,3 
32,8 
0,0 
0,0 
65,1 
33,3 
1,0 
5,1 
2,2 
90,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
100,0 
100,0 
18,7 

Art 
4(5) 
% 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
6,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
100,0 
0,0 
100,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1,6 

Art 
4(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 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 

Art 
4(7) 
% 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
5,0 
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 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,1 

46 

 
 
 
Art 4(4) 

Good ecological 
potential 2021 

Good ecological 
potential 2027 

RBD 

Total 
HMWB 
and AWB 

Ecological potential 

Good or better 2009 

Good or better 2015 

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 
Total 

% 
% 
84,3 
13,7 
62,5 
37,5 
51,4 
48,6 
57,1 
42,9 
44,4 
34,4 
50,0 
34,1 
30,4 
69,6 
83,9 
16,1 
66,7 
24,4 
36,7 
46,7 
64,7 
35,3 
50,0 
50,0 
43,3 
56,7 
1,7 
0,0 
30,8 
69,2 
28,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
- 
- 
100,0 
0,0 
100,0 
0,0 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
0,0 
100,0 
50,0 
50,0 
47,6 
34,4 
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).  

% 
96,1 
77,5 
100,0 
94,3 
45,6 
66,7 
30,4 
93,2 
77,8 
56,7 
64,7 
63,3 
51,7 
1,7 
30,8 
28,6 
0,0 
- 
100,0 
100,0 
- 
- 
- 
100,0 
100,0 
57,8 

% 
98,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
78,9 
84,1 
100,0 
100,0 
91,1 
83,3 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
1,7 
100,0 
28,6 
100,0 
- 
100,0 
100,0 
- 
- 
- 
100,0 
100,0 
82,1 

% 
49,0 
27,5 
18,9 
42,9 
31,1 
38,9 
26,1 
53,4 
44,4 
30,0 
41,2 
46,7 
43,3 
0,0 
14,1 
28,6 
0,0 
- 
0 
80,0 
- 
- 
- 
0,0 
0,0 
32,2 

No. 
49 
31 
37 
33 
41 
84 
21 
110 
35 
17 
11 
19 
31 
2 
24 
4 
0 
- 
1 
5 
- 
- 
- 
1 
2 
558 

No. 
50 
40 
37 
35 
71 
106 
69 
118 
41 
25 
17 
30 
60 
2 
78 
4 
1 
- 
1 
5 
- 
- 
- 
1 
2 
793 

No. 
43 
25 
19 
20 
40 
63 
21 
99 
30 
11 
11 
15 
26 
2 
24 
4 
0 
- 
1 
5 
- 
- 
- 
0 
1 
460 

No. 
25 
11 
7 
15 
28 
49 
18 
63 
20 
9 
7 
14 
26 
0 
11 
4 
0 
- 
0 
4 
- 
- 
- 
0 
0 
311 

51 
40 
37 
35 
90 
126 
69 
118 
45 
30 
17 
30 
60 
116 
78 
14 
1 
0 
1 
5 
0 
0 
0 
1 
2 
966 

Increase 
2009 -2015 
%
35,3 
35,0 
32,4 
14,3 
13,3 
11,1 
4,3 
30,5 
22,2 
6,7 
23,5 
3,3 
0,0 
1,7 
16,7 
0,0 
0,0 
- 
100,0 
20,0 
- 
- 
- 
0,0 
50,0 
15,4 

Ecological exemptions (% of all 
HMWB/AWB) 
Art 
4(6) 
% 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
8,9 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
- 
0,0 
0,0 
- 
- 
- 
0,0 
50,0 
0,5 

Art 
4(5) 
% 
2,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
21,1 
10,3 
0,0 
0,0 
8,9 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
- 
0,0 
0,0 
- 
- 
- 
0,0 
0,0 
3,8 

Art 
4(7) 
% 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
5,7 
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 
0,0 
- 
- 
- 
0,0 
0,0 
0,2 

47 

 
 
 
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 
ES160 
Total 

Total 
HMWB 
and AWB 

Chemical status 

Good or better 2009 

Good or better 2015 

51 
40 
37 
35 
90 
126 
69 
118 
45 
30 
17 
30 
60 
116 
78 
14 
1 
0 
1 
5 
0 
0 
0 
1 
2 
966 

No. 
17 
26 
19 
19 
87 
121 
53 
101 
40 
20 
6 
20 
22 
0 
37 
0 
0 
- 
0 
4 
- 
- 
- 
0 
0 
592 

% 
33,3 
65,0 
51,4 
54,3 
96,7 
96,0 
76,8 
85,6 
88,9 
66,7 
35,3 
66,7 
36,7 
0,0 
47,4 
0,0 
0,0 
- 
0,0 
80,0 
- 
- 
- 
0,0 
0,0 
61,3 

No. 
51 
29 
30 
33 
90 
126 
69 
117 
45 
26 
10 
22 
51 
2 
60 
0 
0 
- 
1 
5 
- 
- 
- 
0 
2 
769 

% 
100,0 
72,5 
81,1 
94,3 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
99,2 
100,0 
86,7 
58,8 
73,3 
85,0 
1,7 
76,9 
0,0 
0,0 
- 
100,0 
100,0 
- 
- 
- 
0,0 
100,0 
79,6 

Increase 
2009 -2015 
%
66,7 
7,5 
29,7 
40,0 
3,3 
4,0 
23,2 
13,6 
11,1 
20,0 
23,5 
6,7 
48,3 
1,7 
29,5 
0,0 
0,0 
- 
100,0 
20,0 
- 
- 
- 
0,0 
100,0 
18,3 

Good chemical status 
2021 

Good chemical 
status 2027 

No. 
51 
29 
37 
34 
90 
126 
69 
117 
45 
26 
10 
22 
51 
2 
60 
0 
0 
- 
1 
5 
- 
- 
- 
1 
2 
778 

% 
100,0 
72,5 
100,0 
97,1 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
99,2 
100,0 
86,7 
58,8 
73,3 
85,0 
1,7 
76,9 
0,0 
0,0 
- 
100,0 
100,0 
- 
- 
- 
100,0 
100,0 
80,5 

No. 
51 
33 
37 
35 
90 
126 
69 
118 
45 
28 
17 
30 
60 
2 
78 
0 
1 
- 
1 
5 
- 
- 
- 
1 
2 
829 

% 
100,0 
82,5 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
93,3 
100,0 
100,0 
100,0 
1,7 
100,0 
0,0 
100,0 
- 
100,0 
100,0 
- 
- 
- 
100,0 
100,0 
85,8 

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).  

48 

Chemical exemptions (% of all 
HMWB/AWB) 
Art 
Art 
4(6) 
4(5) 
% 
% 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
17,5 
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 
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 
0,0 
0,0 
- 
- 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,7 

Art 
4(4) 
% 
0,0 
10,0 
18,9 
5,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,8 
0,0 
6,7 
41,2 
26,7 
15,0 
0,0 
23,1 
0,0 
0,0 
- 
0,0 
0,0 
- 
- 
- 
100,0 
0,0 
6,1 

Art 
4(7) 
% 
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 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
- 
0,0 
0,0 
- 
- 
- 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 

 
 
 
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.   

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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  RBDs23.  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 
RBD24. 

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  Intercalibration25.  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.  

23  As  indicated  earlier  for  other  aspects  of  implementation,  it  is  not  clear  to  what  extent  the  intra-community 
RBDs have used the IPH. 
24 The Spanish authorities informed that work is on-going on a draft Royal Decree to consolidate the framework 
for the assessment of status. 
25  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. 

55 

 
 
                                                            
In  general,  the  one-out-all-out  principle  has  been  correctly  applied.  However,  in  ES123, 
ES125 and ES127, physico-chemical indicators (for Phosphates and/or Nitrates) are rated as 
moderate  or  bad  for  some  CWBs  but,  in  spite  of  this  fact,  ecological  status  is  classified  as 
"good”. 

Assessment methods 

The IPH (5.1.2 and Annex III) shows that there are some important gaps in the classification 
system: 

-  For RW there is no classification system for macrophytes (QE1-2-3) and fish (QE1-
4);  phytoplankton  (QE1-1)  has  been  considered  as  not  relevant  for  Spanish  river 
types, although the technical justification provided has not been considered sufficient 
to discard this quality element from all Spanish rivers26; 

-  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.  

26  Discussed at the ECOSTAT Working Group in 2014.  

56 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

n
o
t
k
n
a
l
p
o
t
y
h
P

s
e
t
y
h
p
o
r
c
a
M

s
o
h
t
n
e
b
o
t
y
h
P

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
e
t
a
r
b
e
t
r
e
v
n
i

c
i
h
t
n
e
B

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

h
s
i
F

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

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 

l
a
c
i
g
o
l
o
h
p
r
o
m
o
r
d
y
H

l
a
c
i
m
e
h
C
-
o
c
i
s
y
h
P

n
o
t
k
n
a
l
p
o
t
y
h
P

s
e
t
y
h
p
o
r
c
a
M

s
o
h
t
n
e
b
o
t
y
h
P

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

s
e
t
a
r
b
e
t
r
e
v
n
i

c
i
h
t
n
e
B

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

h
s
i
F

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

l
a
c
i
g
o
l
o
h
p
r
o
m
o
r
d
y
H

l
a
c
i
m
e
h
C
-
o
c
i
s
y
h
P

n
o
t
k
n
a
l
p
o
t
y
h
P

e
a
g
l
a
o
r
c
a
M

s

m
r
e
p
s
o
i
g
n
A

s
e
t
a
r
b
e
t
r
e
v
n
i

c
i
h
t
n
e
B

l
a
c
i
g
o
l
o
h
p
r
o
m
o
r
d
y
H

l
a
c
i
m
e
h
C
-
o
c
i
s
y
h
P

h
s
i
F

n
o
t
k
n
a
l
p
o
t
y
h
P

e
a
g
l
a
o
r
c
a
M

s

m
r
e
p
s
o
i
g
n
A

s
e
t
a
r
b
e
t
r
e
v
n
i

c
i
h
t
n
e
B

l
a
c
i
g
o
l
o
h
p
r
o
m
o
r
d
y
H

l
a
c
i
m
e
h
C
-
o
c
i
s
y
h
P

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

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 

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 (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 (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) 
1-3 (ES070) 
1-4 (ES070) 

1-2 (ES080) 
1-3 (ES014, ES080) 
1-4 (ES080) 
1-5 (ES014) 
1-1 (ES060) 
1-2 (ES060, ES070) 
1-3 (ES060, ES070) 
1-4 (ES060) 
1-1 (ES080) 
1-3 (ES080) 

Nutrient 
enrichment 

Organic 
enrichment 

Contamination by 
priority substances 

Contaminated 
sediments 

Acidification 

Saline intrusion 

Elevated 
temperatures 

LW 
1-1 (ES017,  ES030, 
ES060, ES070, 
ES080) 
1-2 (ES070) 
1-3 (ES060) 
1-4 (ES017) 
1-5 (ES100) 

TW 
1-1 (ES014, ES060,  
ES063, ES064, 
ES070) 
1-2 (ES014) 
1-3 (ES060, ES064, 
ES070) 
1-4 (ES014) 
1-5 (ES100) 

CW 

1-1 (ES014, ES017, 
ES060, ES070, 
ES100) 
1-2 (ES014, ES017, 
ES070) 
1-3 (ES017, ES060, 
ES070) 

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) 

1-1 (ES070) 
1-2 (ES070) 

1-1 (ES014, ES064, 
ES070) 
1-2 (ES014, ES070) 
1-3 (ES064, ES070) 

1-1 (ES014, ES017, 
ES018, ES064, 
ES070) 
1-2 (ES014, ES017, 
ES018) 
1-3 (ES017, ES018, 
ES064, ES070) 
1-4 (ES014, ES017, 
ES018) 

1-3 (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) 

1-2 (ES070) 

1-3 (ES070) 

1-2 (ES070) 
1-3 (ES070) 

1-1 (ES080) 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RW 

LW 

TW 

CW 

Altered habitats27 

Other impacts 

1-4 (ES080) 
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 (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, 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) 

1-1 (ES018, ES030,  
ES060, ES070) 
1-2 (ES070) 
1-3 (ES060) 

1-1 (ES050) 
1-3 (ES050) 

1-1 (ES070, ES100) 
1-2 (ES070) 
1-3 (ES070) 

Table 7.1.2: Summary of the BQEs used in operational monitoring in relation to the significant pressures and 
main impacts on water bodies in RBDs. Information provided by Spain (2014). 

The linkages established comparing the different RBMPs are varied. It appears that there is 
no common understanding on how the different quality elements respond to impacts.  

Results 

The  results  show  the  following  distribution  of  status  (see  Table  6.8):  1817  natural  SWB 
(43%)  are  considered  in  good  or  better  status  in  2009;  with  better  than  average  results  in 
some RBDs (ES010, ES014, ES017, ES018, ES050 and ES060) and even better results in a 
couple of RBDs (75%: ES010 y ES018). Low percentages of SWB in good or better status 
(≤25%) are found in ES063, ES020 and ES100. 

In general, there is a lack of information about the uncertainties in classification (in particular 
in  the  RBMPs,  where  no  RBD  raises  uncertainty  issues)  and  disparity  regarding  the 
confidence  on  the  classification  results  (reported  under  WISE).  One  RBD  (ES040)  reports 
100% classifications as high confidence, despite the fact that its RBMP mentions how lack of 
data on a specific QE or lack of data on all QE in a specific water body have been handled, 
e.g.  referring  to  an  expert  judgment  meeting  in  May  2009,  assessing  available  data, 
developing trend analyses and thus proposing a classification. ES020 distributes confidence 
50:50 between high and low, without providing further information on uncertainties. ES018 
classifies almost all water bodies with medium confidence. Other RBDs do not provide any 
information on confidence. 

27 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. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Though  official  co-ordination  mechanisms  are  in  place and technical co-operation  is  taking 
place  (explicitly  described  in  the  RBMP  ES040,  and  implicitly  for  ES010,  ES020,  and 
ES030),  transboundary  co-ordination  can  be  improved  for  classification  of  status,  e.g.  the 
Bidasoa  river  estuary  shared  between  Spain  and  France  reflects  how  neighbouring  water 
bodies (e.g. ES111T012010 and French Estuarie Bidasoa) are classified with different results 
(in Spanish plan it fails due to biological status and in French plan due to chemical), leading 
to different measures. 

DESIGNATION OF HMWB AND SETTING OF GOOD ECOLOGICAL POTENTIAL 

(GEP) 

Designation of HMWB 

Designation  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies  (HMWB)  has  generally  followed  a  complete 
three  stepwise  approach  as  established  in  the  national  regulation  (IPH),  based  on  CIS 
Guidance Document nº 4. However, some exceptions and gaps should be noted: 

-  One  RBMP  (ES110)  only  provides  brief  overview  information  on  the  results  of  the 
the 

final  designation,  without  adding  any  complementary 
methodology, and the stepwise assessment. 

information  on 

- 

- 

- 

In  one  RBMP  (ES014),  HMWBs  have  been  established  after  verification  of  the 
preliminary identification (step 2 of 3), and step 3 is still missing. In fact, the RBMP 
states that "the final designation will be completed when the programme of measures 
is fully developed".  

In Canarian RBMPs (ES120 and ES124), major ports are designated HMWBs without 
clearly covering steps 2 and 3, assuming that conditions (a) and (b) of article 4.3 of 
the WFD are fulfilled without justification. 

In most RBMPs, criteria (or thresholds) for defining significant adverse effects on the 
use are not clearly stated (though adverse effects are listed; ES080 recognises in one 
case lack of data to support this test) and expert judgment has been extensively used. 
ES091 does not provide the results of the assessment of significant adverse effects for 
transitional water bodies.  

-  Similarly, the identification of “better environmental options” and analysis criteria for 
this step are not always clear, may be absent (e.g. ES100, ES110), or too generic and 
poorly developed (most of the RBMPs include only a few lines of generic statements). 
 ES124  includes  two  candidate  HMWBs  in  water  bodies  where  port  infrastructures  are 
planned.  This  approach  circumvents  de  facto  the  obligations  of  Articles  4(1)  and  4(7). 
Finally, ES123 includes one so-called “preliminarly designated” HMWB namely the Port of 
Arrecife without specifying the following steps to take. 

Methodology for Good Ecological Potential (GEP) 

In  most  RBMPs,  good  ecological  potential  (GEP)  has  been  defined  following  a  general 
methodology  established  at  national  level  in  the  IPH  which,  in  turn,  follows  the  reference-

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

61 

 
 
Results HMWB and AWB 

Bay of Biscay

Canaries (ES)

ES125

FRG

ES124

ES123

ES126

ES127

ES122

ES120

0

90 km

ES014

ES018

Atlantic
Ocean

ES010

ES017

ES020

ES091

ES100

ES

ES030

ES040

ES080

ES064

ES050

ES070

ES110

ES063

ES060

Mediterranean Sea

ES150

0

100

200

km

ES160

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.  

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RBD 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Water category 

Transitional 
water 

Coastal water 

All water bodies 

No 

49 

33 

23 

27 

80 

116 

54 

102 

31 

14 

8 

21 

43 

63 

69 

3 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1 

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 

Total 

737 

ES010 

ES014 

ES017 

ES018 

ES020 

ES030 

ES040 

ES050 

ES060 

ES063 

ES064 

ES070 

ES080 

ES091 

ES100 

ES110 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

4 

2 

0 

0 

% of 
category 
18,1 

8,0 

21,1 

10,8 

11,5 

37,7 

21,7 

26,0 

23,3 

21,5 

16,7 

23,3 

14,1 

9,0 

26,4 

3,2 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

100,0 

16,8 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

1,1 

0,3 

0,0 

0,0 

0,8 

0,0 

2,1 

0,0 

1,3 

0,3 

0,0 

0,0 

No 

0 

- 

8 

0 

2 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

3 

43 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

61 

2 

- 

2 

2 

0 

9 

13 

2 

1 

2 

0 

3 

0 

5 

0 

- 

% of 
category 
0,0 

- 

72,7 

0,0 

14,3 

0,0 

1,7 

2,9 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

33,3 

15,8 

39,1 

3,7 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

18,5 

66,7 

- 

18,2 

28,6 

0,0 

56,3 

22,4 

5,7 

12,5 

20,0 

0,0 

50,0 

0,0 

4,5 

0,0 

- 

% of 
category 
0,0 

24,1 

0,0 

6,7 

- 

- 

0,0 

0,0 

29,6 

33,3 

50,0 

17,6 

27,3 

0,0 

15,2 

11,9 

16,7 

0,0 

16,7 

45,5 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

33,3 

33,3 

19,2 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

No 

0 

0 

4 

5 

- 

- 

1 

13 

4 

10 

6 

1 

4 

3 

3 

6 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

% of 
category 
0,0 

0,0 

28,6 

23,8 

- 

- 

25,0 

100,0 

57,1 

100,0 

54,5 

100,0 

100,0 

37,5 

12,0 

16,7 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

No 

0 

7 

0 

1 

- 

- 

0 

0 

8 

4 

2 

3 

6 

0 

5 

5 

1 

0 

1 

5 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

60 

33,3 

50 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

63 

B
W
M
H

B
W
A

No 

49 

40 

35 

33 

82 

116 

56 

116 

43 

28 

16 

27 

56 

109 

78 

14 

1 

0 

1 

5 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

908 

2 

0 

2 

2 

8 

10 

13 

2 

2 

2 

1 

3 

4 

7 

0 

0 

% 

17,6 

8,7 

25,4 

11,3 

11,5 

35,8 

17,9 

26,2 

24,6 

28,9 

23,5 

23,7 

16,0 

13,3 

22,5 

8,1 

16,7 

0,0 

16,7 

45,5 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

33,3 

50,0 

17,6 

0,7 

0,0 

1,4 

0,7 

1,1 

3,1 

4,2 

0,5 

1,1 

2,1 

1,5 

2,6 

1,1 

0,9 

0,0 

0,0 

 
 
 
 
 
RBD 

Rivers 

Lakes 

No 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

% of 
category 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0 

17 

0,0 

0,4 

ES120 

ES122 

ES123 

ES124 

ES125 

ES126 

ES127 

ES150 

ES160 

Total 

No 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

% of 
category 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

41 

12,5 

Water category 

Transitional 
water 

Coastal water 

All water bodies 

No 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

% of 
category 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

No 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

% of 
category 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

No 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

58 

% 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

1,1 

Table 8.1.1: Number and percentage of HMWBs and AWBs 
Source: WISE; information provided by Spain.  

64 

 
 
 
 
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  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. ES120 does not provide a classification of chemical status. 

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). Nonetheless, some RBMPs do not detail the methodology for the establishment of 
the set values (e.g. ES124). 

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. 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
Exceedances per RBD 

7
1
0
S
E

8
1
0
S
E

0
2
0
S
E

0
3
0
S
E

0
4
0
S
E

0
5
0
S
E

0
6
0
S
E

3
6
0
S
E

0
7
0
S
E

0
8
0
S
E

1
9
0
S
E

Substance causing exceedance 

1. Heavy metals -  aggregated 
1.1 Cadmium 
1.2 Lead 
1.3 Mercury 
1.4 Nickel 
2 Pesticides – aggregated 
2.1 Alachlor 
2.2. Atrazina 
2.3 Chlorpyriphos 
2.4 Chlorvenfinphos 
2.5 Diuron 
2.6 Endosulfan 
2.7 Isoproturon 
2.8 Hexachlorocyclohexane 
2.9 Pentachlorobenzene 
2.10 Simazine 
3 Industrial Pollutants - aggregated 
3.1 Anthracene 
3.7 Dichloromethane 
3.10 Nonylphenol 
3.11 Octylphenol 
3.12. Tetracloroetileno 
3.14. Triclorometano 
4 Other pollutants - aggregated 
4.1 Aldrin 
4.6 para-para-DDT 
4.7 Fluoranthene 
4.8. Hexaclorobenzeno 

0
1
0
S
E

2 

4 

1 

1 

2 

1 

4
1
0
S
E

2 

24 

10 

1 

1 

2 

6 

1 

5 

5 

3 

3 

2 

1 

1 

3 

19 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

3 

1 

5 

1 

3 

1 

2 

1 

1 

3 

2 

1 

14 

3 

1 

1 

66 

4
6
0
S
E

18 

14 

2 

4 

4 

2 

1 

2 

1 

3 

1 

5 

2 

4 

2 

2 

1 

4 

1 

3 

12 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

0
0
1
S
E

4 

2 

2 

18 

4 

4 

2 

13 

2 

4 

37 

6 

2 

4 

0
1
1
S
E

0
2
1
S
E

2
2
1
S
E

3
2
1
S
E

4
2
1
S
E

5
2
1
S
E

6
2
1
S
E

7
2
1
S
E

0
5
1
S
E

m
u
S

27 

31 

47 

49 

42 

5 

3 

1 

27 

3 

16 

10 

1 

29 

2 

4 

7 

1 

2 

40 

12 

2 

3 

14 

1 

4 

2 

2 

1 

2 

4 

1 

1 

1 

4 

4 

2 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0
1
0
S
E

Substance causing exceedance 

4.12 Benzo(a)pyrene 
4.13 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 
4.14 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 
4.15 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 
4.16 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 

Totals 
Table 9.2.1: Substances responsible for exceedances 
Source: Information provided by Spain (2014) 

11 

4
1
0
S
E

3 

5 

5 

7 

7 
74 

Exceedances per RBD 

7
1
0
S
E

8
1
0
S
E

0
2
0
S
E

0
3
0
S
E

0
4
0
S
E

0
5
0
S
E

0
6
0
S
E

3
6
0
S
E

4
6
0
S
E

0
7
0
S
E

0
8
0
S
E

1
9
0
S
E

0
0
1
S
E

0
1
1
S
E

0
2
1
S
E

2
2
1
S
E

3
2
1
S
E

4
2
1
S
E

5
2
1
S
E

6
2
1
S
E

7
2
1
S
E

0
5
1
S
E

m
u
S

1 

1 

20 

8 

25 

16 

2 

25 

2 

10 

47 

21 

29 

1 
22 

104 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

3 

6 

6 

7 

8 
417 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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.  

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. 

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 

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 

Total 

Poor chemical 
status 
1 

Poor quantitative 
status 
0 

0 

2 

0 

14 

6 

13 

16 

35 

7 

2 

24 

27 

23 

23 

35 

8 

4 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

5 

0 

11 

18 

32 

3 

0 

41 

30 

1 

6 

37 

9 

4 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

Good status 

Total 

5 

18 

26 

20 

48 

18 

5 

33 

27 

5 

2 

16 

50 

82 

14 

47 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

3 

0 

0 

0 

6 

18 

28 

20 

64 

24 

20 

60 

67 

14 

4 

63 

90 

105 

39 

90 

10 

4 

1 

4 

5 

5 

3 

1 

3 

246 

204 

423 

748 

68 

 
 
Table 10.1: Number of groundwater bodies and their status 
Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain (2014).  

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%).  Severe  data  gaps  are  reported  for  ES120  and 
ES124. 

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. 

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 

ES010 

ES014 

ES017 

ES018 

ES020 

ES030 

ES040 

Good 

0 

0 

12 

20 

2508 

0 

99 

Unknown 

531 

1954 

14 

0 

0 

141 

268 

Failing to achieve 
good 
0 

0 

0 

0 

794 

0 

27 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
RBD 

ES050 

ES060 

ES063 

ES064 

ES070 

ES080 

ES091 

ES100 

ES110 

ES120 

ES122 

ES123 

ES124 

ES125 

ES126 

ES127 

ES150 

ES160 

Total 

Good 

0 

0 

0 

0 

91 

1961 

0 

0 

26 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Failing to achieve 
good 
0 

0 

0 

0 

12 

0 

0 

0 

54 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

4717 

890 

Unknown 

809 

714 

78 

28 

0 

0 

99 

1108 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

0 

0 

20 

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.  

70 

 
 
 
 
 
OBJECTIVES AND EXEMPTIONS 

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 

71 

 
 
 
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,ES091,  ES122)  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. 

Furthermore,  ES120  does  not  establish  objectives  for  a  coastal  HMWB.  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. 

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 

72 

 
 
 
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  Environment28,  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 Directive29, 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. 

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. 

28 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  
29 Directive 79/923/EEC (codified 2006/113/EC), repealed in 2013 by the WFD. 

73 

 
 
 
                                                            
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-ante30. 
This  process  is  not  transparent  and  does  not  provide  a  sound  basis  for  justifying  the 
exemptions according to the WFD requirements.  

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 

ES160 

Total 

Article 4(4) 

Article 4(5) 

R 

42 

44 

40 

35 

334 

62 

180 

109 

30 

32 

18 

48 

171 

74 

104 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

L 

1 

0 

0 

2 

0 

6 

44 

16 

1 

0 

0 

4 

12 

0 

17 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

T 

0 

4 

2 

3 

0 

0 

0 

10 

0 

7 

8 

0 

4 

0 

16 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

C 

0 

10 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

4 

10 

0 

14 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

GW 

1 

0 

1 

0 

3 

6 

15 

25 

21 

5 

2 

36 

37 

21 

21 

23 

29 

04 

0 

0 

1 

0 

3 

1 

3 

R 

2 

6 

0 

0 

83 

17 

0 

9 

7 

1 

0 

0 

0 

12 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1324 

103 

54 

41 

238 

137 

L 

T 

C 

GW 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

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 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

14 

0 

0 

0 

5 

2 

0 

10 

3 

2 

0 

3 

80 

40 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

43 

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).  

30  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. 

74 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
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 

ES160 

Total 

Global31 

Technical feasibility 
Article 
Article 
4(5) 
4(4) 
2 
38 

Disproportionate costs 
Article 
Article 
4(5) 
4(4) 
1 
0 

Natural conditions 
Article 
Article 
4(5) 
4(4) 
0 
13 

74 

56 

43 

40 

6 

169 

28 

74 

1 

0 

0 

24 

32 

128 

0 

8 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

5 

7 

0 

0 

98 

18 

0 

10 

7 

2 

0 

0 

3 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

337 

68 

79 

136 

0 

28 

6 

125 

256 

52 

166 

1 

9 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

66 

0 

0 

0 

11 

1 

0 

10 

0 

10 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

48 

77 

0 

0 

25 

28 

2 

0 

4 

0 

1 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

730 

155 

1265 

99 

204 

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 

Table 11.1.2: Numbers of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions 
Source: WISE and RBMPs; information provided by Spain. 

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, ES122) 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.  In  some  RBMPs  (e.g.  ES122)  the  reasons  are  not  justified  nor  adequate: 
despite significant agricultural water abstraction, and both point source and diffuse pollution, 
the  RBMP  identifies  natural  reasons  as  the  cause  for  not  achieving  good  quantitative  or 
chemical status. 

31 Exemptions are combined for ecological and chemical status 

75 

 
 
                                                            
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 ES150 and ES160. 

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)).  

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. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
In  ES124,  the  Port  of  Granadilla,  already  under  construction,  is  designated  as  HMWB  and 
two other areas are labelled as 'candidate' because new ports are planned; these kind of ex-
ante  designation of  HMWB  are not in line with  the WFD.  The  relevant provisions for new 
modifications  in  the  WFD  are  the  non-deterioration  obligation  in  4(1)  and  Article  4(7).  In 
is  not  applied,  some  considerations  are  made, 
ES127,  and  although  Article  4.7 
misinterpreting the requirements of the WFD: first, it is satated that the concept only applies 
to alterations carried out after the RBMP; second, that the declaration of general interest and 
the  associated  environmental  and  socio-economic  assessment  allows  to  avoid  any  specific 
justification analysis. 

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. 

Exemptions under the Groundwater Directive 

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

PROGRAMME OF MEASURES 

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. In some RBDs (e.g. ES123, 
ES127), water supply accounts for more than 75% of the already invested budget (note that 
the Canary Island RBMPs were only adopted in 2015, with a PoM timeline usually for 2009-

77 

 
 
 
 
2015).  ES123  targets  only  4%  of  its  budget  directly  to  the  achievement  of  the  WFD 
environmental objectives. 

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,  ES120,  ES124),  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).  Some  PoMs  provide  information  on  the  character  of  the  measures  (basic, 
complementary),  but  for  some  RBDs  (e.g.  ES122,  ES123,  ES127)  even  include  measures 
such as to reduce the energy costs of water users by employing renewable energies, which is 
neither targeting the WFD objectives nor water supply. 

Some RBMPs (ES122, ES126) do not provide a clear budget figures. 

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. 

78 

 
 
 
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 

ES160 

Total 

Budget first 
planning cycle 
MEUR 
929* 

330 (1272*) 

Public 
funding 
(%) 
66,5 

Private 
funding 
(%) 
1 

EU funds 
considered 
(%, Y/?/N) 
32,5 

71 

90 

100 

98 

98 

? 

100 

81 

100 

1.7 

10 

0 

2 

2 

? 

0 

19 

0 

9 

0 

Y 

? 

? 

Y 

Y 

? 

? 

Y 

? 

Y 

Y 

1168 

1461 

1497 

4354 

798 

1747 

2818 

338* 

372* 

1950 

2020 

3915 

6269* 

145 

64 (128*) 

 12? 

40*24 

460  

40 

19  

4.6 

31543* 

Budget all planning 
cycles MEUR 

988 

1358 (1392*) 

2790 (2610*) 

2353 

4200 

8246 

4040 

4099* 

5100 

1417 

1376 

4818 

5459 

18112* 

6269* 

2722 

64 (128*) 

569  

-  

 129 

74209* 

Table 12.1.1: Budget and sources of funding  
Source: RBMPs and information provided by Spain in 2014 (*) 

 RBD 

ES010 

ES014 

ES017 

ES018 

ES020 

ES030 

ES040 

ES050 

Environmental 
objectives 

670 

1180 

1383 

1630 

1991 

4390 

1968 

1643 

% 

68 

85 

53 

69 

47 

53 

49 

40 

Water 
supply 

258 

146 

651 

468 

2064 

3633 

1651 

2026 

% 

26 

11 

25 

20 

49 

44 

41 

49 

79 

Floods & 
Droughts 

36 

24 

521 

124 

10 

0 

380 

348 

Knowledge 
and 
governance 

% 

Total 

23 

40 

54 

129 

133 

222 

41 

81 

2 

3 

2 

5 

3 

3 

1 

2 

987 

1390 

2609 

2351 

4198 

8245 

4040 

4098 

% 

4 

2 

20 

5 

0 

0 

9 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 RBD 

ES060 

ES063 

ES064 

ES070 

ES080 

ES091 

ES100 

ES110 

ES120 

ES122 

ES123 

ES124 

ES125 

ES126 

ES127 

ES150 

ES160 

 Total 

Environmental 
objectives 

1377 

298 

249 

1994 

1396 

8958 

2817 

1287 

% 

27 

21 

18 

41 

26 

49 

45 

47 

Water 
supply 

2797 

625 

748 

1997 

2756 

7502 

3113 

540 

% 

55 

44 

54 

41 

50 

41 

50 

20 

Floods & 
Droughts 

712 

461 

347 

528 

1098 

1400 

339 

512 

Knowledge 
and 
governance 

% 

Total 

213 

32 

31 

298 

209 

251 

0 

4 

2 

2 

6 

4 

1 

0 

5099 

1416 

1375 

4817 

5459 

18111 

6269 

% 

14 

33 

25 

11 

20 

8 

5 

19 

382 

14 

2721 

1 

4 

18 

73 

0 

0 

5 

23 

24 

1.5 

182 

466 

33880.5 

5 

55 

83 

31118 

72 

76 

46 

22 

14 

42 

12 

15 

64 

6931 

0.08 

19 

6 

10 

9 

1 

1 

2141.08 

0 

0 

3 

253 

614 

74071 

Table 12.1.2: Budget distribution across major action lines (in MEUR) 
Source: Information provided by Spain (2014), and RBMPs ES123 and ES126.  

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) or 2014-2015 (for ES123, approved in 2015), 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.  Note  additionally,  that  no  PoM  is  in 
place in the Canary Islands (ES12X) as the 1st cycle RBMPs establish PoMs only until 2015, 
and  no  2nd  cycle  RBMPs  have  been  approved  yet.  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 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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, ES122, 
ES123) 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 Directive32. 

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 

32  See  latest  Commission  implementation  report:  Seventh  Report  on  the  Implementation  of  the  Urban  Waste 
Water 
at 
(91/271/EEC), 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/implementation/implementationreports_en.htm    

COM(2013)574 

Treatment 

Directive 

available 

81 

 
 
 
                                                            
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.  

82 

 
 
Measures 

0
1
0
S
E

4
1
0
S
E

7
1
0
S
E

8
1
0
S
E

0
2
0
S
E

0
3
0
S
E

0
4
0
S
E

0
5
0
S
E

0
6
0
S
E

3
6
0
S
E

4
6
0
S
E

0
7
0
S
E

0
8
0
S
E

1
9
0
S
E

0
0
1
S
E

0
1
1
S
E

0
2
1
S
E

2
2
1
S
E

3
2
1
S
E

4
2
1
S
E

5
2
1
S
E

6
2
1
S
E

7
2
1
S
E

0
5
1
S
E

0
6
1
S
E

Technical measures  
Reduction/modification of fertiliser 
application  
Reduction/modification of pesticide 
application  
Change to low-input farming (e.g. 
organic farming practices)  
Hydromorphological measures 
leading to changes in farming 
practices  
Measures against soil erosion  
Multi-objective measures (e.g. crop 
rotation, creation of enhanced 
buffer zones/wetlands or floodplain 
management)  
Technical measures for water 
saving  
Economic instruments  

Compensation for land cover  

Co-operative agreements  
Water pricing specifications for 
irrigators  
Nutrient trading  

Fertiliser taxation  

Non-technical measures  
Additions regarding the 
implementation and enforcement of 
existing EU legislation  
Controls 

Institutional changes  

Y 

Y 

? 

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

83 

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6
2
1
S
E

7
2
1
S
E

0
5
1
S
E

0
6
1
S
E

5
2
1
S
E

Y

Y

Y

Measures 

0
1
0
S
E

4
1
0
S
E

7
1
0
S
E

8
1
0
S
E

0
2
0
S
E

0
3
0
S
E

0
4
0
S
E

0
5
0
S
E

0
6
0
S
E

3
6
0
S
E

4
6
0
S
E

0
7
0
S
E

0
8
0
S
E

1
9
0
S
E

0
0
1
S
E

0
1
1
S
E

0
2
1
S
E

2
2
1
S
E

3
2
1
S
E

4
2
1
S
E

Codes of agricultural practice  

Farm advice and training  

Raising awareness of farmers  
Measures to increase knowledge for 
improved decision-making  
Certification schemes  
Zoning (e.g. designating land use 
based on GIS maps)  
Specific action plans/programmes  

Land use planning  

Y

Y

Y

? 

Y

Y

Y

Y

? 

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Technical standards  
Specific projects related to 
agriculture  
Environmental permitting and 
licensing  
Others (e.g. new water supply 
infrastructure) 
Table 12.2.1: Types of WFD measures addressing agricultural pressures, as described in the PoMs  
Source: RBMPs 

? 

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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,  ES120,  ES125, 
ES126, ES127), 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.  Some  RBMPs  (e.g.  ES123)  even  include  new  irrigation 
developments as measures, though they should rather be considered as pressures. 

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.  

Measures related to hydromorphology 

The  following  table  includes  an  overview  which  measures  are  considered  in  the  RBMPs 
regarding hydromorphology.  

85 

 
 
 
0
1
0
S
E

4
1
0
S
E

7
1
0
S
E

8
1
0
S
E

0
2
0
S
E

0
3
0
S
E

0
4
0
S
E

0
5
0
S
E

0
6
0
S
E

3
6
0
S
E

4
6
0
S
E

0
7
0
S
E

0
8
0
S
E

1
9
0
S
E

0
0
1
S
E

0
1
1
S
E

0
2
1
S
E

2
2
1
S
E

3
2
1
S
E

4
2
1
S
E

5
2
1
S
E

6
2
1
S
E

7
2
1
S
E

0
5
1
S
E

0
6
1
S
E

Measures 

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 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

86 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 Law33 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”34.  The  IPH  reproduces  the  same  definition  but 
further  expands  it  in  the  main  text35  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 

33 Article 42.1.c’ of Consolidated Water Law approved by Legislative Royal Decree 1/2001. 
34 Article 3.j of Planning Regulation approved by Royal Decree 907/2007. 
35 IPH 1.2.15 and 3.4.1.1. 

87 

 
 
                                                            
ecological criteria and socio-economic considerations in a not completely transparent way36. 
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 (e.g. 
ES126).  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).  

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 202037. 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, ES124) but in 

36 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.  
37 Date included in the Royal Decree 670/2013. 

88 

 
 
 
                                                            
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) or to reuse or desalinised 
water (e.g. ES120, ES124). 

In  some  RBMPs,  supplementary  measures  have  been  defined  like  aquifer  recharge  (e.g. 
ES020, ES070, ES080, ES122, ES123). 

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. 

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. 

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). 

89 

 
 
 
 
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 
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)). 

that  “should  be 

taken” 

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% 

90 

 
 
appears  to  be  applied  in  one  specific  case  in  ES080,  including  50%  discount  due  to  “over 
sizing of the infrastructure”38.  

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 Sanitation39 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, except ES123 which identifies 
subsidised tarrifs for agriculture using desalinised water. 

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) or indicate 
that  calculations  have  been  undertaken  but  without  providing  further  data  (e.g.  ES126). 

38 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 
39 Asociación Española de Abastecimiento y Saneamiento (AEAS) 

91 

 
 
                                                            
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).  Some 
RBMPs (e.g. ES126) state clearly that the current water pricing does not foster efficiency. 

The values in table 12.6.1 have mainly been provided by the Spanish authorities. 

92 

 
 
Environmental 
costs considered 
Y 

N 

N 
N 
Y 
Y 
Y 
N 
N 
N 
N 

Y 

Y 

N 
N 
N 
N 
N 
N 
N 
N 

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 

Resource costs considered 

N 

N 

N 
N 
Y (zero cost) 
N 
Y 
N 
N 
N 
N 

N (3) 

N 
N 

N 
N 
N 
N 
N 
N 
N 
N 

Overall % 
cost recovery 
24.0–34.1 

CR % urban 
water services 
33.8 

CR % 
agriculture 
18.8 

CR % 
industry 
99.8 

48.0 

42.0–52.0 (1) 
45.0–56.0 (2) 
45.8–61.8 
75.0–77.0 
81.0–89.0 
85.2 
84.2 
- 
- 

(4) 

85.0 
- 

- 
77.0 
68 

95 
15.0–21.0 
- 
- 

48.0 

39.0–49.0 
40.0–50.0 
46.3–67.3 
 78.0 
 81.0 
 84.5 
 85.7 
 92.8 
 94.6 

 88.4 

 86.0 
 57.0 

 86.5 
 78.0 
75 
77(?) 
91 
55.0–76.029 
 57.2 
-33.2 

- 

71 

39.0–48.0 
43.0–53.0 
39.7–46.6 
59.0 
81.0 
77.9 
78.0 
76.7 
90.5 

85.7 

80.0 
80.0 

- 
75.0 
39 
33 
107 
73.0 
10.7 
32.0 

93 
81.2 
64.8 
81 
96 
86.8 
93.2 
92.8 
96.3 
88.38% (& 
urban) 

- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 

CR % others 

- 
(71, domestic) 
(31, other uses) 
- 
82.5 
64.3 
100 
- 
- 
100 
68.0 
55.0 

19-25 (5) 

- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 

Table 12.6.1. Cost recovery in the RBMPs. 
Source:  Information  provided  by  Spain  (2014),  except  for  ES12X  where  the  RBMPs  have  been  taken  as  source.  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. As regards ES123, note different figures are provided in the RBMP.  

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CLIMATE CHANGE 

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. 

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”. 

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.  

94 

 
 
 
 
 
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;  ES122  regarding  future  flood  risks  –  not  yet 
budgeted and pending the approval of the FRMP). 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. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Spain should: 

Ensure the full 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. 

•  Ensure all water bodies are properly delineated and categorised, in particular for the 
Canary  Islands,  where  so  far  no  river,  lake  or  transitional  water  bodies  have  been 
identified. 

•  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: 

o  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. 

o  Translate the results of the intercalibration exercise to the assessment systems 

in a transparent way 

o  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.  

o  Fill  the  gaps  in  assessment  systems  for  biological  quality  and  supporting 

elements, in particular for fish 

o  Include the complete assessment systems for coastal and transitional waters. 

o  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 

95 

 
 
 
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: 

o  all  abstractions  are  registered  and  permits  adapted  to  the  available 

resources. 

o  all  abstractions  are  metered  and  subject  to  control  of  the  river  basin 

authorities 

o 

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.  

96 

 
 
•  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 

97 

 
 
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.  

98 

 
 
99