COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: Portugal Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans
Date: 2019-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: Portugal, adaptation to climate change, application of EU law, environmental risk prevention, flood, risk management, water, water management, water pollution, watercourse

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.2.2019  SWD(2019) 56 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: Portugal     Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL  on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans  {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - 
 
 
Table of Contents 
Acronyms and definitions ............................................................................................................. 5 

Foreword...................................................................................................................................... 6 

General Information .................................................................................................................... 7 

Status of the second river basin management plan reporting ..................................................... 9 

Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s)
.................................................................................................................................................... 10 

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 19 

Topic 1

  Governance and public participation ....................................................................... 22 

1.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 22 

1.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ............................. 25 

1.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 25 

Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District............................................................. 27 

2.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle ............................................................................................................................ 27 

2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 44 

2.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 46 

Topic 3

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water 

bodies 

 ................................................................................................................................... 48 

3.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
RBMPs.................................................................................................................................... 48 

3.2 Assessment and classification of ecological status/potential of surface water ................. 57 

3.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first RBMPs ......................... 68 

3.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 70 

Topic 4

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 
 ................................................................................................................................... 73 

4.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 73 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
4.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 89 

4.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 90 

Topic 5

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater 

bodies 

 ................................................................................................................................... 92 

5.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle ............................................................................................................................ 92 

5.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 98 

5.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 99 

Topic 6

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 

100 

6.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 100 

6.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 107 

6.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 107 

Topic 7
  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good 
Ecological Potential................................................................................................................. 109 

7.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle for designation................................................................................................. 109 

7.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 112 

7.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 113 

Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions .............................................................. 115 

8.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 115 

8.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ........................... 122 

8.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 122 

Topic 9

  Programme of measures.......................................................................................... 123 

9.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 123 

9.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ........................... 133 

9.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 134 

2 

 
 
 
Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity .......................................... 136 

10.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 136 

10.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 138 

10.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 138 

Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture................................................... 139 

11.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 139 

11.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 141 

11.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 141 

Topic 12

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture ..................... 142 

12.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 142 

12.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ........................ 145 

12.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 145 

Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology ................................................................ 146 

13.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 146 

13.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ........................ 147 

13.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 148 

Topic 14

Economic analysis and water pricing policies .................................................... 150 

14.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle and main changes since the first cycle ............................................................ 150 

14.2 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 150 

  Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives 

Topic 15
and measures) .......................................................................................................................... 154 

15.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 154 

15.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 157 

15.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 158 

3 

 
 
 
Topic 16

Adaptation to drought and climate change .......................................................... 159 

16.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 159 

16.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 160 

16.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 161 

4 

 
 
 
Acronyms and definitions 

EQS Directive 

Environmental Quality Standards Directive 

FD 

Km 

km2 

KTM 

PoM 

RBD 

RBMP 

WFD 

WISE 

Annex 0 

Floods Directive 

Kilometre 

Kilometre squared 

Key Type of Measure 

Programme of Measures 

River Basin District 

River Basin Management Plan 

Water Framework Directive 

Water Information System for Europe 

Member States reported the structured information on the 
second  RBMPs  to  WISE  (Water  Information  System  for 
Europe).  Due  to  the  late  availability  of  the  reporting 

guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an 
Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying 

what  information  they  were  unable  to  report  and  the 
reasons  why.  This  Annex  was  produced  using  a template 

included  in  the  reporting  guidance.  If  Member  States 
reported all the required information, this explanatory note 

was not necessary. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Foreword 

The  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  (2000/60/EC)  requires  in  its  Article  18  that  each 

Member  State  reports  its  River  Basin  Management  Plan(s)  (RBMPs)  to  the  European 
Commission. The second RBMPs were due to be adopted by the Member States in December 

2015 and reported to the European Commission in March 2016. 

This  Member  State  Assessment  report  was  drafted  on  the  basis  of  information  that  was 

reported  by  Member  States  through  the  Water  Information  System  for  Europe  (WISE) 
electronic reporting.  

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

situation in the Member States may have changed since then. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
General Information 

Map A  

Map of RBDs 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

  International RBDs (within European Union) 
  International RBDs (outside European Union) 
  National RBDs (within European Union) 
  Countries (outside European Union) 
  Coastal Waters 

Portugal is a republic comprised of a continental part and two autonomous regions. The total 
area  of  Portugal  is  92  072  km²,  with  an  economic  exclusive  zone  of  1  727  408  km².  The 

population is about 10.6 million. 

The  information  on  areas  of  the  national  RBDs  including  sharing  countries  is  provided  in 

Table A: 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Name 

Size (km2) 

Countries sharing 
RBD 

Table A: Overview of Portugal’s RBDs  

RBD 

PTRH1 

PTRH2 

PTRH3 

Minho and Lima 

Cavado, Ave and Leca 

Douro 

PTRH4A 

Vouga, Mondego and Lis 

PTRH5A 

Tagus and West Rivers 

PTRH6 

Sado and Mira 

PTRH7 

PTRH8 

PTRH9 

Guadiana 

Algarve Rivers 

Azores 

PTRH10 

Madeira 

2464 

3585 

19218 

12144 

30502 

12149 
(12144) 

ES 

- 

ES 

- 

ES 

- 

11611 

ES 

5511 

10047 

2248 

- 

- 

- 

Source: RBMPs reported to WISE. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Portugal.  

The share of Portugal in the respective international RBDs is 5.0 %  (Minho), 47.1 %  (Lima), 
21.7 %  (Tejo), 17.3 %  (Guadiana) and 19.3 %  (Douro).1  

Table B: Transboundary river basins by category and % share in Portugal 

Name 
international 
river basin 

National RBD 

Countries 
sharing RBD 

Miño/Minho 

PTRH1 (Minho-Lima) 

Lima/Limia 

PTRH1 (Minho-Lima) 

Duero/Douro 

PTRH3 (Douro) 

ES 

ES 

ES 

Co-ordination category 

2 

km² 

% 

854 (814) 

5.0 (9.0) 

1180 (1199) 

47.1 (47.6) 

18855 (18588) 

19.3 (19.1) 

Tajo/Tejo 

Guadiana 

PTRH5A (Tagus and West Rivers)  ES 

15415 (25016) 

21.7 (31.0) 

PTRH7 (Guadiana) 

ES 

11598 (11534) 

17.3 (17.2) 

Source: WISE electronic reports.  Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Portugal.  

Category 1: International agreement, permanent co-operation body and international RBMP in 
place.  
Category 2: International agreement and permanent co-operation body in place. 
Category 3: International agreement in place. 
Category 4: No co-operation formalised. 

1  Portugal  subsequently  noted  that  the  share  of  Portugal  in  the  respective  international  RBDs  is  9.0%  (Minho), 

47.6% (Lima), 31.1% (Tejo), 17.2% (Guadiana) and 19.1% (Douro). 

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Status of the second river basin management plan reporting 

A total of ten RBMPs of Portugal (Minho and Lima, Cavado, Ave and  Leca, Douro, Vouga, 

Mondego and Lis, Tagus and West Rivers, Sado and Mira, Guadiana, Algarve Rivers, Azores, 
Madeira) were published between 29 January and 15 December 2016. Documents are available 

the  European  Environment  Agency  EIONET  Central  Data  Repository 

from 
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/. 

9 

 
 
 
 
Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River 
Basin Management Plan(s) 

The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMP of Portugal are as follows: 

 

 

 

 

Governance and public consultation 

Portugal and Spain ensured coordination on a broad range of issues in the international 

RBDs they share. 

A  broad  range  of  stakeholders  were  actively  involved  in  Portugal’s  RBDs,  in  nine  of 

them via advisory councils. 

Portugal  did  not  adopt  and publish  the RBMPs in  accordance with  the timetable in  the 

WFD. 

 

Characterisation of the RBD 

 

The  delineation  of  transboundary  water  bodies  has  been  coordinated  by  the 

Commission for the Implementation and Development of the Albufeira Convention.  

 

A number of the national Portuguese types do not have corresponding intercalibration 
types:  this  equates  to  58  %  of  coastal  water  bodies  in  Portugal  as  a  whole  (41  %  of 

these are in the Azores and Madeira). For natural lakes (all in the Azores RBD) there 
are no common intercalibration types. For rivers and transitional waters are 33 % and 

67 %, respectively, without a common intercalibration type. 

 

There are still significant gaps in the development of reference conditions for all types 

in all categories of surface waters for all the relevant quality elements. This casts doubts 
on  the  robustness  of  the  subsequent  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  in 

Portugal. There was an improvement since the first cycle, but several tasks remain to be 
completed. National authorities have reported work underway, to be concluded in 2019, 

which will further advance the subsequent classification of ecological status/potential in 
Portugal. 

 

Further characterisation work of groundwater bodies has been undertaken since the first 
cycle  by  describing  the  geological  formation  and  whether  they  are  layered  or  not. 

Portugal  has  also  included  an  assessment  of  linkages  with  surface  water  bodies  and 
terrestrial ecosystems. 

10 

 
 
 

In  most  Portuguese  RBDs,  the  significance  of  pressures  on  both  surface  and 

groundwater has not been defined in terms of thresholds, but on failure to reach good 
status. 

 

Portugal  has  established  inventories  of  emissions  for  all  RBDs  except  for  the  Minho. 
Not  all  priority  substances  are  included  in  these  inventories,  according  to  the 

information  reported.  Tier  1  of  the  methodology  was  implemented  for  all  substances 
included in the inventories (while the Guidance Document recommends to implement 

at  least  Tier  1  +  2  for  substances  relevant  at  RBD  level).  The  data  quality  was  not 
reported. 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status  

 

The total number of monitoring sites reported by Portugal increased by  36 % since the 

first  RBMPs.  There  were  no  reported  operational  monitoring  sites  in  coastal  waters  in 
any  of  the  RBDs  even  though  there  are  significant  pressures  reported.  Portugal 

subsequently  explained that sites reported  for surveillance monitoring were in  fact  also 
used for the classification of ecological status. 

 

 

 

Hydromorphological quality elements are monitored in only one lake and in around half 
of river and transitional water bodies used for surveillance monitoring.  

Portugal identified River Basin Specific Pollutants on the basis of a previous list of River 
Basin  Specific  Pollutants  and  their  presence  in  water  in  the  period  2004-2012. 

Concerning  pesticides,  Portugal  also  took  into  account  whether  or  not  they  were 
authorised.  

Environmental Quality Standards are reported for 26 River Basin Specific Pollutants in 
water. All of them were derived according to Technical Guidance n. 27. The analytical 

method  used  for  each  substance  meets  the  minimum  performance  criteria  laid  down  in 
Article 4(1) of the Directive 2009/90/EC for the strictest standard applied.  

  Monitoring  was  reported  for  16  chemical  substances  that  are  not  Priority  Substances. 
These  were  generally  assumed  to  be  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants,  but  for  Portugal 
they are different from the substances for which Environmental Quality Standards were 

derived. 

 

For  some  river,  transitional  and  coastal  water  bodies,  classification  of  ecological 

status/potential was based on none of the required biological quality elements. 

11 

 
 
 

Although 43 surface water bodies were classified in high status, only four of these were 

classified using the required hydromorphological quality elements.  

 

Hydromorphological quality elements  were not used in the classification of lakes,  even 

though these elements were reported to be monitored in lakes. 

 

Compared to the first RBMPs, the classification of ecological status/potential was based 

on  more  comprehensive  classification  methods,  which  consider  more  of  the  relevant 

biological  quality  elements  and  some  hydromorphological  and  physicochemical  quality 
elements  (mainly  nutrients).  There  is  therefore  a  decrease  in  the  proportion  of  water 

bodies  with  unknown  ecological  status/potential.  However,  the  overall  ecological 
status/potential  of  surface  water  bodies  has  not  improved  significantly  since  the  first 

RBMPs. 

 

The one-out all-out principle has been used in all RBD, except in Madeira, to establish 

the overall ecological status. 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 

 

The proportion of water bodies in unknown status has increased since the first RBMPs 

(from 58 to 74 %). The proportion in good status has consequently decreased, while the 
proportion of water bodies failing to achieve good status remained stable. Portugal also 
reports improvements for three Priority Substances. 

 

 

 

 

 

63 % of classified surface water bodies were classified with high confidence, and 34 % 

with low confidence.  

20 %, 87 % and 70 % of river, transitional and coastal water bodies were monitored.  

33  Priority  Substances  were  monitored  for  status  assessment;  most  were  monitored  in 

less  than  10  water  bodies.  Not  all  substances  reported  as  discharged  were  monitored, 
however  Portugal  mentioned  that  some  of  the  substances  reported  as  discharged  were 

actually not found in the effluents, but half of the limit of quantification was used as a 
basis to calculate the loads reported to the E-PRTR. Monitoring frequencies were below 

the recommended minimum frequencies for surveillance and operational monitoring.  

Hexachlorobenzene, mercury and hexabutadiene were not monitored in biota.  

For trend assessment, Portugal reported no data on monitoring of Priority Substances in 
sediment  and/or  biota.  However,  Portugal  subsequently  clarified  that  since  2013  11  of 

12 

 
 
the  14  substances  have  been  monitored  in  sediment  in  the  mainland  RBDs,  in  what 

appears  to  be  a  limited  number  of  sites.  According  to  the  Portuguese  legislation, 
monitoring  should  be  carried  out  in  the  future  at  or  above  the  recommended  minimum 

frequency. 

 

For  the  assessment  of  chemical  status,  the  one-out,  all-out  principle  was  used  in  all 

RBDs, except in Madeira. 

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  quantitative  status  of  groundwater 

bodies 

 

The  number  of  monitored  groundwater  bodies  increased  from  70  to  80.  In  mainland 
Portugal  grouping  of  groundwater  bodies  was  reported  for  monitoring  purposes.  No 

monitoring was reported for two river basin districts (Azores and Madeira). 

 

The  confidence  in  status  varies  among  RBDs,  and  only  20  %  of  groundwater  bodies 

results have high confidence. 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 

 

Overall,  the  monitoring  situation  deteriorated  since  the  first  RBMPs,  as  43  %  of  the 
groundwater bodies have no surveillance monitoring and not all groundwater bodies at 

risk  are  subject  to  operational  monitoring.  According  to  the  information  subsequently 
provided  by  Portugal,  the  coverage  of  chemical  monitoring  in  mainland  Portugal  is 

almost  complete  and  grouping  of  groundwater  bodies  has  been  done  for  monitoring 
purposes. 

 

 

According  to  a  clarification  subsequently  provided  by  Portugal,  all  WFD  core 
parameters are monitored in all RBDs of mainland Portugal. 

As  regards  status  assessment,  the  situation  improved,  with  2.7  %  of  the  total 
groundwater body area failing good status, instead of 4.9 % previously. 

 

Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good 

Ecological Potential 

 

The designation of several heavily modified water bodies has been reviewed since the 

first  RBMPs,  to  take  account  of  Common  Implementation  Strategy  guidance  and 

improved characterisation. However, the designations of some HMWBs is still pending. 

13 

 
 
For  example,  in  the  Azores  RBD  some  areas,  namely  ports,  have  been  identified  as 

having  heavily  modified  water  bodies’  characteristics,  but  a  procedure  for  their 
designation  is  still  ongoing.  Some  information  is  provided  on  how  the  significant 

adverse effects of restoration measures on the use and the wider environment have been 
defined.  

 

No  explicit  description  of  improvements  made  to  the  method  for  good  ecological 
potential definition since the first cycle could be found in the RBMPs, but according to 

information  subsequently  provided  by  Portugal  some  improvements  have  taken  place 
due  to:  1)  the  revision/refinement  of  some  BQE  assessment  methods;  2)  the 

intercalibration and adoption of new methods for other BQEs; and 3) the adoption of a 
hybrid CIS Guidance/Prague Approach to the definition of ecological potential. 

 

Good  ecological  potential  is  defined  in  terms  of  biology  and,  in  general,  this  is  done 
using  the  same  assessment  methods  and  metrics  as  for  the  ecological  status  (e.g.  for 

HMWB  downstream  weirs/dams  or  other  kind  of  inland  lotic  HMWB).  The  only 
difference is for reservoirs, where specific metrics are used for phytoplankton. For the 

reservoirs  of  northern  type,  the  Mediterranean  Reservoir  Phytoplankton  Evaluation 
Index  is  used.  For  the  reservoirs  of  southern  type  and  main  flow  type  reservoirs, 

chlorophyll a is used for classification. According to information subsequently provided 
by  Portugal,  other  biological  quality  elements  are  considered  as  “not  applicable”  in 

Portuguese reservoirs, based on the intercalibration of ecological status methods. 

  Mitigation  measures  for  defining  good  ecological  potential  have  been  reported:  the 
ecological  changes  expected  due  to  the  mitigation  measures  are  described  in  a 
qualitative way. According to information subsequently provided by Portugal, besides 

reinforcing  the  implementation  of  these  measures,  studies  are  being  developed  to 
improve  the  mitigation  measures  on  hydromorphological  conditions,  environmental 

 

 

flows in particular. 

Environmental objectives and exemptions 

Environmental  objectives  for  surface  water  ecological  and  chemical  status  have  been 

reported  in  all  RBDs,  and  the  same  applies  for  quantitative  and  chemical  status  of 

groundwater. Information is provided on by when water bodies are expected to achieve 
the WFD objectives. 

14 

 
 
 

Drivers, pressures and pollutants leading to exemptions are reported, although some gaps 

and uncertainties remain in some RBDs. 

 

Justifications for exemptions have been provided at water body level. Criteria have been 

developed  for  the  application  of  exemptions  with  regard  to  technical  feasibility  and 
disproportionate costs. However, the reasoning for the exemptions and the timeframes to 

achieve environmental objectives might be better developed and reflected in the RBMPs.  

 

 

Programme of Measures 

In general the amount and quality of information has improved since the first RBMPs, in 

particular by clearly identifying the gaps to good status for most significant pressures and 

designing  the  Programmes  of  Measures  (PoM)  to  close  the  gaps.    However,  cost-
effectiveness  analyses  have  only  been  carried  out  in  one  of  the  ten  RBDs.  Portugal 

subsequently  clarified  that  the  cost-effectiveness  analysis  of  the  measures  in  the  eight 
mainland RBMPs will occur during the process of evaluating the implementation of the 

measures in 2018. This will allow for an evaluation of the effectiveness of the measures 
against the state of the bodies of water. 

 

A clear financial commitment is generally in place for the Programmes of Measures in 
all ten RBDs. On a sectoral basis, financial commitments do not seem to be in place for a 

small number of relevant sectors in three RBDs. Portugal subsequently clarified that the 
mid-term  review  will  allow  the  necessary  changes  to  be  made,  in  particular  those  of  a 

financial nature. 

 

New  legislation  or  regulations  to  implement  the  Programmes  of  Measures  in  the  first 

cycle  was  required  in  eight  RBDs  (not  required  in  two  RBDs)  and  is  still  in  progress. 
There is so far no clear distinction between mandatory and voluntary measures. Portugal 

subsequently  clarified  that  all  basic  measures  were  mandatory  as  they  were  in  place  to 
comply  with  existing  Directives,  whereas  the  supplementary  measures  may  be 
mandatory or voluntary.   

 

As to coordination with the Floods Directive, the design and new and existing structural 

measures  have  been  adapted  to  take  account  of  WFD  environmental  objectives,  and 
financial commitments have been secured for the implementation of the Programmes of 

Measures  in  the  flood  protection  sector  in  all  RBDs.  Portugal  indicated  that  Natural 
Water  Retention  Measures  have  been  included  in  the  Programmes  of  Measures  of  all 
RBDs and KTM 23 has been mapped to national measures, but there is no evidence that 

15 

 
 
such  measures  have  been  made  operational.  Portugal  subsequently  clarified  that  these 

measures  are  being  integrated  into  the  Rural  Development  Programme  of  mainland 
Portugal and are being made operational when funding is awarded to relevant farmers. 

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 

  Water abstraction pressure in Portugal has been reported as relevant for all RBDs except 

the Azores. 

 

The  Water  Exploitation  Index  +  is  calculated  and  has  been  reported  for  all  RBDs.  No 
trend  data  have  been  reported  to  WISE,  but  such  trends  are  included  for  groundwater 

bodies in the RBMPs. 

 

In  the  Algarve  Rivers  groundwater  consumption  pressures  have  increased  in  the  recent 

past. 

 

Overall  data  are  presented  for  almost  all  RBDs  regarding  the  main  purposes  for  water 
consumption.  Agricultural  abstraction  data  are  based  on  estimations,  rather  than  being 

backed by metering.  

 

No detailed data on water consumption was reported for Madeira, although, according to 

information subsequently provided by Portugal, information on sector characterisation is 
publicly available. 

 

Licenses and permits for abstractions and flow regulations are being updated. 

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture 

 

 

There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. 

 A gap assessment was missing in the first cycle but has been carried out in the second 
cycle. It addresses diffuse chemical pollution and nutrients.  

 

The  implementation  of  Article  11(3)(h)  basic  measures  for  the  control  of  diffuse 

pollution from agriculture at source is required in all RBDs.  

 

Portugal  has  established  mandatory  safeguard  zones  around  drinking  water  protection 

areas.  

 

Financing of the agricultural measures is secured in all RBDs. 

16 

 
 
  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 

 

Portugal  has  made  progress  in  identifying  where  improvements  to  urban  waste  water 

treatment can help to reduce pollution by Priority Substances from industry in particular. 

 

There  is  limited  information  on  the  substance-specificity  or  potential  effectiveness  of 

measures. 

 

It  appears  that  in  the  island  RBDs  in  particular,  more  information  is  needed  on  the 

concentrations of Priority Substances in water to inform the decisions on measures. 

  Measures related to hydromorphology 

 

For  the  definition  of  ecological  flows,  the  national  water  authority  is  in  charge  of  the 
elaboration  of  a  methodological  guide  to  be  applied  in  different  regions  of  mainland 

Portugal.  At  the  time  of  publishing  the  RBMPs  and  the  Programmes  of  Measures,  the 
methodological  guide  was  still  under  development.  Overall,  work  is  still  in  progress 

concerning  the  definition  of  ecological  flow  regimes.  According  to  information 
subsequently  provided  by  Portugal,  all  dams  built  after  2000  have  a  definition  of 

ecological  flows.  A  significant  number  of  dams,  however,  still  do  not  have  ecological 
flows  defined  (particularly  older  ones)  and  monitoring  programmes  have  been  and  are 

being developed to define ecological flow regimes. 

 

Specific  measures  mentioned  in  some  of  the  RBMPs  indicate  relevance  for  Natural 

Water  Retention  Measures  and  green  infrastructure,  e.g.  maintenance  of  permanent 
prairies and pastures and areas of ecologic interest as well as sustainable forestry. There 

is  no  national  or  regional  strategy  that  prioritises  the  implementation  of  Natural  Water 
Retention  Measures  and  green  infrastructure  measures  per  se.  However,  the  National 

Climate  Change  Adaptation  Plan  includes  these  types  of  measures.  Also  the  Common 
Agriculture Programme with green payments and the Rural Development Programme of 
mainland  Portugal  promote  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures,  which  are  reflected  in 
some of the RBMPs. 

 

Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

 

A rather broad definition of water services is applied in the Portuguese RBDs, but they 
still differ from RBD to RBD. 

17 

 
 
 

Environmental  and  resource  costs  are  regarded  as  internalised  through  the  existing 

legislation, but they are still not explicitly calculated. 

 

Considerations  specific  to  Protected  Areas  (identification,  monitoring,  objectives 

and measures) 

 

There was no evidence of a differentiated approach to setting additional objectives for 
Habitats  and  Birds  Directives  Protected  Areas.  This  is  because  all  these  areas  were 

deemed  to  be  adequately  protected  by  the  objectives  of  good  status  under  the  Water 
Framework Directive.  

 

No  information  was  reported  to  WISE  on  a  monitoring  programme  in  surface  waters 

and groundwater for water bodies associated with Protected Areas. This however seems 
to be a mere error in the information reported to WISE, as the River Basin Management 

Plans  actually  include  a  table  summarizing  the  number  of  monitoring  stations  per 
protected area type. 

 

Adaptation to drought and climate change 

 

 

 

Climate  change  was  considered  in  various  ways  in  all  RBDs,  on  the  basis  of  the 
Common  Implementation  Strategy  guidance  document  on  how  to  adapt  to  climate 

change.  

Droughts have been reported to be relevant for a major part of Portugal. 

It is unclear if proper drought management planning and actions are in place to justify 

the  Article  4(6)  exemptions  which  have  already  been  applied  in  the  first  RBMPs. 
According to the information provided by Portugal, Article 4(6) only referred to water 
bodies  potentially  affected.  Furthermore,  Prevention,  Monitoring  and  Contingency 

Plans for Droughts Situations are in place. 

18 

 
 
 
 
Recommendations  

 

Portugal should ensure that the preparation of the next cycle of RBMPs is carried out in 

accordance with the WFD timetable, to ensure the timely adoption of the third RBMPs. 

 

 

Clear  information  should  be  included  in  the  national  RBMPs  about  international 
coordination efforts, in order to increase transparency.  

Portugal  should  continue  to  improve  international  cooperation,  including  coordinated 
assessments  of  the  technical  aspects  of  the  WFD  such  as  applying  a  harmonised 

approach  for  status  assessment  and  coordinated  Programmes  of  Measures  in  order  to 
ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. 

 

Further  work  is  needed  in  the  establishment  of  reference  conditions  for  some  types  of 

Quality  Elements  and  in  the  review  of  assessment  methodologies,  in  particular  for 
transitional and coastal waters. 

 

Portugal should complete the development of methods for the status assessment of water 
bodies  and  should  determine  the  reference  conditions  and  apply  them  through  the 

implementation of robust monitoring programmes. 

 

Portugal  should  improve  monitoring  of  surface  water  by  covering  all  relevant  quality 

elements in all water categories, as there has been some deterioration in the monitoring 
of  some  biological  and  hydromorphological  quality  elements  since  the  first  RBMPs. 

Operational monitoring needs to include all water bodies which are subject to significant 
pressures, including in coastal waters.  

 

Portugal  should  complete  the  development  of  assessment  methods  that  are  WFD 
compliant  for  all  relevant  quality  elements  and  provide  a  complete  assessment  of 

ecological status for all water bodies, including all relevant quality elements.  

 

The number of water bodies with unknown status should be reduced, and confidence in 

the assessment of surface water chemical status improved. For this, monitoring should be 

performed  in  the  relevant  matrix  in  a  way  that  ensures  sufficient  spatial  coverage  and 
temporal resolution to reach sufficient confidence in the assessment for all water bodies, 

if necessary in combination with robust grouping/extrapolation methods. In particular all 
discharged substances should be monitored. If reduced frequencies or a different matrix 

are  used,  the  corresponding  explanations  should  be  provided,  as  required  by  the 
Directives.  

19 

 
 
 

Trend monitoring should be further improved for all relevant  substances,  in  a way that 

provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage. 

 

Efforts  should  be  kept  up  to  further  improve  the  methodology  for  the  designation  of 

Heavily Modified Water Bodies: clear criteria should be elaborated for the assessment of 
significant adverse effects of mitigation measures on their use or the wider environment, 

and  the  lack  of  significantly  better  environmental  options.  This  will  improve  the 
transparency  of  the  designation  process.  As  for  the  definition  of  ecological  potential,  a 

consistent  methodology  needs  to  be  elaborated  and  applied  for  all  RBDs,  taking  into 
account all relevant biological quality elements. 

 

Portugal  should  continue  to  strengthen  the  assessments  for  the  justification  of  Article 

4(4)  exemptions  by  closing  still  remaining  data  gaps  on  drivers,  pressures  and  the 
necessary measures for the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. 

 

Justifications of Article 4(7) exemptions should be further strengthened by ensuring that 
each project is assessed at water body level, in addition to the performed strategic level 

assessments. 

 

Cost-effectiveness analysis should be applied to support the selection of measures for all 

RBDs. 

 

Portugal  should  continue  updating  licenses  and  permits  for  all  abstractions  and  flow 

regulations, and ensure that they are compatible with the WFD objectives. 

 

Portugal should continue to develop measures in  the third RMBPs, in cooperation with 

the farming community,  to address agricultural phosphorus pressures, so as to facilitate 

the  achievement  of  the  WFD  objectives,  and  ensure  that  support  structures  (advice, 
inspections, funding etc.) are in place to facilitate compliance with the measures.  

 

 

Clearer  links  should  be  made  between  measures  and  individual  pollutants,  partly  to 
improve assessment of the need for supplementary measures. 

The island RBDs should ensure that they gather more information on the pressures from 
Priority Substances and (potential) River Basin Specific Pollutants, in order to determine 

the measures needed to combat them. 

 

Portugal  should  ensure  that  ecological  flows  are  derived  and  implemented  during  this 

second cycle in all RBDs. 

20 

 
 
 

Portugal should continue prioritising the use of green infrastructure and/or Natural Water 

Retention  Measures  that  provide  a  range  of  environmental  (improvements  in  water 
quality,  flood  protection,  habitat  conservation  etc.),  social  and  economic  benefits,  and 

which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure. 

 

Cost  recovery should be applied for water use activities having a significant  impact  on 

water bodies. Any exemption should be justified using Article 9(4). Portugal should also 
present  in  a  transparent  manner  how  financial,  environmental  and  resource  costs  have 

been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. The 
water-pricing  policy  should  be  set  out  in  a  transparent  fashion  and  a  clear  overview  of 

estimated investments and investment needs should be provided. 

 

Portugal  should  ensure  that  the  specific  objectives  for  Shellfish  Protected  Areas, 

including  the  guidance  values  for  microbiological  standards,  are  consistent  with  the 

repealed Shellfish Waters Directive. 

21 

 
 
 
 
Topic 1

  Governance and public participation 

1.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

1.1.1  Administrative arrangements – RBDs 

Portugal  designated  10  RBDs.  Eight  of  these  are  located  in  mainland  Portugal,  and  the 
remaining two are for its autonomous island regions, the Azores and Madeira.  

There has been a minor change in the RBDs since the first cycle: the West Rivers, previously 
included with the Vouga, Mondego and Lis (PTRH4 then, now PTRH4A), are now part of the 

Tagus and West Rivers RBD (PTRH5A). 

1.1.2  Administrative arrangements – competent authorities 

The WISE reporting includes three competent authorities: the Portuguese Environment Agency 
(for mainland Portugal RBDs), and two regional secretariats for environment for the RBDs of 

the Azores and Madeira. 

1.1.3  RBMPs – structure and Strategic Environmental Assessment   

While Portugal did not  report sub-plans to WISE, the RBMPs identify several national plans 
and  strategies,  covering  issues  including  water  scarcity  and  droughts,  adaptation  to  climate 

change, rural planning and waste water treatment (Figure 1.1).  

All of the RBMPs in Portugal were subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment. 

22 

 
 
 
 
Figure 1.1 Issues, sectors, sub-basins or water categories in Portugal supplemented by more 

detailed sub-plans for the second cycle 

y
r
t
s
u
d
n
i

l
a
c
i
m
e
h
C

e
r
u
t
l
u
c
i
r
g
A

r
e
w
o
p
o
r
d
y
H

t
r
o
p
s
n
a
r
T

RBD 

PTRH1 

PTRH2 

PTRH3 

PTRH4A 

PTRH5A 

PTRH6 

PTRH7 

PTRH8 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

s
t
h
g
u
o
r
d
d
n
a

y
t
i
c
r
a
c
S
r
e
t
a
W
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

t
n
e
m
h
c
i
r
n
e

t
n
e
i
r
t
u
N

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
p
l
a
c
i
m
e
h
C

g
n
i
n
n
a
l
p
n
a
b
r
U

n
o
i
s
o
r
e

l
a
t
s
a
o
C

g
n
i
n
n
a
l
p
l
a
r
u
R
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*

r
e
h
t
O
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e
g
n
a
h
c

e
t
a
m

i
l

C
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Other plans include: water supply, sewerage and waste water treatment; rural development; energy; the 
sea; waste; resource efficiency; tourism; biodiversity; forests; aquaculture 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

  Covered by sub-plans 

1.1.4 

Public consultation 

Draft documents for all RBMPs were available for the requisite six months. In all 10 RBDs, 
the  public  and  interested  parties  were  informed  by:  direct  mailing,  Internet,  invitations  to 

stakeholders,  local  authorities,  media  (papers,  TV,  radio),  meetings,  printed  material  and 
written  consultation.  Additionally,  documents  were  available  for  download.  In  the  Azores, 

there was also a direct mailing via email and paper copies were available at exhibitions and at 
meetings of the official committee of interest parties. In Madeira, there was a direct emailing 

of documents in addition to their being available for download.  

In all ten Portuguese RBDs, stakeholders were actively involved. All RBDs but one (Madeira 
being the exception) had advisory councils. Five of the RBDs used regular exhibitions (Sado 

and Mira, Guadiana, Algarve Rivers, Azores and Madeira). The Tagus and West Rivers RBD 
referred to the formation of alliances and the Azores RBD to the involvement of stakeholders 
in  drafting.  The  stakeholders  that  were  actively  involved  varied  across  the  10  RBDs; 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
nonetheless,  in  all,  agriculture/farmers  and  local/regional  authorities  were  involved.  Water 
supply/sanitation  stakeholders  were  actively  involved  in  all  RBD2;  energy/hydropower 
industry  and  NGOs/nature  protection  stakeholders  were  involved  in  six  RBMPs.  Other 

stakeholders 
fisheries/aquaculture, industry and navigation/ports.  

involved 

in  at 

least  one  RBMP  were:  consumer  groups  such  as 

Public consultation had the following impacts on the RBMPs: addition of new information (in 
all RBDs except Tagus and West Rivers); adjustment to specific measures (all RBDs); changes 

to  selection  of  measures  (all  RBDs  except  Vouga,  Mondego  and  Lis  and  the  Azores); 
commitment  to  action  in  the  next  cycle  (all  RBDs);  and  commitment  to  further  research  (all 

RBDs except Vouga, Mondego and Lis, Sado and Mira, Guadiana and the Azores). 

The  European  Commission’s  2015  recommendations  called  for  the  promotion  of  'good 
coordination between public administration and other stakeholders (...) to improve the planning 

and  implementation  of  PoM  and  to  monitor  their  effectiveness'.  The  information  reported  to 
WISE indicates that Portugal  established good coordination with stakeholders; it is not clear, 

however, if coordination has strengthened since the first RBMPs, when stakeholders were also 
actively involved in the preparation of RBMPs, including via advisory councils. 

1.1.5 

Integration  with  the  Floods  Directive  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive 

A  single  plan  including  the  RBMP  and  Floods  Risk  Management  Plan  was  prepared  in  the 
Azores  and  Madeira  RBDs.  Joint  consultation  for  both  the  WFD  and  Floods  Directive3  was 
made  in  all  Portugal's  10  RBDs  except    Guadiana  (because  floods  risk  zones  were  not 
identified in Guadiana)4. Further information on integration with respect to the Programmes of 
Measures is provided in Chapter 9. 

2 WISE reporting showed that water supply/sanitation stakeholders were not involved in Cavado, Ave and Leca 
RBD but Portugal subsequently communicated that there was the same level of involvement in all the RBDs in 
the mainland. 

3  Directive  2007/60/EC  on  the  assessment  and  management  of  flood  risks  entered  into  force  on  26  November 

2007 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060  

4 WISE reporting showed that joint consultation for the WFD and Floods Directive was reported in 8 of Portugal's 
10  RBDs  but  Portugal  subsequently  informed  that  there  had  also  been  a join  consultation  for  the  WFD  and 
Floods Directive for the Minho and Lima RBD. 

24 

 
 
                                                      
None  of  Portugal's  RBDs  had  joint  consultations  with  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive5. 

1.1.6 

International coordination  

Four  Portuguese  RBDs  are  part  of  international  RBDs  shared  with  Spain:  Minho  and  Lima, 
Douro, Tagus and West Rivers and Guadiana. Portugal reports that an international agreement 

and  permanent  cooperation  body  are  in  place  (designated  as  category  2  cooperation). 
Cooperation  takes  place  via  the  Commission  for the  implementation  and development  of  the 

Albufeira Convention, which governs water issues between Portugal and Spain. 

For  all  four  RBDs,  Portugal  reports  that  there  was  international  co-ordination  of  public 
participation. 

According to a document on the joint planning process under the Albufeira Convention for the 
second  RBMPs6,  cooperation  between  Portugal  and  Spain  covered:  identification  and 
delimitation of transboundary bodies of water, identification of heavily modified water bodies, 

typology of water bodies, protected areas, significant pressures, monitoring, assessment of the 
status  of  water  bodies,  Programmes  of  Measures,  environmental  objectives  and  their 
exceptions, public participation,  Strategic Environmental  Assessment  and the monitoring and 

implementation  of  plans.  In  the  Guadiana  international  RBD,  for  example,  seven  meetings 
were held  to  promote coordination  on the development of the respective  RBMPs in  Portugal 

and Spain; the two Member States moreover made a commitment to strengthen cooperation in 
the third cycle (see the fact sheet on the Guadiana international RBD for further information).  

1.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

No major changes are apparent from the information reported to WISE. 

1.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission’s recommendations based on the first RBMPs and Programmes of Measures 
requested action on the following: 

5 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework 
for  community  action  in  the  field  of  marine  environmental  policy  (Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive) 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056 

6http://www.apambiente.pt/_zdata/Politicas/Agua/PlaneamentoeGestao/PGRH/2016-

2021/DocumentoCoordenacaoInternacional_2016_2021_ES_PT.pdf 

25 

 
 
                                                      
  Recommendation:  Promote  good  coordination  between  public  administration  and 
other  stakeholders,  in  particular  involving  the  existing  River  Basin  Councils,  to 
improve  the  planning  and  implementation  of  the  Programme  of  Measures  and  to 

monitor their effectiveness. 

  Assessment:  Information  reported  to  WISE  refers  to  advisory  groups  in  nearly  all 
RBDs (the exception being Madeira). However, the recommendations refer to the role 

of RBD Councils  as advisory bodies for the RBMPs in  the first  cycle.  Consequently, 
the  information  available  is  not  sufficient  to  draw  a  conclusion  as  to  whether  the 

planning and implementation of the Programmes of Measures and monitoring of their 
effectiveness has improved vis-a-vis the first cycle.  

  Recommendation:  Develop  the  RBMPs  for  international  RBDs  in  close  cooperation 
with  Spain,  in  particular  for  as  regards  the  identification  of  pressures  and  impacts, 
design of monitoring networks, methodologies used to assess status and development of 

PoMs. 

The 2015 recommendations state that in the first cycle, there was 'coordination between 
Portugal and Spain for the international RBDs, although no joint plans or actions have 
been devised', and it calls for the development of the RBMPs for international RBDs 'in 

close  cooperation  with  Spain'.  Joint  RBMPs  and  Programmes  of  Measures  were  not 
developed  in  the  second  cycle.  Nonetheless,  it  appears  that  Portugal  and  Spain 

continued  and  deepened  coordination  in  the  second  cycle.  This  recommendation  has 
been partially fulfilled. 

26 

 
 
 
Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District 

2.1 

Assessment  of  implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 
requirements in the second cycle  

2.1.1  Delineation  of  water  bodies  and  designation  of  heavily  modified  and  artificial 

water bodies 

The total number of surface water bodies identified in Portugal increased by 5 % from the first 

to the second cycle (Table 2.1). The largest increase, by 194, was in rivers, while there was a 
decrease of 99 in  the number of lake water bodies.  Lakes were reported  by eight  of the nine 

RBDs  in  the  first  cycle,  but  only  by  one  of  them  in  the  second  cycle.  This  is  because  the 
previous lake water bodies are reservoirs: these were reported as lake water bodies in the first 

cycle,  but  as  river  water  bodies  in  the  second  cycle,  given  that  they  were  river  water  bodies 
before they were dammed to form reservoirs. There was a small increase (2) in coastal waters 

and a small decrease (1) in transitional water bodies between the two periods.  

There were only small changes in the numbers of natural surface water bodies between the two 

cycles, for example a reduction from 24 natural lake water bodies in the first cycle to 23 in the 
second cycle. However, within the RBDs there were some big changes. In particular, there was 

a  decrease  of  30  natural  river  water  bodies  in  the  Vouga,  Mondego  and  Lis  RBD  and  an 
increase  of  32  in  the  Tagus  and  West  Rivers  RBD,  reflecting  the  changes  in  the  RBD 

boundaries. The biggest change in the designation of heavily modified water bodies was in the 
reporting  of  reservoirs  as  rivers,  when  in  the  first  cycle  they  had  been  considered  as  lakes. 

There  were  no  changes  in  the  numbers  of  heavily  modified  coastal  and  transitional  water 
bodies. In terms of the total number of designated heavily modified water bodies, there was an 

increase of 40 (19 %) between the two cycles (Figure 2.1). 12.5 % of surface water bodies in 
Portugal  were  designated  as  heavily  modified  in  the  second  cycle,  compared  to  11  %  in  the 

first  cycle. Artificial water bodies represented 3.5 % of surface water bodies in  Portugal  and 
were identified in rivers and coastal waters. There was no change in the numbers of artificial 
coastal  waters  between  the  two  cycles  but  there  was  an  increase  of  43  artificial  river  water 

bodies  (an  80  %  increase).  Much  of  this  increase  occurred  in  the  Madeira  RBD,  where 
numbers increased from zero in the first cycle to 43 in the second cycle. The reason for this is 

that "levadas", which are man-made channels used for irrigation, were delineated as artificial 
water bodies for the second cycle in the Madeira RBD. 

27 

 
 
Table 2.1 

Number  and  area/length  of  delineated  surface  water  bodies  in  Portugal  for 

the second and first cycles 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Number 
of water 
bodies 

Total 
length 
of water 
body 
(km) 

Number 
of water 
bodies 

Total 
area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

Number 
of water 
bodies 

Total 
area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

Number 
of water 
bodies 

Total 
area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

Year 

RBD 

2016 

PTRH1 

2016 

PTRH2 

2016 

PTRH3 

2016 

PTRH4A 

2016 

PTRH5A 

2016 

PTRH6 

2016 

PTRH7 

2016 

PTRH8 

PTRH9 

2016 

61 

76 

387 

215 

457 

226 

261 

69 

10 

530 

722 

5,068 

3,189 

7,223 

2,515 

3,046 

863 

57 

23 

2016 

PTRH10 

137 

888 

2016 

Total 

1,899 

24,100 

23 

2010 

PTRH1 

2010 

PTRH2 

2010 

PTRH3 

2010 

PTRH4 

2010 

PTRH5 

2010 

PTRH6 

2010 

PTRH7 

2010 

PTRH8 

2010 

PTRH9 

2010 

PTRH10 

56 

69 

361 

236 

395 

195 

222 

64 

13 

94 

501 

723 

37,046 

3,779 

6,757 

2,193 

3,006 

901 

819 

542,851 

3 

7 

17 

9 

24 

19 

16 

3 

24 

8 

6 

3 

10 

4 

9 

5 

4 

3 

29 

7 

7 

130 

399 

217 

36 

10 

0 

52 

835 

10 

6 

3 

10 

4 

9 

5 

3 

3 

39 

7 

7 

130 

368 

217 

36 

9 

0 

9 

9 

16 

41 

86 

26 

148 

93 

315 

7 

9 

2 

1 

2 

5 

6 

3 

2 

10 

27 

8 

66 

2 

1 

2 

8 

2 

3 

2 

10 

27 

8 

65 

58 

222 

362 

609 

2,870 

2,063 

17 

1,763 

7,719  
(7,909) 

1,447 

17,129 
(17,323) 

58 

222 

362 

3,099 

382 

2,064 

17 

1,764 

7,722 

1,447 

17,137 

2010 

Total 

1,705 

598,576 

122 

742 

53 

813 

Source: WISE electronic reports. For the sake of consistency with other Member States, the values indicated 
were calculated from the geometries reported in spatial data. Values in brackets were subsequently 
provided by Portugal and are directly extracted from tables in the RBMPs. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.1 

Proportion of surface water bodies in Portugal designated as artificial, heavily 
modified  and  natural  for  the  second  and  first  cycles.  NB  -  the  numbers  in 
parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category. 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

The number of groundwater bodies in Portugal increased by two (1.3 %) in the second cycle 
(Table 2.2). This comprised no change in five of the ten RBDs, small changes in some others 

and relatively large changes in the Vouga, Mondego and Lis (-8) and Tagus and West Rivers 
(+8) RBDs, due to the changed boundary between the two RBDs. In the Guadiana RBMP, one 

groundwater body was deleted. Its status was classified as "unknown” in the first cycle. This 
results in all groundwater bodies being classified as in "good status" for the second cycle.  

Table 2.2 

Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Portugal for the 
second and first cycles 

Year 

RBD 

Number 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

PTRH1 

PTRH2 

PTRH3 

PTRH4A 

PTRH5A 

PTRH6 

PTRH7 

PTRH8 

2 

4 

3 

22 

20 

9 

8 

25 

Area (km2) 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Average 

939.08 (939.12) 

1,445.54 (1,445.58) 

1,192.31 (1,192.35) 

202.3 (202.31) 

1,498.86 (1,498.88) 

844.9 (844.92) 

18,732.98 (18,735.92)  6,272.37 (6,273.35) 

4,825.90 (4,826.04) 

563 (563.02) 

14,267.28 (14,268.05)  1,490.32 (1,490.43) 

2,711.24 (2,711.25) 

933.65 (933.67) 

6,267.47 (6,268.05) 

1,463.15 (1,463.26) 

819.26 (819.32) 

149.67 (149.68) 

15.18 

15.23 

5.06 

18.42 

9.62 

1.78 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
Year 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

RBD 

Number 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

Total 

PTRH1 

PTRH2 

PTRH3 

PTRH4 

PTRH5 

PTRH6 

PTRH7 

PTRH8 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

Total 

54 

4 

151 

2 

4 

3 

30 

12 

8 

9 

23 

54 

4 

149 

Area (km2) 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Average 

0.42 

24.15 

262.17 (262.99) 

42.99 (43.22) 

417.87 

195.66 (195.67) 

(939.12) 

(202.31) 

(15.18) 

(1445.58) 

(1498.88) 

(18735.92) 

(1192.35) 

(844.92) 

(6273.35) 

5.06 

4,826.28 (4,826.04) 

510.35 (510.33) 

7.7 (7.70) 

14,268.13 (14,268.15)  2,236.50 (2,236.51) 

(18.42) 

(9.62) 

(5.34) 

0.42 

24.15 

(2750.73) 

(6306.43) 

(812.38) 

262.06 

417.87 

(1050.38) 

(1300.67) 

(162.69) 

44.32 

195.67 

Source: WISE electronic reports. For the sake of consistency with other Member States, the values indicated 
were calculated from the geometries reported in spatial data. Values in brackets were subsequently 
provided by Portugal and are the ones directly reported in the RBMPs. 

Table 2.3 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in Portugal between 

the second and first cycles. It is notable that both the minimum size of rivers and the maximum 
size have decreased overall. The minimum size criteria reported were 10 km2 catchment area 
for rivers and 0.4 km2 surface area for lakes. However, the Azores RBD has a minimum size 
criterion of 0.01 km2 surface area for lakes.  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.3 

Size distribution of surface water bodies in Portugal in the second and first cycles 

Year 

RBD 

River length (km) 

Lake area (km2) 

Transitional area (km2) 

Coastal area (km2) 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Average  Minimum  Maximum 

Average  Minimum  Maximum  Average  Minimum  Maximum  Average 

2016 

PTRH1 

2.04 (2.03) 

40.81 (40.90) 

9.13 (9.14) 

2016 

PTRH2 

2016 

PTRH3 

1.97 

0.64 

53.33 (53.37) 

10.47 (10.48) 

90.2 (90.36) 

13.81 (13.82) 

2016  PTRH4A 

1.7 

92.02 (91.74) 

15.55 (15.56) 

2016  PTRH5A 

0.53 (0.52) 

254.8 (254.57) 

16.76 

2016 

PTRH6 

1.18 

109.91 (109.93) 

12.33 

2016 

PTRH7 

0.71 (0.70) 

89.55 (89.66) 

13.02 

0.29 

0.23 

0.85 

0.37 

13.20 

0.16 

1.12 

9.75 

2.56 

4.45 

3.58 

1.24 

2.43 

70.77 

12.97 

188.11 
(188.15) 
107.92 
(107.93) 

99.78 
(99.79) 

24.11 

16.3 

7.16 

2016 

PTRH8 

2016 

PTRH9 

2.03 

0.99 

79.21 (79.18) 

13.27 

0.02 

8.52 (8.51) 

2.58 

10.76 (10.63) 

5.69 

0.01 

3.55 (3.64) 

0.41 (0.412) 

0.01 

0.06 

0.03 

2016  PTRH10 

0.38 

61.77 (61.24) 

6.48 (6.49) 

5.53 

221.76 

1.02 

30.3 

1.60 

2.17 

4.60 

3.52 

12.92 
(13.44) 
29.46 
(29.44) 

52.69 
221.7 
(221.76) 
360.5 
(360.57) 
315.66 
(315.71) 
1,686.61 
(1,687.01) 
1,393.48 
(1,394.28) 

12.57 

778.81 
(779.18) 
4,770.00 
(4,870.47) 
644.37 
(644.80) 

29.11 
221.7 
(221.76) 
180.76 
(180.80) 
121.73 
(121.75) 
478.38 
(478.61) 
687.64 
(688.01) 
8.58 
(8.59) 
176.3 
(176.37) 
285.89 
(292.92) 
180.83 
(180.86) 

2010 

PTRH1 

2010 

PTRH2 

2010 

PTRH3 

2.03 

1.97 

2.01 

40.9 (40.90) 

8.95 

1.4 (1.40) 

53.38 

10.48 

20,157.99 

102.62 

2010 

PTRH4 

1.7 (1.70) 

2010 

PTRH5 

0.53 (0.523) 

2010 

PTRH6 

2010 

PTRH7 

1.18 

2.05 

122.03 

254.57 

83.98 

89.66 

16.01 

17.11 

11.25 

13.54 

1.83 

0.55 

0.4 

0.38 

0.42 

0.43 

9.94 

21.08 

9.88 

17.02 

32.7 (32.70) 

20.02 

5.34 

5.93 

5.07 

2.92 

6.16 

4.90 

241.76 (241.75) 

19.66 

31 

0.29 

0.23 

0.85 

0.37 

9.64 

0.16 

1.12 

9.75 

2.56 

4.45 
70.78 
(70.77) 
182.09 

107.93 

16.3 

3.90 

1.24 

2.43 

5.53 
221.79 
(221.76) 
1.02 

52.7 
221.79 
(221.76) 
360.6 

29.11 

221.79 

180.81 

12.97 

2.5 (2.49) 

2,002.81 

387.36 

91.88 

24.11 

7.16 

1.60 

2.17 
4.61 
(4.60) 

380.08 

190.84 

1,394.28 

688.02 

12.57 

8.59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Year 

RBD 

River length (km) 

Lake area (km2) 

Transitional area (km2) 

Coastal area (km2) 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Average  Minimum  Maximum 

Average  Minimum  Maximum  Average  Minimum  Maximum  Average 

2010 

PTRH8 

2010 

PTRH9 

2.03 

7.77 

79.18 

153.13 (153.12) 

14.08 

62.98 

1.67 

0.01 

3.363.37 

3.55 

2.43 

0.39 

0.02 

0.01 

8.52 (8.51) 

0.06 

2.88 

0.03 

2010  PTRH10 

1,003.85 

27,715.00 

5,775.01 

3.52 

12.91 

29.45 

779.21 

176.38 

4,774.61 

286.02 

644.8 

180.86 

Source: WISE electronic reports. For the sake of consistency with other Member States, the values indicated were calculated from the 
geometries reported in spatial data. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Portugal and are the ones directly reported in the 

RBMPs. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by Portugal on how water bodies have evolved 
between the two cycles.  The water body type with the most changes was river water bodies, 

with  water bodies created (n = 56), split  (n = 64) and deleted (n = 9). The splitting of water 
bodies may account for the decrease in the maximum length noted from Table 2.3.  

An example of splitting and aggregation is in the Azores RBD, where the only re-delineation 
was for one small river that was divided into four water bodies in the first cycle and consists of 

two water bodies in  the second cycle. No information regarding the consequences of this re-
delineation was found.  

Table 2.4 

Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in 
Portugal between the second and first cycles 

Type of water body 
change for second cycle 
(wiseEvolutionType) 

aggregation 

change 

changeBothAggregationAnd
Splitting 

changeCode 

changeExtendedArea 

changeReducedArea 

creation 

deletion 

noChange 

splitting 

Total water bodies before 
deletion 

Delineated for second cycle 
(after deletion from first 
cycle) 

Groundwater 
Body 

River Water 
Body 

Lake Water 
Body 

Transitional 
Water Body 

Coastal 
Water Body 

1 

1 

13 

7 

1 

1 

124 

4 

152 

151 

10 

4 

36 

68 

4 

56 

9 

1672 

49 

1908 

1899 

4 

47 

1 

52 

52 

1 

23 

24 

23 

2 

2 

1 

60 

2 

67 

66 

Source: WISE electronic reports.  

2.1.2 

Identification of transboundary water bodies in national shares of international 
RBDs 

Portugal reported transboundary coastal water bodies in two RBDs, transboundary river water 

bodies  in  four  RBDs  and  transboundary  transitional  water  bodies  in  two  RBDs.  The 
delineation has been coordinated by the Commission for the Implementation and Development 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
of the Albufeira Convention, which is the platform that aims to ensure coordination of actions 

in the process and implementation of the WFD. A joint report was drawn up between Portugal 
and  Spain  which  reflects  the  entire  planning  process  for  shared  water  bodies.    No 
transboundary groundwater bodies were reported to WISE7. 

2.1.3  Typology of surface water bodies 

Table 2.5 shows the number of surface water body types at RBD level in Portugal for the first 
and  second  cycles.  10  coastal  water  types  were  identified  for  the  second  cycle  for  Portugal: 

seven  of  these  have  the  same  codes  as  reported  for  the  first  cycle.  Three  types  were 
intercalibrated with common intercalibration type CW-NEA1/26 (all Atlantic North: National 

types A5 A6 and A7). 

Two natural lake types were reported, both only applicable to the Azores: the same two types 

had been reported in the first cycle. There are no appropriate common intercalibration types for 
lakes in the Azores. 

Portugal  reported 23 river types in  the second cycle, with  12 types shared by more than  one 
RBD; type "ART" was shared by six RBDs. The same 23 type codes had been reported for the 
first  cycle.  Six  river  types  were  intercalibrated  against  three  common  river  intercalibration 

types.  Three  reservoir  types  were  reported  as  river  types  (in  the  first  cycle  they  had  been 
reported as lake types): one of these was intercalibrated against one common intercalibration 

type for reservoirs. 

Five  types  for  transitional  waters  were  reported  and  one  of  these  was  intercalibrated  against 

common intercalibration type TW-NEA11. Two of the five types have the exact same codes of 
the  types  reported  in  the  first  cycle  and  the  remaining  three  have  codes  that  appear  to  have 

been slightly modified but are in fact the same types. 

System  B  was  applied  in  the  definition  of  the  typology  for  surface  waters  of  mainland 

Portugal.  Several  variables  were  used,  including  climatic  and  morphological  quantitative 
variables, geology and size of the catchment. Then validation was carried out with biological 

information  from 
macrophytes and fish obtained from sampling campaigns carried out at reference sites.  

the  communities  of  phytoplankton,  benthic 

invertebrates,  diatoms, 

7 Portugal explained that the geological formations in the border of Portugal and Spain are mainly constituted by 
igneous and metamorphic formations. These formations correspond to fractured media (aquifers not relevant at 
a  national  level,  only  of  local  importance),  with  low  hydraulic  conductivities  and  yields  reduced.  Portugal 
stated  that  the  average  flow  of  exploitation  in  this  type  of  rock  does  not  exceed,  generally,  1  L/s,  creating 
aquifers only with local importance and in this context, transboundary groundwater bodies between Portugal 
and Spain were not identified. 

34 

 
 
                                                      
Table 2.5 

Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Portugal for the first 
(2010) and second (2016) cycles 

RBD 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

PTRH1 

PTRH2 

PTRH3 

PTRH4A 

PTRH5A 

PTRH6 

PTRH7 

PTRH8 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

2010 

5 (4) 

3 

4 (6) 

6 

6 (10) 

10 (4) 

4 

4 (5) 

5 (1) 

1 (3) 

2016 

5 

4 

8 

6 

14 

6 

7 

6 (9) 

1 

3 

2010 

1 

0 (1) 

1 (2) 

2 (2) 

2 (3) 

3 (1) 

1 (2) 

2 (1) 

1 (2) 

2 (0) 

2016 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

2010 

1 

0 (1) 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 (3) 

3 (0) 

2016 

2010 

2016 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

0 

1 

2 

1 (2) 

2 (3) 

2 

2 

2 (1) 

1 (3) 

3 

3 (2) 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

2 

1 

3 

3 

2 

20 

TOTAL 
2 
Source: Commission’s 4th Implementation Report for the 2010 data and  WISE electronic reports for the 2016 
data. Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are shared by RBDs.  

5 (10) 

10 

23 

10 

5 

5 

Values in brackets are those contained in the WISE reporting done by Portugal for the first RBMPs, which were 

corrected before inclusion in the Commission’s Implementation Report. 

A number of the national  Portuguese types do not  have  corresponding intercalibration types. 
This is the case for 58 % of coastal water bodies in Portugal as a whole (41 % of these are in 

the  Azores  and  Madeira).  For  natural  lakes  (all  in  the  Azores  RBD)  there  are  no  common 
intercalibration types. For rivers and transitional waters there are 33 % (1 % in the Azores and 

Madeira)  and  67  %  (6  %  in  the  Azores  and  Madeira),  respectively,  without  a  common 
intercalibration type. Note that the Portuguese water bodies of the archipelagos of Azores and 

Madeira present unique characteristics, not allowing a comparison with mainland water bodies 
or with the broad European Union types defined in the intercalibration exercise. 

Eight RBDs reported river water bodies that are reservoirs but were originally rivers. 35 % of 
the 119 reservoirs have been intercalibrated against the common Mediterranean reservoir type 

(LW-L-M5/7).  Two  types  associated  with  these  reservoirs  did  not  have  reported  common 
intercalibration types: these two types were only reported for reservoirs and represented 65 %  

of the reservoirs reported. 

The RBMPs reported that the types established underwent the intercalibration exercise as part 
of the Macaronesia Region, which presents certain specificities that rendered different System 
B  abiotic  factors  selection,  and  thus  different  biological  validation.  For  some  RBDs,  in  the 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
rivers category only benthic invertebrates and diatoms are relevant, and for the lakes category 

only  phytoplankton  is  relevant  (natural  lakes  occur  only  in  the  Azores).  It  therefore  remains 
unclear  whether  the  results  of  the  intercalibration  exercise  have  been  correctly  translated  to 

national types without a common intercalibration type. 

For  international  RBDs,  the  “Summary  Report  on  the  Characterization  of  the  Hydrographic 
Regions  provided  for  the  WFD”8  explained  that  only  a  preliminary  reconciliation  of  the 
typologies defined by Portugal and Spain has been undertaken and it is understood that the two 

countries  have  carried  out  the  intercalibration  exercise,  in  the  respective  Geographic 
Intercalibration Group9. 

2.1.4  Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies 

Table  2.6  shows  the  percentage  of  surface  water  body  types  in  Portugal  with  reference 

conditions established for the first and second cycles. Only 23 natural lakes were reported for 
Portugal, which are all in the Azores  and only had reference conditions  established for some 

biological,  hydromorphological  and  physicochemical  quality  elements.  Reservoirs  were 
reported  as  river  water  bodies.  Three  types  were  associated  with  the  reservoirs  that  were 
originally  rivers  and  one  of  the  types  was  associated  with  a  common  intercalibration  type. 

However,  whilst  this  type  had  reference  conditions  established  for  all  required  biological 
quality elements, none had been established for hydromorphological quality elements and for 

only  some  physicochemical  quality  elements:  this  puts  into  doubt  the  comparability  of  the 
status of these reservoirs with the other equivalent types across Europe10. 78 % of river water 
bodies in Portugal were associated with types that have reference conditions for all biological 
quality  elements,  and  47  %  with  types  that  had  reference  conditions  for  all  biological  and 

hydromorphological  quality  elements.  In  terms  of  the  physicochemical  quality  elements,  18 
river types had reference conditions established for some quality elements, five types had no 

reference  conditions  for  any  physicochemical  quality  elements  and  no  types  had  reference 
conditions for all physicochemical quality elements. 

8 https://www.apambiente.pt/dqa/assets/relatorio_artigo_5_pt.pdf  
9  Portugal  subsequently  highlighted  that  the  document  referred  to  was  published  in  2005  and  several  of  its 
contents  are  outdated.  Portugal  and  Spain  cooperate  actively  on  the  planning  and  management  of  their 
transboundary  river  basins,  considering  the  specifications  of  the  WFD  on  this  subject  and  the  Albufeira 
Convention  on  the  cooperation  for  the  protection  and  the  sustainable  use  of  the  waters  of  the  Portuguese-
Spanish river basins (Minho, Lima, Douro, Tagus and Guadiana). Portugal stated that recent information on 
the  cooperation  work  between  Portugal  and  Spain,  for  the  international  RBDs,  can  be  found  in  the  report 
"Documento  de  coordenação  elaborado  durante  o  processo  de  planeamento  2016-2021  para  as  bacias 
hidrográficas internacionais partilhadas por Espanha e Portugal". 

10   Portugal  subsequently  stated  that  they  consider  that  ecological  potential  in  reservoirs  can  be  adequately 
assessed  based  on  phytoplankton,  physicochemical  parameters  and  specific  pollutants,  as  in  these  particular 
types  of  HMWB  it  is  thought  that  these  quality  elements  provide  a  reliable  assessment  of  the  ecological 
potential. 

36 

 
 
                                                      
Table 2.6 

Percentage of surface water body types in Portugal with reference 

conditions established for all, some and none of the biological, 
hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. Numbers in 

parenthesis are the number of types in each category 

Water 
category 

Rivers (23) 

Lakes (2) 

Transitional 
(5) 

Coastal (10) 

Water 
types 
All  
Some 
None 
All  
Some 
None 
All  
Some 
None 
All  
Some 
None 

Biological quality 
elements 
43 %  
35 %  
22 %  

Hydromorphological 
quality elements 
39 %  
30 %  
30 %  

100 %  

100 %  

40 %  
60 %  

30 %  
70 %  

60 %  
40 %  

50 %  
50 %  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Physicochemical quality 
elements 

78 %  
22 %  

100 %  

100 %  

100 %  

Only  three  of  the  ten  coastal  water  body  types  had  reference  conditions  established  for  all 

biological quality elements. However, these three types did not have reference conditions for 
any  hydromorphological  quality  elements  and  only  for  some  physicochemical  quality 

elements.  In total 50 % of coastal  water bodies did not have reference conditions established 
for  all  hydromorphological  quality  elements  and  none  had  reference  conditions  for  all 

elements. 94 % of the transitional water bodies in Portugal were associated with two types for 
which  there  were  reference  conditions  for  all  biological  quality  elements,  for  some 

physicochemical quality elements and for no hydromorphological quality elements. 

Type-specific  reference  conditions  were  coordinated  with  Spain  for  all  international  RBDs. 

They were coordinated for biological quality elements, for all the shared types under the same 
category. Type-specific reference conditions were coordinated only for some physico-chemical 
elements,  for  all  the  shared  types  under  the  same  category.  Reference  conditions  have  been 
coordinated with all Member States for hydromorphological quality elements, for all the shared 

types under the same category. 

37 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
2.1.5  Characteristics of groundwater bodies 

Portugal  reported  the  requested  characteristics  of  groundwater  bodies  i.e.  whether  they  are 
layered, linked to a surface water body or linked to a terrestrial ecosystem and their geological 

formation. 

2.1.6 

Significant pressures on water bodies 

Portugal reported the most significant pressures on surface waters were diffuse agricultural (39 
% of water bodies) followed by diffuse other (30 %) as shown in  Figure 2.2. It is difficult to 

compare  pressures  between  the  two  cycles  because  there  has  been  a  re-delineation  of  water 
bodies and a re-definition of pressure types. However, a tentative comparison can be made for 

point source and diffuse source at an aggregated level. As shown in  Figure 2.3., 27 % of the 
1945 surface water bodies in the first cycle were affected by point source pressures whereas in 

the  second  cycle  the  percentage  reported  was  24  %  of  2040  surface  water  bodies.  The 
equivalent  figures  for  diffuse  source  pressures  were  46  %  in  the  first  cycle  and  41  %  in  the 

second cycle.  

Portugal reported five different significant pressures on groundwater bodies from seven RBDs. 
Diffuse  -  agriculture  affected  the  greatest  proportion  of  groundwater  bodies  (13  %  of  151 

groundwater bodies), followed by alteration of water level or volume (2.6 %) and point source 
other (1.3 %) (Figure 2.2). The Azores RBMP also reports that saline intrusion is a pressure in 

some  coastal  groundwater  bodies  as  a  result  of  their  overexploitation,  with  an  ongoing 
comprehensive study on the subject. In the first cycle, 13 different pressure types were reported 

covering  five  RBDs.  Diffuse  agricultural  pressures  affected  17  %  of  the  149  groundwater 
bodies in Portugal: not necessarily in the same RBDs for both cycles. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.2 

The  most  significant  pressures  on  surface  water  bodies  and  groundwater 

bodies in Portugal for the second cycle 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.3  Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Portugal in the first and 

second cycles. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. NB - there were 
2040 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 1945 for the first 

cycle. 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

2.1.7  Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater 

All  10  Portuguese  RBDs  reported  the  same  types  of  tools  for  the  assessment  of  significant 
pressures on surface water: a combination of numerical tools and expert judgment were used 

for  point  sources,  diffuse  sources  and  water  flow  pressures,  whereas  for  water  abstraction 
pressures numerical tools were used. Significance has not been defined in terms of thresholds 

in  all  RBDs  except  the  Azores  and  the  definition  of  significance  was  linked  to  the  potential 
failure of objectives in all RBDs except Madeira. The RBMPs confirmed that there have been 

no changes in the criteria for the identification of pressures since the first cycle. For example, 
there  is  no  organic  load  threshold  (or  any  other  kind)  that  can  be  linked  to  the  water  body 
status, nor to the objectives themselves. The criteria for significance are: 1) the conservation of 
habitats or the survival of species directly dependent on water; 2) the quality standards referred 

to  in  the  specific  legislation  of  protected  areas;  and  3)  water  bodies  being  able  to  meet  the 
environmental objectives established. 

Nine of the ten RBDs in Portugal used expert judgement for assessing the significance of point 
source  pressures  on  groundwater  bodies;  the  Azores  used  a  combination  of  expert  judgment 
and numerical tools. Significance has not been defined in terms of thresholds in all RBDs and 

40 

 
 
 
 
the  definition  of  significance  was  linked  to  the  potential  failure  of  objectives  in  all  RBDs 

except  Madeira.  The  Azores  RBD  used  the  DRASTIC  methodology  to  assess  groundwater 
body vulnerability to point source pressures. A combination of both types of tools was used for 

assessing  diffuse  source  pressures  in  all  10  RBDs.  For  example,  the  Guadiana  and  Madeira 
RBDs  both  estimated  the  pollutant  loads  to  the  underlying  groundwater  body  from  the 

agricultural  sector  as  roughly  70  %  of  the  nitrogen  load  and  20  %  of  the  phosphorus  load 
flowing to surface water bodies. These figures are estimates and no tool was used to develop 

them. The Azores RBD also employed the DRASTIC methodology for diffuse pressures. 

Numerical tools were reported by nine RBDs for water abstraction pressures; a combination of 

numerical  tools  and  expert  judgment  was  used  in  the  Azores.  Mainland  Portugal  and  the 
Madeira and Azores RBDs have a legal definition of the significance of abstraction pressures, 

which  is  where  abstractions  exceed  90  %  of  the  annual  average  long-term  recharge  and  the 
groundwater levels recorded during the monitoring period reveal significant downward trends. 

Artificial  recharge  pressures  were  not  assessed  in  Portugal,  as  artificial  recharge  is  not 
authorised;  some  RBMPs  mention  it  as  a  pressure  but  state  that  it  is  not  applicable  to  their 
RBD.  

2.1.8 

Significant impacts on water bodies  

As  for  pressures,  a  comparison  of  significant  impacts  between  the  two  cycles  may  not  be 
reliable.  However,  the  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Portugal  impacted  by  nutrient 

enrichment in 2010 was 27 % of 1945 surface water bodies and the proportions impacted by 
nutrient  pollution  in  2016  was  27  %  of  2040  surface  water  bodies.  The  main  significant 

impacts on surface water bodies reported for 2016 are shown in Figure 2.4. 

Only one RBD reported impacts on groundwater bodies in 2010: Algarve Rivers, where four 

water bodies were impacted by changes in chemical composition and one by “other” impacts. 
Four different impact types were reported across seven RBDs in 2016, with nutrient pollution 

affecting the largest proportion of groundwater bodies: 13 % from five RBDs (Figure 2.4). 

41 

 
 
Figure 2.4 

Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Portugal for 

the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

2.1.9  Quantification of the gap and apportionment of pressures  

Five RBDs in Portugal reported gaps to good status for diffuse agricultural pressures and for 

nitrate pollution in groundwater: the indicators of the gaps were in both cases number of water 
bodies failing Environmental Quality Standards. Gaps and Key Types of Measure (KTM) were 

reported for all significant pressures identified at the groundwater body level. 

42 

 
 
 
 
Point  source  pressures  on  surface  waters  have  been  identified  from  a  number  of 

sectors/activities: urban waste water (eight RBDs); non IED plants (eight RBDs);  IED plants 
(three  RBDs);  and  waste  disposal  sites  (one  RBD).  The  indicator  of  the  gap  is  in  each  case, 

expressed as number of water bodies failing Environmental Quality Standards.  

The  activities/sectors  associated  with  diffuse  source  pressures  on  surface  waters  were: 

agriculture  (eight  RBDs);  “other” (eight  RBDs);  urban run-off (seven RBDs);  discharges not 
connected to  sewers (six RBDs);  aquaculture (four RBDs);  contaminated sites (three RBDs); 

and mining (one RBD). The number of water bodies failing Environmental Quality Standards 
was again used as the indicator of the gap.  

Abstraction or flow diversion for public water supply was reported by six RBDs, for industry  
for four RBDs and for agriculture for three RBDs. The gap indicator was "Number of bodies of 

water  that  do  not  meet  environmental  objectives  due  to  this  type  of  pressure".  Hydrological 
alteration pressures have been identified from a number of sectors/activities: hydropower (six 

RBDs), public water supply (six RBDs) and agriculture (five RBDs).  

Portugal  generally  reported  gaps  and  KTMs  for  most  significant  pressures  reported  at  the 
surface water body level. The exceptions were for abstraction or flow diversion - hydropower 

pressures  in  six  RBD,  diffuse  -  aquaculture  in  two  RBDs  and  physical  alteration  of 
channel/bed/riparian area/shore - unknown or obsolete in two RBDs. 

The  quantification  of  gaps  to  be  filled  for  chemical  substances  causing  failure  of  status 
objectives  have  been  defined  for  nitrate  in  groundwater  in  five  RBDs  and  for  petroleum 

hydrocarbons  in  one  RBD.  Gaps  have  been  defined  for  six  Priority  Substances  in  surface 
waters:  4-nonylphenol  (six  RBDs),  endosulfan  (one  RBD),  tributyltin  (one  RBD),  lead  (two 

RBDs),  nickel  (four  RBDs)  and  cadmium  (two  RBDs).  There  are  also  gaps  for  River  Basin 
Specific Pollutants such as antimony (one RBD), chromium (one RBD), copper (five RBDs), 

zinc (two RBDs) and total cyanide (one RBD). There are a number of chemicals/determinands 
that  might  be  considered  as  physicochemical  quality  elements  such  as  nitrate,  phosphate, 

ammonium, total phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, pH and biological oxygen demand. 

2.1.10  Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status 

21 groundwater bodies in Portugal (14 %) were reported to be at risk of failing good chemical 
status. Nine pollutants were reported to be causing risk. The pollutant causing the risk in most 

groundwater bodies was nitrate (13 % of groundwater bodies). 

43 

 
 
Four (3 %) groundwater bodies were at risk of failing good quantitative status; water balance 

was reported to be the reason for the risk and the environmental objective at risk was uses or 
functions of groundwater. 

2.1.11  Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances 

Article  5  of  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive  (EQS  Directive)11  requires 
Member  States  to  establish  an  inventory  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  all  Priority 
Substances  and  the  8  other  pollutants  listed  in  Part  A  of  Annex  I  of  the  Directive  for  each 

RBD, or part thereof, lying within their territory. This inventory should allow Member States 
to  further  target  measures  to  tackle  pollution  from  Priority  Substances.  It  should  also  inform 

the review of the monitoring networks, and allow the assessment of progress made in reducing 
(or  suppressing)  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  for  Priority  Substances  (and  Priority 

Hazardous Substances).  

All RBDs except Madeira have established inventories. 24 Priority Substances appeared in at 

least  one  of  these  inventories.  Nine  RBDs  had  inventories  for  cadmium  and  mercury,eight8 
RBDs  for  nickel  and  seven  RBDs  for  lead.  For  example,  the  Cavado,  Ave  and  Leca  RBD 
included 18 Priority Substances in an inventory, and Minho and Lima only four.  

It  is  not  clear  whether  the  two-step  approach  from  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy 
Guidance  Document  n°2812  has  been  followed  for  most  of  the  substances  included  in  the 
inventories.  Tier  1  of  the  methodology  was  implemented  for  all  substances  included  in  the 
inventories (while the Guidance Document  recommends to  implement  at least  Tier 1 + 2 for 
substances relevant at RBD level)13. The data quality was not reported. 

2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The total number of surface water bodies identified in Portugal increased by 5 % from the first 
to the second RBMPs. The largest increase, by 194, was in rivers, while there was a decrease 

of  99  in  the  number  of  lakes  bodies.  Lakes  were  reported  by  8  of  the  9  RBDs  in  the  first 
RBMPs, but only in one of these in the second. This is because the previous lake water bodies 

11   Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental 
quality  standards  in  the  field  of  water  policy,  amending  and  subsequently  repealing  Council  Directives 
82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
Parliament 
European 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008L0105 

Council 

and 

the 

of 

12CIS  Guidance  N° 

28 

- 

Preparation 

of 

Priority 

Substances 

Emissions 

Inventory, 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm 

13 Portugal clarified that the two-step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document 

n°28 was in fact applied. 

44 

 
 
                                                      
are reservoirs. Following the Commission guidance they were reported as river water bodies in 

the  second  RBMPs  (as  they  were  formerly  river  water  bodies  before  they  were  dammed  to 
form reservoirs). 

There  were  no  changes  in  the  numbers  of  heavily  modified  coastal  and  transitional  water 
bodies  between  the  two  cycles.  In  terms  of  the  total  number  of  designated  heavily  modified 

water bodies, there was  an increase of 40 (19 %) between the two cycles. 12.5 % of surface 
water bodies in Portugal were designated as heavily modified in the second cycle, compared to 

11  %  in  the  first  cycle.  Artificial  water  bodies  represented  3.5  %  of  surface  water  bodies  in 
Portugal.  Artificial  water  bodies  were  identified  in  rivers  and  coastal  waters.  There  is  no 

change  in  the  numbers  of  artificial  coastal  waters  between  the  two  cycles  but  there  was  an 
increase of 43 artificial river water bodies (an 80 % increase). Much of this increase occurred 

in the Madeira RBD where numbers increased from zero in the first cycle to 43 in the second 
cycle. The reason for this is that "levadas", which are man-made channels used for irrigation, 

were delineated for the second cycle. 

Other than for the significant change in how reservoirs have been reported, it appears that there 
has been no change in the typology used for both cycles: there are small differences in coding 

but these are probably due to re-coding of the same type.  

It  is  difficult  to  compare  pressures  between  the  two  cycles  because  there  has  been  a  re-

delineation  of  water  bodies  and  a  re-definition  of  pressure  types.  However,  a  tentative 
comparison can be made for point source and diffuse source at an aggregated level. In the first 

cycle,  27  %  of  the  1945  surface  water  bodies  in  Portugal  were  affected  by  point  source 
pressures whereas in the second cycle the percentage reported was 24 % of 2040 surface water 

bodies. The equivalent figures for diffuse source pressures were 46 % in the first cycle and 41 
% in the second cycle. 

In  the  second  cycle,  Portugal  reported  five  different  significant  pressures  on  groundwater 
bodies  from  seven  RBDs.  Diffuse  agricultural  pressures  affected  the  greatest  proportion  of 

groundwater bodies (13 % of 151 groundwater bodies), followed by alteration of water level or 
volume (2.6 %) and point source other (1.3 %). In the first cycle, 13 different pressure types 

were  reported  covering  five  RBDs.  Diffuse  agricultural  pressures  affected  17  %  of  the  149 
groundwater bodies in Portugal: not necessarily in the same RBDs for both cycles. 

As  for  pressures,  a  comparison  of  significant  impacts  between  the  two  cycles  may  not  be 
reliable.  However,  the  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Portugal  impacted  by  nutrient 
enrichment  in  the  first  cycle  was  27  %  of  1944  surface  water  bodies  and  the  proportion 

45 

 
 
impacted  by  nutrient  pollution  in  the  second  cycle  was  27  %  of  2040  surface  water  bodies. 

There seems to have been an increase in surface water body affected by organic enrichment/ 
pollution from 12 % in the first to 41 % in the second cycle. 

Only the Algarve Rivers RBD reported impacts on groundwater bodies in the first cycle, where 
four  water  bodies  were  impacted  by  changes  in  chemical  composition  and  one  by  “other” 

impacts.  Four  different  impact  types  were  reported  across  seven  RBDs  in  the  second  cycle, 
with nutrient pollution affecting the largest proportion of groundwater bodies: 13 % from five 

RBDs. 

2.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programmes  of  Measures 

requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation:  Complete  the  development  of  methods  for  the  status  assessment  of 
water  bodies  and  determination  of  reference  conditions  and  apply  them  through  the 

implementation  of  robust  monitoring  programmes.  An  adequate  WFD-compliant 
assessment  and monitoring  framework is  a necessary pre-requisite to  design  effective 

Programme  of  Measures  and  ultimately  to  achieve  the  WFD  objectives.  [Reference 
conditions  for  the  classification  of  transitional  and  coastal  waters  had  not  yet  been 

defined].  

Assessment: There are still significant gaps in the reference conditions for some types 

of quality elements  in  all water categories.  For example, only three of the ten coastal 
water  body  types  had  reference  conditions  established  for  all  biological  quality 

elements.  However,  these  three  types  did  not  have  reference  conditions  for  any 
hydromorphological  quality  elements  and  only  for  some  physicochemical  quality 

elements.  In  total,  50  %  of  coastal  water  bodies  did  not  have  reference  conditions 
established  for  all  hydromorphological  quality  elements  and  none  had  reference 
conditions  for  all  elements.  94  %  of  the  transitional  water  bodies  in  Portugal  were 
associated with two types for which there were reference conditions for all biological 

quality  elements, 
for  no 
hydromorphological  quality  elements.  In  summary,  there  has  been  some  progress  in 

for  some  physicochemical  quality  elements  and 

46 

 
 
establishing reference conditions in coastal waters and transitional waters but there are 
still some gaps, therefore this recommendation has been partially fulfilled14. 

14 Portugal subsequently explained that significant progress has been made on this issue in the framework of the 
third phase of the Intercalibration exercise, which led to the Commission Decision 2018/229/EU. Portugal also 
stated  that  work  is  ongoing  to  review  methodologies  and  define  reference  conditions  for  transitional  and 
coastal waters, in parallel with the ongoing work within the CIS.  

47 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
Topic 3

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  ecological 

status in surface water bodies 

3.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second RBMPs 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

3.1.1  Monitoring of ecological status/potential 

Article  8.1  of  the  WFD  requires  Member  States  to  establish  monitoring  programmes  for  the 

assessment of the status of surface water and of groundwater in order to provide a coherent and 
comprehensive overview  of water status  within each RBD. Territorial waters  are not  a water 

body  category  under  the  WFD.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  under  Article  2(1)  of  the 
WFD, territorial waters are included for the assessment and reporting of chemical status. 

Monitoring programmes 

Portugal  reported  monitoring  programmes  covering 

the  surveillance  and  operational 

monitoring  of  surface  water  and  groundwater,  and  also  quantitative  monitoring  for 
groundwater. No programmes to monitor chemical status were reported for territorial waters. 

However there were differences between RBDs in terms of the type of programme in relation 
to the water categories identified in each RBD. In the Cávado, Ave and Leça, Douro, Vouga, 

Mondego and Lis, Tagus and West Rivers, Sado and Mira  and Algarve Rivers RBDs there are 
surveillance programmes for each identified water category but no operational monitoring for 

transitional  and coastal waters. In the Guadiana RBD there were no monitoring programmes 
for coastal waters even though coastal waters have been designated in this RBD. In the Azores 

RBD there was only an operational programme for lakes but no surveillance programme, even 
though  there  was  a  surveillance  programme  for  the  other  three  water  categories.  There  were 

surveillance  programmes  only  for  groundwater  and  coastal  waters  in  the  Madeira  RBD  even 
though rivers were also defined15. 

Monitoring sites 
The total number of monitoring sites reported by Portugal increased by 36 % between the first 
and second RBMPs. Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance 
and operational  purposes in  the first  and second  RBMPs, and Table 3.2  gives the number of 

sites used for different purposes for the second RBMPs.  

15  Portugal  subsequently  stated  that  in  the  Azores  RBD  the  surveillance  monitoring  of  lakes  was  included  in  a 
surface  water  surveillance  monitoring  programme;  a  surveillance  programme  exists  also  for  rivers  in  the 
Madeira RBD, albeit not reported in WISE. 

48 

 
 
                                                      
 
Table 3.1 

Number of sites reported to be used for surveillance and operational 
monitoring in Portugal for the second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons 
of comparability with data reported in the first RBMPs, the data for the 
second RBMPs does not take into account whether sites are used for 
ecological and/or chemical monitoring.  

Second RBMPs  

PTRH1 

PTRH2 

PTRH3 

PTRH4A 

PTRH5B 

PTRH6 

PTRH7 

PTRH8 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

Total by type of site 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

17 

8 

76 

49 

43 

36 

45 

16 

20 (22) 

0 (22) 
310 
(334) 

28 

49 

91 

49 

164 

44 

44 

26 

0 

0 

495 

2 

6 

21 

6 

13 

12 

29 

4 

0 

2 

3 

1 

10 

0 

0 

1 

17 

10 

5 

35 

10 

14 

15 

5 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

2 

3 

7 

22 

15 

0  

17 

1 (23) 

22 (15) 

0 (3) 

3(0) 

42 (38) 

0 
94 
(116) 

0 

39 (32) 

0 
111 
(114) 

0 

3 

0 (14) 
108 
(118) 

0  

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

0 

0 

Total number of monitoring sites 

805 (819)  

133 (148) 

114 (117) 

108 (118) 

First RBMPs 

PTRH1 

PTRH2 

PTRH3 

PTRH4 

PTRH5 

PTRH6 

PTRH7 

PTRH8 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

19 

16 

58 

65 

83 

21 

16 

23 

23 

22 

7 

23 

62 

62 

85 

31 

41 

10 

0 

0 

Total by type of site 

346 

321 

1 

6 

4 

4 

10 

2 

3 

3 

23 

0 

56 

0 

2 

12 

5 

13 

7 

9 

0 

15 

0 

63 

1 

7 

3 

9 

4 

3 

3 

9 

3 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

1 

1 

3 

1 

2 

42 

3 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

2 

5(0) 

1(38_ 

2(0) 

 0 

42 

 0 

0 

0  

5(0) 

54(91) 

4(2) 

Total number of monitoring sites 

667 

119 

47(42) 

58(93) 

Sources: Member States electronic reports to WISE. Numbers in parentheses were subsequently 
provided by Portugal. 

49 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.2 

Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different 

purposes in Portugal 

Monitoring Purpose 

CHE - Chemical status 

ECO - Ecological status 

OPE - Operational monitoring 

SUR - Surveillance monitoring 

Total sites irrespective of purpose 

Rivers  Lakes  Transitional  Coastal 

20 

20 

495 

310 

805 

23 

23 

39 

94 

133 

3 

3 

3 

111 

114 

56 

56 

108 

122 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

There were no reported  operational  monitoring sites in  coastal waters in  any of the RBDs in 
Portugal:  significant  point  source,  diffuse  source  and  hydromorphological  pressures  are 

reported for coastal waters. Surveillance sites were reported in coastal waters in seven of the 
ten RBDs that designated this category of water  bodies: Portugal  subsequently indicated that 

additionally  there  were  unreported  surveillance  monitoring  sites  in  the  Madeira  RBD.  Lakes 
were  only  designated  in  one  RBD  (the  Azores),  but  all  RBDs  reported  surveillance  sites  in 

lakes and six RBDs reported operational sites in lakes .  

Member States  were asked to  report for heavily  modified river or lake water bodies whether 
the water body is a reservoir that has been created by damming a river (“Yes, it is a reservoir 

and the water body was originally a river”) or an existing lake (“No, it is a reservoir but the 
water body was originally a lake”). Portugal reported 119 reservoirs where the water body was 

originally  a  river:  these  reservoirs  may  be  monitored  as  lakes  and  the  sites  reported  to  be  in 
lakes. Portugal subsequently confirmed that these water bodies were reported as rivers, but in 

every other aspect (namely classification systems) were reported as lakes. 

Surveillance  sites  were  reported  in  all  RBDs  with  transitional  waters  except  for  the  Azores 

RBD  where  they  were  only  monitored  operationally.  All  RBDs  with  rivers  reported 
surveillance  sites  and  all  except  the  Azores  RBD  also  reported  operational  monitoring  sites. 

The  Madeira  RBD  designated  coastal  waters  and  rivers  but  reported  no  operational  or 
surveillances sites: instead they reported the (14) sites in coastal waters to be for monitoring of 

chemical and/or ecological status and there were no sites in rivers. 

Portugal subsequently indicated that a surface water surveillance monitoring programme in the 
Azores RBD had not been reported to WISE: it included 23 sites in lakes, 10 sites in rivers, 3 

sites in transitional waters and 27 sites in  coastal waters. Similarly for the Madeira  RBD, 22 

50 

 
 
  
surveillance sites in rivers and 14 surveillance sites in coastal waters had not been reported to 

WISE. 

Compared to the first RBMPs there was an increase in the number of surveillance sites in six 

RBDs, a decrease in one RBD and no changes in the other three RBDs. In rivers, there was a 
decrease in the number of surveillance sites in seven RBDs and an increase in three. Overall, 

there was a 100 % increase in numbers of surveillance sites in coastal waters, a 68 % increase 
in lakes, a 10 % decrease in rivers and a 164 % increase in transitional water sites from the first 

to the second RBMPs. In terms of operational monitoring there was a decrease in the numbers 
of  sites  in  two  RBDs  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs  and  no  change  in  the  others.  For 

rivers,  there  was  an  increase  in  the  numbers  of  operational  sites  from  the  first  to  the  second 
RBMPs in seven RBDs, a decrease in one and no change in the other two. Overall, there was a 

100 % decrease in the number of operational sites in coastal waters, a 39 % decrease in lakes, a 
54 % increase in rivers and a 40 % decrease in transitional waters from the first to the second 

RBMPs.  

Monitored quality elements  

Table  3.3  illustrates  the  quality  elements  used  for  the  monitoring  of  lakes  and  rivers  for  the 

second RBMPs: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. 

Table 3.3 

Quality  elements  monitored  for  the  second  RBMPs  in  Portugal  (excluding 

River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants).  Note:  quality  elements  may  be  used  for 
surveillance and/or operational monitoring 

Biological quality elements 

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

c
i
h
t
n
e
B

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

h
s
i
F

s

m
r
e
p
s
o
i
g
n
A

e
a
g
l
a
o
r
c
a
M

c
i
t
a
u
q
a

r
e
h
t
O

a
r
o
l
f

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

r
e
h
t
O

Lakes 

Rivers 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  No 

Yes  No 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

No 

Transitional  Yes  Yes 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

Coastal 

Yes  Yes 

Yes 

Yes  Yes  Yes 

Hydromorphological 
quality elements 

r
o
l
a
c
i
g
o
l
o
r
d
y
H

e
m
i
g
e
r

l
a
d
i
t

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

y
t
i
u
n
i
t
n
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

l
a
c
i
g
o
l
o
h
p
r
o
M

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

51 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
y
c
n
e
r
a
p
s
n
a
r
T

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

General physicochemical quality elements 

l
a
m
r
e
h
T

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

n
o
i
t
a
n
e
g
y
x
O

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

y
t
i
n
i
l
a
S

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
f
i
d
i
c
A

s
u
t
a
t
s

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

n
e
g
o
r
t
i

N

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

s
u
r
o
h
p
s
o
h
P

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
C

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

r
o
f
d
n
a
n
i
m
r
e
t
e
d

t
n
e
i
r
t
u
n

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

e
t
a
c
i
l
i
S

r
e
h
t
O

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional 

Coastal 

For Portugal as a whole, in terms of the biological quality elements used for the surveillance 

monitoring  of  coastal  waters,  lakes  and  transitional  waters,  phytoplankton  was  the  most 
commonly  used  (in  around  95  %  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  monitoring).  The 

other expected quality elements for coastal waters were monitored in 81 % of water bodies for 
macroalgae, and 88 % of water bodies for benthic invertebrates. In transitional waters, 91 % of 

water  bodies  are  monitored  for  benthic  invertebrates  and  84  %  for  fish  but  the  proportion 
monitored  for  macroalgae  is  much  lower  i.e.  27  %  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance 
monitoring.  

In  lakes,  phytoplankton  is  virtually  the  only  biological  quality  element  used  in  surveillance 

monitoring  with  one  water  body  also  monitored  for  macrophytes  and  benthic  invertebrates.  
Regarding  reservoirs,  Portugal  explained  that  it  considers  that  phytoplankton  is  the  only 

biological quality element applicable. 

In rivers, benthic invertebrates is the biological quality element mainly included in surveillance 
monitoring  (73  %  of  river  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  monitoring),  followed  by 

phytobenthos (58 % of river water bodies), fish (18 %) macrophytes (17 %) and phytoplankton 
(2 %): phytoplankton is not a relevant quality element for rivers but is relevant in reservoirs. A 

number of biological quality elements are also unrepresentatively monitored in rivers. 

The  two  hydromorphological  quality  elements  required  to  be  monitored  for  surveillance 

purpose  in  coastal  waters  were  monitored  in  90  %  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance 
monitoring. However, the required elements in rivers and transitional water were monitored in 

around 50 % of water bodies included in surveillance monitoring. Hydromorphological quality 
elements are only monitored for surveillance purposes in one lake water body. 

52 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The expected physicochemical quality elements are monitored in a relatively high proportion 

(around 90 %) of water bodies included in surveillance monitoring.  

In coastal waters, all the required biological quality elements were monitored in 71 % of water 

bodies  included  in  surveillance  monitoring,  all  the  required  hydromorphological  quality 
elements in 88 % of water bodies and all required physicochemical quality elements in 24 % of 

water bodies. 

In rivers, all the required biological quality element were monitored in 11 % of water bodies 
included in surveillance monitoring. 

In transitional waters, all the required biological quality elements were monitored in 24 % of 

water bodies included in surveillance monitoring, all the required hydromorphological quality 
elements in 49 % of water bodies and all required physicochemical quality elements in 87 % of 

water bodies. 

Three transitional water bodies were operationally monitored in Portugal and all the expected 

quality elements were monitored in all of them. A full range of biological quality elements and 
other relevant quality elements were included in the operational monitoring of river and lake 

water bodies. 97 % of lake water bodies included in operational monitoring were monitored for 
phytoplankton,  and  a  higher  proportion  of  lake  water  bodies  were  monitored  for  the  other 

biological quality elements than was the case for surveillance purposes: for example, 59 % of 
lake water bodies monitored for benthic invertebrates for operational  purposes and only 1 % 

for surveillance purposes. The most commonly monitored biological quality element in rivers 
for  operational  purposes  was  benthic  invertebrates,  which  were  monitored  in  83  %  of  river 

water bodies included in operational monitoring.  

Annex V of the Water Framework Directive provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring 
of  the  different  quality  elements.  Surveillance  monitoring  should  be  carried  out  for  each 

monitoring site for a  period  of one  year during the six  year period covered by a RBMP. For 
phytoplankton  this  should  be  done  twice  during  the  monitoring  year  and  for  the  other 

biological quality elements once during the year. 

Of the five biological quality elements used for surveillance monitoring of coastal waters, two 

were  sampled  at  least  at  the  minimum  recommended  frequency:  the  lowest  rate  was  for 
macroalgae,  for  which  43  %  of  sites  met  the  minimum  recommended  frequency. 
Overwhelmingly,  phytoplankton  was  used  for  the  monitoring  of  lakes  for  surveillance 

53 

 
 
purposes  and  99  %  of  sites  were  sampled  at  least  at  the  minimum  recommended  frequency. 

The other three reported biological quality elements were only sampled at one site, all with a 
lower than recommended frequency. Only one of the five relevant biological quality elements 

reported  for  the  surveillance  monitoring  of  rivers  (fish)  was  sampled  at  the  minimum 
recommended frequency at all sites. Macrophytes had the lowest rate (73 % of sites). All of the 

biological  quality  elements  used  for  surveillance  monitoring  of  transitional  waters  were 
sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites. 

Coastal waters were not operationally monitored. There was a very low rate of alignment with 
the minimum recommended sampling frequency for four biological quality elements included 

in the operational monitoring of lakes: no sites for three of the four and only 16 % of sites for 
phytoplankton.  In  contrast  to  surveillance  monitoring,  fish  were  only  sampled  at  least  at  the 

minimum  frequency  at  7  %  of  sites.  Macrophytes  were  sampled  at  least  at  the  minimum 
recommended frequency at none of the sites and phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates at all 

sites. Again in contrast to surveillance monitoring, there were few sites used for the operational 
monitoring  of  transitional  waters  and  none  was  sampled  at  the  minimum  recommended 

frequency for any of the five reported biological quality elements. 

River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored 

Portugal reported that 16 substances/determinands that are not Priority Substances were being 

monitored. According to the Reporting Guidance for the second RBMPs it was expected that 
these would be River Basin Specific Pollutants. However, all might also be defined as general 

physicochemical  quality  elements.  None  of  these  substances  match  the  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants reported in the context of setting Environmental Quality Standards.  

This may however be a reporting issue, as River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be 
monitored  at  the  generic  quality  element  level  in  all  four  water  categories  and  the  results  of 

monitoring  were  subsequently  reported  to  be  used  in  the  classification  of  the  ecological 
status/potential in rivers and lakes. In addition, Portugal subsequently clarified that in mainland 

Portugal,  several  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  defined,  including  both  metals  and 
synthetic  substances:  Antimony,  Arsenic,  Barium,  Copper,  Chromium,  Zinc,  Bentazone, 

Cyanide,  2,4-D  (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic  acid),  2,4-dichlorophenol,  3,4-Dichloroaniline, 
Dimethoate, Ethylbenzene, Tributyl phosphate, Linuron, Mecoprop (MCPP), Xylene, Toluene, 

Terbuthylazine, Desethylterbuthylazine, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol. 

54 

 
 
Table 3.4 shows the number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants (reported 

at the level of the quality element) in Portugal in the first and second RBMPs. 

Table 3.4 

Number  of  sites  used  to  monitor  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  for  the 

second  RBMPs  and  non-priority  specific  pollutants  and/or  other  national 
pollutants  for  the  first  RBMPs  in  Portugal.  Note  that  the  data  from  both 

cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used and also 
not all Member State reported information at the site level, meaning that there 

were no equivalent data for the first RBMPs. 

RBMP 

first 

Sites used to monitor non-priority specific 
pollutants and/or other national pollutants  

second 

Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific 
Pollutants  

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

92 

294 

49 

27 

44 

3 

16 

42 

Sources: WISE electronic reports 

Surveillance and operational monitoring of surface water bodies 

Figure  3.1  shows  the  proportion  of  water  bodies  subject  to  surveillance  and  operational 

monitoring.  

20 % of surface water bodies in Portugal are included in surveillance monitoring compared to 
19 % for operational monitoring. It is difficult to compare the relative proportion of lake and 

river water bodies included in the different types of monitoring because of how reservoirs have 
been  reported:  as  river  water  bodies  in  the  surface  water  body  schema  and  as  lakes  in  the 

monitoring  schema.  However,  a  striking  observation  is  that  no  coastal  water  bodies  are 
included in operational monitoring, while 73 % are included in surveillance monitoring. 87 % 

of  transitional  water  bodies  (in  eight  RBDs)  are  included  in  surveillance  monitoring. 
Operational monitoring of transitional waters is only undertaken in the Azores RBD but these 

are not included in surveillance monitoring. Even though there is monitoring of coastal waters 
in the Madeira RBD, this was reported not to be for surveillance or operational purposes but 

for  ecological  and  chemical  status  purposes.  There  was  no  comparable  information  available 
for the first RBMPs. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.1 

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

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Figure 3.2 shows the proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that is 
subject to surveillance monitoring. 

Figure 3.2 

Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that is 
included in surveillance monitoring in Portugal 

Source: WISE electronic reports. A differentiated presentation between ecological status and potential and 
including all types of quality element can be viewed here - 
https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityElement_Status_Compare/SWB
_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false
&:showVizHome=no 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Transboundary surface water body monitoring  

Portugal reported transboundary coastal water bodies in two RBDs, transboundary river water 
bodies in four RBDs and transboundary transitional water bodies in two RBDs. However, no 

monitoring  sites  were  reported  to  be  part  of  or  contributing  to  international  monitoring 
networks.16 

3.2  Assessment  and  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  of  surface 
water  

3.2.1  Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies 

The  ecological  status/potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Portugal  for  the  second  RBMPs  is 

illustrated in  Map 3.1. This  is based on the most recent  assessment of status. The number of 
delineated surface water bodies for the first RBMPs was 1945, this increased by around 5 % to 

2040 for the second. Overall ecological status has been reported for almost all delineated water 
bodies, except artificial rivers and 33 % of coastal and transitional water bodies.  

16 Portugal subsequently clarified that the international monitoring network is described in a joint report written 
by Portugal and Spain. However, this report was published after Portugal reported to WISE and was therefore 
not considered in this assessment.   

57 

 
 
                                                      
Map 3.1 

 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Portugal based on the 

most recently assessed status/potential of the surface water bodies 

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). 

High 

Good 

Moderate 

Poor  

Bad 

Unknown 

RBDs 

Countries outside the European Union 

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). 
Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

A differentiated presentation of this data between ecological status and potential and including all types of quality 
elements can be viewed here - 
https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityElement_Status_Compare/SWB
_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false
&:showVizHome=no 

Figure  3.3  compares  the  ecological  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Portugal  for  the  first 
RBMPs with that for the second (based on the most recent assessment of status/potential) and 

that  expected  by  2015.  The  overall  ecological  status/potential  has  not  improved  significantly 
since the first RBMPs. Overall for Portugal there was a 4 % decrease in the proportion of high 

58 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
status and an increase of 4 % of surface water bodies in good status/potential from the first to 

the second RBMPs. Whilst there was little change in the proportion of surface water bodies in 
poor status/potential, there was an increase in the proportions of moderate (19 % ) and bad (63 

% ) status/potential. 

Figure 3.3  Ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Portugal  for  the 

second  RBMPs,  for  the  first  RBMPs  and  expected  in  2015.  The  numbers  in 
the  parenthesis  are  the number  of  surface  water  bodies  for  each  cycle.  Note 

that the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 2008 to 
2016. The year of the assessment of status for first RBMPs is not known 

 Source: WISE electronic reports  

3 % of coastal water bodies, zero lakes, 5 % of river water bodies and 4 % of transitional water 
bodies were reported to have unknown ecological status/potential for the second RBMPs. The 

corresponding figures for the first RBMPs were 5 %, 3 %, 7 % and 47 %, respectively. This 
indicates  some  improvement  in  the  assessment  and  classification  of  surface  waters  for  the 

second RBMPs. 

Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological 
status/potential. The information for Portugal is shown in Figure 3.4. 

59 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3.4  Expected  date  of  achievement  of  good  ecological  status/potential  of  surface 
water  bodies  in  Portugal.  The  numbers  in  parenthesis  are  the  number  of 
water bodies in each category 

Confidence in ecological status/potential assessment 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Figure 3.5 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. 

Figure 3.5  Confidence  in  the  classification  of  ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface 

water bodies in Portugal based on the most recently assessed status/potential 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

95 % of surface water bodies were  classified in  terms  of ecological  status/potential. 36 % of 
these were classified with high confidence; the classification with the highest confidence was 
for transitional waters, for which 92 % of water bodies were classified with high confidence. 

60 

 
 
 
 
Classification of ecological status at the quality element level 
Figure 3.6 shows the percentage of water bodies in terms of the biological quality element used 
for classification. 

Figure 3.6  Ecological  status/potential  of  the  biological  quality  elements  used  in  the 
classification  of  lakes  (including  reservoirs),  rivers,  transitional  and  coastal 
waters  in  Portugal.  Note  that  water  bodies  with  unknown  status/potential  or 
where the quality element was reported as not applicable or as monitored but 
not used for classification are not presented. 

Source: WISE electronic reports. A differentiated presentation of this data between ecological status and potential 
and including all types of quality elements can be viewed here - 
https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityElement_Status_Compare/SWB
_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false
&:showVizHome=no 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
The classification is more often based on several quality elements in all water categories than 

for  the  first  RBMPs,  although  for  many  water  bodies  in  lakes  and  coastal  waters,  the 
assessment is still based on phytoplankton and nutrients only.  

Figure  3.7  compares  the  classification  of  biological  quality  elements  in  terms  of  ecological 
status/potential for the first and second RBMPs. It should be noted that this comparison should 

be  treated  with  some  caution  as  there  are  differences  between  the  numbers  of  surface  water 
bodies classified for individual elements between the first and second RBMPs 

Figure 3.7  Comparison of ecological  status/potential in Portugal according  to  classified 

biological  quality  elements  in  surface  water  bodies  between  the  first  and 
second RBMPs 

Source: Surface water bodies: Quality element status 
https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityElement/SWB_QualityElement?:
embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false&:showShareOptions=true&:showVizHome=no 

There are some water bodies with improved status for some quality elements, but others with 
deterioration of some quality elements. The reasons for this lack of improvement are not clear.  

Portugal subsequently stated that at the time of publication of the first RBMPs some biological 
assessment methods for rivers and reservoirs were only in early stages of development. These 

62 

 
 
 
methods  were  different  from  those  subsequently  used  and  may  have  affected  subsequent 

classifications.  

Figure  3.8  illustrates  the  basis  of  the  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  of  surface 

waters in Portugal for the second RBMPs. 

Figure 3.8 

The  classification  of  the  ecological  status  or  potential  of  rivers,  lakes, 
transitional and coastal waters in Portugal using 1, 2, 3 or 4 types of quality 

element.  
Note:  The  four  types  are:  biological;  hydromorphological,  general  physicochemical  and  River 

Basin Specific Pollutants. 

Assessment methods for the biological quality elements 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

There are now biological quality element methods developed for all relevant biological quality 

elements, which were missing for the first RBMPs, including macrophytes in rivers. However, 
the biological quality element methods are not used in the Madeira RBD, except phytobenthos 

and benthic invertebrates in rivers.  

No assessment methods for fish in lakes or angiosperms in coastal waters were reported: there 

were  methods  for  all  other  relevant  biological  quality  elements  in  the  four  water  categories. 
Regarding  reservoirs,  Portugal  explained  that  it  considers  that  phytoplankton  is  the  only 

biological  quality  element  applicable.  The  sensitivity  of  the  assessment  methods  to  different 
impacts have been reported, and seem logical.  

63 

 
 
 
Intercalibration of biological quality element methods  

Many Portuguese national types are linked to common intercalibration types, but it is not clear 
which  biological  quality  element  methods  have  been  intercalibrated.  Portugal  subsequently 

explained  that,  for  the  national  types  not  linked  to  the  common  intercalibration  types, 
boundaries  have  been  set  using  the  methodologies  that  resulted  from  the  intercalibration 

exercises. 

Assessment of hydromorphological quality elements  

Reference  conditions  were  reported  for  hydromorphological  quality  elements  only  in  rivers, 
except  in  the  Azores  RBD,  where  all  hydromorphological  methods  are  developed. 

Hydromorphological  quality  elements  are  used  for 
the  classification  of  ecological 
status/potential  in  coastal  waters,  rivers  and  transitional  waters  mainly  based  on  monitoring 

results. Expert judgement is only used in rivers in around 17 % of classified water bodies: the 
basis  for  this  expert  judgement  is  not  clear.  They  are  not  used  in  lakes.  The  classification 

boundaries for these supporting quality elements in rivers and transitional waters are reported 
to be related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements.  

Classification methods for general physicochemical quality elements  

All  the  relevant  supporting  general  physicochemical  quality  elements  were  reported  to  be 
assessed  in  terms  of  ecological  status/potential  in  all  four  water  categories  and  the 

classification boundaries are related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality 
elements.  

Standards  for  nutrient  conditions  and  most  other  relevant  general  physicochemical  quality 
elements were reported for each of the four water categories. The only gap was for standards 

for water temperature in rivers and lakes. Most of the general physicochemical standards are 
reported  to  be  consistent  with  the  good-moderate  status  boundary  of  the  relevant  sensitive 
biological quality elements.  

Portugal subsequently stated that the definition of a classification system for temperature is in 
progress. 

64 

 
 
Selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and use of Environmental Quality Standards  

The selection of River  Basin  Specific Pollutants  was based on the previous  list,  used for the 
first  RBMPs,  considering  as  a  criteria  their  presence  in  water  in  the  period  2004-2012. 

Concerning pesticides, Portugal also took into account whether or not they were authorised.  

Environmental Quality Standards are reported for 26 different River Basin Specific Pollutants 

for water only including both specific synthetic substances and metals, and the 2011 Technical 
Guidance Document No 2717 has been used to set the values. Environmental Quality Standards 
were set for 24 River Basin Specific Pollutants in rivers, 25 in lakes, 12 in coastal waters and 
12 in transitional waters.  

In  addition,  the  analytical  method  used  for  each  substance  meets  the  minimum  performance 
criteria  laid  down  in  Article  4(1)  of  the  Directive  2009/90/EC18  for  the  strictest  standard 
applied.  

River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  used  in  the  classification  of  all  23  natural  lake  water 

bodies,  all  based  on  monitoring  results,  and  of  11  %  of  river  water  bodies,  overwhelmingly 
based on monitoring results (1 water body was classified by expert judgment and another by 
grouping).  They  were  not  used  in  the  classification  of  coastal  and  transitional  waters,  even 

though they are reported to be monitored in these two water categories.  

Portugal  further  clarified  that  they  faced  difficulties  in  analysing  these  substances  in  saline 
waters,  and  that  no  PNEC19  had  been  derived  in  saline  waters  yet  (which  seems  in 
contradiction  with  the  reporting  in  WISE,  where  EQSs  are  set  for  coastal  and  transitional 
waters).  Portugal  also  mentioned  that  the  list  of  substances,  their  environmental  quality 

standards  and  the  analytical  methods  are  under  review  for  coastal  and  transitional  waters,  as 
part of the larger review of the monitoring programmes for these categories of water. 

Use of monitoring results for classification 

The classification of the individual quality elements is illustrated in Figure 3.9.  

17https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0cc3581b-5f65-4b6f-91c6-433a1e947838/TGD-environmental 

quality 

standards%20CIS-WFD%2027%20EC%202011.pdf 

18 Directive 2009/90/EC of 31 July 2009 laying down, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the  Council,  technical  specifications  for  chemical  analysis  and  monitoring  of  water  status  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1524565750309&uri=CELEX:32009L0090 

19 Predicted-No-Effect-Concentration: concentration below which no effect is expected. 

65 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 3.9 

Basis  of  the  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  in  Portugal.  The 
percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category. 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

66 

 
 
 
The majority of water bodies are reported to  be  classified based on monitoring results at  the 

quality element level, which is a huge improvement since the first RBMPs.  

Physicochemical  quality  elements  and  phytoplankton  were  most  commonly  used  to  classify 

coastal waters, with around 50 % of the water bodies being classified by monitoring results, 25 
% by expert judgement and 6 % by grouping (note that values do not add up to 100 %  because 

not all elements were used to classify all water bodies).  

All 23 lakes (all natural) were classified by four biological quality elements (excluding fish), 
seven physicochemical quality elements and River Basin Specific Pollutants, in all cases just 

using monitoring results. Hydromorphological quality elements were not classified.  

For  rivers,  physicochemical  quality  elements  were  the  most  commonly  used  in  classification 
(around 58 % of river water bodies) with monitoring results being used for 36 % of river water 

bodies  and  expert  judgment  for  22  %.  Benthic  invertebrates  was  the  most  commonly  used 
biological quality element for classification (48 %) with expert judgment being used for 26 % 

of water bodies and 22 % using monitoring results. Grouping was reported not to be used in 
the  classification  of 
for  a  very  small  number  of  water  bodies. 
Hydromorphological  quality  elements  were  used  to  classify  around  20  %  of  water  bodies, 

rivers  except 

predominantly using monitoring results. 

96 % of transitional water bodies were classified using phytoplankton, all by using monitoring 
results. The other expected biological  quality elements were also  used to classify transitional 

water  bodies  including  fish  (82  %  of  transitional  water  bodies).  Angiosperms  were  used  to 
classify  only  4  %  of  transitional  waters  and  macroalgae  30  %.  86  %  of  transitional  water 

bodies  were  classified  according  to  seven  physicochemical  quality  elements  and  46  %    to 
hydromorphological  quality  elements.  Monitoring  results  were  solely  used  to  classify 

transitional water bodies. 

The overall classification of 4.8 % of rivers, 4 % of transitional waters, and 1.6 % of coastal 
water bodies was based on none of the required biological quality elements. 

43  surface  water  bodies  were  classified  as  high  status:  only  four  of  these  were  classified 
according to the required hydromorphological quality elements. It would be expected that the 

the 
classification  of  high  status  water  bodies  would 
hydromorphological conditions of the water bodies; this appears not to have been undertaken. 

the  assessment  of 

involve 

67 

 
 
619  surface  water  bodies  were  classified  as  in  good  status/potential:  25  %  of  these  were 

classified according to the required hydromorphological quality elements.  

Overall classification of ecological status  

The  one-out,  all-out  principle  has  been  used  in  all  RBDs,  except  Madeira.  There  is  no 
information  available  on  how  the  non-deterioration  principle  has  been  applied,  nor  on  how 

Portugal  deals  with  spatial  variability  within  water  bodies.  Figure  3.10  shows  where 
classification types were not used to classify surface waters. 

Figure 3.10 

The  percentage  of  river,  lake,  transitional  and  coastal  water  bodies  in 

Portugal  where  no  biological  quality  element  or  no  hydromorphological 
(HYMO) or no general physicochemical (PHYSCHEM) or no River Basin 

Specific Pollutant (RBSP) has been used in the classification of ecological 
status or potential 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

3.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first RBMPs 

The proportion of water bodies with unknown ecological status or potential has decreased from 
5 % to 2 % for natural water bodies from the first to the second RBMPs.  

The  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  for  the  second  RBMPs  was  based  on  more 

comprehensive  classification  methods,  that  consider  more  of  the  relevant  biological  quality 
elements  and  some  hydromorphological  and  physicochemical  quality  elements  (mainly 

nutrients). 

68 

 
 
 
The total number of monitoring sites reported by Portugal increased by 36 % from the first to 

the  second  RBMPs.  Compared  to  the  first  RBMPs,  there  was  an  increase  in  the  number  of 
surveillance  sites  in  2016  in  six  RBDs,  a  decrease  in  one  RBD  and  no  changes  in  the  other 

three RBDs. In rivers, there was a decrease in the number of surveillance sites in seven RBDs 
and an increase in three. Overall, there was a 100 % increase in numbers of surveillance sites 

in coastal waters, a 68 % increase in lakes, a 10 % decrease in rivers and a 164 % increase in 
transitional water sites from the first to the second RBMPs. In terms of operational monitoring 

there was a decrease in the numbers of sites in two RBDs from the first to the second RBMPs 
and  no  change  in  the  others.  For  rivers,  there  was  an  increase  in  the  numbers  of  operational 

sites from the first to the second RBMPs in seven RBDs, a decrease in one and no change in 
the other two. Overall, there was a 100 % decrease in the number of operational sites in coastal 

waters, a 39 % decrease in lakes, a 54 % increase in rivers and a 40 % decrease in transitional 
waters from the first to the second RBMPs. 

Fish were monitored in rivers in eight RBDs for the first RBMPs but only in seven RBDs in 
the  second  RBMPs  (not  in  the  Algarve  Rivers  RBD).  There  was  no  fish  monitoring  in  the 

Azores RBD for both RBMPs. Macrophytes were monitored in the Vouga, Mondego and Lis 
RBD  for  the  first  RBMPs  but  not  for  the  second.  Nine  out  of  ten  RBDs  reported  that 

hydromorphological  quality  elements  were monitored in  rivers for the first  RBMPs;  this  was 
reduced to 8 RBDs for the second RBMPs. 

Macrophytes, phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates were not monitored in any RBD for the 

first RBMPs in lakes, and for the second were only monitored in the Azores RBD, as this was 
the only RBD with reported lakes in the second RBMPs. Fish were reported for eight RBDs in 

the  first  RBMPs  but  not  for  any  RBD  for  the  second;  fish  are  required  to  be  monitored  in 
natural, heavily modified and artificial lakes. Natural lakes were only reported for the Azores 

RBD in the second RBMP and it would be expected that fish would have been monitored in 
these lakes. For the first RBMPs reservoirs that were originally a river were reported as heavily 

modified lakes; for the second RBMPs reservoirs that were originally a river were reported as 
heavily modified rivers. Reservoirs were only monitored for phytoplankton in the first and the 
second  RBMPs.  In  terms  of  intercalibration  of  biological  assessment  methods,  Portugal 

considers  the  assessment  of  fish  in  reservoirs  as  being  not  applicable  and  has  defended  that 
position with the Common Implementation Strategy Working Group on Ecological Status.  

Only one RBD (the Azores) reported the monitoring of hydromorphological quality elements 

in  lakes  for  the  second  RBMP,  while  for  the  first  nine  of  the  ten  RBDs  did.  All  other  lakes 
reported for the first RBMPs were reservoirs and were reported as rivers in the second RBMPs. 

69 

 
 
None of the reservoirs were monitored for hydromorphological quality elements for the second 
RBMPs: this is a significant degradation in the monitoring of lakes for the second RBMPs. 

Macroalgae were reported to be monitored in transitional waters in all relevant (nine) RBDs for 

the first RBMPs but only in five for the second. Angiosperms were not monitored in any RBD 
for the first RBMPs but were monitored in two RBDs for the second RBMPs, and macrophytes 

were  also  reported  for  one  other  RBD.  Benthic  invertebrates  were  monitored  in  all  relevant 
RBDs for both the first and second RBMPs. Seven RBDs did not monitor fish in transitional 

waters for the first RBMPs, all nine RBDs reported some fish monitoring for the second. Eight 
RBDs  reported  the  monitoring  of  hydromorphological  quality  elements  in  transitional  waters 

for the first RBMPs, but this was reduced to six for the second. 

Nine RBDs reported that phytoplankton was monitored in coastal waters for the first RBMPs; 
three  of  these  did  not  report  phytoplankton  for  the  second.  Eight  out  of  nine  RBDs  reported 

macroalgae for the first  RBMPs, but three of these did not report macroalgae for the  second. 
Three  RBDs  monitored  angiosperms  for  the  first  RBMPs  and  one  of  these  did  not  report 

angiosperms for the second along with the other seven RBDs. Macrophytes were monitored in 
one  RBD  for  the  second  RBMP.  Eight  RBDs  reported  benthic  invertebrates  to  be  monitored 

for the first RBMPs, but this had decreased to six RBDs for the second. Seven out of ten RBDs 
reported the monitoring  of hydromorphological  quality element  for the first  RBMPs and this 

was reduced to six for the second. 

There  were  no  changes  in  the  monitoring  of  the  physicochemical  quality  elements  in  rivers, 

lakes  and  transitional  waters  However,  eight  of  the  ten  RBDs  reported  the  monitoring  of 
physicochemical quality elements in coastal waters for the first RBMPs, but this was reduced 

to six for the second. 

3.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and first PoM requested action 

on the following: 

  Recommendation 3: Complete the development of methods for the status assessment of 
water  bodies  and  determination  of  reference  conditions  and  apply  them  through  the 

implementation  of  robust  monitoring  programmes.  An  adequate  WFD-compliant 
assessment  and monitoring  framework is  a necessary pre-requisite to  design  effective 
Programme of Measures and ultimately to achieve the WFD objectives. (cid:157) 

70 

 
 
Assessment:  Portugal  reported  a  smaller  proportion  of  water  bodies  with  unknown 

ecological  status/potential  than  in  the  first  RBMPs:  coastal  waters,  5  %  in  the  first 
RBMPs,  2  %  in  the  second;  rivers,  7  %  in  the  first  RBMPs  and  5  %  in  the  second; 

transitional waters, 47 % in the first RBMPs, 4 % in the second. This improvement may 
reflect improvements in the monitoring and assessment methods, particularly for some 

biological  quality  elements  such  as  fish  in  transitional  waters:  seven  RBDs  did  not 
monitor  fish  in  transitional  waters  for  the  first  RBMPs,  all  nine  RBDs reported  some 

fish monitoring for the second. 

However,  there  has  also  been  some  deterioration  in  the  monitoring  reported  for  the 

second  RBMPs  compared  to  the  first.  There  are  examples  where  biological  quality 
elements  reported  to  be  monitored  for  the  first  RBMPs  were  not  reported  for  the 

second.  This  is  particularly  so  for  the  monitoring  of  lakes/reservoirs,  where 
and 
phytoplankton 

element  monitored 

biological 

quality 

only 

the 

is 

hydromorphological quality elements are not monitored at all, so that the focus of the 
monitoring  and  assessment  is  on  phytoplankton  and  on  the  physicochemical  quality 

elements.  The  number  of  RBDs  reporting  the  monitoring  of  hydromorphological 
elements in coastal waters, rivers and transitional waters also decreased for the second 

RBMPs.  In  general,  the  focus of monitoring in  terms of the numbers of  water bodies 
monitored and the number of different elements used in all water categories appears to 

be on the physicochemical quality elements. 

The  assessment  of  ecological  status  for  single  quality  elements  is  based  on  direct 
monitoring  for  a  fairly  large  proportion  of  water  bodies  classified  for  that  quality 

element  in  most  water  categories  and  RBDs,  but  not  for  hydromorphological  quality 
elements. 

Reference  conditions  have  now  been  set  for  most  biological  quality  elements, 
physicochemical quality elements for all or some types in lakes, coastal and transitional 

waters  in  the  RBDs.  In  the  Azores  RBD,  reference  conditions  have  also  been  set  for 
hydromorphological quality elements for some types in all water categories.  

The  class  boundaries  for  biological  quality  element  methods  have  also  been  set  for 

most biological quality elements in all RBDs except Madeira, where only methods for 
phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates in rivers were developed.  

71 

 
 
The sensitivity of the biological quality element methods to impacts seems logical for 

all  the  biological  quality  elements,  with  most  biological  quality  elements  being 
sensitive to nutrients and organic enrichment, and fish and the benthic flora biological 

quality elements (except phytobenthos in rivers) in all water categories being sensitive 
to hydromorphological alterations.  

Environmental  Quality  Standards  have  been  reported  for  26  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants  and  developed  according  to  the  technical  guidance.  However,  River  Basin 

Specific Pollutants were not classified in coastal and transitional waters, and Portugal 
clarified  that  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  for  salt  waters  are  currently  being 

revised. 

In  conclusion,  whilst  there  has  been  progress  in  monitoring  and  assessment  methods 
since the first RBMPs, there has been some deterioration in some aspects and there still 

remain significant gaps in the monitoring of ecological status/potential in Portugal. 

The recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

72 

 
 
 
 
Topic 4

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  chemical 

status in surface water bodies 

4.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

4.1.1  Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters 

Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for monitoring of chemical status  

Member  States  have  to  implement  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring  programmes  in 

accordance with the requirements of the WFD and of the EQS Directive, for the assessment of 
ecological status/potential and chemical status. 

Surveillance monitoring programmes should allow Member States to supplement and validate 
the  impact  assessment  procedure,  to  efficiently  and  effectively  review  the  design  of  their 

monitoring programmes, and to  assess the long-term  changes in  natural  conditions  and those 
resulting  from  widespread  anthropogenic  activity.  For  operational  purposes,  monitoring  is 

required to establish the status of waterbodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their 
environmental objectives, and to assess any changes in the status of such waterbodies resulting 
from the Programmes of Measures. 

Section  4.1.1 of this report summarises the characteristics of the surveillance and operational 
monitoring programmes in Portugal for the second RBMPs. 

Figure  4.1  summarises  the  proportion  of  sites  used  for  the  monitoring  of  chemical  status  in 
rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters for the second RBMPs (territorial waters have not 

been  identified  for  Portugal).  In  this  figure,  no  distinction  is  made  between  sites  used  for 
surveillance  and/or  operational  purposes.  More  detailed  information  can  be  found  on  the 
website of the European Environment Agency20.  

Figure 4.1 shows that only a small proportion of monitoring sites are reported to be used for 

monitoring  of  chemical  (and  ecological)  status  for  river  water  bodies  and  transitional  water 
bodies  (2  %  and  3  %  respectively).  More  sites  are  monitored  for  lakes  (17  %)  and  better 

coverage is achieved for coastal waters (46 %). It should be noted that considerably more sites 
are reported to be used for operational and surveillance monitoring purposes than reported for 

chemical  status  and  that  it  is  possible  that  some  of  these  may  be  used  for  monitoring  of 
chemical status but not reported.  

20 https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water 

73 

 
 
                                                      
Portugal  clarified  that  for  the  WISE  reporting  only  ‘surveillance’  and  ‘operational’  were 

selected  without  providing  details  on  the  specific  objectives  such  as  ecological,  chemical, 
drinking water etc. Portugal stated that 16 % of sites and 22 % of water bodies were monitored 

for chemical status in rivers and that financial constraints limited the level of monitoring that 
could be implemented at the time. 

Furthermore,  Portugal  stated  that  for  transitional  and  coastal  waters,  monitoring  for  the 
determination  of  chemical  status  was  performed  at  the  same  stations  as  monitoring  for  the 

determination of ecological status, that is, chemical status stations were the same as defined in 
the surveillance sub-programme for transitional and coastal waters. Portugal stated that the low 

percentages presented in Figure 4.1 were due to misunderstandings or errors in reporting and 
that 87 % of transitional waters and 70 % of coastal waters were monitored for classification of 

chemical (and ecological) status. 

Figure 4.1 

Proportion  of  sites  used  for  monitoring  of  chemical  status  and,  for 

comparison, ecological status, in Portugal. The number in parenthesis next to 
the  category  is  the  total  number  of  monitoring  sites  irrespective  of  their 
purpose

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Figure 4.2 summarises the proportion of water bodies monitored for chemical status in surface 
waters  for  the  second  RBMPs.  In  this  figure,  no  distinction  is  made  between  water  bodies 

monitored for surveillance and/or operational purposes. Also given is the proportion of water 
bodies monitored for any purpose and, for comparative purpose, those for ecological status. 

74 

 
 
 
 
The data reported for lakes stated that 105 lake water bodies were monitored; however, there 

are only 23 lake water bodies in Portugal reported in the second RBMPs. As stated in Section 
2.1.1 reservoirs were reported as lake water bodies in the first RBMPs but as river water bodies 

in  the  second  RBMPs  as  they  were  formerly  river  water  bodies  that  were  dammed  to  form 
reservoirs. This needs to be taken into account when interpreting the monitoring data reported 

in the first and second RBMPs. 

Figure 4.2 

Proportion  of  total  surface  water  bodies  in  each  category  which  are 

monitored, monitored for chemical status and monitored for ecological status, 
in  Portugal.  The  number  in  parenthesis  next  to  the  category  is  the  total 

number of water bodies in that category 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

All  water  bodies  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  are  reported  to  be  monitored  (for 

operational  purposes)  in  six  of  the  ten  RBDs  in  Portugal.  In  the  Guadiana  RBD,  two  river 
water bodies are reported to be failing to achieve good chemical status but only one of these is 

reported  to  be  monitored.  In  the  Azores  RBD,  two  coastal  water  bodies  are  reported  to  be 
failing to achieve good chemical status but only one of these is monitored. For the Azores and 

Madeira RBDs, all surface water bodies are classified as being either in good chemical status 
or unknown status. 

75 

 
 
 
 
Long-term trend monitoring and monitoring of Priority Substances in water, sediment and 
biota for status assessment 

Monitoring for status assessment 

Requirements 

Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes in order to 

provide, inter alia, a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. 
The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of priority substances, frequency and number of 

sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of status. According to the 
and 
EQS  Directive 

in  2009),  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene 

(version 

force 

in 

hexachlorobutadiene  have  to  be  monitored  in  biota  for  status  assessment,  unless  Member 
States derived a standard for another matrix which is at least as protective as the biota standard.  

Spatial coverage 

33 of the 41 Priority substances are monitored at sites across the RBDs in Portugal for status 

assessment. The number of Priority Substances monitored at the water body level varies, from 
33 in the Guadiana RBD to 12 in the Minho and Lima RBD and the Vouga, Mondego and Lis 
RBD. All of these substances are reported to be monitored in water only with no indication of 

monitoring in sediments or biota.  

Most  Priority  Substances  are  monitored  in  less  than  10  water  bodies  in  each  RBD,  with  the 

maximum number of river water bodies being monitored for a Priority Substance (Nickel and 
its  compounds)  being  22  for  river  water  bodies  in  the  Douro  RBD  (out  of  1899  river  water 

bodies in Portugal). The RBMPs stated that a risk based approach to monitoring is taken, with 
only  those  substances  considered  to  be  presenting  a  risk  being  monitored.  However,  the 

inventories of emissions reported in  WISE include some but  not  all Priority Substances  (and 
Madeira did not report any inventory), and only point sources are considered, so it is unclear 

how  far  all  relevant  pressures  and  emissions  have  been  identified  for  all  substances.  In 
addition, it seems that the monitoring data did not allow classification of all water bodies, even 

in combination with grouping / extrapolation (see section below on chemical status of surface 
waters).  

No monitoring in biota /sediment was reported to WISE. Portugal subsequently clarified that a 
monitoring  network  has  been  implemented  to  assess  compliance  with  the  biota  standards. 

Monitoring was performed in mussels in coastal waters and in freshwater fish (mussels: nine 
sampling  stations  covering  the  eight  RBDs  in  the  mainland;  freshwater  fish:  seven  sampling 

76 

 
 
areas in seven RBDs). Portugal mentioned that the monitoring results will be reported with the 

next RBMPs. 

Frequencies 

The WFD indicates that, for the surveillance and operational monitoring of Priority Substances 
in water, the frequency of monitoring should be at least monthly for one year during the RBMP 

cycle and at least monthly every year, respectively. Monitoring in biota for status assessment 
should take place at least once every year according to the EQS Directive. In all cases greater 

intervals can be applied by Member States if justified on the basis of technical knowledge and 
expert judgement. 

Monitoring frequencies in water never exceed twice a year for any substance and either once or 
three times per cycle. 12 substances  are monitored only once a  year and these are monitored 

once  in  the  monitoring  cycle.  These  are  below  the  recommended  minimum  frequencies  for 
surveillance and operational monitoring. 

Monitoring for long-term trend assessment 

Requirements 

Article 3.3 of the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009) requires Member States to monitor 
14  priority  substances21  that  tend  to  accumulate  in  sediment  and/or  biota,  for  the  purpose  of 
long-term  trend  assessment.  Monitoring  should  take  place  at  least  once  every  three  years, 

unless technical knowledge and expert judgment justify another interval. 

Spatial coverage 

As stated above, no information was reported by Portugal to WISE with regard to monitoring 
of sediments and/or biota. This is at odds with the fact that Portugal have reported that, for 9 of 

the 10 RBDs arrangements are in place for long-term trend analysis of the required substances 
(information  is  missing  for  the  Minho  and  Lima  RBD).  Furthermore,  evidence  found  in 

Portuguese  national  law  (transposing  the  requirements  of  the  EQS  Directive)  states  that  the 
Portuguese Environment Agency shall define specific frequencies for monitoring programmes 

in  sediment  and/or  biota,  with  a  minimum  frequency  of  once  every  three  years  and  that  this 
should be referred to in the RBMPs.  

21  Anthracene,  brominated  diphenylether, 

fluoranthene, 
hexachlorobenzene,  hexabutadiene,  hexachlorocyclohexane,  lead,  mercury,  pentachlorobenzene,  PAH, 
Tributyltin. 

chloroalkanes,  DEHP, 

cadmium,  C10-13 

77 

 
 
                                                      
Further  clarification  has  been  provided  from  Portugal:  from  2013  a  sampling  network  of  36 

monitoring sites has been established in mainland Portugal in seven RBDs for the evaluation of 
long-term  trends  and  this  has  subsequently  been  expanded  to  cover  the  eighth  RBD  in  the 

mainland.  The  substances  monitored  include  11  of  the  14  relevant  ones:  brominated 
hexachlorobenzene, 
diphenylethers, 

hexachlorobutadiene, 

fluoranthene, 

cadmium, 

lead,  mercury,  pentachlorobenzene,  polyaromatic  hydrocarbons 
hexachlorocyclohexane, 
(PAH),  tributyltin  compounds22.  Portugal  states  that  the  results  will  be  reported  in  the  next 
RBMPs.  

Frequencies 

No  frequencies  have  been  reported  yet.  According  to  the  Portuguese  legislation,  monitoring 
should be carried out at or above the recommended minimum frequency. 

Monitoring of Priority Substances that are discharged in each RBD  

Annex  V  of  the  WFD  states,  in  Section  1.3.1  (Design  of  surveillance  monitoring),  that 
“Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year 
during  the  period  covered  by  a  river  basin  management  plan  for  [inter  alia]:  priority  list 

pollutants  which  are  discharged  into  the  river  basin  or  sub-basin.”  Section  1.3.2  (Design  of 
operational  monitoring)  of  the  Directive  states  that  “In  order  to  assess  the  magnitude  of  the 

pressure to  which bodies of surface water  are subject  Member States shall monitor for those 
quality elements which are indicative of the pressures to which the body or bodies are subject. 

In order to assess the impact of these pressures, Member States shall monitor as relevant [inter 
alia]:  all  priority  substances  discharged,  and  other  pollutants  discharged  in  significant 

quantities.” 

Member States are therefore required to monitor all Priority Substances which are discharged 

into the river basin or sub-basin.  

No inventory was reported for the Madeira RBD. For the remaining 9 RBDs, between 4 and 18 
Priority Substances were reported as being in an inventory and also discharged. However, not 
all  of  the  substances  reported  as  being  discharged  were  monitored.  Substances  that  were 

discharged but not monitored included: mercury, pentachlorobenzene, lead, cadmium, DEHP, 
benzo(g,h,i)-perylene,  hexachlorocyclohexane,  trichloromethane,  diuron,  dichloromethane, 

tetrachloroethylene, 
diphenylethers. 

isoproturon, 

trichloroethylene,  pentachlorophenol  and  brominated 

22  Portugal  mentioned  they  also  monitor  nickel  in  sediment  for  long  term  trend  assessment,  in  addition  to  the 

substances mentioned in article 3(3) of the EQS Directive, version in force in 2009. 

78 

 
 
                                                      
Portugal provided further information to explain that their inventories of discharges, emissions 

and losses of priority substances were mainly derived from the E-PRTR database, noting that 
some records were considered to be overestimated. Portugal stated that the inventories will be 

reviewed  in  light  of  such  overestimations  and  that  monitoring  programmes  will  also  be 
reviewed with a view to their improvement. 

Performance of analytical methods used  

In  Portugal,  for  all  Priority  Substances  monitored  in  each  of  the  10  RBDs,  the  analytical 
methods used meet  the  minimum  performance  criteria laid down in  Article 4(1) of Directive 

2009/90/EC for the strictest standard applied.  

The  method  of  dealing  with  measurements  of  Priority  Substances  lower  than  the  limit  of 

quantification is as specified in Article 5 of the Directive 2009/90/EC.  

4.1.2  Chemical Status of surface water bodies 

Member States are required to report the year in which the assessment of chemical status was 
based. This  may be the  year that the surface water body was monitored. In case of  grouping 
this may be the year in which monitoring took place in the surface water bodies within a group 

that  are  used  to  extrapolate  results  to  non-monitored  surface  water  bodies  within  the  same 
group. Monitoring for chemical status in Portugal was undertaken between 2010 and 2011 with 

most samples being taken in 2010. 

The chemical status of surface water bodies in Portugal for the second RBMPs is illustrated in 

Map 4.1. This is based on the most recent assessment of status. Surface water bodies in good 
status  represent  around  25  %  of  water  bodies  across  Portugal,  with  unknown  status 

representing 74 % of water bodies. The one-out-all-out principle was applied to the assessment 
of the overall chemical status of surface water bodies in Portugal, except in the Madeira RBD. 

79 

 
 
Map 4.1 

Chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Portugal  based  on  the  most 

recently assessed status of the surface water bodies  

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.  

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

Table 4.1 shows the chemical  status  of surface  water bodies in  the first  and second RBMPs. 

More  detailed  information  can  be  found  on  the  website  of  the  European  Environment 
Agency23.  

The  number  of  surface  water  bodies  increased  from  1945  in  the  first  RBMPs  to  2040  in  the 
second. The proportion of surface water bodies at good status appears to have decreased from 

23 https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water 

80 

GoodFailing to achieve to goodUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
around 40 % to 25 %. The proportion of surface water bodies failing to achieve good chemical 

status remained very similar but unknown status increased from around 58 % to 74 %. 

Table 4.1 

Chemical  status of surface water bodies in Portugal for the second and first 

RBMPs.  Note:  the  number  in  parenthesis  next  to  the  water  category  is  the 
number of water bodies in that category. Note: Chemical status assessment is 

based on the standards laid down in EQS Directive 2008/105/EC (version in 
force  on  13  January  2009).  However,  Portugal  clarified  that  all  mainland 

RBDs  used  the  more  stringent  Environmental  Quality  Standards  in  water 
defined in Directive 2013/39/EU. Some Member States did not implement the 

Directive in the first RBMPs as the transposition deadline was in July 2010, 
after the adoption of the first RBMPs. 

Category 

Second RBMP 

Lakes (23) 

Rivers (1899) 

Transitional (52) 

Coastal (66) 

Total (2040) 

First RBMP 

Lakes (122) 

Rivers (1705) 

Transitional (53) 

Coastal (65) 

Total (1945) 

Good 

Failing to achieve good 

Unknown 

Number 

% 

Number 

% 

Number 

% 

23 

398 

44 

47 

512 

91 

633 

26 

48 

798 

100 %  

21 %  

85 %  

71 %  

25 %  

75 %  

37 %  

49 %  

74 %  

41 %  

15 

3 

9 

27 

1 

4 

3 

3 

11 

1 %  

6 %  

14 %  

1 %  

1,486 

5 

10 

1,501 

1 %  

30 

0.20 %  

1,068 

6 %  

5 %  

1 %  

24 

6 

1,128 

78 %  

10 %  

15 %  

74 %  

25 %  

63 %  

45 %  

9 %  

58 %  

Where  water  bodies  are  not  monitored  they  are  generally  reported  as  unknown  status. 
However, expert judgement is reported to be used to classify some water bodies, although how 

this has been used is not fully explained in the RBMPs. Portugal subsequently mentioned that 
the  classification  of  non-monitored  rivers  and  reservoirs  was  based  on  existing  pressures, 

historical data, and the ecological status/potential of the waterbody. If there were no pressures 
from  discharged  substances  that  could  be  associated  with  chemical  status,  if  the  ecological 

status/ potential was good, and there was no historical contamination, then the chemical status 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
was  considered  to  be  good.  In  cases  where  doubt  existed,  the  water  body  was  classified  as 

unknown. 

For  transitional  and  coastal  waters,  expert  judgment  was  reported  to  be  carried  out  in 

consultation  with  universities  and  research  groups,  supported  by  investigative  projects  and 
historic monitoring data. 

Portugal reported that classification is determined through averaging the results from multiple 
monitoring sites within a water body monitoring the same priority substance. 

Figure 4.3 shows the confidence in the classification of chemical status for the second RBMPs. 
Overall, 63 % of classified surface water bodies were classified with high confidence, 3 % with 

medium  confidence  and  34  %  with  low  confidence.  (There  seems  to  have  been  a  reporting 
mistake as a level of confidence is reported for some of the water bodies in unknown status)  

Confidence in the classification of chemical status for the first cycle was not reported. 

Figure 4.3 

Confidence in the classification of chemical status of surface water bodies in 

Portugal based on the most recently assessed status/potential 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Figure  4.4  compares  the  chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Portugal  for  the  first 
RBMPs with that for the second RBMPs (based on the most recent assessment of status) and 

82 

 
 
 
 
that  expected  in  2015.  More  information  on  the  chemical  status  in  each  RBD  and  water 
category can be found on the website of the European Environment Agency24. 

The  assessment  of  chemical  status  for  the  second  RBMPs  was  expected  to  be  based  on  the 
standards  laid  down  in  the  EQS  Directive  (version  in  force  on  13  January  200925).  Some 
Member  States  did  not  implement  the  Directive  in  the  first  RBMPs  as  the  transposition 

deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption of the first RBMPs. 

Figure 4.4 

Chemical  status  of surface water bodies in Portugal  for the second RBMPs, 

for the first RBMPs and expected in 2015. The number in the parenthesis is 
the  number  of  surface  water  bodies  for  each  cycle.  Note  that  the  period  of 

assessment  of  status  for  the  second  RBMPs  was  2008  to  2016.  The  year  of 
assessment of status for the first RBMPs is not known. 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Directive  2013/39/EU  amended  the  EQS  Directive.  In  particular,  it  sets  more  stringent 
environmental  quality  standards  for  seven  substances26.  Member  States  were  required  to 
indicate  if  the  new  standards  caused  the  status  of  the  surface  water  body  to  appear  to 

24 https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water 
25   Please  note  that  Directive  2013/39/EU,  which  amended  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive, 
introduced  less stringent annual average Environmental Quality Standards for naphthalene in transitional and 
coastal  waters.  This  less  stringent  Environmental  Quality  Standard  should  be  taken  into  account  for  the 
determination of surface water chemical status by the 2015 deadline laid down in Article 4 of the WFD.  

26  Anthracene,  Brominated  diphenylether,  Fluoranthene,  Lead  and  its  compounds,  Naphthalene,  Nickel  and  its 

compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
deteriorate. This situation arose for only two of the seven substances, lead and nickel, in river 

water bodies only, in half of the RBDs and never affecting more than 4 % of river water bodies 
in each of these RBDs. 

Good  chemical  status  should  be  reached  by  2021  in  relation  to  the  revised  Environmental 
Quality  Standards,  unless  Member  States  apply  exemptions  under  WFD  Article  4(4)  or  less 

stringent objectives under Article 4(5). 

Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good chemical 

status. The information is shown in Figure 4.5.  

For 8 of the 10 RBDs in Portugal, good chemical status of surface water bodies is expected to 

be  achieved  by  the  end  of  the  third  planning  cycle  (2027).  No  information  was  reported 
electronically for the Azores RBD, however Portugal clarified that all waterbodies are in good 

status, and this is not expected to change in the future (pesticides and other monitored Priority 
Substances  were  always  below  the  analytical  limit  of  quantification  and  the  risk  of  their 

presence  in  Azores  waters  was  considered  insignificant).  For  the  Madeira  RBD,  the  date  of 
achievement of good chemical status is unknown for 126 surface water bodies, with five river 
water  bodies  identified  as  achieving  good  chemical  status  by  2027.  No  data  on  the  expected 

achievement of good status was provided in the first RBMPs. 

Improvement  in  chemical  status  is  reported  as  being  greater  than  anticipated  in  the  first 

RBMPs for the Minho and Lima, Douro, Vouga, Mondego and Lis and Algarve Rivers RBDs, 
less than anticipated in the first RBMPs for the Cavado, Ave and Leca, Tagus and West Rivers, 

Sado and Mira and Guadiana RBDs and as anticipated in the first RBMPs for the Azores and 
Madeira RBDs. 

Portugal  subsequently  clarified  that  water  bodies  with  unknown  status  and  their  respective 
environmental  objectives  were  not  reported  to  WISE  due  to  an  oversight.  Portugal  also 

clarified that the environmental objectives defined for each waterbody in the RBMPs takes into 
account  the achievement of  good  ecological status  and  good  chemical status  and that  for the 

mainland, 355 waterbodies are expected to achieve [overall] good status by 2021 and 284 by 
2027. Portugal noted that good chemical status could be achieved before good overall status is 

achieved. 

84 

 
 
Figure 4.5 

Expected date of achievement of good chemical status of surface water bodies 

in Portugal. The numbers in parenthesis are the total number of water bodies 
reported in each category. 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Priority Substances causing the failure of good chemical status 

Member States were expected to report exceedances for individual substances on the basis of 

the  more  stringent  2013  Environmental  Quality  Standards  when  they  existed  (see  above). 
Portugal  clarified  that  all  mainland  RBDs  used  the  more  stringent  Environmental  Quality 

Standards in water defined in Directive 2013/39/EU. 

The substances causing the greatest proportion of surface water bodies to  fail good chemical 

status were: 4-nonylphenol (0.59 % of all water bodies) and nickel (0.54 %). The other Priority 
Substances reported to be causing failure of good chemical status are cadmium (0.15 %), lead 

(0.10 %) and endosulfan (0.05 %). 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.6 

The top  Priority Substances causing failure to  achieve good chemical status 

in surface water bodies in Portugal (only five substances are causing failure)  

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Portugal  reported  no  exceedance  for  any  of  the  “Maximum  Allowable  Concentration” 
standards.   

Ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substances 

According to Article 8(a) of the EQS Directive27, 8 Priority Substances and groups of Priority 
Substances  are  behaving  like  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccamulable  and  toxic  substances28. 
These substances are generally expected to cause widespread exceedances, and their emissions 
can be challenging to tackle (e.g. due to long-range atmospheric transport and deposition). In 

order to show the progress made in tackling other Priority Substances, Member States have the 
possibility to present the information related to chemical status separately for these substances. 

Only  one  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic  Priority  Substance  (tributyltin-
cation)  is  reported  to  be  exceeding  its  Environmental  Quality  Standard  (based  on  the  2013 

standards,  as  stated  in  the  preceding  section)  in  one  river  water  body,  out  of  the  27  water 
bodies reported to be failing to achieve good chemical status in Portugal. Ubiquitous persistent, 

bioaccumulable and toxic Priority Substances are thus  assessed by Portugal  as having a very 
limited impact on chemical status. This is illustrated in the 2018 State of Water report of the 

27 Amended by Directive 2013/39/EU 
28 Brominated diphenylether, Mercury and its compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), Tributyltin,  PFOS, 

dioxins, hexabromocyclodecane and heptachlor 

86 

 
 
 
                                                      
European  Environment  Agency29.  It  should  be  highlighted,  however,  that  overall  74  %  of 
waterbodies are in unknown status. For reporting in the second RBMPs, Portugal has not used 
the Environmental Quality Standard in biota for mercury (although, as stated in Section 4.1.1, 

monitoring  for  mercury  in  biota  is  planned  to  be  used  for  assessment  in  the  next  RBMPs) 
which  may  at  least  partly  explain  why  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic 

Priority Substance are reported as having such a limited impact on chemical status.  

Priority Substances used in the assessment of chemical status compared to those monitored 

The number of Priority Substances used in the assessment varies among RBDs. In the Azores 

RBD  only  four  Priority  Substances  are  used  but  for  six  of  the  RBDs  22  or  more  Priority 
Substances are used (none are reported for the Madeira RBD and 12 and 13 are reported for the 

Vouga,  Mondego  and  Lis  RBD  and  Minho  and  Lima  RBD  respectively).  In  general,  where 
substances are used in the assessment, they are monitored. There are, however, some examples 

specific to certain RBDs, where substances are reported as being used in the assessment but not 
monitored such as: anthracene in the Minho and Lima RBD; chlorpyrifos in the Sado and Mira 
RBD  and  in  the  Azores  RBD;  and  benzene,  pentachlorophenol,  1,2-dichloroethane  and 

anthracene in the Algarve Rivers RBD.  

In some of the RBDs in Portugal, the following substances are not used in the assessment of 

simazine, 
chemical 
tetrachloroethylene,  diuron,  atrazine,  chlorpyrifos,  mercury,  alachlor,  isoproturon  and  the 

to  be  monitored: 

trichloroethylene, 

status  but  are 

reported 

cyclodiene pesticides (aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, isodrin). 

Application of alternative Environmental Quality Standards for water, biota and sediment  

According  to  the  EQS  Directive,  Member  States  may  opt  to  apply  Environmental  Quality 

Standards for another matrix than the one specified in the Directive for a given substance.  If 
they do so, they have to ensure the Environmental Quality Standard they set in the other matrix 

(or  matrices)  offers  at  least  the  same  level  of  protection  as  the  standard  established  in  the 
Directive. 

According to WISE, the standards in the EQS Directive have not been used for eight to nine 
substances  in  each  of  the  ten  RBDs.  For  four  to  five  of  these  substances  (depending  on  the 

RBDs),  alternative  and/or  additional  standards  have  been  applied  in  water.  Portugal 

29https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water (p40-41 of the report). Also available in a more 

interactive format at : 
https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_SWB_Chemical_Status_Maps/SW
B_Failing_Good_Chemical_Status_RBD?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&
:display_count=no&:showVizHome=no 

87 

 
 
                                                      
subsequently clarified that the alternative standards used are the more stringent standards from 

Directive 2013/39/EU.  

Use of mixing zones  

Article  4  of  the  EQS  Directive  (2008/105/EC)  provides  Member  States  with  the  option  of 

designating mixing zones adjacent to points of discharge in surface waters. Concentrations of 
Priority  Substances  may  exceed  the  relevant  Environmental  Quality  Standards  within  such 

mixing zones  if they do  not  affect  the compliance of the rest  of the surface water body with 
those standards. Member States that designate mixing zones are required to include within their 

RBMPs a description of the approaches and methodologies applied to define such zones, and a 
description of the measures taken to reduce the extent of the mixing zones in the future. 

Mixing  zones  have  been  designated  for  all  river,  transitional  and  coastal  water  bodies  in  the 
Algarve  Rivers  RBD  and  for  all  river  and  coastal  water  bodies  in  the  Madeira  RBD.  The 

methodology for the designation of Mixing Zones follows the tiered approach as laid down in 
the 'Technical Background Document on Identification of Mixing Zones'30. Portugal reported 
that measures have been implemented to reduce the extent of the mixing Zones in the future. 

Background Concentrations and Bioavailability 

The  EQS  Directive  stipulates  that  Member  States  have  the  possibility,  when  assessing  the 
monitoring results against the Environmental Quality Standards, to take into account: 

(a) natural background concentrations for metals and their compounds, if they prevent 
compliance with the Environmental Quality Standards, and; 

(b)  hardness,  pH  or  other  water  quality  parameters  that  affect  the  bioavailability  of 
metals. 

In  the  Azores,  natural  background  concentrations  for  metals  were  taken  into  consideration 
where  such  concentrations  prevent  compliance  with  the  relevant  Environmental  Quality 

Standards. Such background concentrations are not reported to be taken into consideration for 
the Madeira RBD. No further information is provided for any other RBD.  

According to the reporting to WISE, only the Azores RBD took into account the bioavailability 
of  metals  when  assessing  exceedances  for  metals.  Madeira  reported  not  taking  it  into 

consideration,  and  no  information  was  reported  for  the  8  other  RBDs.  However,  Portugal 

30https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/78ce94bb-6f1c-4379-87ac-

88a18967c4c3/Technical%20Background%20Document%20on%20the%20Identification%20of%20Mixing%
20Zones.doc 

88 

 
 
                                                      
further  clarified  that  bioavailability  was  taken  into  account  in  the  assessment  of  status  for 

nickel and lead (although it was not clear whether this was for all RBDs or for the 8 RBDs for 
which no information had been reported). 

4.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Between the first and second RBMPs, there appears to be a net increase in monitoring sites and 

surface water bodies monitored for operational purposes (an increase of 144 sites and 71 water 
bodies), both due to a relatively large increase in river monitoring. For surveillance monitoring, 
the  number  of  sites  increased  by  125  although  the  number  of  water  bodies  decreased  by  35. 

The  extent  to  which  these  monitoring  sites  are  used  for  monitoring  of  chemical  status  is 
unclear. 

There  has  been  a  re-delineation  of  water  bodies  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs  and 
therefore a comparison of status should be treated with some caution. The number of surface 

water bodies increased from 1945 in the first RBMPs to 2040 in the second. The proportion of 
surface water bodies in good status decreased from around 40 % to 25 % between the first and 

second RBMPs. The proportion of surface water bodies failing to achieve good status remained 
very similar and unknown status increased from around 58 % to 74 % (surface water bodies in 

Portugal  not  monitored  for  chemical  status  are  generally  reported  as  in  unknown  status, 
although expert judgment was used in some cases). 

Portugal  did  not  report  any  monitoring  data  on  sediment  or  biota  in  WISE.  Portugal 
subsequently  clarified  that  from  2013  sampling  networks  for  sediments  and  biota  had  been 
implemented for the evaluation of long-term trends, and will be reported in the next RBMPs.31 

Portugal  reported  that  three  Priority  Substances  which  exceeded  their  standards  in  the  first 

RBMPs have now reached concentrations below those standards in at least some of the water 
bodies  where  they  were  previously  failing.  This  was  the  case  for  nickel  in  0.26  %  of  river 

water  bodies  in  the  Douro  RBD  and  in  0.44  %  of  river  water  bodies  in  the  Sado  and  Mira 
RBD; for 4-nonylphenol in 20 % of transitional water bodies in the Vouga, Mondego and Lis 

RBD, and for lead in 1.45 % of river water bodies in the Algarve Rivers RBD. No information 
was reported for the Azores32 and Madeira RBDs. 

31  Portugal  also  clarified  that  as  part  of  the  Operational  Programme  for  Sustainability  and  Efficient  Use  of 
Resources, they also intend to reinforce the knowledge regarding Priority Substances, specific pollutants and 
emerging compounds (e.g. pharmaceuticals and pesticides) in water bodies, relying on instantaneous sampling 
(i.e. traditional sampling) but also on passive sampling. 

32  Portugal stated that the  Azores RBD did not report improvements and/or exceedances  because pesticides and 
other priority substances monitored were always below the analytical detection limit. Portugal also stated that 

89 

 
 
                                                      
4.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programmes  of  Measures 
requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation:  Complete  the  development  of  methods  for  the  status  assessment  of 
water  bodies  and  determination  of  reference  conditions  and  apply  them  through  the 

implementation  of  robust  monitoring  programmes.  An  adequate  WFD-compliant 
assessment  and monitoring  framework is  a necessary pre-requisite to  design  effective 

Programme of Measures and ultimately to achieve the WFD objectives.  

Assessment:  33  of  the  41  Priority  Substances  are  reported  to  be  monitored  for  status 

assessment,  in  water  only.  Monitoring  frequencies  are  below  the  recommended 
minimum  frequencies  for  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring.  The  RBMPs  state 

that  a  risk  based  approach  to  monitoring  is  taken,  with  only  those  substances 
considered  to  be  presenting  a  risk  being  monitored.  However,  it  seems  that  not  all 

substances  identified  as  discharged  in  the  inventories  are  monitored  (Portugal 
subsequently mentioned that the E-PRTR data was used to establish the inventories and 

that some of the records were considered to be overestimated). The inventories often do 
not  include  all  Priority  Substances,  and  they  consider  only  point  sources  (and  not 

diffuse sources) so it is unclear whether all discharged substances have been identified. 

The  number  of  sites  and  water  bodies  covered  by  surveillance  or  operational 

monitoring  increased  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs,  although  it  is  unclear 
whether  all  these  sites  /  water  bodies  are  monitored  for  chemical  status.  The  spatial 

coverage  of  the  monitoring  programmes  still  seems  insufficient  to  allow  the 
classification  of  all  water  bodies  with  sufficient  certainty,  as  the  chemical  status  of  a 

significant proportion of water bodies (75 %) is still unknown. (Surface water bodies in 
Portugal  which  are  not  monitored  for  chemical  status  are  generally  reported  as  in 

unknown status, with expert judgment being applied in some cases). The proportion of 
water  bodies  in  unknown  status  increased  since  the  first  RBMPs  (this  may  only  be 

partially explained by the increase in the number of water bodies). In addition, about a 
third of the water bodies classified are associated with a low level of confidence in the 

assessment. 

taking  into  account  the  fact  that  the  risk  of  their  presence  in  Azores  water  bodies  is  considered  to  be 
insignificant, it was concluded that all water bodies were in good chemical status. 

90 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
No  monitoring  in  biota  was  reported  for  status  assessment,  although  Portugal 

subsequently  clarified that  some biota monitoring has been  carried out since 2013, in 
what appears to be a very limited number of sites.  

No  monitoring  for  trend  was  reported,  and  Portugal  subsequently  mentioned  that 
monitoring started in 2013, and was then performed also in 2014 and 2015 for 11 of the 

14 required Priority Substances, in what appears to be a very limited number of sites.  

This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

91 

 
 
 
 
  Monitoring, assessment and classification of 

Topic 5
quantitative status of groundwater bodies 

5.1 

Assessment  of  implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 
requirements in the second cycle 

5.1.1  Monitoring of quantitative status in groundwater 

The total number of groundwater bodies in Portugal is 151 (Table 2.2). 71 groundwater bodies 

(47%)  are  not  subject  to  monitoring  for  quantitative  status  (Table  5.1).  The  percentage  of 
groundwater bodies per RBD without monitoring for quantitative status ranges between 44 % 

and 100 %. The number of monitored groundwater bodies increased from  70 to 80 since the 
first RBMPs, but there is still no quantitative monitoring in the Azores and Madeira RBDs.33 

Further  investigations  found  that  none  of  the  assessed  RBMPs  mentions  grouping  in  the 
context of monitoring of groundwater bodies. For the Vouga, Mondego and Lis and Guadiana 

RBDs,  it  is  stated  that  for  water  bodies  that  are  not  included  in  the  monitoring  programme, 
grouping was used to characterise their status, together with modelling and expert judgement. 
For the Azores RBD, grouping is not mentioned at all.34 

The number of groundwater bodies increased from 149 in the first cycle to 151 in the second 
and  the  total  groundwater  body  area  remained  nearly  the  same.  125  groundwater  bodies 

remained  unchanged  since  the  first  RBMPs.  Due  to  a  modification  of  the  boundary  between 
the  two  RBDs,  in  the  Vouga,  Mondego  and  Lis  RBD  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies 

decreased from 30 to 22, while in the Tagus and West Rivers RBD the number increased from 
12 to20.  

33  In mainland Portugal, 80 groundwater bodies have quantitative monitoring stations, from the total of 93. In the 
Azores RBD there is no quantitative monitoring, but the number of wells is small (there are none in the Corvo 
and Flores islands). Quantitative status was determined mainly on the basis of the ratio between the available 
resources  and  the  discharges  through  natural  springs  and  abstraction  wells.  In  the  Madeira  RBD  four 
groundwater  were  delineated.  In  order  to  evaluate  the  quantitative  and  qualitative  status  of  the  groundwater 
bodies the data of the quantitative and qualitative monitoring carried out in the scope of the water management 
for  human  consumption  were  taken  into  account,  since  the  origin  of  the  water  for  human  consumption  is 
mostly  from  groundwater.  Since  Porto  Santo  is  supplied  by  desalinated  seawater,  monitoring  of  its 
groundwater body is being implemented, but considering the still limited information, the status of the water 
body was classified as unknown. The remaining three water bodies were classified as in good status. 

34   Portugal subsequently clarified that grouping was carried out in the Douro RBD, in the Tagus and West Rivers 
RBD,  in  the  Sado  and  Mira  RBD  and  in  the  Algarve  Rivers  RBD,  for  monitoring  and  status  assessment 
purposes.  

92 

 
 
                                                      
The number of monitored groundwater bodies increased from 70 in the first cycle to 80 in the 

second. The number of monitoring sites for quantitative status is listed in Table 5.3, and shows 
a slight increase, from 420 in the first cycle to 430 in the second. Neither in the first cycle nor 

in the second were the Azores and Madeira RBDs subject to monitoring. 

112  groundwater  bodies,  located  in  nine  RBDs,  are  identified  as  Drinking  Water  Protected 

Areas.  

Table 5.1 

RBD 

PTRH1 

PTRH2 

PTRH3 

PTRH4A 

PTRH5A 

PTRH6 

PTRH7 

PTRH8 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

Number of water bodies in Portugal directly monitored and purpose of 
monitoring 
Total 
groundwater 
bodies 
directly 
monitored 

QUA - 
Quantitative 
status 

OPE – 
Operational 
monitoring 

CHE - Chemical 
status 

Monitoring Purpose 

SUR – 
Surveillance 
monitoring 

2 

4 

2 

22 

20 

8 

7 

25 

33 (34) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

33 

0 

0 

1 

0 

3 

7 

0 

3 

4 

0 

0 

2 

3 

2 

20 

18 

4 

7 

24 

0 

0 

2 

4 

2 

22 

20 

7 

7 

22 

0 

0 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. The numbers in parenthesis were subsequently provided by 

Portugal on the basis of the spatial data reported to WISE. 

Table 5.2 

Proportion of groundwater bodies in Portugal monitored for quantitative 
status 

RBD 

PTRH1 

PTRH2 

PTRH3 

PTRH4A 

PTRH5A 

PTRH6 

PTRH7 

PTRH8 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

No of groundwater bodies 
with quantitative monitoring 

Total No. groundwater 
bodies 

% of total groundwater bodies 
monitored for quantitative status 

2 

3 

2 

20 

18 

4 

7 

24 

0 

0 

2 

4 

3 

22 

20 

9 

8 

25 

54 

4 

100.00 %  

75.00 %  

66.67 %  

90.91 %  

90.00 %  

44.44 %  

87.50 %  

96.00 %  

0.00 %  

0.00 %  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

93 

 
 
 
Table 5.3 

Number of groundwater monitoring sites in Portugal and their purpose 

RBD 

PTRH1 

PTRH2 

PTRH3 

PTRH4A 

PTRH5A 

PTRH6 

PTRH7 

PTRH8 

PTRH9 

PTRH10 

Total 
groundwater 
monitoring 
sites 

Monitoring Purpose 

CHE - Chemical 
status 

OPE - 
Operational 
monitoring 

QUA - 
Quantitative 
status 

SUR - 
Surveillance 
monitoring 

8 

31 

28 

267 

390 

27 

76 

207 

89  

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

89  

0 

0 

23 

0 

58 

64 

0 

26 

30 

0 

0 

4 

8 

10 

121 

133 

7 

19 

128 

0 

0 

6 

9 

21 

113 

239 

20 

35 

63 

0 

0 

Source: WISE electronic reporting.  

5.1.2  Assessment and classification of quantitative status for groundwater 

Map  5.1  displays  the  most  recently  assessed  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies.  It 
shows that 147 of the 151 groundwater bodies (97 %) were in good quantitative status and 4 (3 

%) are failing good status (Figure 5.1). In terms of area this means that about 1.5 % is failing 
good quantitative status. 

Figure 5.2 shows the level of confidence in status classification, with only 20 % (30) having 

high confidence. All groundwater bodies have a clear status in the second RBMPs, compared 
to  two  groundwater  bodies  with  unknown  status  in  the  first  RBMPs.  About  3  %  of  the 

groundwater bodies are at risk of failing good quantitative status. 

The total number of groundwater bodies failing good quantitative status increased from one in 

the first RBMPs to four in the second (from 1 % to 1.5 % in terms of area).  

In all 10 RBDs water balance  was  assessed by  a comparison  of annual  average  groundwater 
abstraction with the ‘available groundwater resource’ for every groundwater body. 

The  reasons  for  the  failure  of  good  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  are  shown  in 

Figure 5.3. All four groundwater bodies are failing good status due to failing the water balance 
test  which  means  that  the  long-term  annual  average  rate  of  groundwater  abstraction  is 
exceeding  the  available  groundwater  resource.  The  expected  date  of  achievement  of  good 

94 

 
 
  
 
quantitative status in Portugal is shown in Figure 5.4, with all groundwater bodies expected to 

achieve good status by 2027.  

In  all  10  RBDs  the  criterion  of  ‘available  groundwater  resource’  has  been  applied  in 

accordance with Article 2(27) of the WFD. 

Map 5.1 

Map of the most recently assessed quantitative status of groundwater bodies  

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4. 
Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

95 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Figure 5.1  Quantitative status of groundwater bodies in Portugal for the second RBMPs, 

for the first RBMPs and expected in 2015. The number in parenthesis is the 
number  of  groundwater  bodies  for  each  cycle.  NB  -  the  period  of  the 

assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 2009 to 2016. The year of the 
assessment of status for the first RBMPs is not known. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 5.2  Confidence in the classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 

in Portugal based on the most recent assessment of status. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5.3  Reasons for the failure of good quantitative status of groundwater in Portugal 

based on the most recent assessment of status. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Notes: 
‘Water balance’ = long-term annual average rate of abstraction exceeds the available groundwater resource which 
may result in a decrease of groundwater levels. 
‘Surface water’ = Failure to achieve Environmental Objectives (Article 4 WFD) for associated surface water 
bodies resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions; significant diminution of 
the status of surface waters resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions. 
‘Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems’ = Significant damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial 
ecosystems resulting from an anthropogenic water level alteration. 
‘Saline or other intrusion’ = Regional saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced 
sustained changes in flow direction. 

Figure 5.4  Expected date of achievement of good quantitative and good chemical status 

of  groundwater  bodies  in  Portugal.  151  groundwater  bodies  were  delineated 
for second RBMPs 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
All  relevant  environmental  objectives  were  considered  in  status  assessment  in  all  RBDs. 

Associated surface waters were not identified in three RBDs, the Cavado, Ave and Leca, the 
Douro  and  the  Guadiana,  and  hence  they  were  not  considered  in  status  assessment. 

Groundwater dependent  ecosystems  have not  been considered in  the status  assessment in  the 
Cavado, Ave and Leca RBD where no such ecosystems were identified. Saline intrusions were 

considered in seven of the ten RBDs (not in the Minho and Lima, Cavado, Ave and Leca and 
Douro RBDs).  

In total, four groundwater bodies are at risk of failing good quantitative status due to harm to 
actual or potential legitimate uses or functions of groundwater. 

5.1.3  Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

In  six  of  ten  RBDs  a  total  of  25  groundwater  bodies  with  groundwater  associated  surface 

waters  have  been  reported.  They  are  not  related  to  any  risk.  In  all  RBDs  where  such 
ecosystems were identified, they have been considered in status assessment. 

In  seven  RBDs  a  total  of  19  groundwater  bodies  with  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial 
ecosystems  have  been  reported.  They  are  not  related  to  a  risk.  In  all  RBDs  where  such 

ecosystems  are  identified,  they  have  been  considered  in  status  assessment.  Their  needs  have 
been considered in status assessment as well. 

5.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  slightly  increased  in  total.  125  out  of  the  151 
groundwater bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMPs. In the Vouga, Mondego and 

Lis RBD the number of groundwater bodies decreased from 30 to 22, while in the Tagus and 
West  Rivers  RBD  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  increased  from  12  to  20.  This  is 

explained by the fact that, in the second cycle, the Tagus and West Rivers RBD integrated the 
groundwater bodies of the Ribeiras do Oeste, which were part of the Vouga, Mondego, Lis and 

West Rivers RBD in the first cycle.  

The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good  status  increased  from  one  to  four.  In  the 

Vouga, Mondego and Lis RBD the number of groundwater bodies in poor quantitative status 
increased  from  one  to  three  For  two  groundwater  bodies  the  quantitative  status  deteriorated 

from good to poor due to abstractions for agricultural purposes. There is no further explanation 

98 

 
 
in the RBMP on whether the reason is an additional pressure or a change of pressure35. For the 
Azores RBD, there continues to be a lack of a monitoring network for quantitative status. The 
tests performed between the estimated available resources and the known abstractions (which 

in  general  are  not  significant  -  the  RBMP  states  that  most  abstractions  occur  in  springs) 
conclude that all groundwater bodies are in good quantitative status.  

All groundwater bodies were in good quantitative status in both cycles in the following RBDs: 
Minho and Lima, Cavado, Ave and Leca, Douro, Tagus and West Rivers, Sado and Mira and 

Guadiana. 

There are no explicit summaries in the RBMPs of the changes and updates that happened since 
the first RBMPs.  

5.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programmes  of  Measures 

requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation:  Complete  the  development  of  methods  for  the  status  assessment  of 
water  bodies  and  determination  of  reference  conditions  and  apply  them  through  the 

implementation  of  robust  monitoring  programmes.  An  adequate  WFD-compliant 
assessment  and monitoring  framework is  a necessary pre-requisite to  design  effective 

Programmes of Measures and ultimately to achieve the WFD objectives.  

Assessment: The recommendation is not fulfilled, although there is slight progress. The 
number  of  groundwater  bodies  with  quantitative  monitoring  increased  from  70  to  80. 

The  number  of  monitoring  sites  increased  from  420  to  430.  However,  71  of  151 
groundwater  bodies  are  still  not  subject  to  monitoring.  It  was  not  possible  within  the 

scope  of  this  assessment  to  confirm  whether  the  methods  for  status  assessment  have 
been developed or improved. A water balance method has been reported for all RBDs, 

but the confidence in status assessment is less than high for 40 % and unknown for a 
third of the groundwater bodies. 

35   Portugal subsequently clarified that the increase from one to three groundwater bodies in a poor quantitative 

status in the Vouga, Mondego, Lis RBD is due to better knowledge and assessment of the pressures.  

99 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical 

Topic 6
status of groundwater bodies 

6.1 

Assessment  of  implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 
requirements in the second cycle 

6.1.1  Monitoring of chemical status in groundwater 

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Portugal  is  151  (Table  2.2).  In  total,  65 

groundwater bodies (43 %) are not subject to surveillance monitoring (Table 5.1). About 14 % 
of the  groundwater bodies are at  risk and not all groundwater bodies  at  risk  in  the Sado and 

Mira  and  in  the  Algarve  Rivers  RBDs  are  subject  to  operational  monitoring:  18  of  the  21 
groundwater  bodies  at  risk  are  covered.  No  surveillance  monitoring  was  reported  for  the 
Azores and Madeira RBDs36. The RBMPs do not indicate that grouping of groundwater bodies 
was applied for monitoring and assessment of chemical status37. 

The number of groundwater bodies increased from 149 in the first cycle to 151 in the second 
and  the  total  groundwater  body  area  remained  nearly  the  same.  125  groundwater  bodies 

remained unchanged since the first cycle RMP. Due to a modification of the boundary between 
the  two  RBDs,  in  the  Vouga,  Mondego  and  Lis  RBD  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies 

decreased from 30 to 22, while in the Tagus and West Rivers RBD the number increased from 
12 to 20. 

The number of groundwater bodies with surveillance monitoring decreased significantly, from 

116 in the first cycle to 86 in the second. The number of monitoring sites is listed in Table 5.3 
and decreased significantly, from 575 in  the first cycle to  506 in the second. The number of 

operational monitoring sites decreased since the first cycle, from 215 (in 8 groundwater bodies) 
to 201 (in 18 groundwater bodies). 

All  substances  at  risk  of  causing  deterioration  in  chemical  status  are  subject  to  surveillance 
monitoring in the Cavado, Ave and Leca, Vouga, Mondego and Lis, Tagus and West Rivers, 

36   Portugal subsequently clarified that in the second cycle 99% of groundwater bodies in mainland Portugal have 
surveillance  monitoring.  Only  one  groundwater  body  is  not  monitored  but  this  will  be  covered  in  the  third 
cycle.  Monitoring  takes  place  also  in  the  Azores  and  the  Madeira  RBDs.  Operational  monitoring  is  only 
implemented for groundwater bodies in poor status. All groundwater bodies at risk are monitored even if this 
was not reported as ‘operational monitoring’. 

37   Portugal clarified that grouping for the purpose of monitoring and status assessment has been applied in each 

RBD. 

100 

 
 
                                                      
Guadiana and Algarve Rivers RBDs, but in the Sado and Mira and Azores RBDs they are not 

included in surveillance monitoring. All WFD core parameters, nitrates, ammonium, electrical 
conductivity, oxygen and pH, are monitored in only one RBD. None of them are monitored in 

the Madeira RBD and in the remaining eight RBDs ammonium and dissolved oxygen are not 
monitored38. 

6.1.2  Assessment and classification of chemical status in groundwater 

Map 6.1 and Figure 6.1 display the chemical status of groundwater bodies for the most recently 

assessed  status.  It  shows  that  136  of  151  groundwater  bodies  (90  %)  were  in  good  chemical 
status, 14 (9 %) were failing good status and the remaining one groundwater body (1 %) was in 

unknown status.  In terms of area this means that about 3 % are failing good chemical status. 
Figure  6.2  shows  the  confidence  in  status  classification.  The  number  of  groundwater  bodies 

with  unknown  status  improved  from  two  groundwater  bodies  in  the  first  cycle  to  one  in  the 
second.  

The total number of groundwater bodies failing good chemical status decreased since the first 

cycle, from 22 (15 %) to 14 (9 %) (Figure 6.1), representing a decrease from 4.9 % to 2.7 % of 
the total groundwater body area. The expected date of achievement of good chemical status in 

Portugal is shown in Figure 5.4. 

The reasons for failure of good chemical status of groundwater bodies are shown in Figure 6.3. 

For 11 groundwater bodies the general assessment of the chemical status for the groundwater 

body as a whole was failed. This assessment considers the significant environmental risk from 
pollutants  across  a  groundwater  body  and  a  significant  impairment  of  the  ability  to  support 

human uses. Three groundwater bodies are failing good chemical status due to saline or other 
intrusion. Figure 6.4 shows the pollutants causing failure of status and Figure 6.5 shows the top 

pollutants causing a sustained upward trend. 

In six RBDs the calculation of the extent of exceedance is based on the groundwater body area. 
In  two  RBDs  the  extent  of  exceedance  of  a  groundwater  quality  standard  or  a  groundwater 

threshold value was not calculated as there are no such exceedances. In the other two RBDs no 

38 Portugal subsequently clarified that all WFD core parameters are monitored in all of the mainland RBDs.  

101 

 
 
                                                      
method was reported, although in the Azores RBD three groundwater bodies are in poor status. 
The RBMPs do not provide any explanation on how the extent of exceedance is calculated39. 

In all RBDs groundwater threshold values have been established for all pollutants or indicators 
of  pollution  causing  a  risk  of  failure  of  good  chemical  status  and  Groundwater  Directive40 
Annex II substances have been considered. In all RBDs natural background levels have been 

considered  in  the  establishment  of  groundwater  threshold  values.  A  trend  methodology  is 
available  and  assessments  have  been  performed  in  six  of  the  ten  RBDs.  A  trend  reversal 

methodology has only been reported in the Azores RBD. 

39  Portugal  subsequently  explained  that  the  determination  of  the  chemical  status  was  based  in  particular  on  the 
following  elements  of  analysis:  hydrogeochemical  data  obtained  in  the  framework  of  the  operation  of  the 
surveillance  monitoring  network;  information  on  the  chemistry  of  groundwater  bodies  from  other  sources; 
information  on  the  state  of  surface  water  bodies;  information  on  the  identification  of  any  dependent 
ecosystems affected by the composition of groundwater bodies; information on threshold values.Compliance 
with  the  parameters  and  objectives  of  good  chemical  status  of  the  water  bodies  is  measured  by  a  chain-up 
series  of  five  tests.  The  poor  status  of  the  three  water  bodies  in  the  Azores  RBD  is  associated  with  saline 
intrusion pressures. 

40   Groundwater Directive (GWD): Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 
December  2006  on  the  protection  of  groundwater  against  pollution  and  deterioration.  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32006L0118  

102 

 
 
                                                      
Map 6.1  Map  of  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Portugal  based  on  the  most 

recently assessed status  

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5. 
Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

103 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.1 

Chemical status of groundwater bodies in Portugal for the second RBMPs, 

for  the  first  RBMPs  and  expected  in  2015.  The  number  in  parenthesis  is 
the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  for  each  cycle.  NB  -  the  period  of 

assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 2009 to 2016. The year of 
assessment of status for first RBMPs is not known. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 6.2 

Confidence in the classification of chemical status of groundwater  bodies 
in Portugal based on the most recent assessment of status. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.3 

Reasons  for  failing  good  chemical  status  in  Portugal  for  the  most  recent 

assessment of status. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Notes: 
‘Surface water’ = Failure to achieve Environmental Objectives (Article 4 WFD) in associated surface water 
bodies or significant diminution of the ecological or chemical status of such surface water bodies. 

‘Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems’ = Significant damage to terrestrial ecosystems which depend 
directly on the groundwater body. 

‘Saline or other intrusion’ = Regional saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced 
sustained changes in flow direction. 

‘Drinking Water Protected Area’ = Deterioration in quality of waters for human consumption. 

‘General water quality assessment’ = Significant impairment of human uses; significant environmental risk from 
pollutants across the groundwater body. 

6.1.3  Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

In six of the ten RBDs a total of 25 groundwater bodies with groundwater associated surface 
waters  have  been  reported.  They  are  not  linked  to  any  risk.  These  aquatic  ecosystems  have 

been  considered  in  status  assessment  in  one  of  these  six  RBDs.  Figure  6.6  shows  the 
percentage of groundwater bodies at risk of failing good chemical status and good quantitative 

status. 

In  seven  RBDs  a  total  of  19  groundwater  bodies  with  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial 

ecosystems  have  been  reported.  They  are  not  related  to  a  risk.  In  all  RBDs  where  such 
ecosystems are identified, they have been considered in status assessment. 

Groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems 

have been not been considered in the establishment of groundwater threshold values. 

105 

 
 
 
 
Figure 6.4 

Top groundwater pollutants causing failure of good chemical status in 

Portugal. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 
Note: only 9 pollutants reported causing failure. 

Figure 6.5 

Top pollutants with upward trends in groundwater bodies in Portugal 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 6.6 

Percentage of groundwater bodies in Portugal at risk of failing good chemical 

status and good quantitative status for the second RBMPs. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The total number of groundwater bodies slightly increased in total, with significant changes at 
RBD  level.  125  of  the  151  groundwater  bodies  remained  unchanged  since  the  first  RBMPs. 

Due to a modification of the boundary between the two RBDs, in the Vouga, Mondego and Lis 
RBD the number of groundwater bodies decreased from 30 to 22, while in the Tagus and West 

Rivers RBD it increased from 12 to 20.  

The  monitoring  situation  deteriorated.  The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  with  surveillance 

monitoring  decreased  significantly,  from  116  of  149  groundwater  bodies  (78  %)  in  the  first 
cycle to 86 of 151 groundwater bodies (57 %) in the second cycle. The number of monitoring 

sites decreased from 575 in the first cycle to 506 in the second . Operational monitoring is only 
established in 18 of 21 groundwater bodies at risk of failing good chemical status. WFD core 

parameters  are  not  fully  subject  to  monitoring.  No  summaries  of  changes  on  monitoring  of 
groundwater bodies are included in the RBMPs. It was only mentioned that in the Azores RBD 

the groundwater monitoring network remained as for the first cycle. 

The  status  situation  improved.  The  total  groundwater  body  area  failing  good  chemical  status 
decreased  since  the  first  RBMPs,  from  4.9  %  to  2.7  %  (from  22  groundwater  bodies  to  14 

groundwater bodies). These changes in status are due to re-delineation of groundwater bodies 
and  changes  in  the  status  assessment  methodology.  The  deadline  for  implementing  measures 

was the end of the first cycle so there has not been sufficient time to assess the effectiveness of 
the measures. Some measures, however, were not implemented. 

6.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  first  Programmes  of 

Measures requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation:  Complete  the  development  of  methods  for  the  status  assessment  of 
water  bodies  and  determination  of  reference  conditions  and  apply  them  through  the 

implementation  of  robust  monitoring  programmes.  An  adequate  WFD-compliant 
assessment  and monitoring  framework is  a necessary pre-requisite to  design  effective 

Programmes of Measures and ultimately to achieve the WFD objectives.  

Assessment:  The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  with  surveillance  monitoring 

decreased significantly, from 116 of 149 groundwater bodies (78 %) in the first cycle to 
86 of 151 groundwater bodies (57 %) in the second cycle and there is no indication that 

107 

 
 
grouping of groundwater bodies for monitoring and assessment of chemical status was 

applied. 

Operational monitoring is not complete and is only established in 18 of 21 groundwater 

bodies  at  risk  of  failing  good  chemical  status.  WFD  core  parameters  are  not  fully 
subject to monitoring.  

However, Portugal clarified that most of the issues highlighted above are implemented 

(see  previous  sub-sections  in  this  report).  Therefore,  despite  the  WISE  reported  data, 
the additional information provided by Portugal indicates that, for groundwater bodies, 

this recommendation is largely fulfilled.  

108 

 
 
 
  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water 

Topic 7
Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential 

7.1 

Assessment  of  implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 
requirements in the second cycle for designation  

7.1.1  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies 

In  the  second  RBMPs,  heavily  modified  water  bodies  and/or  artificial  water  bodies  are 

designated (Figure 7.1) in the 8 mainland RBDs as well as in the Madeira RBD. For Madeira, 
43  river  water  bodies  have  been  designated  as  artificial  (31  %  of  all  river  water  bodies), 

whereas none were designated in the first cycle. In the first RBMP, it had been mentioned that 
although  artificial  water  bodies  existed  in  the  Madeira  RBD,  lack  of  data  prevented  their 

delimitation and characterisation.  

No heavily modified water bodies or artificial water bodies are designated in the Azores RBD. 

The RBMP states that no heavily modified water bodies have been identified but, for instance 
for the islands of São Miguel and Terceira, some areas, namely ports, have been identified as 

having  heavily  modified  water  body  characteristics.  A  procedure  for  their  designation  as 
heavily  modified  water  bodies  is  ongoing,  in  accordance  with  Common  Implementation 

Strategy Guidance documents no. 4 and no. 5. No indication is given on when this process will 
be completed. 

In  all  8  mainland  RBDs,  there  are  several  reservoirs  designated  as  heavily  modified  water 

bodies which were originally rivers. This  is  the case for about  half of the designated heavily 
modified rivers in mainland Portugal.  

The  main  water  uses  for  which  river  water  bodies  are  designated  as  heavily  modified  water 
bodies  are  hydropower  production,  drinking  water  supply  for  urban  areas,  irrigation  for 

agriculture  and  other  uses.  There  is  only  one  coastal  heavily  modified  water  body,  in  the 
Algarve Rivers RBD, which is designated due to storage for fisheries/aquaculture/fish farms. 

For  transitional  heavily  modified  water  bodies,  the  main  water  uses  are  navigation  /  ports, 
agricultural land drainage and irrigation, tourism / recreation. 

The  main  physical  alterations  of  river  heavily  modified  water  bodies  are  weirs  /  dams  / 

reservoirs or other physical  alterations (not specified in  the WISE reporting). For the  coastal 
heavily  modified  water  bodies  in  the  Algarve  Rivers  RBD,  the  physical  alteration  is  not 

109 

 
 
specified  in  the  WISE  reporting.  For  transitional  heavily  modified  water  bodies,  the  main 

reported  physical  alterations  are  channelisation  /  straightening  /  bed  stabilisation  /  bank 
reinforcement.  

Figure 7.1 

Proportion of total water bodies in each category in Portugal that has been 
designated as heavily modified or artificial.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Some information is provided on how the significant adverse effects of restoration measures on 
the use and the wider environment (Article 4(3)(a)) have been defined. Overall, these decisions 

seem  to  be  taken  on  a  case-by-case  basis  at  water  body  level,  without  agreed  criteria.  The 
RBMPs  present  water  body  templates  which  compile  information  on  the  designation  criteria 

for the specific heavily modified water bodies, mostly on the hydromorphological changes. For 
the  stretches  downstream  of  dams  used  for  hydropower  and  other  uses,  the  water  body 

templates refer to the significant adverse effect on the use, which is mostly reduced amount of 
available water for human consumption, for farming or for energy production. The templates 

mention  that  ecological  flow  regimes  will  be  implemented  (for  the  stretches  of  rivers 

110 

 
 
 
downstream  of the dams) and that confirmation  of the characterisation will  be performed for 

the third RBMPs. 

7.1.2  Definition  of  Good  Ecological  Potential  for  Heavily  Modified  and  Artificial 

Water Bodies 

Good ecological  potential is  reported as  defined in  8 of 10 RBDs (not defined in  the Azores 

and Madeira RBDs). A hybrid approach combining elements of the Common Implementation 
Strategy  Guidance  (approach  based  on  biological  quality  elements  as  illustrated  in  Common 

Implementation Strategy Guidance No 4) and the Prague approach (based on the identification 
of  mitigation  measures)  has  been  used  for  good  ecological  potential  definition.  Definition  of 

good ecological potential has taken place for groups of heavily modified water bodies/artificial 
water bodies of the same use/physical modification.  

A method for good ecological potential is available for mainland Portugal for rivers (including 

reservoirs), coastal and transitional waters. Classification has been based on monitoring data of 
2010-2013.  There  is  a  generic  statement  that  good  ecological  potential  definition  will  be 

improved in the future, particularly in the Azores and Madeira RBDs, but no further details are 
provided. 

In the WISE reporting, good ecological potential is reported as defined in terms of biology, but 
the  only  biological  quality  element  for  which  biological  values  have  been  derived  to  define 

maximum  ecological  potential  and  good  ecological  potential  is  phytoplankton.  No  other 
biological  quality  elements  sensitive  to  hydromorphological  changes  seem  to  be  included  in 

the biological definition of good ecological potential.  

In general, good ecological potential is defined using the same assessment methods and metrics 
as  for  the  ecological  status.  The  only  difference  is  for  reservoirs,  where  specific  metrics  are 

used  for  phytoplankton.  For  the  reservoirs  of  northern  type,  the  Mediterranean  Reservoir 
Phytoplankton Evaluation Index is used. For the reservoirs of southern type, only chlorophyll a 

is  used.  For  the  main  flow  type  reservoirs,  the  metrics  used  are  the  same  defined  for  the 
southern type. 

For  the  other  water  categories,  it  is  not  clear  which  biological  quality  elements  are  used  for 
good ecological potential definition and in which way. 

Biological  quality  element  assessment  methods  which  are  sensitive  to  hydrological  and/or 

morphological  changes  are  reported  for  all  water  categories.  For  rivers,  there  are  methods 

111 

 
 
sensitive  to  hydrological  and  morphological  changes  for  macrophytes  and  fish,  methods 

sensitive  to  morphology  only  for  benthic  invertebrates  and  methods  sensitive  to  hydrology 
only for phytobenthos. For lakes, there are methods sensitive only to hydrology for assessing 

phytoplankton.  For  coastal  waters,  there  is  a  method  for  assessing  macroalgae  sensitive  to 
morphological  changes.  For  transitional  waters,  there  are  methods  in  place  for  assessing 

macroalgae  and  angiosperms,  which  are  sensitive  to  morphological  changes.  For  the  Azores 
RBD, there are sensitive methods reported to be in place but these methods are not specified.  

Although  several  methods  for  assessing  different  biological  quality  elements  are  reported  as 
sensitive  to  hydrological  and  morphological  changes,  it  is  not  clear  if  these  have  been 

considered  already  for  the  good  ecological  potential  methodology,  since  only  values  for 
phytoplankton have been used. 

Mitigation measures for defining good ecological potential have been reported for nine RBDs 

(the  eight  where  good  ecological  potential  is  defined  and  the  Madeira  RBD,  where  good 
ecological  potential  is  not  defined).  The  ecological  changes  expected  due  to  the  mitigation 

measures  are  described  in  a  qualitative  way.  The  template  for  each  heavily  modified  water 
body  contains  the  foreseen  measures  and  it  is  stated  (particularly  for  heavily  modified  water 

bodies downstream of reservoirs) that ecological flow regimes will be implemented and their 
impacts  (also  on  water  body  status)  will  be  assessed.  No  information  could  be  found  on  a 

library of mitigation measures for defining maximum/good ecological potential. 

A comparison between good ecological potential and good ecological status has not been done 
in any of the RBDs.41 

7.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

No  information  was  found  in  the  second  RBMPs  on  the  methodology  for  heavily  modified 

water body designation having changed since the first RBMPs. 

However, the reasons for changes in the number or size of water bodies designated as heavily 

modified water bodies and artificial water bodies since the first RBMPs are explained. 

As  mentioned  above,  for  Madeira,  artificial  river  water  bodies  have  been  designated  in  the 
second RBMPs, whereas none had been designated in the first RBMPs. These artificial water 

41 According to the WFD Reporting Guidance 2016, on the comparability between GEP and GES, see conclusions 
of the 2010 CIS HMWB workshop, paragraph 60A: https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/cd419883-ff4d-4d43-a82b-
aef3d33e04ed/Conclusions%20HMWB%20workshop%20Brussels%20March%202009.pdf.  

112 

 
 
                                                      
bodies are irrigation water channels, called "levadas", and watering nearly 47,000 land parcels 
in the Madeira RBD. “Levadas” have existed since the 15th century and, in the first RBMPs, it 
was not possible to delimit them. In the second RBMPs, there continues to be no data to allow 

characterisation of their ecological potential. 

In  the  RBDs  of  mainland  Portugal,  reservoirs  of  larger  dams  were  in  general  considered  as 

heavily modified lake water bodies in the first RBMPs. According to the Reporting Guidance, 
in  the  second  RBMPs  those  water  bodies  have  been  re-designated  as  heavily  modified  river 

water bodies. In the Portuguese territory, natural lakes only exist in the Azores.  

In  some  RBDs  (especially  in  the  Sado  and  Mira  and  Guadiana  RBDs),  there  are  newly 
designated river heavily  modified water bodies and river artificial water  bodies. Some of the 

new  designations  of  river  heavily  modified  water  bodies  are  due  to  reasons  such  as 
channelling,  improvements  in  data  (comparing  natural  and  modified  flow),  improvements  in 

hydromorphological  monitoring  and  revisions  of  water  body  limits  (subdivision  of  former 
heavily modified water bodies). Certain heavily modified water bodies have been changed to 

natural water bodies due to the implementation of ecological flows.  

No  explicit  description  of  improvements  made  since  the  first  cycle  to  the  method  for  good 

ecological  potential  definition  could  be  found  in  the  RBMPs.  There  is  only  a  brief  reference 
stating that the improvement consists in the use of more biological quality elements to define 

good ecological potential than was possible in the first cycle. For reservoirs (heavily modified 
river  water  bodies),  however,  only  phytoplankton  is  used,  as  was  the  case  in  the  first  cycle. 

Portuguese  authorities  communicated  that  improvements  made  to  the  method  for  good 
ecological  potential  result  from  the  revision/refinement  of  some  BQE  assessment  methods, 

from the intercalibration and adoption of new methods for other BQEs and from the adoption 
of a hybrid CIS Guidance/Prague Approach for the definition of ecological potential. 

7.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  first  Programmes  of 
Measures requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation:  "Improve  the  designation  of  Heavily  Modified  Water  Bodies  and 
avoid the automatic designation of water body’s downstream big dams. A methodology 
to  establish  good  ecological  potential  should  be  developed.  Its  application  should  be 
documented in the RBMPs." 

113 

 
 
Assessment: Although no information was found on modifications to the methodology 

for  heavily  modified  water  bodies  designation,  the  designations  of  several  heavily 
modified water bodies has been reviewed to take account of Common Implementation 

Strategy guidance and improved characterisation. No evidence was found of automatic 
designation of water bodies downstream of large dams.  

No  explicit  description  of  improvements  made  to  the  method  for  good  ecological 
potential definition since the first cycle could be found in the RBMPs. There is only a 

brief  reference  stating  that  the  improvement  consists  in  the  use  of  more  biological 
quality elements to define good ecological potential than was possible in the first cycle. 

For  reservoirs  (heavily  modified  river  water  bodies),  however,  only  phytoplankton  is 
used,  as  was  the  case  in  the  first  cycle.  Portuguese  authorities  communicated  that 

improvements  made  to  the  method  for  good  ecological  potential  result  from  the 
revision/refinement  of  some  BQE  assessment  methods,  from  the  intercalibration  and 

adoption  of  new  methods  for  other  BQEs  and  from  the  adoption  of  a  hybrid  CIS 
Guidance/Prague  Approach  for  the  definition  of  ecological  potential.  Portuguese 

authorities  have  also  reported  that  the  methodologies  for  the  designation  and 
classification  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies  are  still  being  reviewed  as  part  of 

ongoing developments within the Common Implementation Strategy. 

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

114 

 
 
 
Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions 

8.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

8.1.1  Environmental objectives 

The  environmental  objectives  are  defined  in  Article  4  of  the  WFD.  The  aim  is  long-term 
sustainable water management based on a high level of protection of the aquatic environment. 

Article 4(1) defines the WFD general objective to be achieved in all surface and groundwater 
bodies,  i.e.  good  status  by  2015.  Within  that  general  objective,  specific  environmental 

objectives are defined for heavily modified water bodies (good ecological potential and good 
chemical status by 201542), groundwaters (good chemical and quantitative status by 2015) and 
Protected  Areas  (achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the  associated  Directive  by  2015  unless 
otherwise specified).  

Environmental objectives for surface water ecological and chemical status have been reported 
in  all  RBDs  and  this  is  also  the  case  for  quantitative  and  chemical  status  for  groundwater. 

Following  the  Commission’s  recommendation  from  the  first  cycle,  Portugal  provides  in  the 
second  RBMPs  clear  information  on  when  it  is  planned  that  water  bodies  will  achieve  good 

status (2021 or 2027). 

Member States are also required to define additional environmental objectives and standards in 

Protected  Areas  where  these  are  necessary  to  ensure  that  the  requirements  of  the  associated 
Directive  are  met.  An  assessment  of  such  additional  objectives  for  Portugal  is  provided  in 

Chapter 15 of this report. 

Assessments of the current status of surface and groundwater bodies in Portugal are provided 

elsewhere in this report: for ecological status/potential of surface waters (Chapter 3); chemical 
status  of  surface  waters  (Chapter  4);  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  (Chapter  5); 

chemical status of groundwater bodies (Chapter 6); status of surface and groundwater bodies 
associated with Protected Areas (Chapter 15). 

For the second RBMPs, Member States were required to report the date when they expect each 

surface  and  groundwater  body  to  meet  its  environmental  objectives.  This  information  is 
summarised for Portugal elsewhere in this report, in the same chapters mentioned above.  

42 For priority substances newly introduced by Directive 2013/39/EU, good status should be reached by 2027, and 
for  the  2008  priority  substances,  for  which  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  were  revised  by  Directive 
2013/39/EU, good status should be reached in 2021. 

115 

 
 
                                                      
8.1.2  Exemptions 

Where  environmental  objectives  are  not  yet  achieved  exemptions  can  be  applied  in  case  the 
respective conditions are met and the required justifications are presented in the RBMPs. 

Figure 8.1 summarises the percentage of water bodies expected to be at least in good status in 
2015 and the use of at least one exemption in Portugal for the four main sets of environmental 

objectives. 

Figure 8.1 

Water bodies in Portugal expected to be in at least good status in 2015 and 
use of exemptions. 1 = Surface water body ecological status/potential; 2 = 
Surface  water  body  chemical  status;  3  =  Groundwater  body  quantitative 
status; 4 = Groundwater body chemical status 

Source: WISE electronic reports43 

Article 4 of the WFD allows for different exemptions to the objectives: extension of deadlines 
beyond  2015,  less  stringent  objectives,  a  temporary  deterioration,  or  deterioration  /  non-

achievement of good status / potential due to new modifications, provided a set of conditions 
are fulfilled. The exemptions under Article 4 of the WFD include the provisions in Article 4(4) 

- extension of deadline, 4(5) - lower objectives, 4(6) - temporary deterioration and 4(7) - new 
modifications / new sustainable human development activities. Article 4(4) exemptions may be 

justified by disproportionate cost, technical feasibility or natural conditions, and Article 4(5) by 
disproportionate cost or technical feasibility.  

43  Portugal  subsequently  clarified  that  waterbodies  with  unknown  status  and  their  respective  environmental 

objectives were not included in WISE reporting. 

116 

 
 
 
                                                      
In  addition,  Article  6(3)  of  Directive  2006/118/EC  on  the  protection  of  groundwater  against 

pollution  and  deterioration  allows  Member  States  to  exempt  inputs  of  pollutants  to 
groundwaters under certain specified circumstances. 

Figure 8.2 summarises the percentage of water bodies subject to each type of exemption (and 
reason) in relation to the four types of environmental objectives in Portugal. 

Figure 8.2 

Type  of  exemptions  applied  to  surface  water  and  groundwater  bodies  for 
the  second  RBMPs  in  Portugal.  Note:  Ecological  status  and  groundwater 
quantitative  status  exemptions  are  reported  at  the  water  body  level. 
Chemical  exemptions  for  groundwater  are  reported  at  the  level  of  each 
pollutant  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status,  and  for  surface  waters 
for each Priority Substances that is causing failure of good chemical status 

Source: WISE electronic reports44 

44  Portugal  subsequently  clarified  that  waterbodies  with  unknown  status  and  their  respective  environmental 

objectives were not included in the WISE reporting. 

117 

 
 
 
                                                      
Application of Article 4(4) 

The application of Article 4(4) in surface waters and groundwaters has increased since the first 
cycle. For surface and groundwater in the first cycle the justifications in relation to Article 4(4) 

only referred to technical feasibility and natural conditions and this reasoning has not changed 
in the second cycle for groundwaters. For surface waters, however, also disproportionate costs 

are  now  used  as  a  justification  in  all  RBDs  except  the  Algarve  Rivers  RBD  and  the  Azores 
RBD. Justification at waterbody level is provided in all mainland and the Azores RBMPs. 

For the  Douro RBMP a  more in-depth  assessment  was  carried out  in  relation  to  exemptions. 
The  plan  separates  justifications  due  to  natural  conditions45  and  those  due  to  technical 
conditions,  but  some  of  the  justifications  included  in  technical  conditions  are  indeed  natural 
conditions and vice-versa46. Technical justifications include:  

 

interventions on wastewater treatment plants that cannot be concluded prior to 2021;  

  ecological flows that need to be tested and adjusted, which takes time;  

  control  measures  of  diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  and  ecological  restoration 

measures whose effects take time (also due to natural conditions);  

 

the  improvement  of  classification  methods  with  more  elements,  including  biological 

quality elements, that change the classification of water bodies; and  

  articulation with measures implemented in Spain.  
In the Azores RBD, technical feasibility justifications for surface water included:  

  some of the measures require conversion of pastures in forests,  

  some measures require infrastructure,  

  some measures involve land acquisitions, and  

 

technical complexity of changing currently stable conditions (for instance, a lagoon 

with a high degree of eutrophication that has been stable for 70 years).  
In the Madeira RBMP the only justification provided, for the water bodies with objectives set 

for 2021, is that the pressures are unknown.  

For  all  RBMPs  where  disproportionate  costs  are  used  as  a  justification  for  exemptions,  the 

indicated reasons  are social and sectorial  impacts or ‘other’.  In the Douro RBMP it is  stated 

45 It should be noted that the justifications of natural conditions in the RBMPs do not correspond to those reported 

in WISE. 

46  Portugal  subsequently  explained  that  the  reasoning  for  the  exemptions  and  the  timeframes  to  achieve 
environmental objectives might be better developed and reflected in the RBMPs. However, the use of natural 
conditions or technical feasibility depends on the type of measures to improve the status of the water bodies, 
as well as the type of quality elements responsible for the status of the water body. Technical feasibility is used 
if  the  measures  needed  imply  a  technical  effort  to  produce  results,  e.g.,  ecological  restoration  measures  or 
control measures of diffuse pollution of agricultural origin. 

118 

 
 
                                                      
that 21 % of exemptions are due to disproportionate costs (Article 4(4)). The reasons are that 

measures are too costly to be implemented during the first two cycles, and, aso because of the 
transboundary nature of the basin, that measures need to be articulated with those implemented 

in  Spain.  In  the  Madeira  RBD  it  is  indicated  in  the  RBMP  that  Article  4(4)  exemptions 
justified by disproportionate costs are those for which there is a risk that the cost is too high 

with relation to the benefit. 

The  Douro  RBD  presents  natural  conditions  as  a  justification  for  waterbodies  achieving  the 

objectives only in 2021 - this is the case for 76 river water bodies and three reservoirs. Some of 
the justifications for natural conditions are more of the nature of technical feasibility47. In the 
Azores  RBD,  natural  conditions  are  referred  to  but  sometimes  without  justification. 
Justifications  include  the  response  time  of  ecosystems,  volcanic  activities  that  might  have 

influence  on  some  parameters  and  on  achieving  good  status,  natural  characteristics  (namely 
deep lakes) as well as the bathymetry and morphology of the bottom and sediment dynamics. 

The  drivers  causing  exemptions  in  surface  waters  in  which  are  common  to  all  RBDs  are 
agriculture  and  urban  development.  Additional  drivers  are  industry  in  the  Cavado,  Ave  and 
Leca,  Douro,  Vouga,  Mondego  and  Lis,  Tagus  and  West  Rivers  and  Sado  and  Mira  RBDs; 

energy  in  the  Cavado,  Ave  and  Leca,  Douro,  Vouga,  Mondego  and  Lis,  Tagus  and  West 
Rivers, Sado and Mira, Guadiana and Azores RBDs; fisheries and aquaculture in the Vouga, 

Mondego and Lis, Sado and Mira, Algarve Rivers and Madeira RBDs; flood protection in the 
Vouga, Mondego and Lis and Tagus and West Rivers RBDs; and tourism and recreation in the 

Douro, Tagus and West Rivers, Algarve Rivers and Madeira RBDs.  

For groundwaters, agriculture is the driver in the Cavado, Ave and Leca, Vouga, Mondego and 

Lis, Tagus and West Rivers, Guadiana and Algarve Rivers RBDs. In the Sado and Mira RBD 
the  main  driver  is  industry  and  in  the  Algarve  Rivers  RBD  the  main  driver  is  tourism  and 

recreation. For the Azores RBD the drivers are not known. 

The  pressures  responsible  for  exemptions  in  relation  to  good  status  in  surface  waters  in  all 

RBDs except Madeira stem from a broad range of activities including urbanisation, industry, 
agriculture,  mining,  abstraction  and  activities  causing  changes  in  hydromorphology  (Table 

8.1). In the Madeira RBD, the anthropogenic pressures are unknown.  

47 As mentioned above, Portugal subsequently explained that the reasoning for the exemptions and the timeframes 
to  achieve  environmental  objectives  might  be  better  developed  and  reflected  in  the  RBMPs.In  the  case  of 
natural conditions, the reasons were, e.g., the lengthy recovery of aquatic ecosystems in waterbodies subject to 
prolonged pressures and water bodies, such as reservoirs with nutrient pressures, where the natural retention 
capacity depends on several factors and recovery is also lengthy. 

119 

 
 
                                                      
For groundwaters (Table 8.2) the main pressures are ‘diffuse pollution agriculture’ and ‘point 

sources from settlements and industry’. Contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites play a 
role in the Sado and Mira and Guadiana RBDs. 

Table 8.1 

Pressure on surface waters responsible for Priority Substances in Portugal 
failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  in  surface  waters  and  for  which 

exemptions have been applied 

Significant pressure on 
surface water bodies 

1.1 - Point - Urban waste water 

1.3 - Point - IED plants 

1.4 - Point - Non IED plants 

2.1 - Diffuse - Urban run-off 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2.5 - Diffuse - Contaminated 
sites or abandoned industrial 
sites 

2.6 - Diffuse - Discharges not 
connected to sewerage network 

2.10 - Diffuse - Other 

Failing 
Priority 
Substances 

Article 4(4) - 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 

Article 4(4) - 
Disproportionate 
cost 

Article 4(4)- 
Natural 
conditions 

Number 

Number 

Number 

Number 

4 

2 

4 

2 

4 

2 

1 

2 

11 

2 

4 

2 

11 

3 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

2 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

Source: Member State reports to WISE 

Table 8.2 

Pressure  responsible  for  pollutants  in  Portugal  failing  to  achieve  good 

chemical  status  in  groundwater  and  for  which  exemptions  have  been 
applied  

Significant pressure on groundwater 

1.9 - Point - Other 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

6.1 - Groundwater - Recharges 

9 - Anthropogenic pressure - Historical pollution 

Number of failing 
pollutants 

Number of exemptions 

Article 4(4) - Technical 
feasibility 

2 

1 

1 

6 

4 (3) 

10 

1 

6 (1) 

Source: Member State reports to WISE. The numbers in brackets were subsequently provided by Portugal and do 

not match the data reported to WISE. 

The  main  impacts  of  the  exemptions  on  surface  waters  are  nutrient,  chemical  and  organic 
pollution as well as altered habitats. 

For groundwater, the main impacts are diffuse nutrient pollution in several RBDs. 

120 

 
 
Application of Article 4(5) 

Article 4(5) was not applied, as had already been the case in the first cycle.  

Application of Article 4(6) 

Article 4(6) has not been reported to be applied in the second cycle48. However, the RBMPs 
outline  the  potential  application  of  Article  4(6).  The  Plans  refer  to  water  bodies  potentially 
affected  by  temporary  deterioration  of  environmental  objectives  once  they  are  exposed  to 
events such as floods, droughts and pollution accidents.  

Application of Article 4(7) 

Article  4(7)  has  been  applied  in  the  Douro,  Vouga,  Mondego  and  Lis  and  Algarve  Rivers 
RBDs. The application of Article 4(7) in the Douro RBD and in the Vouga, Mondego and Lis 

RBD  is  linked  to  the  building  of  new  dams  for  hydroelectricity  production.  In  the  Algarve 
Rivers RBD the application of Article 4(7) was related to drinking water.  

Portugal  subsequently  clarified  that  the  National  Programme  of  Dams,  which  includes  the 
projects  concerned,  was  approved  in  2007  and  was  at  that  time  subject  to  a  Strategic 

Environmental  Assessment,  with  a  conditionally  favourable  environmental  statement  before 
the  first  WFD  planning  cycle.  Each  project  was  then  subject  to  an  EIA  with  a  conditionally 

favourable  environmental  impact  statement  issued  up  to  2011  (before  approval  of  the  first 
RBMPs).  

In this regard at this stage all the analysis required under Article 4 (7), had already been made 
as  part  of  the  SEA.  In  the  first  RBMPs,  elements  of  analysis  of  what  had  been  done  were 

included. As regards the objectives of the Plan and the assessment of alternative solutions, both 
aspects have been comprehensively addressed in the framework of the Strategic Environmental 

Assessment  of  the  National  Programme  of  Dams.  In  the  second  RBMPs,  the  decision  to 
authorise the projects was no longer in question, since this phase had already been concluded. 

These projects are now under construction. Portugal further clarified that a national assessment 
methodology has been applied.  

Application of Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive 

Exemptions under Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive have not been applied. 

48 Portugal subsequently communicated that this was due to mistakes in reporting to WISE.  

121 

 
 
 
                                                      
8.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

The application of Article 4(4) increased in surface waters and groundwaters from the first to 
the second RBMPs.  

8.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  first  Programmes  of 
Measures requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation:  New  hydro-morphological  modifications,  such  as  new  hydropower 
plants, should comply with the requirements for exemptions of Article 4(7) and should 
be  adequately  justified,  in  particular  for  the  assessment  of  alternative  options  and 

include all necessary mitigation measures. 

Assessment: Article 4(7) cases have been reported to WISE and in the RBMPs. There 

is evidence that the steps required by Article 4(7) have been performed with a focus on 
assessments  at  strategic  level.  While  strategic  level  assessments  are  important  for 

decision making, further detailed assessments and justifications at water body level are 
necessary  for  informed  decision  making.  The  recommendation  has  therefore  been 
partly fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Include, in the second RBMPs, estimations of when WFD objectives 

will be achieved. 

Assessment:  This  recommendation  was  fulfilled  and  information  about  by  when  the 

WFD objectives are expected to be met is provided. 

  Recommendation:  Include,  in  the  RBMPs,  justification  for  the  exemptions  applied. 
Portugal  should  in  particular  improve  the  justifications  regarding  disproportionate 
costs  and  technical  unfeasibility,  as  well  as  the  cost-efficiency  analysis.  Exemptions 

should  be  adequately  justified  at  water  body  level  (in  particular,  natural  conditions 
should not be invoked when measures are not being implemented due to other reasons, 

such as lack of funding). 

Assessment: For Article 4(7) see the assessment of the first recommendation above. As 

regards  Article  4(4),  criteria  have  been  developed  for  the  application  of  "technical 
feasibility", "disproportionate costs" and "natural conditions". However, the reasoning 

for the exemptions and the timeframes to achieve environmental objectives need to be 
further developed and reflected in the RBMPs. The recommendation has therefore been 

partly fulfilled. 

122 

 
 
 
Topic 9

  Programme of measures  

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the Programmes of Measures reported by 

Member  States;  more  specific  information  on  measures  relating  to  specific  pressures  (for 
example arising from agriculture) is provided in subsequent chapters. 

The  Key  Types  of  Measure  (KTM)  referred  to  in  this  section  are  groups  of  measures 
identified  by  Member  States  in  the  Programme  of  Measures,  which  target  the  same 

pressure  or  purpose.  The  individual  measures  included  in  the  Programme  of  Measure 
(being  part  of  the  RBMP)  are  grouped  into  Key  Types  of  Measure  for  the  purpose  of 

reporting.  The  same  individual  measure  can  be  part  of  more  than  one  Key  Typeof 
Measure because it may be multi-purpose, but also because the Key Types of Measure are 

not completely independent silos. Key Types of Measure have been introduced to simplify 
the  reporting  of  measures  and  to  reduce  the  very  large  number  of  Supplementary 

Measures reported by some Member States (WFD Reporting Guidance 2016).  

A  Key  Type  of  Measure  may  be  one  national  measure  but  it  would  typically  comprise 

more than one national measure. The 25 predefined Key Types of Measure are listed in 
the WFD Reporting Guidance 2016. 

The Key Types of Measure should be fully implemented and made operational within the 

RBMP planning period to address specific pressures or chemical substances and achieve 
the environmental objectives. 

9.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

9.1.1  General issues 

An indication on whether or not measures have been made operational is when they have been 
reported  as  being  planned  to  tackle  significant  pressures  (Key  Types  of  Measure  level). 

Significant pressures are also reported at the water body level. It would be expected that there 
would be measures planned to tackle all significant pressures. For surface water, KTMs were 

reported for all significant pressures in all RBDs, except in the Sado and Mira RBD, where no 
KTMs were reported for significant pressure “Abstraction and flow diversion” from agriculture 

123 

 
 
 
and  industry  49,  and  in  the  Madeira  RBD  where  KTMs  were  reported  for  all  significant 
pressures  except  “Diffuse  pressure  from  transport”  and  “Anthropogenic  pressure  from 
historical pollution”. The Minho and Lima, Cavado, Ave and Leca, Douro, Vouga, Mondego 

and Lis, Tagus and West Rivers, Sado and Mira, Guadiana and Algarve Rivers RBDs included 
physico-chemical  parameters,  individual  chemical  substances,  and  priority  pollutants.  For 

groundwater, KTMs were reported for all significant pressures, knowing that three of the ten 
RBDs had no significant pressures on groundwater.  

For  each  RBD  Portugal  listed  the  national  or  RBD-specific  measures  incorporated  into  each 
KTM,  including  some  KTMs  developed  by  Portugal  in  all  RBDs  except  the  Azores.  429 

national  basic  measures  and  831  national  supplementary  measures  have  been  mapped  to 
KTMs, covering a wide range of measure types. 25 % of the national basic measures and 19 % 

of  the  national  supplementary  measures  have  been  mapped  against  KTM1  –  construction  or 
upgrades of wastewater treatment plants. A further 2 % of national basic measures and 18 % of 

supplementary measures have been mapped against KTM21 – measures to prevent or control 
the input of pollution form urban areas, transport, built infrastructure. The only type of basic 
measure that is not used is “Recharge augmentation groundwater”. 

KTMs have been mapped against national measures in all 10 RBDs; however, not all KTMs 
were linked to individual pressures, therefore it is not clear if these are relevant or will be made 

operational.  Nevertheless,  the  percentage  of  water  bodies  which  are  not  expected  to  achieve 
good status / potential has been reported as 0 by 2027 for all significant pressures in all RBDs.  

KTMs  used  to  tackle  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  and  Priority  Substances  have  been 
reported for all those causing failure of objectives in all eight mainland RBDs (no data for two 
RBDs  -  the  Azores50  and  Madeira  -  but  they  do  not  appear  to  be  subject  to  pressures  from 
individual substances). The number of groundwater bodies failing objectives due to chemical 

pollutants has also been listed for all except the Minho and Lima, Douro and Madeira RBDs, 
but this was not the case for surface water bodies. The number of surface water bodies failing 

objectives due to Priority Substances has been listed for all mainland RBDs.  

Portugal  reported  indicators  of  the  gaps  to  be  filled  for  significant  pressures  (including 

individual  chemical  /  Priority  Substances  and  physico-chemical  parameters)  on  groundwater 
and surface water for 2015, 2021 and 2027. KTMs are listed for all significant pressures and 

the  indicator  gaps  are  presented  mainly  as  number  of  water  bodies  failing  environmental 

49 Portugal subsequently clarified that there was a reporting error and these two types of pressure were repeated 

for the Tagus and West Rivers RBD instead of the Sado and Mira RBD. 

50  Portugal  subsequently  clarified  that  for  the  Azores  RBD  the  results  of  the  Specific  Pollutants  monitoring 

programme were always below the analytical detection limit. 

124 

 
 
                                                      
quality standards, and in some cases “other indicators” for KTMs developed by Portugal. For 

the  Azores  RBD,  the  gap  indicators  are  in  terms  of  area  or  length  of  water  bodies  where 
pressures  prevent  achievement  of  objectives,  or  number  of  point  sources  causing  failure  of 

objectives.  All  the  gaps  are  expected  to  be  closed  by  2027,  with  a  small  number  closed  by 
2021. (See also Section 9.1.2 for gap analyses for ‘other significant pressures’).  

Cost-effectiveness  analysis  is  an  appraisal  technique  that  provides  a  ranking  of  alternative 
measures  on  the  basis  of  their  cost  and  effectiveness,  where  the  most  cost-effective  has  the 

highest ranking. The first RBMPs included a cost-efficiency analysis, but the results presented 
were  limited  and  very  general.  For  the  second  RBMPs,  a  combination  of  qualitative  and 

quantitative  cost-effectiveness  analysis  was  carried  out  in  one  RBD  (Azores)  to  support  the 
selection of measures proposed under the 2015-2021 PoM. No cost-effectiveness analysis was 
carried out in the Madeira RBD, and no information was available on the other eight RBDs51. 
The prioritisation of measures was further explored and it was found that in all RBDs priorities 

were established according to the nature of measures. Specific basic measures on water bodies 
failing  to  achieve  WFD  objectives  received  the  highest  priority,  followed  by  specific  basic 
measures  aimed  at  achieving  good  status,  then  RBD  basic  measures,  followed  by 

supplementary  measures  on  water  bodies  failing  to  achieve  WFD  objectives,  then  RBD 
supplementary measures, and lastly supplementary measures on water bodies in good status52. 

In the Azores RBD, priorities were established by means of a complex Implementation Priority 
Index = grade of protection regime of the water body x gap of the status of the water body to 

the objective x effectiveness  index. Each of the  parameters has  a scale depending on several 
factors. Also for the Azores RBD it was stated that all basic measures, measures already being 
implemented, and measures with no associated costs receive the highest ranking53.  

For the Madeira RBD it was reported that the prioritisation was based generally on technical, 

social and financial aspects, and included weighting of the importance of the problem that each 
of the measures aimed at solving or mitigating. It was also indicated that basic measures and 

measures deriving from legislation were given the highest priority. 

A  critical  factor  in  the  success  of  the  implementation  of  the  Programmes  of  Measures  is  the 

availability  of  funding  to  support  the  investments  required.  In  the  first  RBMPs,  investment 

51  Portugal  subsequently  clarified  that  the  cost-effectiveness  analysis  of  the  measures  in  the  eigth  mainland 
RBMPs  will  occur  during  the  process  of  evaluating  the  implementation  of  the  measures  in  2018.  This  will 
allow for an evaluation of the effectiveness of the measures against the state of the bodies of water. 

52 Portugal subsequently clarified that the methodology for the prioritisation of measures was applied to all RBDs 

in the mainland. 

53 Portugal subsequently clarified that “the basic measures have all "high priority" since they aim to achieve the 

environmental objectives expressed in existing legislation 

125 

 
 
                                                      
costs  have  been  reported  for  the  years  2009-15  separately  for  Article  11(3)(a)  measures 

(required to implement Community legislation for the protection of water) and Article 11(3)(b-
l), Article 11(4) and Article 11(5) (all other measures) for all RBDs except Madeira, where the 

total for all types of measure was given. The total investment in Portugal was €2183 million. In 
the second RBMPs, investment and annual costs are presented for the years 2016-21 separately 

for  Article  11(3)(a),  Article  11(3)(b-l),  Article  11(4)  and  Article  11(5)  for  all  10  RBDs; 
depreciation  has  not  been  included  in  any  calculations.  To  implement  Article  11(3)(a) 

requirements it is reported that the capital investment required ranges from €0.132 million in 
the  Azores  RBD  to  €429  million  in  the  Madeira  RBD.  In  total,  capital  investment  of  €829 

million  is  required.  Annual  operation  and  maintenance  costs  for  Article  11(3)(a)  measures 
range from €0.011 million in the Azores RBD to €71.5 million in the Madeira RBD. Capital 

investment requirements for Article 11.3(b-l), Article 11(4) and Article 11(5) measures range 
from  €17.74 million in  the Guadiana RBD to  €159.51 million  in  the Tagus  and West  Rivers 

RBD.  The  annual  operational  and  maintenance  costs  for  these  investments  range  from  €0.89 
million in the Guadiana RBD to €7.98 million in the Tagus and West Rivers RBD. 

The  Madeira  RBD  reported  the  same  figure  for  the  capital  investment  (€429  million)  and 

annual operation and maintenance (€71.5 million) costs for both Article 11(3)(a) measures and 
Article 11(3)(b-l), Article 11(4) and Article 11(5) measures which suggests that figures are the 

total  costs.  It  is  therefore  not  possible  to  identify  the  total  investment  costs  required  for 
Portugal  separately  for  Article  11(3)(a)  measures  and  Article  11(3)(b-l),  Article  11(4)  and 

Article 11(5) measures. Thus the total investment costs for both Article 11(3)(a) measures and 
Article 11(3)(b-l), Article 11(4) and  Article 11(5) measures  required for  Portugal  in  2015-21 

seem  to  be  €1411  million,  i.e.  about  two  thirds  of  the  2009-15  investment  costs.  Estimated 
European Union funding figures were also presented for the first and second cycles (note: the 

Azores RBD marked “Not Applicable” for the first cycle, and a very high figure for the second 
cycle, “72082000”, which was a reporting  error,  the correct  figure having been subsequently 

provided as €72.082 million,.  

A clear financial commitment has been secured for the implementation of the Programmes of 

Measures in all RBDs.  On a sectoral  basis, commitments  have been secured for Agriculture, 
Industry,  Urban,  Recreation  (not  applicable  to  the  Azores  RBD)  and  Flood  Protection  in  all 

RBDs  where  applicable.  For  Transport,  Energy  and  Aquaculture,  commitments  have  been 
secured  for  one  RBD  only  (Madeira),  although  these  measures  are  applicable  in  some  other 

126 

 
 
RBDs.  There  are  no  commitments  for  Hydropower  in  the  Azores  RBD,  although  this  is 
mentioned as a significant pressure54. 

Portugal reported co-ordination of the preparation of all RBMPs and Programmes of Measures 

with  the Marine Strategy  Framework  Directive,  but  no joint  consultation  on the RBMPs and 
the  Marine  Strategy,  and  no  consideration  of  the  need  for  additional  or  more  stringent 

measures beyond those required by the WFD in order to contribute to the achievement of the 
relevant Marine Strategy Framework Directive objectives in coastal and marine environments. 

National measures/RBD-specific measures that are relevant to the Marine Strategy Framework 
Directive and the relevant KTMs are listed; the measures are all basic measures to tackle point 

source discharges in the mainland RBDs and accidental pollution in the other two (the Azores 
and Madeira). Links to documents are provided for all RBDs.  

The RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans have been integrated in two of the 10 RBDs, 
i.e. in the Autonomous Regions of the Azores and Madeira. Joint consultation of RBMPs and 

Floods Risk Management Plans, as reported in WISE, was carried out on all except two RBDs 
(Minho and Lima and Guadiana), and the objectives and requirements of the Floods Directive 
have  been  considered  in  the  second  RBMPs  and  Programmes  of  Measures  in  all  RBDs. 

Portugal also indicated that win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD 
and Floods Directive, drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures have 

been included in the Programmes of Measures of all RBDs. However, whilst KTM23 “Natural 
water  retention  measures”  has  been  mapped  to  national  measures,  its  implementation  is  to 
begin after approval of the RBMPs55. The design of new and existing structural measures, such 
as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers, has been adapted to take account of WFD 

Environmental Objectives in all RBDs. Clear financial commitments have been secured for the 
implementation of Programmes of Measures in the flood protection sector in all RBDs. Article 

9(4) of the WFD has been applied to impoundment for flood protection in only one RBD (the 
Azores)  and  therefore  it  would  be  an  activity/use  which  should  be  subject  to  cost  recovery 

under Article 9 in the remaining nine RBDs, where relevant. 

54 Portugal subsequently clarified that although hydropower may constitute a significant morphological pressure 
on  one  water  body  (09SMGR004)  in  Azores  RBD,  it  was  not  considered  determinant  in  the  classification 
status.  The  water  body  significant  pressures  are  associated  to  diffuse  pollution  from  urban  and  agricultural 
effluent  discharges.  Nevertheless,  the  measure  RH9_B_011A  defines  several  actions  in  order  to  reduce  the 
impacts of hydroelectric plants. 

55 Portugal clarified that in KTM23 there are two measures for all mainland RBD:  - Adopt agricultural practices 
beneficial to the climate and the environment / "Greening"; - Promoting sustainable forestry. These measures 
are  integrated  in  the  funding  of  for  the  Rural  Development  Programme  of  mainland  Portugal  and  are 
operational. 

127 

 
 
                                                      
9.1.2  Measures related to other significant pressures 

Most of the other significant pressures relate to unknown anthropogenic pollution in seven of 
the  ten  RBDs,  anthropogenic  historical  pollution  in  one  RBD,  and  introduced  species  or 

diseases  in  two  RBDs  (none  were  reported  for  the  Azores).  The  gap  indicators  are  given  as 
number of water bodies failing environmental quality standards or “other indicators” for KTMs 

developed by Portugal, and are shown for 2015, 2021 and 2027. All the gaps are expected to be 
closed  by  2027.  Additional  quantitative  indicators  for  a  number  of  KTMs  are  also  listed  for 

these  significant  pressures  for  2015,  2021  and  2027;  these  indicate  that  all  gaps  would  be 
closed by 2021.  

9.1.3  Mapping of national measures to Key Types of Measure 

It was expected that Member States would be able to report their Programmes of Measures by 

associating  their  national  measures  with  predefined  Key  Types  of  Measure.  Key  Types  of 
Measure are expected to deliver the bulk of the improvements through reduction in pressures 

required  to  achieve  WFD  environmental  objectives.  A  Key  Type  of  Measure  may  be  one 
national  measure  but  it  would  typically  comprise  more  than  one  national  measure.  Member 
States  are  required  to  report  on  the  national  measures  associated  with  the  Key  Types  of 

Measure, and whether the national measures are basic (Article 11(3)(a) or Article 11(3)(b-l)) or 
supplementary (Article 11(4)).  

Table 9.1 summarises the number of national measures that have been mapped to the relevant 
Key  Types  of Measure in Portugal.  Also  shown  is  the number of RBDs  for which each Key 

Type  of  Measure  has  been  reported.  Table  9.2  then  summarises  the  type  of  basic  measures 
associated with the national measures mapped against the Key Type of Measure. 

Table 9.1 

Mapping  of  the  types  of  national  measures  to  Key  Types  of  Measure  in 
Portugal  

Key Type of Measure 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementa
ry measures 

Number of 
RBDs where 
reported 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment 
plants 

KTM11 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation 
of the recovery of cost of water services from agriculture 

KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture 

KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. 
establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc) 

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing 
uncertainty 

106 

160 

8 

9 

75 

20 

9 

113 

8 

8 

9 

9 

10 

128 

 
 
 
 
Key Type of Measure 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementa
ry measures 

Number of 
RBDs where 
reported 

KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges 
and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or for the reduction 
of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Substances 

42 

KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater 
treatment plants (including farms). 

KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and 
surface run-off 

KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of 
invasive alien species and introduced diseases 

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 

35 

KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of 
fishing and other exploitation/removal of animal and plants 

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution 
from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure 

KTM22 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution 
from forestry 

KTM23 - Natural water retention measures 

KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change 

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 

KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution 
including sediments, groundwater, soil) 

KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish 
passes, demolishing old dams) 

KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions of water 
bodies other than longitudinal continuity 

KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of 
ecological flows 

KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, 
industry, energy and households 

KTM9 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation 
of the recovery of cost of water services from households 

PTE1P05 - Definição de condicionantes aplicar no 
licenciamento 

PTE2P04 - Condicionantes aplicar no licenciamento 

PTE2P05 - Controlar a recarga das águas subterrâneas 

PTE3P04 - Condicionantes aplicar no licenciamento 

PTE9P01 - Promover a fiscalização 

PTE9P03 - Revisãolegislativa 

PTE9P04 - Articular com objectivos das Directivas Habitats e 
Aves 

PTE9P05 - Articular com objectivos da DQEM 

PTE9P06 - Gestão das bacias internacionais 

PTE9P07 - Articular com politicas setoriais 

129 

7 

1 

8 

4 

9 

15 

35 

7 

10 

19 

2 

3 

8 

8 

4 

8 

9 

23 

10 

15 

44 

16 

150 

1 

17 

26 

18 

6 

84 

28 

4 

9 

10 

18 

9 

8 

8 

5 

9 

9 

8 

8 

7 

9 

8 

9 

1 

8 

9 

8 

5 

6 

9 

7 

10 

10 

8 

8 

8 

5 

8 

8 

8 

8 

4 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key Type of Measure 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementa
ry measures 

Number of 
RBDs where 
reported 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - Risk 
management 

Total number of Mapped Measures 

7 

429 

4 

831 

1 

10 

Source: Member States reports to WISE 

130 

 
 
Table 9.2 

Type of basic measure mapped to Key Type of Measures in Portugal  

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
p
l
a
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
A

1 

8 

1 

Key Type of Measure 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants 
KTM11 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the 
recovery of cost of water services from agriculture 
KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of 
safeguard zones, buffer zones etc) 
KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty 
KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of 
Priority Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges 
and losses of Priority Substances 
KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 
KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban 
areas, transport and built infrastructure 
KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change 
KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 
KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including 
sediments, groundwater, soil) 
KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, 
demolishing old dams) 
KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than 
longitudinal continuity 
KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological 
flows 
KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy 
and households 
KTM9 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the 
recovery of cost of water services from households 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM 

r
e
t
a
w
s
l
o
r
t
n
o
C

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

r
e
t
a
w
y
r
e
v
o
c
e
r

t
s
o
C

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

e
s
u
r
e
t
a
w

t
n
e
i
c
i
f
f

E

s
d
r
i
B
r
o
s
t
a
t
i
b
a
H

y
g
o
l
o
h
p
r
o
m
o
r
d
y
H

Basic Measure Type 

D
E
I
C
P
P
I

s
e
t
a
r
t
i

N

r
e
h
t
O

e
c
r
u
o
s

t
n
i
o
P

s
e
g
r
a
h
c
s
i
d

e
s
u
f
f
i
d
s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

t
c
e
r
i
d
s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

r
e
t
a
w
n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
P

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

y
t
i
r
o
i
r
P
e
c
a
f
r
u
S

s
e
c
n
a
t
s
b
u
S

r
e
t
a
W

e
t
s
a
W
n
a
b
r
U

106 

8 

1 

4 

9 

15 

35 

8 

1 

3 

10 

2 

3 

131 

9 

8 

8 

32 

41 

16 

1 

1 

6 

4 

1 
19 

8 

3 

1 

16 

8 

8 

13 

1 

8 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: Member States reports to WISE 

Key 

‘Accidental pollution’ = Article 11(3)(l): Any measures required to prevent significant losses of pollutants from technical installations and to prevent and/or reduce the impact of 
accidental pollution incidents. 
‘Controls water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(e): Controls over the abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater and impoundment of fresh surface waters including a register or 
registers of water abstractions and a requirement for prior authorisation of abstraction and impoundment. 
‘Cost recovery water services’ = Article 11(3)(b): Measures for the recovery of cost of water services (Article 9). 
‘Efficient water use’ = Article 11(3)(c): Measures to promote efficient and sustainable water use. 
‘Habitats or Birds’ = Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)  or Birds Directive (2009/147/EC)  
‘Hydromorphology’ = Article 11(3)(i): Measures to control any other significant adverse impact on the status of water, and in particular hydromorphological impacts. 
‘IPPC IED’ = Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC) and the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU) . 
‘Nitrates’ = Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC). 
‘Other’ = Other Directives mentioned in Part A of Annex VI of the WFD. 
‘Point source discharges’ = Article 11(3)(g): Requirement for prior regulation of point source discharges liable to cause pollution. 
‘Pollutants diffuse’ = Article 11(3)(h): Measures to prevent or control the input of pollutants from diffuse sources liable to cause pollution. 
‘Pollutants direct groundwater’ = Article 11(3)(j): Prohibition of direct discharge of pollutants into groundwater. 
‘Protection water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(d): Measures for the protection of water abstracted for drinking water (Article 7) including those to reduce the level of purification 
required for the production of drinking water. 
‘Surface Priority Substances’ = Article 11(3)(k): Measures to eliminate pollution of surface waters by Priority Substances and to reduce pollution from other substances that would 
otherwise prevent the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 4. 
‘Urban Waste Water’ = Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC). 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
9.1.4 

Pressures for which gaps have to be filled to achieve WFD objectives and the Key 

Types of Measure planned to achieve objectives 

Member  States  are  required  to  report  the  gaps  that  need  to  be  filled  to  achieve  WFD 

environmental  objectives  in  terms  of  all  significant  pressures  on  surface  waters  and 
groundwaters, in  terms  of Priority Substances causing  failure of  good  chemical  status  and in 

terms  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  causing  failure  of  good  ecological  status/potential. 
Member  States  were  asked  to  report  predefined  indicators  of  the  gaps  to  be  filled  or  other 

indicators where relevant. Values for the gap indicators were required for 2015 and 2021, and 
were optional for 2027. 

The  information  reported  in  WISE  on  the  gaps  to  fulfil  to  achieve  good  ecological  status 
include detailed data on the significant pressures on surface and groundwaters that may cause 

failure on the environmental objectives. For chemical  status,  the Member States reported the 
specific chemical substances causing failure. 

This information is reported at the sub-unit level. Sub-units are smaller geographic areas within 
particular  RBDs  identified  by  Member  States.  Not  all  Member  States  have  defined  and 
reported sub-units. 

Member States were required to report which KTMs are to be made operational to reduce the 
gaps to levels compatible with the achievement of WFD environmental objectives. A number 

of  indicators  were  predefined  for  each  KTM.  Values  of  the  indicators  for  the  second  and 
subsequent  planning  cycles  were  also  to  be  reported  to  give  an  indication  of  the  expected 

progress and achievements: the values for 2027 could be optionally reported. This means that 
the value of the indicator will be reduced with time as measures are implemented. A value of 

zero is comparable with 100 % good ecological status or potential or good chemical status.  

This  information  was  reported  at  sub-unit  level,  or  at  RBDs  level  if  sub-units  have  not  been 

reported by the Member State. 

9.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

In  general,  the  amount  and  quality  of  information  has  improved  considerably  since  the  first 

RBMPs. The level of implementation of the first Programmes of Measures in all 10 RBDs was 
reported as “some measures completed”. Obstacles in terms of delays and extreme events were 

reported for all except two RBDs (the Azores and Madeira); lack of finance for all except one 
(the Azores); lack of measures and mechanisms in one RBD (Madeira); and no obstacles were 
reported due to Governance and cost effectiveness, although the latter does not seem to have 

133 

 
 
 
been  analysed  in  all  but  one  RBD.  Gap  analyses  have  been  provided  for  most  significant 

pressures and the gaps are expected to be closed by 2027 (some by 2021).  

There  are  no  further  details  of  changes  since  the  first  RBMPs.  The  second  Programmes  of 

Measures are a continuation of the  first ones, with some adjustments and/or strengthening of 
some measures taking into account the results of the first measures that could be observed. The 

RBMPs for the Azores and Madeira state that as the implementation of the first Programmes of 
Measures started in 2013 and 2014 respectively, there was insufficient time for the measures to 

have an impact or to assess it. However, all mainland RBMPs except Minho and Lima mention 
measures  that  were  implemented  with  positive  results  despite  not  being  planned  in  the  first 

RBMPs, and these measures are currently included in the second Programmes of Measures. 

New legislation or regulations to implement the first Programmes of Measures was reported as 

being necessary and in progress for the eight mainland RBDs  but not necessary for the other 
two RBDs. 

9.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  first  Programmes  of 
Measures requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation: Make basic measures legally binding and identify them clearly in the 
second RBMPs to allow for a clear assessment of the need for additional measures, e.g. 
on agriculture or wastewater treatment. 

Assessment:  New  legislation  to  implement  the  Programmes  of  Measures  in  the  eight 
mainland RBDs has been reported as ‘necessary’ and in progress, but it was reported as 

‘not  necessary’  in  the  Autonomous  Regions  of  Azores  and  Madeira.  There  is  no 
information on the legal status of supplementary measures (whether they are mandatory 

or  voluntary),  although  they  may  be  ‘in  progress’.  Additional  measures  were  not 
considered to be necessary. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled.  

  Recommendation: Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify the gap to good status, and 

that the Programme of Measures is designed and implemented to close that gap. 

Assessment:  Portugal  reported  indicators  of  the  gaps  to  be  filled  for  significant  

pressures  (including  individual  chemicals  /  Priority  Substances  and  physico-chemical 
parameters)  on  groundwater  and  surface  water  for  2015,  2021  and  2027.  KTMs  are 

listed  for  all  significant  pressures  and  the  indicator  gaps  are  presented  mainly  as 

134 

 
 
number  of  water  bodies  failing  Environmental  Quality  Standards.  All  the  gaps  are 

expected to be closed by 2027, with some by 2021, including all those failing because 
of  ‘other  significant  pressures’  (mainly  unknown  anthropogenic  pollution,  historical 

pollution and introduced species or diseases). This recommendation has been fulfilled.  

  Recommendation: Ensure that the measures foreseen are clearly prioritized in terms of 
cost-effectiveness,  whether  measures  are  voluntary  or  obligatory  and  available 
funding,  exploring  the  possibility  of  using  European  Union  funds  (e.g.  RDP  funds, 

Structural  and  Investment  funds  and  LIFE  Integrated  Projects)  to  implement 
Programme of Measures. 

Assessment:  A  cost-effectiveness  analysis  to  support  the  selection  of  measures  was 

reported  for one RBD only (Azores) (no analysis for Madeira and no information  for 
the  eight  mainland  RBDs),  and  some  further  information  has  been  provided  on 

information  on  whether  Portugal’s 
is  no 
prioritisation  of  measures.  There 
supplementary  measures  are  voluntary  or  mandatory56.  However,  clear  financial 
commitments seem to have been secured for the Programmes of Measures of all RBDs 
(although  not  for  some  relevant  sectors  in  a  few  RBDs);  estimated  European  Union 
funding  is  also  included  (there  are  some  uncertainties  relating  to  the  Azores  and 

Madeira RBDs). Only very limited progress seems to have been made in relation to this 
recommendation.  

56 Portugal subsequently clarified that the supplementary measures can be mandatory (by licensing) or voluntary. 
The voluntary measures have to be encouraged through funding such as the Common Agricultural Policy with 
green payments and the Rural Development Programme of mainland Portugal 

135 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

10.1  Assessment  of  implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

10.1.1  Water exploitation and trends 

Water abstraction pressure has been reported as relevant for all RBDs except for the Azores. 
However, it is not considered to be an issue of international relevance  - this understanding is 

shared with Spain. Several RBDs face relevant Water Exploitation Index +, namely the Tagus 
and West  Rivers, Sado and Mira, Guadiana and Algarve Rivers RBDs with indexes between 

20  and  38  %  (according  to  data  of  2012);  the  other  RBDs  show  indexes  below  20  %.  The 
month with the worst exploitation index has been August (2012). No information is reported in 

WISE  on  water  exploitation  or  abstraction  trends,  even  if  the  RBMPs  include  such 
information.  Given these high water  exploitation  levels,  the number of water bodies that  fail 

achieving  good  status  due  to  abstraction  pressures  appears  very  low  in  most  of  the  RBDs 
(except Madeira). 

No  significant  change  has  been  identified  for  Portugal  since  the  reports  published  on  the 
assessment  of  the  first  RBMPs.  A  data  gap  has  been  identified  regarding  Madeira  where  the 

Water  Exploitation  Index  +  is  reported  but  there  is  no  data  on  the  uses  most  responsible  for 
water consumption. This is explained by the fact that the RBMP for Madeira includes a figure 

for total abstraction, but no figures for abstraction by sector. 

In the Algarve Rivers RBD, groundwater consumption pressures have increased in the recent 
past.  The  total  of  groundwater  consumption  was  126.72  million  m3/year  in  2009-2015  when 
including the water use for farming based on soil occupation, and is 133.18 million m3 in 2016-
2022.  

10.1.2  Main uses for water consumption 

In the RBDs which face significant water abstraction levels, agriculture is the main water user, 
usually irrigated with surface water. The exception is the Vouga, Mondego and Lis RBD, with 
13.6 % of all groundwater bodies in bad quantitative status and a significant share of irrigation 

based on groundwater. It should be noted, however, that agricultural abstraction data are only 
based on estimations based on established water use coefficients and ancillary data. In the first 

RBMPs, the data were in some cases incomplete. In the second RBMPs there are data available 

136 

 
 
from  the  application  of  the  water  resource  tax  and  water  rights  or  permits.  The  data  used  to 

estimate water use in farming in the second RBMPs is from the farming census carried out in 
2009, which was the latest available. An estimate of the water use in golf courses is provided 

(0.45  million  cubic  metres  per  year)  and  has  been  multiplied  by  the  number  of  golf  courses. 
The second RBMPs also use monitoring data from 2010-2013. In all RBDs and according to 

national  legislation, permits  are required for water abstractions, except  for small abstractions 
which are only registered. 

10.1.3  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 

Regarding basic measures, Portugal reports that abstraction control is undertaken in all RBDs, 

except  for  small  abstractions,  which  do  not  require  permits  but  are  registered,  even  if  in  the 
RBMPs  no  references  to  such  a  register  have  been  found.  However,  new  small  abstractions 
may  also  be  subject  to  permitting  in  all  RBDs57.  The  Tagus  and  West  Rivers  RBMP  for 
example,  includes  a  measure  to  adopt  an  authorisation  regime  for  new  groundwater 

abstractions using engines with < 5 HP, even if there is no foreseen budget for this measure in 
the  PoM.  There  is  a  concession,  authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  to  control  water 

impoundment and a register of impoundments. 

All  RBDs  implement  supplementary  measures  associated  to  KTM8  -  Water  efficiency, 
technical  measures for irrigation (funded by the  Rural  Development  Programme 2014-2020), 

industry, energy and households. Measures associated to other KTMs are only foreseen for the 
Madeira RBD, for pressures from public water supply, including KTM9 - Water pricing policy 

measures  for  the  implementation  of  the  recovery  of  cost  of  water  services  from  households, 
and KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty.  

Reuse  is  a  measure  foreseen  in  all  RBDs.  Measures  for  efficient  and  sustainable  water  use 
(Article  11(3)(c))  and  artificial  recharge  or  augmentation  of  groundwater  bodies  (Article 

11(3)(f)) are included in the RBMPs of mainland Portugal, and not planned for the Azores and 
Madeira RBDs. In mainland Portugal, no authorisations are granted. 

It remains unclear whether the measures to address water abstraction pressures are sufficient to 

reach good status.  

57  Portugal  clarified  that  if  small  abstractions  (installed  extraction  power  of  less  than  5  HP  and  private  waters) 
have  a  significant  impact  on  the  water  body,  then  they  will  also  be  subject  to  permitting.  (measure 
PTE2P04M01_SUB_RH).. 

137 

 
 
                                                      
10.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

No  major  changes  have  been  identified.  The  Tagus  and  West  Rivers  RBMP,  for  example, 
reports  a  measure  to  adopt  an  authorisation  regime  for  new  groundwater  abstractions  using 
engines with < 5 HP, even if there is no foreseen budget for this measure in the PoM58.  

10.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  first  Programmes  of 
Measures requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation:  Review  all  existing  permits  for  abstractions  and  flow  regulations, 
including dams, and, where necessary, amend them to ensure that they are compatible 
with the WFD objectives. 

Assessment: Portugal should have updated all licences and permits for abstractions and 

flow  regulations,  including  dams,  to  ensure  that  they  are  compatible  with  the  WFD 
objectives, but this has not been widely implemented. A planned step is that mainland 

RBMPs  report  a  measure  to  adopt  an  authorisation  regime  for  new  groundwater 
abstractions using engines with < 5 HP. However, the measures taken seem limited to 
adequately address water abstraction pressures in Portugal59. 

The part of the recommendation referring to  permits for flow regulation,  in  particular 

ecological  flows,  is  addressed  in  chapter  13  of  this  report  (on  measures  related  to 
hydromorphology).  

Overall this recommendation as far as abstractions are concerned has not been fulfilled. 

58 Portugal clarified that this measure is related to licensing, so there is no need to define an investment value and 

the cost for the users is integrated into the operating costs. 

59  Portugal  subsequently  indicated  that  the  revision  of  the  licenses  and  permits  for  abstractions  and  flow 
regulations, including dams, that needed to be updated were made. The Portuguese law allows changing the 
permits  when the quality objectives of the  water bodies are  not achieved. This measure was applied to all 8 
RBDs  in  the  mainland.  An  investment  value  has  not  been  included  since  it  is  an  administrative  measure 
associated with the licensing to be carried out by the Portuguese Environment Agency. The costs involved for 
the users are associated with the right of using public water resources. The obligation of authorization for new 
groundwater abstractions using engines with < 5 HP can be implemented if there is a significant impact on the 
waterbody. 

138 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture  

11.1  Assessment  of  implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

The main agricultural pressure in all RBDs is diffuse pollution leading to nutrient, organic and 

chemical  pollution  and  altered  habitats.  Hydrological  alteration  –  Agriculture  and 
hydromorphological  alterations  are  reported  as  pressures  in  the  Vouga,  Mondego  and  Lis, 

Tagus and West Rivers, Sado and Mira, Guadiana and Algarve Rivers RBDs. The link between 
pressures  and  measures  has  been  established.    A  gap  assessment  was  missing  in  the  first 

RBMPs but was carried out for the second RBMPs. It addresses diffuse chemical pollution and 
nitrates.  

Measures found in all RBDs except Madeira are KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution, KTM12 - 

Advisory  services  for  agriculture,  and  KTM13  -  Drinking  water  protection  measures  (e.g. 
establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc.). KTM2 and KTM13 are a combination of 
basic and supplementary measures. KTM12 is applied as a supplementary measure. There are 

also several measures in KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, 
energy and households for all mainland RBDs. 

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution, KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion 

and  surface  run-off  and  KTM23  -  Natural  water  retention  measures  are  found  in  all  RBDs 
except  Azores  and  Madeira.  KTM3  is  applied  as  a  basic  measure.  KTM17  and  KTM23  are 

applied as a supplementary measure. 

For KTM2 some measures relate to the update of master plans and guidelines to be elaborated 
by the competent authorities. For farmers, the measures are mostly voluntary, in the sense that 

in  order  to  benefit  from  economic  mechanisms  and  funds,  the  farmers  have  to  comply  with 
some rules and regulations. But  a farmer may decide not  to  apply for those opportunities.  In 

vulnerable zones, the Programmes of Measures contain mandatory measures to accompany the 
implementation  the  Action  Plan  to  reduce  nitrates.  Under  measure  KTM3,  farmers  have  to 
comply  with  the  legislation  on  the  correct  use  of  pesticides.  KTM12  measures  relate  to 

available funds to be used by farmers wanting to engage in sustainable farming on a voluntary 
basis. Under KTM13 the conditions for the perimeters of protection of abstractions for supply 

are published in the law and those are mandatory. Furthermore, one of the measures included 

139 

 
 
in  the  plans is  to  promote  the  establishment  of  protection  perimeters,  namely  to  promote  the 

necessary studies prioritising the abstractions in waterbodies classified in less than good status. 

The implementation of Article 11(3)(h) basic measures for the control of diffuse pollution from 
agriculture at source is required in all RBDs. In all RBDS except the Azores60 the same rules 
apply across the whole RBD. In the Azores RBD different rules exist for different parts of the 

RBD.  The  issues  covered  by  the  general  binding  rules  to  control  diffuse  pollution  from 
agriculture  are  in  all  RBDs:  microbiological/bacteriological  pollution,  nitrates,  organic 

pollution, other pollutants, pesticides, phosphorus and sediments.  

Farmers/Farmers'  Unions  have  been  consulted  under  the  Public  Consultation  process  in  all 
RBDs. Although the PoM of the Tagus and West Rivers RBMP (examined in more detail as an 

example)  contains  measures  to  promote  the  approval  of  the  safeguard  zones  around  the 
drinking water protection areas, the annex does  not  contain any detailed  measures. The  PoM 

also contains measures to protect the origins of potable water in order to reduce the required 
treatment. Measures are generic and include: 1) to perform the necessary studies to understand 

which areas to delimit, starting with water bodies where the status is less than good; and 2) to 
harmonise,  at  national  level,  the  limitations  to  water  uses  and  to  activities  that  can  be 

performed in the delimited areas.  

There are also additional control measures planned on farm land (not just in safeguard zones 

but  in  the  wider  catchment)  to  prevent  nitrogen,  phosphorus  or  pesticides  from  entering 
drinking  water  sources.  These  measures  aim  to  reduce  pollution  by  nitrates  from  farming, 

including  livestock,  and  measures  to  reduce  pollution  from  pesticides  from  agriculture.  The 
fiches  of  measures  present  a  list  of  best  practices  to  adopt  directly  or  refer  to  documents 

containing  best  practices.  There  is  one  specific  measure  related  to  manure  storage  and 
spreading. 

Financing of agricultural measures is secured in all RBDs.  

60  Portugal  clarified  that  in  the  Azores  RBD  the  control  measures  of  diffuse  pollution  are  directly  addressed  to 
lakes  not  covered  by  management  plans  (POBHL)  and  rivers  with  status  less  than  good.  In  the  other 
waterbodies, their management plans regulation contemplates various types of measures to avoid and control 
pollutants discharges into the water bodies. 

140 

 
 
                                                      
11.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The types of pressures  from agriculture have not changed and the types  of measures applied 
seem to be the same. A gap assessment was missing in the first RBMPs but was carried out in 

the second ones. 

11.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  first  Programmes  of 
Measures requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation: Ensure that diffuse sources of pollution in the agricultural sector are 

controlled, including mandatory requirements for farmers where necessary. 

Assessment: This recommendation has been fulfilled, as the implementation of Article 
11(3)(h) basic measures for the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture at source is 
ensured in all RBDs. 

  Recommendation: Deal with phosphate pollution and not just nitrates. Portugal should 
ensure that measures taken will be sufficient to address agriculture nutrient pressures 

to the level needed to secure nutrient conditions consistent with good status.  

Assessment:  This  recommendation  has  been  partly  fulfilled,  as  some  measures 
addressing phosphate pollution have been found in the Programmes of Measures. These 

are    1)  update  the  code  of  conduct;  2)  require  farmers  to  comply  with  the  rules  for 
agricultural  valorisation  of livestock effluents (adoption of good fertilisation practices 

for manure and slurry management); 3) implement best practices and guidelines; and 4) 
adopt  sustainable  production  systems  (organic  production/  integrated  production). 

However,  there  is  no  funding  foreseen  for  these  measures.  Farmers  are  expected  to 
comply  with  some  rules  and  procedures,  but  it  is  not  mentioned  how  the  farmers  are 

informed  (except  for  cases  where  farmers  receive  EU  funds  in  order  to  implement 
sustainable production methods), or if there is any inspection to ensure compliance. 

  Recommendation:  Consider  and  prioritise  the  use  of  green  infrastructure  and/or 
natural water retention measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements 
in water quality, increase water infiltration and thus aquifer recharge, flood protection, 

habitat  conservation  etc.),  social  and  economic  benefits  which  can  be  in  many  cases 
more cost-effective than grey infrastructure.  

Assessment: This recommendation has been fulfilled as green infrastructure and natural 

water retention measures have been included. 

141 

 
 
 
Topic 12

  Measures  related  to  pollution  from  sectors  other  than 

agriculture  

12.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

In  the  context  of  this  topic,  pollution  is  considered  in  terms  of  nutrients,  organic  matter, 
sediment,  saline  discharges  and  chemicals  (Priority  Substances,  River  Basin  Specific 

Pollutants,  groundwater  pollutants  and  other  physico-chemical  parameters)  arising  from  all 
sectors  and  sources  apart  from  agriculture.  Key  Types  of  Measure  (KTMs)  are  groups  of 

measures identified by Member States in their Programmes of Measures which target the same 
pressure or purpose. A KTM could be one national measure but would typically comprise more 

than  one  national  measure.  The  same  individual  measure  can  also  be  part  of  more  than  one 
KTM  because  it  may  be  multipurpose,  but  also  because  the  KTMs  are  not  completely 

independent of one another. 

KTMs  relevant  to  non-agricultural  sources  of  pressures  causing  failure  of  WFD  objectives 

have been reported for all RBDs in Portugal. These KTMs are:  

  KTM1 – Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants. 

  KTM4 – Remediation of contaminated sites. 

  KTM8  -  Water  efficiency,  technical  measures  for  irrigation,  industry,  energy  and 

households 

  KTM 14 – Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty. 

  KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority 
Hazardous  Substances  or  for  the  reduction  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of 

Priority Substances. 

  KTM16  -  Upgrades  or  improvements  of  industrial  wastewater  treatment  plants 

(including farms). 

  KTM20  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  adverse  impacts  of  fishing  and  other 

exploitation/removal of animal and plants 

142 

 
 
  KTM21  –  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas, 

transport and built infrastructure.  

KTM15 and KTM21 are reported to be implemented in all RBDs except Madeira. KTM 1 and 

KTM16 are reported to be implemented in the eight mainland RBDs. 

The  WFD  specifies  that  the  Programmes  of  Measures  shall  include,  as  a  minimum,  “basic 
measures” and, where necessary to achieve objectives, “supplementary measures” when basic 

measures are not enough to address specific significant pressures. Quantitative information on 
basic  and  supplementary  measures  used  to  tackle  pollution  from  non-agricultural  sources 

(number  of  measures  per  KTM)  is  provided  for  all  RBDs  in  Portugal.  The  number  of  basic 
measures to tackle pollution from non-agricultural sources is provided for three types of basic 

measures incorporated into each KTM for all but one of the Portuguese RBDs (Madeira).  

Portugal provided more targeted information on basic measures required under Article 11(3)(c 

to  k).  Use  of  an  authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  to  control  wastewater  point  source 
discharges  (basic  measures  Article  11(3)(g)),  and  the  operation  of  a  register  of  wastewater 

discharges  (basic measures Article 11(3)(g)) are reported for all RBDs  for surface water and 
groundwater.  

All  wastewater  discharges  are  registered  in  all  Portuguese  RBDs  and  small  wastewater 

discharges do not require permits except in the Azores RBD where all wastewater discharges 
require  permits.  Similarly  (basic  measure  Article  11(3)(g)),  some  direct  discharges  to 

groundwater  are  authorised  in  accordance  with  Article  11(3)(j)  in  all  RBDs  other  than  the 
Azores RBD where there is a prohibition of all direct discharges to groundwater. 

Portugal further clarified that the small wastewater discharges that do not require permits are 
exclusively domestic wastewater discharges from isolated houses (less than 10 people) which 

cannot be connected to the public sewer systems. All the discharges (domestic and industrial 
wastewaters)  into  water  or  soil  (via  septic  tanks)  from  industries,  commercial  activities  or 

services require a discharge permit. 

As regards the different approach that was taken in the Azores RBD when compared to other 
RBDs  (no  thresholds  below  which  wastewater  discharges  do  not  require  permits  and  are  not 

subject  to  registration, prohibition  of all direct  discharges), Portugal explained that  given the 
small area of each of the nine islands combined with the fragility of their ecosystems, it was 

considered prudent to require permits for all wastewater discharges into the soil and water. 

143 

 
 
Measures to eliminate / reduce pollution from Priority Substances and other substances (basic 

measures, Article 11(3)(k)) are reported to be in place in all nine RBDs where these substances 
are causing failure. (In the Azores RBD, all waterbodies are reported to be in good chemical 

status). 

For the eight mainland RBMPs in Portugal about 74 % of the rivers are not classified in terms 

of chemical status. In all RBDs there are measures addressing Priority Substances, but they are 
generic  and to  be applied throughout  the RBD; they  consist  of elaborating the inventories of 

emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Substances and other pollutants, and revising the 
water  resources  tax  of  the  urban  wastewater  treatment  plants  which  discharge  Priority 

Substances  from  the  industries  connected  to  the  network.  For  each  water  body  failing  to 
achieve  good  status  due  to  factors  other  than  agriculture,  the  most  common  measure  in  all 

mainland RBDs is improvement of an urban wastewater treatment plant. This is partly because 
the  majority  of  industries  and  services  in  Portugal  are  small  and  medium  sized  enterprises 

connected to public sewer systems. 

In the Azores RBD the chemical status of all surface water bodies is considered good and the 
RBMP  highlights  that  there  is  no  monitoring  or  analysis  regarding  Priority  Substances.  The 

only measure is to establish an action plan to prevent the risk of pollution by hydrocarbons and 
other  Priority  Substances.  Also  in  the  Azores  RBD  the  knowledge  of  River  Basin  Specific 

Pollutants is very limited, as there are few studies or analysis. 

In  the  Madeira  RBD  it  is  not  clear  why  some  surface  water  bodies  fail  to  achieve  good 

chemical status. There are no details on the measures in the RBMP; hence it is not possible to 
state  if  they  are  related  to  Priority  Substances,  although  Portugal  has  clarified  that  some 

relevant  basic  measures  are  in  place  such  as  improving  wastewater  treatment  systems  and 
controlling point sources. 

As regards groundwater, in all eight mainland RBDs the poor status of 10 water bodies is due 
to nitrates, and measures have been included (measures had also been applied in the first cycle, 
but  no  change  of  status  was  achieved).  All  other  groundwater  bodies  are  in  good  chemical 

status except one due to petroleum hydrocarbons in the Sado and Mira RBD. 

In the Azores, the failure to achieve good chemical status in three groundwater bodies is due to 

saline  intrusion.  There  is  a  specific  measure  to  address  this  issue.  This  measure  includes 
studies to determine the optimal groundwater abstraction rate and control of groundwater use, 

studies to determine alternative locations for abstraction, and improved monitoring. 

144 

 
 
In Madeira all groundwater bodies are in good chemical status. 

12.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle  

Portugal  identified  the  main  point  and  diffuse  source  pressures  to  surface  waters  (i.e.  point 

sources – urban wastewater and industry; diffuse – agriculture) and groundwaters (i.e. point – 
mining  and  waste  deposits  and  uncontrolled  landfill)  in  the  first  RBMPs  and  these  broadly 

remain relevant from the information reported in the second RBMPs. Some progress was made 
on  the  development  of  inventories  but  to  differing  extents  in  different  RBDs.  Assessment  of 

this  aspect  in  Chapter  2  confirms  that  further  work  is  required.  The  first  Programmes  of 
Measures  included  a  range  of  measures  to  address  the  identified  significant  pressures  and 

impacts, but the measures were not related to specific substances in the information reported to 
WISE  for  the  first  cycle,  as  subsequently  clarified  by  Portugal.61  The  improved  reporting 
implemented  for  the  second  RBMPs  has  enhanced  the  understanding  of  linkages  between 
pressures  and  measures  associated  with  chemical  pollution,  such  that  more  targeted 

information on basic measures required under Article 11(3)(c to k) has been generally reported 
now, although there does not appear to have been a full assessment of the likely effectiveness 

of the measures. 

12.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programmes  of  Measures 
requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation:  Make  basic  measures  legally  binding  and  clearly  identified  in  the 
second RBMPs to allow for a clear assessment of the need for additional measures, e.g. 
on agriculture or wastewater treatment.  

Assessment: With respect to measures for wastewater treatment, it appears that targeted 

basic measures have been applied in relation to this significant pressure for all  RBDs. 
Portugal  confirmed  that  these  measures  are  legally  binding.  There  is  insufficient 

information  on  the  need  for  supplementary  measures.  This  recommendation  has  been 
partially fulfilled.   

61 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/pdf/4th_report/MS%20annex-Portugal.pdf  

145 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology  

13.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

Significant  hydromorphological  pressures  are  identified  in  all  RBDs.  The  sectors  most 

commonly  associated  with  the  significant  hydromorphological  pressures  are  agriculture, 
hydropower and public water supply. 

Operational KTMs to tackle significant hydromorphological pressures are reported in all RBDs 

except  one.  No  operational  KTMs  for  hydromorphology  are  reported  for  the  Madeira  RBD, 
although  the  RBMP  indicates  that  some  measures  may  be  planned,  for  example  related  to 

habitat  restoration  and  sediment  management.  However,  no  full  descriptions  of  the  planned 
measures  are  provided.  The  main  KTMs  made  operational  to  reduce  hydromorphological 

pressures are KTM5, 6 and 7. Specific measures in the RBMPs include a variety of measures, 
such as fish ladders, habitat restoration, removal of structures, sediment  management, setting 
ecological flows, conditions to licensing such as periods in which it is not possible to abstract 

water, limits to sand and stone extraction from river beds and banks. In the Azores RBD, only 
KTM14 (research-related measures) is reported as operational to tackle this type of pressures, 

specifically a study of marine hydrodynamics and hydromophology. 

In terms of basic measures, with respect to Article 11(3)(i) of the WFD there is in all RBDs an 
authorisation and/or permitting regime in place to control physical modifications, which covers 

changes to the riparian area of water bodies, as well as a register of physical modifications of 
water bodies. 

Overall management objectives for restoring river continuity have been reported as set in two 

of  the  ten  RBDs  (the  Azores  and  Madeira),  but  these  management  objectives  are  not 
quantitative.  At  the  same  time,  KTM5  (Improving  longitudinal  continuity)  is  not  reported  in 
these two RBDs but it is reported against national measures in six RBDs of the mainland (all 
except Cávado, Ave and Leça and Algarve Rivers RBDs). 

Win-win  measures  in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  Floods  Directive, 
drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures are reported to be included 

in  the  Programmes  of  Measures  of  all  RBDs.  In  addition,  the  design  of  new  and  existing 
structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers, is reported to have 
been  adapted  to  take  into  account  WFD  objectives  in  all  RBDs.  KTM23,  on  Natural  Water 

146 

 
 
Retention Measures, has been mapped against national measures in all mainland RBDs, but is 

not  explicitly  reported  in  WISE  as  a  KTM  tackling  specific  significant  pressures.    However, 
specific  measures  mentioned  in  some  of  the  RBMPs  indicate  relevance  to  Natural  Water 

Retention  Measures  and  green  infrastructure,  e.g.  maintenance  of  permanent  prairies  and 
pastures and areas of ecologic interest, as well as sustainable forestry.  

Ecological flows have been derived for some relevant water bodies in nine of the 10 RBDs. In 
eight  RBDs,  the  ecological  flows  which  have  been  derived  have  been  implemented  in  some 

relevant water bodies but the work is ongoing. Although in some RBMPs (e.g. Tagus and West 
Rivers) measures are included to model stretches of rivers downstream of reservoirs (to impose 

limits and controls on water uses), it is not explained if and how these measures can support 
implementation  of  ecological  flows.  In  addition,  the  ecological  flow  measures  planned  for 

specific water bodies indicate that ecological flows will be defined and implemented according 
to the concession contracts in force (and taking into account guidelines provided by the Water 

Authority, namely on the definition of ecological flow and on monitoring), or in other cases, 
ecological flows will be defined in order to apply to future concessions. 

A measure to be implemented by the National Water Authority consists in the elaboration of a 

methodological  guide  for  the  definition  of  ecological  flows  in  different  regions  of  mainland 
Portugal. According to the Programmes of Measures in all eight RBDs in the mainland, a plan 

for the revision of the regime of ecological flows has a deadline of 2019.  

No information is provided on the implementation of derived ecological flows in Madeira. In 

the  Azores,  no  ecological  flows  have  been  derived  but  there  are  plans  to  do  so  in  the  next 
cycle. 

In terms of the ambition of measures to address hydromorphological pressures, the majority of 

measures are already taken in 2015, while a few measures are planned for 2021. The number of 
water bodies failing to achieve the objectives due to significant hydromorphological pressures 
will be reduced from  2015 to  2021 by  approximately one third. The remaining two-thirds of 
the  water  bodies  affected  by  hydromorphological  pressures  are  expected  to  achieve  the 

objectives by 2027. 

13.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

 The  RBMPs  do  not  highlight  any  elements  of  marked  progress  on  the  hydromorphological 
measures planned when compared with the measures proposed in the first RBMPs. 

147 

 
 
13.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  first  Programmes  of 
Measures requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation:  Review  all  existing  permits  for  abstractions  and  flow  regulations, 
including dams, and, where necessary, amend them to ensure that they are compatible 
with the WFD objectives.  

Assessment:    In  some  RBMPs  (e.g.  for  the  Tagus  and  West  Rivers  RBD),  there  are 
measures  on  licensing,  indicating  the  setting  of  periods  in  which  it  is  not  possible  to 

abstract  water.  This  is  referred  as  relevant  also  to  existing  permits.  Portugal 
subsequently  communicated  that  the  licenses  and  permits  for  abstractions  and  flow 

regulations, including dams, that needed to be updated were reviewed. The Portuguese 
law allows changing the permits when the quality objectives of the water bodies are not 

achieved.  An  update  of  the  permits  has  been  made  to  allow  the  implementation  of 
measures  to  make  them  compatible  with  the  WFD  objectives.  Since  2007,  several 

permits  were  revised  in  order  to  implement  ecological  flows.  Also  a  monitoring 
programme  was  established  in  order  to  determine  the  effectiveness  of  the  ecological 

flows towards reaching the objectives. 

Overall,  information  in  the  RBMPs  indicates  that  there  is  work  still  in  progress 
concerning  the  definition  of  ecological  flow  regimes,  to  be  used  as  a  basis  for 

requirements  in  the  sections  downstream  of  hydraulic  infrastructure.  A  significant 
portion of dams still do not have ecological flows defined (particularly older ones) and 
monitoring  programs  have  been  and  are  being  developed  to  define  ecological  flow 
regimes62. 

Overall, this recommendation has been so far partially fulfilled and work seems to be 
still in progress to ensure that all permits are compatible with WFD objectives. 

  Recommendation:  Consider  and  prioritise  the  use  of  green  infrastructure  and/or 
natural water retention measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements 
in water quality, increase water infiltration and thus aquifer recharge, flood protection, 

62 Portugal subsequently clarified that ecological flows have been defined for all dams built after1990. Since 2008 
significant  efforts  have  been  made  to  adapt  the  old  dams  to  the  required  ecological  flows,  including  the 
construction  of  specific  devices,  and  this  is  already  showing  good  results  on  the  ecological  status  of  water 
bodies downstream of the dams. 

148 

 
 
                                                      
habitat  conservation  etc.),  social  and  economic  benefits  which  can  be  in  many  cases 

more cost-effective than grey infrastructure.  

Assessment:  The  specific  KTM23  on  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  has  been 

mapped against national measures in all mainland RBDs, but is not explicitly reported 
in WISE as a KTM tackling specific significant pressures. However, specific measures 

mentioned  in  some  of  the  RBMPs  indicate  relevance  to  Natural  Water  Retention 
Measures and green infrastructure, e.g. maintenance of permanent prairies and pastures 

and areas of ecologic interest, as well as sustainable forestry. 

There is no national or regional strategy that prioritises the implementation of Natural 
Water  Retention  Measures  and  green  infrastructure  measures  per  se.  However,  the 

National  Climate  Change  Adaptation  Plan  includes  these  types  of  measures.  Also  the 
Common  Agriculture  Programme  with  green  payments  and  the  Rural  Development 

Programme  of  mainland  Portugal  promote  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures,  and 
these are reflected in some of the RBMPs. 

This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

149 

 
 
 
 
Topic 14

  Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

14.1  Assessment  of  implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 
requirements  in  the  second  cycle  and  main  changes  since  the  first 
cycle 

A  rather  broad  definition  of  water  services  is  applied  in  the  Portuguese  RBDs,  but  they  still 
differ from RBD to RBD. 

There  are  activities  that  are  related  to  a  significant  pressure  and  are  not  exempted  under 
Article 9(4), such as diffuse pollution from agriculture and water quantity/ecological flows.  

Water uses are described in the RBMPs in the chapter “Characterisation”. 

Environmental and resource costs are indicated  in  most RBDs as calculated, internalised and 

significant  for  drinking  water  abstraction/treatment  and  distribution,  self-abstraction,  sewage 
collection  and  wastewater  treatment  and  irrigation  water  abstraction/treatment/distribution 

(when  defined  as  a  water  service).  In  addition,  for  one  "other"  water  service  ("Gestão  de 
Empreendimentos  de  Fins  Múltiplos)  -  if  defined  as  a  water  service  -  environmental  and 

resource  costs  are  indicated  as  calculated  and  significant;  in  some  RBDs  these  are  not 
internalised,  in  others  partly.  There  is  no  information  whether  the  cost  recovery  rates  or  the 

contribution of the different users are adequate or not. 

An  updated  economic  analysis  has  been  done,  focussing  on  the  analysis  of  measures  (not 

related to Article 9) and common approaches/data sources. 

14.2  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first cycle RBMPs and PoM requested action 

on the following: 

  Recommendation:  Develop  fully  the  economic  analysis  of  water  use,  including  the 
calculation of  Environmental and Resource Costs and ensure that the combination of 

water  tariffs  and  the  Water  Resources  Tax  lead  to  adequate  recovery  of  the  costs  of 
water services. 

150 

 
 
Assessment:  A  rather  broad  definition  of  water  services  is  applied  in  the  mainland 

Portuguese  RBDs  and  in  Madeira,  but  they  still  differ  from  RBD  to  RBD;  in  the 
Azores, only two water services are defined. 

In  all  RBDs  water  supply  and  wastewater  services  have  been  identified  as  water 
services.  Irrigation  services  have  been  identified  in  all  relevant  RBDs  of  mainland 

Portugal, while other services defined differ. For mainland Portugal the water services 
provided  by  entities  managing  multipurpose  dams  (irrigation,  energy,  water  supply, 

flood  protection)  are  considered  as  "other  services".  "Other  services"  in  mainland 
Portugal also relate to the services partially funded by water related taxes and provided 

by 1) the Portuguese Environment Agency and the Water Resources Protection Fund; 
2) the Waste and Water Regulatory entity; and 3) the entities supporting and regulating 

Collective Irrigation Schemes.  

The Azores RBD also reports flood protection as a water service in WISE, but this is 
not explicitly done in the RBMP63. The cost recovery calculation covers only "urban", 
meaning water supply and sanitation for households, commerce and services. 

In  the  Madeira  RBD,  the  cost  recovery  is  calculated  for  the  single  water  supply 

company, separately for urban, irrigation and industry sectors. 

There are activities that are related to a significant pressure and are not exempted under 

Article  9(4),  such  as  diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  and  water  quantity/ecological 
flows.  

In  some  RBDs,  the  same  utility  may  provide  services  to  combinations  of  household, 
industry and agriculture, but the cost recovery calculation is based only on the profits 

and losses of the utilities. The RBDs Minho and Lima and Cávado, Ave and Leça do 
not have such entities, and cost recovery is not calculated in those RBDs. In the other 

RBDs that have such entities only one has cost recovery to some extent (Alqueva in the 
Guadiana RBD), being null in all the other cases until now. 

Water uses are described in the RBMPs in the chapter “Characterisation”. 

According to the information reported to WISE, for most water services financial costs 

are  included  in  the  cost  recovery  (in  some  cases,  partially),  while  for  all  except  self-
supply the financial costs are indicated as calculated. Various degrees of cost recovery 

are provided, but the cost recovery rates in some RBDs and for some water services are 

63   Portugal subsequently clarified that this is a reporting error. 

151 

 
 
                                                      
not  reported,  even  if  indicated  as  calculated  (the  calculated  revenues  are  legally 

stipulated but have not yet been charged - this is the case of multi-purpose dams and the 
maintenance tax in the irrigation infrastructures). 

Environmental  and  resource  costs  are  indicated  in  most  RBDs  as  calculated, 
internalised  and  significant  for  drinking  water  abstraction/treatment  and  distribution, 

self-abstraction,  sewage  collection  and  wastewater  treatment  and  irrigation  water 
abstraction/treatment/distribution (when defined as a water service). In addition, for one 

"other" water service ("Gestão de Empreendimentos de Fins Múltiplos) - if defined as a 
water  service  -  environmental  and  resource  costs  are  indicated  as  calculated  and 

significant; in some RBDs these are not internalized, in others partly. 

In the mainland, the cost recovery calculation was based on an estimation and included 

financial  costs,  resource  costs  and  environmental  costs.  The  environmental  and 
resource costs are said to be internalised via the: 1) Water Resources Tax, applied in the 

mainland,  charged  by  the  water  authority  to  fund  its  activities  and  as  a  source  of  the 
Water Resources Fund; 2) a regulation tax, charged by the regulatory authority (urban 
use);  and  3)  a  tax  on  beneficiaries,  charged  by  the  Ministry  in  charge  of  agriculture. 

However,  the  latter  has  never  been  charged,  as  the  Government  has  not  defined  the 
percentage of investment that should be repaid by the beneficiaries. 

The Water Resources Tax or something equivalent is not yet applied in the Azores and 
Madeira  RBDs,  hence  there  is  no  internalisation  of  the  environmental  and  resource 

costs there. 

The Water Resources Tax has components for each type of water use: water abstracted, 

deviated or used (volume) including for energy production; wastewater discharge (per 
kg  of  nitrogen  and  phosphorous);  volume  of  extracted  inerts  (sand,  gravel,  etc.)  from 

the public water domain; occupation for private use of the public water domain (area); 
private use of water under public management.  These charges seem to form the basis 

for  the  calculation  of  environmental  and  resource  costs.  It  is  also  acknowledged  that 
there are still knowledge and information gaps. 

To  conclude,  environmental  and  resource  costs  are  still  not  really  calculated;  instead, 
they are regarded as internalised through the existing legislation. 

There  is  no  information  whether  the  cost  recovery  rates  or  the  contribution  of  the 
different users to it are adequate or not, except for households on the mainland, where 

calculations are presented on the weight of water expenses by income class. 

152 

 
 
Due to the fractured approach to defining water services and cost recovery calculations 

in  Portugal,  it  is  difficult  to  assess  the  level  of  Article  9  implementation.  There  was 
some  work  done,  with  large  gaps  still  remaining.  Overall,  some  progress  on  the 

Commission´s recommendation can be noted. 

153 

 
 
 
 
 
  Considerations specific to Protected Areas 
Topic 15
(identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 

15.1  Assessment  of  implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

Portugal  has  reported  Protected  Areas  designated  under  all  relevant  Directives  in  the  second 
RBMPs (Table 15.1). 

For groundwater, Protected Areas have been associated with Drinking Water Protected Areas 
and  Nitrate  Vulnerable  Zones.  Protected  Areas  for  nitrates  are  reported  for  13  lakes  in  the 
Azores RBD.  

Table 15.1 

Number of water bodies of all types in each RBD of Portugal, for surface 
and groundwater. 

Protected Area type 

Number of water bodies associated with64 

Rivers  Lakes  Transitional  Coastal  Groundwater 

Abstraction of water intended for human 
consumption under Article 7 

152 

1 

Recreational waters, including areas designated 
as bathing waters under Directive 76/160/EEC65 

97 

1 

17 

385 

264 

Protection of species where the maintenance or 
improvement of the status of water is an 
important factor in their protection, including 
relevant Natura 2000 sites designated under 
Directive 79/409/EEC (Birds)66 

Protection of habitats or species where the 
maintenance or improvement of the status of 
water is an important factor in their protection, 
including relevant Natura 2000 sites designated 
under Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats)67 

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas 
designated as vulnerable zones under Directive 
91/676/EEC (Nitrates Directive)68 and areas 
designated as sensitive areas under Directive 
91/271/EEC (Urban Wastewater Treatment 
Directive)69 

36 (35) 

2 

7 

23 

72 (59) 

4 

13 

42 (41) 

11 

8 

1 

9 

64 Portugal subsequently amended the data reported to WISE (the corrected numbers are in parentheses) 
65  Directive  2006/7/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  February  2006  concerning  the 
management  of  bathing  water  quality  and  repealing  Directive  76/160/EEC  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0007  

66  Directive  2009/147/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  November  2009  on  the 

conservation of wild birds http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0147  

67  Council  Directive  92/43/EEC  of  21  May  1992  on  the  conservation  of  natural  habitats  and  of  wild  fauna  and 

flora http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31992L0043  

68  Council  Directive  91/676/EEC  of  12  December  1991  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
agricultural 

sources 

by 

caused 
from 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31991L0676  

nitrates 

69  Council  Directive  91/271/EEC  of  21  May  1991  concerning  urban  waste-water  treatment  http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31991L0271  

154 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Protected Area type 

Number of water bodies associated with64 

Rivers  Lakes  Transitional  Coastal  Groundwater 

Areas designated for the protection of 
economically significant aquatic species 

87 (83) 

18 

61 (58) 

Other 

5 

3 

64 

Source: Member States reports to WISE 

A  good  overview  of  the  status  of  water  bodies  associated  with  Protected  Areas  is  reported 

(Figure 15.1).  

Figure 15.1  Status  of  water  bodies  associated  with  Protected  Areas  for  Portugal.  NB  - 

based  on  status/potential  aggregated  for  all  water  bodies  associated  with  all 

Protected Areas. 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Specific objectives are set for shellfish areas (bacterial content), which are different from those 
in  the  Shellfish  Waters  Directive70  in  all  RBDs,  except  for  the  Azores,  where  no 
microbiological standards have been set to protect shellfish areas.  

Portugal  has  reported to  WISE that the WFD objectives for water bodies  associated with  the 
Habitats and Birds Protected Areas are sufficient also to reach the objectives according to the 

corresponding Directives in most RBDs, but an individual assessment of the status and of the 
need for more stringent objectives has not been done. In the Madeira RBMP this is not stated, 

instead noting that some specific water objectives have been set to protect dependent habitats 
and  species,  but  work  is  still  on-going  to  determine  needs.  No  information  is  given  on 

groundwater dependent Birds and Habitat Protected Areas. 

Specific  objectives  are  set  for  drinking  water  areas  associated  with  both  groundwater  and 
surface water bodies for all RBDs except the Azores RBD71. 

In  the  first  cycle,  a  substantial  monitoring  programme  for  Protected  Areas  was  reported  for 

both  surface  and  groundwater  bodies  and  for  all  relevant  Protected  Area  types:  158  surface 
water  monitoring  points  and  314  groundwater  monitoring  points  for  Protected  Areas 
designated under Article 7 of the WFD, as well as 392 monitoring points for Bathing Waters, 

27 for Birds Directive, 91 for Fish, 283 for Habitats, 58 for Nitrate, 93 for Shellfish and 49 for 
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.  

For  the  second  cycle,  no  data  were  reported  to  WISE.  However,  the  RBMPs  included 
information which is presented in Table 15.2. The data provided were not all divided by water 

body category. These data show that there has been some reduction in the number of surface 
monitoring points for Protected Areas designated under Article 7 of the WFD, but an increase 

of 70 %  in groundwater monitoring points. There were also increases in the number of sites 
for Protected Areas for Bathing Waters and Nitrates and no data were included for monitoring 

of  Protected  Areas  for  Birds,  Habitats  or  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive.  The 
number of sites monitoring fish appears to be nearly the same as in the previous cycle. 

70  Council  Directive  79/923/EEC  of  30  October  1979  on  the  quality  required  of  shellfish  waters  http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31979L0923  

71  In  some  cases,  drinking  water  objectives  are  reported  as  being  met,  but  no  objectives  are  reported  to  be  set. 
Portugal  subsequently  clarified  to  the  Commission  that  objectives  are  set  for  all  surface  water  bodies 
associated with protected areas, but not all have been reported. 

156 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 15.2 

Number of monitoring sites associated with Protected Areas in Portugal. 

Protected Area type 

Number of monitoring sites associated with 
Protected Areas in 
Transiti
onal 

Ground
water 

Coas
tal 

Rivers  Lakes 

Abstraction of water intended for human consumption under 
Article 7 
Recreational waters, including areas designated as bathing 
waters under Directive 76/160/EEC 
Nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas designated as 
vulnerable zones under Directive 91/676/EEC (Nitrates 
Directive) 
Areas designated for the protection of economically 
significant aquatic species  

75 

46 

1 

0 

535 

96 

310 

194 

55 (cyprinid) 
38 (salmonid) 

For Drinking Water Protected Areas, there are safeguard zones in all 10 RBDs and there are no 

plans in the second RBMPs to change the regulations. The measures to  be taken in these are 
not clearly described in the Plans and the information reported is generally administrative, such 
as delimiting the zones and defining objectives in a generic way72. 

For  the  other  types  of  Protected  Areas  (Habitats,  Birds,  Shellfish  and  Bathing  Waters)  no 
information was reported in the RBMPs or Programmes of Measures about implementation or 

planning  for  additional  measures.  For  Birds  and  Habitats  Protected  Areas,  good  ecological 
status is assessed to be sufficient, so no additional measures are needed. 

15.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 
There  have  been  some  changes  in  the  number  of  Protected  Areas  since  the  first  cycle.  In 

general, the total number of Drinking Water Protected Areas has been reduced to around half 
of the number reported in the first Plans, while the number of Habitats and Shellfish Protected 

Areas has increased. For the other types of Protected Areas, there are no major changes in the 
numbers reported. 

No data has been reported to WISE for the second RBMPs for surface water and groundwater 

monitoring  of  water  bodies  associated  with  Protected  Areas.  Data  included  in  the  RBMPs 
show  that  there  has  been  some  reduction  in  the  number  of  surface  monitoring  points  for 

Protected  Areas  designated  under  Article  7  of  the  WFD,  but  an  increase  of  70  %    in 
groundwater monitoring points. There were also increases in the number of sites for Protected 

72 Portugal subsequently clarified that the measures to be taken are associated with the environmental restrictions 
established in the Drinking Water Protected Areas (DWPA), published as a legal document, in order to protect 
groundwater and avoid its deterioration. Three safeguard zones are established: immediate, intermediate and 
extended  protection  zone.  Two  residence  times  (t)  are  considered:  t=50  days  for  the  intermediate  zone  and 
t=3500  days  for  the  extended  zone.  In  each  zone,  specific  measures,  namely  restrictions  to  land  use,  are 
defined. The safeguard zones and the restrictions are published in a legislative act.  

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Areas  for  Bathing  Waters  and  Nitrates,  while  no  data  were  included  for  monitoring  of 

Protected  Areas  for  Birds,  Habitats  or  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive.  The 
number of sites monitoring fish appears to be nearly the same as in the previous cycle.  

15.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

No recommendations were made for this topic. 

158 

 
 
 
Topic 16

  Adaptation to drought and climate change 

16.1  Assessment  of  implementation  and  compliance  with  the  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

Climate change was considered in various ways in all RBDs, on the basis of the guidance on 

how to  adapt  to climate change (Common  Implementation Strategy  Guidance Document  No. 
24).  The  National  Strategy  for  Adaptation  to  Climate  Change  is  mentioned  in  the  second 

RBMPs but not in the reporting to WISE. 

Specific  climate  change  aspects  have  been  considered  when  selecting  robust  adaptation 
measures:  checking  the  effectiveness  of  measures,  assessing  direct  and  indirect  climate 

pressures, monitoring change at reference sites and forecasting the economics of water supply 
and demand. 

Adaptation measures in  all mainland RBDs consist of the articulation of the several sectorial 
policies  addressed  by  the  National  Climate  Change  Adaptation  Strategy  regarding  water 

resources  issues,  and  the  monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  the  National  Climate  Change 
Adaptation  Strategy  in  what  relates  to  water  resources.  The  Azores  RBMP  states  that  it  will 

profit  from  the  investment  of  €21.8  million  for  measures  of  adaptation  to  climate  change, 
included in the Operational Programme for the Azores, for the elaboration of a droughts and 

water  scarcity  management  plan  and  for  the  identification  of  the  necessary  information  to 
develop  a  water  balance.  There  are  also  knowledge  measures  that  address  climate  change 

issues, such as knowledge increase on groundwater bodies and on marine hydrodynamic and 
hydromorphology. 

In the Madeira RBD, one basic measure refers to the promotion of measures related with water 

resources  on  adaptation  to  climate  change,  with  a  budget  of  €20,000.  There  is  no  detailed 
description of those measures.  

Climate change is also considered with respect to flood risk management and for maximisation 
of  cross-sectoral  benefits  and  minimisation  of  negative  effects  across  sectors  in  all  RBDs 

except the Algarve Rivers RBD.. It is also considered for drought management when dealing 
with water scarcity. KTM24 is not reported to be applied in any RBD73. 

73 Portugal subsequently clarified that KMT24 is applied.  

159 

 
 
                                                      
According  to  the  available  information,  all  RBDs  in  Portugal  face  droughts,  and  will  face 

(more)  severe  droughts  with  climate  change.  In  fact,  there  are  four  RBDs  (Tagus  and  West 
Rivers,  Sado  and  Mira,  Guadiana,  Algarve  Rivers)  which  have  already  applied  Article  4(6) 

exemptions for not achieving objectives in the first cycle. However, it is unclear if Portugal has 
adequate  drought  management  plans  in  place74  and  how  useful  these  are  for  preventing  the 
effects of droughts and avoiding the fact that prolonged droughts result in the non-achievement 
of environmental objectives. 

All  the  8  mainland  RBMPs  include  ‘Forestation  of  agricultural  and  non-agricultural  land  for 
water  retention’,  the  ‘Implementation  of  National  Climate  Change  Adaptation  Strategy’  and 

‘Controlling coastal erosion’ as measures  to  address  droughts.  In the Tagus and West  Rivers 
RBD, there are also increased control measures, and measures consisting of the development 

of  simulation  models  for  specific  reservoirs  to  determine  the  storage  volume  necessary  to 
supply the needs from different uses and respect ecological flows, including in dry periods, and 

to manage the pricing of the use of water resources. However, it is unclear if such measures are 
applied  across  Portugal  to  keep  water  abstraction  levels  at  sustainable  levels  and  to  fulfil  all 

conditions for the application of Article 4(6). 

Even though there is no legal obligation to prepare drought management plans, many Member 
States have prepared them in order to cope with droughts. Moreover, as Portugal has applied 

Article 4(6) exemptions, a proper drought management plan with the establishment of drought 
management tools should be in place. This is however not shown by the reported data in WISE 
or the information available in the RBMPs. 

Portugal subsequently clarified that after the adoption of the RBMPs the Council of Ministers 

Resolution No. 80/2017 established the Permanent Commission for the Prevention, Monitoring 
and Follow-up of the Effects of Drought. This has a wide remit and includes drought plans and 

preparation  of  measures  to  be  adopted  in  the  medium  and  long  term,  in  a  perspective  of 
preparation for greater resilience to drought events. 

16.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

While for the first cycle no climate check of measures was done it seems that such check of 

measures has been done in the second cycle.  

74  Portugal  subsequently  clarified  that  a  prevention,  monitoring  and  contingency  plan  for  droughts  situations 

exists, but was not reported by mistake. 

160 

 
 
                                                      
For  drought,  there  are  no  changes,  though  Portugal  reported  Drought  Management  Plans  in 
place for all relevant RBDs in a different framework in 201275. This was not reported in the 2nd 
RBMPs, although Portugal subsequently clarified that a drought management plan is in place. 

16.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programmes  of  Measures 

requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  that  climate  change  is  adequately  considered  in  the 
assessment  of  pressures  and  status  of  water  bodies  and  that  the  objectives  of  the 

National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change are properly taken into account in 
the design of the Programme of Measures. 

  Assessment: The RBMPs state that the national water authority (relevant for mainland 
Portugal)  coordinated  the  working  group  on  water  resources  of  the  National  Climate 
Change Adaptation Strategy. One of the measures include in the RBMPs is to monitor 

implementation  of  that  component  of  the  strategy.  This  recommendation  is  partially 
fulfilled. 

75 Topic report on: Assessment of Water Scarcity and Drought aspects in a selection of European Union RBMPs, 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Assessment%20WSD.pdf 

161