COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Spain Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans
Date: 2019-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: Spain, 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) 42 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Spain Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans  {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - 
 
 
Table of contents 
Acronyms and definitions ............................................................................................................. 5 

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

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

Status of second river basin management plan reporting ......................................................... 10 

Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s)
.................................................................................................................................................... 11 

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 20 

Topic 1

  Governance and public participation ....................................................................... 23 

1.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 23 

1.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 26 

1.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 26 

Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District............................................................. 28 

2.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 28 

2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 48 

2.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 49 

Topic 3
bodies 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water 

 ................................................................................................................................... 51 

3.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
RBMPs.................................................................................................................................... 51 

3.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs ................... 78 

3.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 81 

Topic 4

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 
 ................................................................................................................................... 85 

4.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle  85 

4.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 100 

4.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 101 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic 5

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater 

bodies 

 ................................................................................................................................. 105 

5.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 105 

5.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 115 

5.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 116 

Topic 6

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 
 ................................................................................................................................. 118 

6.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 118 

6.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 126 

6.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 127 

Topic 7
  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good 
Ecological Potential................................................................................................................. 128 

7.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle for designation ............................................................................................................. 128 

7.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 131 

7.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 132 

Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions .............................................................. 134 

8.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 134 

8.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 148 

8.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 149 

Topic 9

  Programme of measures.......................................................................................... 152 

9.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 152 

9.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 164 

9.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 165 

Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity .......................................... 169 

2 

 
 
 
10.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 169 

10.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 173 

10.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 173 

Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture................................................... 176 

11.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 176 

11.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 179 

11.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 179 

Topic 12

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture ..................... 181 

12.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 181 

12.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 183 

12.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 185 

Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology ................................................................ 186 

13.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 186 

13.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 188 

13.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 188 

Topic 14

Economic analysis and water pricing policies .................................................... 191 

14.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance .................................... 191 

14.2 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 192 

  Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives 

Topic 15
and measures) .......................................................................................................................... 197 

15.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 197 

15.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 204 

15.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 204 

Topic 16

Adaptation to drought and climate change .......................................................... 206 

3 

 
 
 
 
16.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle and main changes since the first cycle ............................................................ 206 

16.2 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 206 

4 

 
 
Acronyms and definitions 

EQS Directive 

Environmental Quality Standards Directive 

FD 

Km 

km2 

KTM 

PoM 

Floods Directive 

Kilometre 

Kilometre squared 

Key Type of Measure 

Programme of Measures 

QA/QC Directive 

Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive  

RBD 

RBMP 

WFD 

WISE 

Annex 0 

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 River Basin Management Plans 

(RBMP) prepared earlier. The situation in the Member States may have changed since then. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
General Information 

Map A   Map of River Basin Districts 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

  International River Basin Districts (within European Union) 
  International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) 
  National River Basin Districts (within European Union) 
  Countries (outside European Union) 
  Coastal Waters 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  information  on  areas  of  the  national  river  basin  districts  including  sharing  countries  is 

provided in the following table: 

Table A: Overview of Spain‘s River Basin Districts  

RBD 

Name 

English 
Name 

Size (km2) 

International 

Countries sharing 
RBD 

ES010 

ES014 

Miño-Sil 

Miño-Sil  

Galicia-Costa 

Galicia-Coast 

ES017 

Cantábrico Oriental 

ES018 

ES020 

ES030 

ES040 

ES050 

ES060 

Cantábrico 
Occidental 

Duero 

Tajo 

Guadiana 

Guadalquivir 

Cuencas 
Mediterráneas 
Andaluzas 

ES063 

Guadalete y Barbate 

ES064 

Tinto, Odiel y Piedras 

Eastern 
Cantabrian 

Western 
Cantabrian 

Duero 

Tagus 

Guadiana 

Guadalquivir 

Andalusian 
Mediterranean 
Basins 

Guadalete and 
Barbate 

Tinto, Odiel 
and Piedras 

Segura 

Jucar 

Ebro 

Segura 

Júcar 

Ebro 

ES070 

ES080 

ES091 

ES100 

Distrito de Cuenca 
Fluvial de Cataluña 

Catalan River 
Basin District 

ES110 

Islas Baleares 

ES120 

ES122 

ES123 

ES124 

ES125 

ES126 

ES127 

ES150 

ES160 

Gran Canaria 

Fuerteventura 

Lanzarote 

Tenerife 

La Palma 

La Gomera 

El Hierro 

Ceuta 

Melilla 

Balearic 
Islands 

Gran Canaria 

Fuerteventura 

Lanzarote 

Tenerife 

La Palma 

La Gomera 

El Hierro 

Ceuta 

Melilla 

17588 

16300 

6391 

18978 

78886 

55784 

55560 

57686 

20019 

6499 

4945 

20242 

44871 

85942 

18041 

8731 

2111 

2894 

2118 

2837 

981 

530 

529 

60 

24 

 

 

 

 

 

PT 

- 

FR 

PT 

PT 

PT 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

 

AD, FR 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

MA 

MA 

 

 

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE (Spain subsequently corrected the names of several 
river basin districts). 

The share of Spain in the respective international RBDs is shown in the following table.  

8 

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

Name international 
river basin 

Miño/Minho 

Duero/Douro 

Guadiana 

Ebro 

Segre (Sub-Basin Ebro/Rhone) 

Lima/Limia 

Tajo/Tejo 

Garonne 

Nive (Sub-Basin Adour-Garonne RBD) 

Nivelle (Sub-Basin Adour-Garonne RBD) 

National 
RBD 

ES010 

ES020 

ES040 

ES091 

ES091 

ES010 

ES030 

ES017/ES091 

ES017 

ES017 

Bidasoa (Sub-Basin Adour-Garonne RBD) 

ES017 

Ceuta 

Melilla 

ES150 

ES160 

Countries 
sharing 
RBD 

PT 

PT 

PT 

AD, FR 

AD, FR 

PT 

PT 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

MA 

MA 

Coordination category 

2 

3 

km² 

16226 

78859 

55454 

% 

95.0 

80.7 

82.7 

85534 

99 

18750 

1326 

55772 

555 

121 

70 

689 

95.2 

52.9 

78.3 

0.7 

19.0 

12.0 

97.0 

km² 

% 

60 

24 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

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

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Status of second river basin management plan reporting 

A total of 18 of the 25 RBMPs of Spain (Miño-Sil, Galicia-Coast, Eastern Cantabrian, Western 

Cantabrian,  Duero,  Tagus,  Guadiana,  Guadalquivir,  Andalusian  Mediterranean  Basins, 
Guadalete  and  Barbate,  Tinto,  Odiel  and  Piedras,  Segura,  Jucar,  Ebro,  Catalan  River  Basin 

District, Balearic Islands, Ceuta, Melilla) were published between 18 July 2015 and 22 January 
2016.  Seven  RBMPs  (El  Hierro,  La  Gomera,  La  Palma,  Tenerife,  Lanzarote,  Fuerteventura, 
Gran  Canaria1)  were  adopted  between  September  2018  and  January  2019.  Documents  are 
available  from  the  European  Environment  Agency  EIONET  Central  Data  Repository 

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

1   Spain reported to the Commission that the RBMP La Gomera was adopted on 17 September2018, Tenerife and 
La Palma on 26 November 2018, Fuerteventura, Lanzarote, El Hierro on 26 December 2018, and Gran Canaria 
on 21 January 2019. 

10 

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

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

 

Governance and public consultation 

 

A broad range of stakeholder groups were actively involved in the development of the 

RBMPs, including via advisory groups.  

 

Spain has strengthened cooperation with Portugal on the implementation of the WFD 

and the preparation of their respective RBMPs.  

  While  Spain  has  improved  cooperation  with  France  on  river  basin  management,  the 
information available suggest there is room for improvement in the third RBMPs. 

 

For all but two RBDs, consultation of RBMPs and FRMPs was co-ordinated and steps 

have been taken to co-ordinate measures across the two Directives. 

 

Spain did adopt and publish most of its RBMPs (18 out of 25) in accordance with the 
timetable in the WFD. Spain had not reported seven of its 25 RBMPs (Gran Canaria, 

Fuerteventura,  Lanzarote,  Tenerife,  La  Palma,  La  Gomera  and  El  Hierro)  and  these 
have therefore not  been  included in  this assessment. These plans have been recently 
approved by the Regional Government2. 

 

Characterisation of the RBD 

 

Further characterisation work of groundwater bodies has been undertaken since the first 

RBMPs,  by  describing  the  geological  formation  and  whether  or  not  they  are  layered. 
Spain  has  also  included  an  assessment  of  linkages  with  surface  water  bodies  and 

terrestrial ecosystems. 

 

The  Typology  has  not  been  made  biologically  relevant  for  all  types  for  the  second 

RBMPs. In addition, for a large proportion of water body types in all water categories, 
no  equivalent  intercalibration  type  was  reported.  If  the  results  of  the  intercalibration 

exercise have not been appropriately translated to these national types then the validity 

2   Spain reported to the Commission that the RBMP La Gomera was adopted on 17 September2018, Tenerife and 
La Palma on 26 November 2018, Fuerteventura, Lanzarote, El Hierro on 26 December 2018, and Gran Canaria 
on 21 January 2019. 

11 

 
 
                                                      
of the classification of ecological status/potential of a significant proportion of surface 

water bodies can be questioned. 

 

There are no water bodies in  Spain that have had reference conditions  established for 

all  relevant  hydromorphological  or  all  relevant  physicochemical  quality  elements. 
There are also  gaps in terms of reference conditions for all relevant biological quality 

elements in all water categories. 

 

There  have  been  improvements  in  the  assessment  of  significant  pressures  with  more 

water  bodies  identified  as  having  pressures,  as  a  consequence  of  a  more  detailed 
analysis  of  significant  pressures.  At  the  same  time,  for  a  number  of  RBDs,  expert 

judgment  is  still  used  to  define  the  significance  of  pressures,  instead  of  numerical 
methods  such  as  modelling  which  would  make  the  analysis  more  quantitative  and 

robust. 

 

All RBDs in Spain reported inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of priority 

substances, except Ceuta, but the inventories do not include all Priority Substances. 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status  

 

The proportion of river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring increased in 
nine  of  the  16  RBDs  for  which  there  is  relevant  information  for  both  the  first  and 

second  RBMPs.  However,  it  decreased  in  the  other  seven  RBDs.  For  operational 
monitoring,  the  proportion  of  river  water  bodies  covered  increased  in  10  RBDs  and 

decreased in the other six.  

 

There was a 39 % reduction in the number of surveillance monitoring sites and an 18 

% reduction in the number of operational monitoring sites since the first RBMPs. 

 

There  are  significant  gaps  in  the  monitoring  of  all  required  quality  elements  in 

surveillance  monitoring.  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  have  been  monitored  in  all 
water categories. A total of 221 pollutants have been selected. Standards have been set 

for some (but not all) pollutants in accordance with the Technical Guidance Document 
No 27. The analytical methods used are in line with Article 4(1) or Article 4(2) of the 
QA/QC Directive (2009/90/EC3) for almost all standards. 

3 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:201:0036:0038:EN:PDF 

12 

 
 
                                                      
 

The classification of ecological status is based on more comprehensive classification 

methods  than  was  the  case  for  the  first  RBMPs.  More  relevant  biological  quality 
elements  were  considered,  e.g.  fish  and  phytoplankton  in  rivers,  as  well  as  some 

hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. 

 

The majority of water bodies have been classified based on monitoring at the quality 

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

 

The  overall  ecological  status/potential  has  slightly  improved,  but  the  proportion  of 

water bodies at less than good status is still between 30 and 70 % for natural rivers in 

most RBDs. 

  Most  water  bodies  are  classified  with  high  or  medium  confidence,  which  is  a  great 

improvement since the first cycle 

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

 

Significant progress has been made in reducing the proportion of surface water bodies 

with  unknown status  since the  first  RBMPs (from  37 to  6 %).This  resulted in  a large 
increase in the proportion of surface water bodies with good chemical status (from 58 

% to 87 %) and a small increase in the proportion with poor status from 5 to 6 %.  

 

54 % of the classified water bodies were assessed based on monitoring, 45 % by expert 

judgement and less than 1 % by grouping. A relatively high proportion of water bodies 

were  therefore  classified  by  expert  judgement,  which  could  be  linked  to  the  low 
confidence  in  the  assessment  (40  %  of  surface  water  bodies  were  classified  with  low 
confidence).  

 

Territorial waters were not monitored and assessed for chemical status. There seemed 

to  be  some  inconsistencies  in  the  number  of  sites  and  water  bodies  reported  for 
chemical  monitoring  in  the  other  water  categories.  Three  RBDs  did  not  report  any 

monitoring programme. 

 

In  10  RBDs,  all  Priority  substances  included  in  an  inventory  and  discharged  were 

monitored. In a further six RBDs, some of the substances discharged are not monitored. 
Not  all  inventories  considered  all  priority  substances,  so  it  is  not  clear  whether  all 

discharged  substances  have  been  identified.  The  remaining  RBDs  did  not  report  an 
inventory.  

13 

 
 
 

The number of Priority Substances monitored in water for status assessment is variable 

depending on the RBD; between 4 and 41 Priority Substances are monitored. There is 
also  a high degree of variability in  the proportion of water bodies monitored between 

RBDs and water categories. The recommended minimum frequency were met at some 
sites for 40 of the 41 substances for operational and for all substances for surveillance 

monitoring.  Fewer  substances  meet  these  recommended  minimum  frequencies  in 
coastal and transitional waters than in surface freshwaters. 

  Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  were  monitored  in  biota  for 
status assessment in four of the 18 RBDs, but not in all water categories (one additional 

RBD  monitors  only  mercury  and  hexachlorobutadiene  in  biota).  The  spatial  coverage 
appears to be very limited in these RBDs. The recommended minimum frequency was 

met at all sites in twoRBDs but at fewer sites in the remaining RBDs. 

 

Up to 14 substances were monitored for trend in sediment and /or biota depending on 

the RBD (nine RBDs did not report any trend monitoring). Monitoring was undertaken 

at some sites in all water categories. However, the spatial coverage appears to be very 
limited. The recommended minimum frequency was met in the majority of sites. 

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  quantitative  status  of  groundwater 

bodies 

 

84  groundwater  bodies  are  still  not  subject  to  groundwater  quantitative  monitoring.  It 

has to be considered that information from the Canary Islands river basin districts has 
not  been  reported  in  the  second  cycle  reporting.  In  river  basin  districts  Ceuta  and 

Melilla, there is no quantitative monitoring. The number of monitoring sites increased 
by approximately 15 % when comparing the two planning cycles. 

 

 

All groundwater bodies now have a clear status. About 25 % of the groundwater bodies 
are at risk of failing good quantitative status. 

The  overall  status  situation  improved:  for  the  RBDs  for  which  information  is  also 
available  from  the  first  RBMP,  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good 

quantitative status declined slightly. 

14 

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

 

Efforts  have  been  made  in  groundwater  status  assessment,  so  the  number  of 

groundwater  bodies  in  unknown  status  has  been  significantly  reduced  since  the  first 
RBMPs  (from  8  to  1  out  of  729  groundwater  bodies).  31  %  of  the  total  groundwater 

body area is failing good chemical status. 

 

The coverage of groundwater bodies by monitoring of chemical status is not complete, 

neither  for  surveillance  monitoring  nor  for  operational  monitoring.  The  coverage  of 
groundwater  bodies  at  risk  by  operational  monitoring  has  increased  since  the  first 

RBMP (18 %)  

 

Not all substances causing risk are subject to monitoring. All WFD core parameters are 

monitored in seven river basin districts but in nine river basin districts the coverage is 

incomplete. 

 

Threshold values have not been established for all substances causing risk and in two of 

18 river basin districts natural background levels have not been considered. 

 

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

Ecological Potential 

 

 

The second RBMPs include assessments of the significant adverse effects of measures 
on the use and wider environment and an assessment of better environmental options on 

the  level  of  water  bodies.  However,  no  criteria  and  thresholds  to  define  significant 
effects are provided in the RBMPs or the methodological documents. 

In  the  first  RBMPs,  a  full  methodology  for  good  ecological  potential  definition  was 
missing.  In the second RBMPs, 14 out of 18 RBDs, the CIS approach was applied to 

define  good  ecological  potential.  In  the  remaining  four  RBDs  (Guadalquivir,  Segura, 
Ceuta, Melilla), a hybrid approach was used. 

 

In  the  second  RBMPs,  there  is  a  specific  national  method  in  place  for  defining  good 

ecological  potential  of  reservoirs  and  ports.  Good  ecological  potential  has  not  been 
defined  in  terms  of  biology  in  the  RBDs  Ceuta  and  Melilla.  For  most  RBDs, 

information  is  not  entirely  clear  on  whether  actual  values  for  biological  quality 
elements  are  estimated  or  not  for  good  ecological  potential,  except  for  reservoirs  and 
ports, for which values for phytoplankton are defined at national level. 

15 

 
 
  Mitigation  measures  for  defining  good  ecological  potential  have  been  reported  for  all 
18  RBDs.  In  these  RBMPs,  fact  sheets  specific  to  each  heavily  modified  water  body 
included the expected changes due to the application of those mitigation measures.   

 

Environmental objectives and exemptions 

 

An  important  effort  has  been  done  since  the  previous  plans,  which  has  led  to  a 
significant  decrease  in  the  number  of  water  bodies  for  which  the  environmental 

objective was not set.  

 

Environmental objectives for ecological  and  chemical  status  of surface  water bodies 

have  been  reported  in  all  RBDs  as  well  as  for  chemical  and  quantitative  status  of 

groundwater. Information is also provided on when the objectives are expected to be 
achieved. 

 

Important efforts have been made regarding the justifications of technical feasibility, 
disproportionate costs and natural conditions related to the application of exemptions 
in the second RBMPs, although there is room for improvement in the 3rd cycle.  

 

Some  important  efforts  have  been  made  for  a  better  application  of  Article  4(7),  and 

explanation on the exemptions applied is provided in the specific fact sheets provided 
per water body. 

 

Programme of Measures 

 

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

cycle was reported as necessary and has already been implemented in the 18 RBDs for 
which information was provided. However, only some measures have been completed 
from the first cycle of Programme of Measures in those 18 RBDs. Although progress 

seems  to  have  been  achieved  on  the  issues  identified  in  the  European  Commission 
recommendations,  there  are  still  some  areas  of  implementation  that  have  yet  to  be 

addressed. 

 

A large number of national  basic  and supplementary  measures  are reported across a 

wide range of KTMs. A wide range of types of measure has been used. Coverage of 

significant pressures with operational KTM is variable for different RBDs. 

16 

 
 
 

Indicators of the gaps to be filled by KTMs and indicators for the scale and progress 

with  implementation  of  measures  were  provided,  but  for  a  number  of  pressures  and 
RBDs, the information provided was incomplete.  

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 

  Water  abstraction  and  exploitation  continues  to  be  very  significant  for  a  large  part  of 
Spain, where many river basin districts have high levels of water exploitation index + 

(WEI+) and some of them are beyond the risk threshold of 40 %, e.g. RBDs Balearic 
Islands, Segura, Jucar and Guadalquivir. Most of the water abstraction or consumption 

data  -  and  in  particular  for  irrigation  -  rely  on  surveys  and  modelling,  and  are  not 
always backed by metering. 

 

Basic  measures  such  as  abstraction  control  under  Article  11(3)(e)  are  in  place.  River 

Basin  Authorities  have  to  maintain  a  Water  Register  of  concessions  to  control 
abstractions, while water reuse is also foreseen as a measure in most of the river basin 

districts.  

 

No  information  on  a  systematic  review  of  the  concessions  according  to  the  WFD 

objectives has been found in the river basin management plans. No plan is included in 
the river basin management plans to extend and generalise the use of flow meters for all 

water abstractions and uses (especially for agriculture).  

  Water  pricing  measures  for  water  services  from  agriculture  (KTM  11)  are  only 
considered  for  abstraction  pressures  in  a  few  river  basin  districts  (Guadalquivir, 
Guadalete and Barbate, Jucar) and are mainly focused on studies. 

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture 

 

The link between pressures and measures related to pollution from agriculture is fully 
established. 

 

General binding rules under Article 11(3)(h) are applied for nitrates and pesticides in all 

RBDs.  At  the  same  time,  supplementary  measures  beyond  Nitrate  Vulnerable  Zones 
have been rarely included in the Programmes of Measures and are only reported with 

low budgets. 

 

It remains unclear from the information provided in the RBMPs, if measures reported 

are of voluntary or mandatory nature. 

17 

 
 
 

The  area  of  agricultural  land  to  be  covered  by  measures  for  achieving  the 

environmental objectives is provided for several measures, but not for all. 

 

Financing of agricultural measures is not secured in all basins. 

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 

 

The  presentation  of  the  information  on  measures  against  non-agricultural  pollutants 

makes it difficult to assess their likely effectiveness. 

  Measures related to hydromorphology 

 

Hydromorphological  measures  have  been  reported  for  more  RBDs  compared  to  the 

first  RBMPs.  However,  a  significant  number  of  water  bodies  are  affected  by 
hydromorphological pressures, whose driver is unknown or obsolete. 

 

Indicators  on  the  gap  to  be  filled  for  significant  hydromorphological  pressures  are 
provided  for  all  RBDs  but  progress  indicators  for  the  KTM  tackling  these  pressures 

are only reported for three of 18 RBDs. Therefore, no substantial conclusions can be 
drawn on the progress expected from measures over the next cycles. 

 

Ecological  flows  have  been  derived  for  all  relevant  water  bodies  but  implemented 

only  in  some  (work  still  ongoing).  The  timeline  for  completing  the  process  of 
implementing ecological flows differs for different RBDs, while for other RBDs, no 

information is given on the relevant timeline. The second RBMPs also make reference 
to  actions  of  prioritising  the  implementation  of  ecological  flows  in  “strategic”  or 

priority river stretches within the second cycle and in non-priority stretches by 2027.  

 

Specific  measures  included  in  the  second  RBMPs  have  clear  links  to  Natural  Water 

Retention Measures. However, the RBMPs do not provide clear explanations of how 
such measures contribute to water retention in their specific context. 

 

Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

 

 

Overall,  more  information  has  been  presented  as  compared  to  the  first  RBMPs, 
including an updated economic analysis.  

A  general  methodology  for  calculating  cost  recovery  resulted  in  a  harmonised 
presentation  of  cost  recovery  rate  results.  Also,  the  methodology  for  Environmental 

18 

 
 
Costs  has  been  streamlined,  resulting  in  significantly  higher  costs  than  in  the  first 

planning  cycle.  The  second  RBMPs  include  the  estimation  of  the  financial, 
environmental and resource costs of the water services, as well as the income obtained 

by  the  different  existing  cost  recovery  instruments  for  the  different  water  services  in 
Spain.  

Regarding  incentive  pricing,  some  instruments  target  environmental  costs,  but 
important gaps remain, in particular regarding self-abstraction and diffuse pollution.  

Considerations  specific  to  Protected  Areas  (identification,  monitoring,  objectives 
and measures) 

 

 

 

Protected Areas for all types listed in Annex IV of the WFD have been designated in 

Spain.  The  status  of  water  bodies  associated  with  these  Protected  Areas  has  been 
comprehensively reported. 

 

The  reported  extent  of  the  monitoring  programme  associated  with  Protected  Areas  is 

limited and inconsistent with the number of Protected Areas. 

 

Progress since the first cycle with the definition of additional objectives for Protected 

Areas associated with Natura 2000 sites has been limited. 

 

Adaptation to drought and climate change 

  Climate change has been considered in various ways in all river basin districts. However, 
KTM24  (climate  change  adaptation  measures)  is  not  made  operational  to  address 
significant pressures in any of the river basin districts. 

  None of the river basin management plans has applied any exemption under Article 4(6) 
for  prolonged  droughts  (except  Guadiana  in  the  RBMP,  but  not  according  to  WISE). 
According  to  the  WISE  reporting,  no  sub-plans  are  in  place  on  water  scarcity  and 

droughts. It should be noted however, that Spain has initiated the review of the 2006-2007 
drought management plans and they are expected to be approved in the near future.   

19 

 
 
 
 
Recommendations  

 

Spain  should  make  sure  that  the  preparation  of  the  next  RBMPs  is  carried  out  in 

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

 

 

Spain  should  continue  to  improve  international  cooperation,  including  coordinated 
assessments of the technical aspects of the Water Framework Directive such as ensuring 

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

Spain  needs  to  continue  its  work  on  the  establishment  of  reference  conditions,  in 
particular for relevant hydromorphological and physico-chemical quality elements. 

 

There has been some progress on the integration of the analysis of pressures and impacts 

into the Programmes of Measures. Spain needs to ensure that all pressures are factored 
into the analysis, in line with previous recommendations.  

 

 

Further work is  needed  on the apportionment  of pressures  among individual sectors, in 
order to be able to identify the most appropriate measures. 

Spain  should  ensure  all water  bodies  are  delimited,  in  particular  in  the  Canary  Islands, 
where so far no river, lake or transitional water bodies have been identified. 

 

Spain  should  improve  its  monitoring  program  to  ensure  extensive  and  consistent 

monitoring of water bodies, with appropriate coverage of all relevant quality elements, as 
there  are  still  important  gaps  and  as  there  has  been  a  decrease  in  the  number  of 

monitoring sites since the first RBMPs. 

 

Spain  should  have  a  clear  and  transparent  method  for  the  selection  of  River  Basin 

Specific  Pollutants  and  clearly  identify  the  substances  that  are  causing  failure  in  water 
bodies.  Spain  should  complete  the  definition  of  environmental  quality  standards  for  all 
River Basin Specific Pollutants. 

 

Spain should continue to progress in the transfer of the results of the intercalibration into 

all  national  types,  and  provide  clear  information  on  the  methods  that  have  been 
intercalibrated. 

 

Spain  should  complete  the  development  of  assessment  methods  for  fish  in  all  water 
bodies, and for all relevant quality elements in coastal and transitional waters. 

20 

 
 
 

The  number  of  unknowns  should  be  further  reduced  and  Spain  should  continue 

improving the confidence in the assessment of surface water chemical status for all water 
categories  (including  territorial  waters,  whose  status  should  be  assessed).  Monitoring 

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

water bodies, if necessary in combination with robust grouping/extrapolation methods. If 
a different matrix or reduced frequencies are used, the corresponding explanations should 

be provided, as required by the Directives. All priority substances discharged should be 
monitored. 

 

Spain  should further improve trend monitoring for all relevant  priority substances, in  a 
way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage, in all RBDs. 

 

Efforts  need  to  be  continued  to  complete  the  methodology  for  heavily  modified  water 

body  designation  for  all  RBDs,  including  clear  and  transparent  criteria  for  significant 
adverse effects on the use or the wider environment. Good ecological potential needs to 

be defined also in terms of biological quality elements for all RBDs. 

 

There has been an increase in the number of exemptions in the second RBMPs, although 

the  approach  taken  has  been  to  use  deadline  exemptions  (Article  4(4))  instead  of  less 
stringent objectives (Article 4(5)), in order not to reduce the level of ambition regarding 

the  WFD  objectives.  The  justifications  and  related  criteria  for  technical  feasibility  and 
disproportionate  costs  need  to  be  clearly  distinguished  between  Article  4(4)  and  4(5) 

exemptions due to the different nature of both exemptions. 

 

Further  progress  is  required  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  application  of  Article  4(7) 

exemptions  are  in  line  with  the  WFD  obligations,  and  a  more  specific  and  detailed 
assessment is carried out case by case.  

 

All  the  KTMs  should  be  operational  and  measures  should  cover  all  the  significant 
pressures, including individual Priority Substances, River Basin Specific Pollutants and 

Groundwater pollutants, including from non-agricultural sources. 

 

It should be clarified how the measures contribute to close the gaps to good status, and 

supplementary measures should be identified and implemented where necessary. 

 

Continued  progress  is  needed  to  extend  the  use  of  flow  meters,  to  ensure  that  all 
abstractions  are  metered  and  registered,  and  that  permits  are  adapted  to  available 

resources. Users need to be required to report regularly to river basin authorities on the 

21 

 
 
volumes  actually  abstracted.  This  information  should  be  used  to  improve  quantitative 

management  and  planning,  especially  in  those  river  basin  districts  which  present 
significant abstraction pressures and high values of WEI+. 

 

In the third RBMPs, Spain should state clearly to what extent, in terms of area covered 
and  pollution  risk  mitigated,  basic  measures  (minimum  requirements  to  be  complied 

with)  or  supplementary  measures  (designed  to  be  implemented  in  addition  to  basic 
measures)  will  contribute  to  achieving  the  WFD  objectives.  Spain  should  also  identify 

sources  of  funding  (e.g.  CAP  Pillar  1,  RDP)  as  appropriate,  to  facilitate  successful 
implementation  of  these measures  and  ensure  that  the  next  Nitrates  Action  Programme 

includes controls on phosphorus applications. 

  More hydromorphological  measures need to  be implemented and reported for all water 

bodies affected by hydromorphological pressures, and for all RBDs. 

 

Spain  should  continue  its  efforts  to  establish  ecological  flows  for  all  relevant  water 

bodies, and ensure its implementation as soon as possible. 

 

Spain should apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on 
water  bodies  or  justify  any  exemptions  using  Article  9(4).  Spain  should  continue  to 

clearly present how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and 
how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. It should also continue to 

transparently  present  the  water-pricing  policy  and  provide  a  transparent  overview  of 
estimated investments and investment needs. 

 

 

Spain should define in the third river basin management plans the status of all protected 
areas, to ensure a harmonised approach across the country. 

Spain  should  derive  the  quantitative  and  qualitative  needs  for  protected  habitats  and 
species,  translated  into  specific  objectives  for  each  Protected  Area,  which  should  be 

inserted in the RBMPs. Appropriate monitoring and measures should also be included in 
the RBMPs. 

 

Spain  should  ensure  that  new  drought  management  plans  are  adopted,  particularly  in 

light  of  the  fact  that  abstraction  is  identified  as  a  significant  pressure  for  groundwater 
bodies in the country. 

22 

 
 
 
Topic 1

  Governance and public participation 

1.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

1.1.1

 Administrative arrangements – river basin districts 

Spain has designated 25 river basin districts (RBDs).  

Eight  of  Spain's  25  RBDs  are  part  of  international  river  basin  districts:  Spain  shares 
International RBDs with Portugal (for Miño-Sil, Duero, Tagus and Guadiana), with France (for 

Eastern Cantabrian, Ebro), with Andorra (Ebro) and Morocco (Ceuta and Melilla). 

1.1.2

 Administrative arrangements – competent authorities 

Spain has indicated over a large number of competent authorities for its RBDs. These include 
the  River  Basin  Authorities  of  RBDs  that  cross  Autonomous  Regions  and  Water  Boards  for 

Spain's  islands.  These  bodies  have  a  long  list  of  main  roles:  monitoring  and  assessment  of 
status  of  groundwater  and  surface  water,  economic  analysis,  pressure  and  impact  analysis, 

enforcement  of  regulations,  preparation  of  RBMP  and  Programmes  of  Measures,  public 
participation, implementation of measures, coordination of implementation and reporting to the 
European Commission4.  

The Autonomous  Regions  have the following main roles:  economic analysis,  enforcement of 
implementation  of  measures  and  coordination  of 
regulations,  public  participation, 

implementation.  

Five  national  Ministries:  Agriculture,  Food  and  Environment  have  main  roles  for  all  RBMP 

activities.  Other  ministries  –  for  Health,  Social  Services  and  Equality;  Industry,  Energy  and 
Tourism; Foreign Affairs and Cooperation; and Public Works and Transport – also have roles, 
including for the enforcement of regulations and coordination of implementation5.  

Finally, local  authorities (entidades locales)  are indicated as  competent  authorities with  main 
roles  for:  enforcement  of  regulations,  economic  analysis,  preparation  of  Programme  of 

Measures,  public  participation, 
implementation. 

implementation  of  measures  and  coordination  of 

4   Spain has informed that detailed information about this issue and in general about the second RBMPs reported, 

can be accessed online in the national RBMPs database: https://servicio.mapama.gob.es/pphh-web/. 

5   Spain  subsequently  informed  that  ministerial  departments  has  been  restructured  in  accordance  with  Royal 

Decree 355/2018, of June 6, 2018.   

23 

 
 
                                                      
1.1.3

 River  Basin  Management  plans  –  sub-plans  and  Strategic  Environmental 
Assessment)   

None  of  the  RBMPs  submitted  had  sub-plans  which  were  reported  in  WISE  but  Spain  has 

informed that all the RBMPs dedicated several chapters to explain the relation with other plan 
addressing specific issues such as Water Scarcity and Droughts, Rural Planning or Agriculture.  

Strategic  Environmental  Assessments  were  prepared  for  all  the  RBMPs  reported  as  of  July 
2017.   

1.1.4

 Public consultation 

For  the  RBMPs  reported,  all  documents  were  available  for  consultation  for  the  requisite  six 

months. The public and interested parties were informed by direct mailing, internet, invitations 
to  stakeholders,  local  authorities,  media  (papers,  television,  radio),  printed  materials,  written 

consultation  and  by  the  official  journal(s).  Documents  for  consultation  were  available  via 
direct mailing (e-mail) and for download.  

In  all  the  RBDs  reported,  stakeholders  were  actively  involved  via  advisory  groups, 

involvement in the drafting of plans and also in regular exhibitions. In all the RBDs reported, 
the  following  sectors:  agriculture/farmers; 
stakeholder  groups 

involved  came  from 

energy/hydropower; 
protection; water supply and sanitation; and others. 

industry; 

local/regional  authorities;  navigation/ports;  NGOs/nature 

Public  consultation  had  the  following  impacts  on  the  Plans:  addition  of  new  information, 
adjustment to specific measures, changes to selection of measures, changes to the methodology 

used, commitment to action in the next RBMP and commitment to further research. 

1.1.5

 Integration  with  other  EU  legislation:  Floods  Directive  and  Marine  Strategy 
Framework Directive 

For  all  but  two  RBDs  (Galicia-Coast  and  Balearic  Islands),  joint  consultation  was  organised 
for the RBMPs and the Flood Risk Management Plans and Spain has informed that the design 

of  both  type  of  plans  has  been  strongly  coordinated.  None  of  the  RBMPs  published  went 
through joint consultation with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 

1.1.6

 International coordination and co-operation  

For  the  four  International  RBDs  Spain  shares  with  Portugal,  it  is  reported  that  there  is 

international  agreement  and  a  permanent  co-operation  body  in  place  (designated  as  category 

24 

 
 
2): notably, the Albufeira convention for the protection and sustainable use of the waters of the 

Spanish-Portuguese watersheds is in place since 1998.  

For  the  two  international  RBDs  shared  with  France,  international  coordination  is  also 

designated  as  category  2  cooperation,  i.e.  there  is  an  international  agreement  and  permanent 
co-operation  body  in  place.  The  Ebro  Flood  Risk  Management  Plan  refers  to  several 

agreements, including the Agreement of Toulouse, signed in 2006, under which it was agreed 
to  make  independent  plans,  and  to  hold  technical  meetings  for  coordination.  Spain  has 

informed that several meetings took place to coordinate and review the second RBMPs. Other 
bodies in  place include the Joint Commission on the  Lanós  Lake, where  Spain  has informed 

that yearly meetings have taken place, and the Upper Garonne Joint Commission.  

Spain subsequently informed that within the framework of the Agreement of Toulouse, there 
have  been  conversations  between  France  and  Spain  on  mapping  and  other  details  on  the 

characterisation of water bodies. Spain also informed that the International Commission of the 
Pyrenees holds yearly plenary meetings. In addition, a Commission on the exploitation of the 

International  Channel  D’Angoustrine  and  Llivia  was  formally  established  in  2013.  The  Ebro 
RBD  has  signed  a  convention  with  DREAL  Nouvelle-Aquitanie  for  the  implementation  of  a 

joint platform for information exchange (for further information see the reports on international 
coordination on the Water Framework Directive). 

For the International RBDs shared with Morocco there is an international agreement on water 
management  in  place  without  permanent  co-operation  mechanisms  (designated  as  category  3 

cooperation). 

For  RBMPs  published,  Spain  reported  that  public  consultation  was  coordinated  with 
neighbouring  Member  States  and  countries:  for  example,  Spain’s  draft  Flood  Risk 

Management Plans were translated into Portuguese language and were available on the website 
of the competent Portuguese authority. 

The  joint  planning  process  under  the  Albufeira  Convention  for  the  second  RBMPs  indicates 

that  cooperation  between  Portugal  and  Spain  covered:  identification  and  delimitation  of 
transboundary  bodies  of  water,  identification  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies,  typology  of 
water  bodies,  protected  areas,  significant  pressures,  monitoring,  assessment  of  the  state  of 

water bodies, programmes of measures, environmental objectives and their exceptions, public 
participation,  strategic  environmental  assessment  and  the  monitoring  and  implementation  of 

25 

 
 
plans6. In the Guadiana international RBD, for example, seven meetings were held to promote 
coordination  on  the  development  of  the  respective  RBMPs  in  Portugal  and  Spain;  the  two 
Member States moreover made a commitment to strengthen cooperation in the third cycle (for 

further  information  see  the  reports  on  international  coordination  on  the  Water  Framework 
Directive).  

1.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Cooperation between Spain and Portugal has strengthened. 

1.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  Reinforce  the  cooperation  with  Portugal  and  France  in  shared 
RBDs  (covering  characterisation,  pressures  and  impacts,  monitoring,  assessment  of 

status,  public  consultation,  measures,  etc.),  ensuring  that  there  is  a  common 
understanding  for  transboundary  water  bodies  and  catchments  for  these  issues.  The 

outcomes of such cooperation (in particular with Portugal) should be reflected in the 
RBMPs or ad-hoc background documents.   

Assessment:  Cooperation  between  Portugal  and  Spain  has  strengthened  in  the  second 
cycle, covering issues including monitoring, status assessments, public consultation and 

measures.  Information is available, for example in documents prepared in the process 
under the Albufeira Convention.  

The information available indicates that France and Spain have increased cooperation 

in some areas, such as information exchange.  

This  recommendation  has  been  fulfilled,  in  terms  of  cooperation  with  Portugal;  but 
partially fulfilled in terms of cooperation with France. 

  Recommendation:  adopt  as  soon  as  possible  the  outstanding  RBMPs  for  the  Canary 

Islands.  

Assessment:  The  first  RBMPs  of  the  Canary  Islands  were  adopted  and  subsequently 

reported around mid-2015 (with one reported in 2016). This recommendation has thus 

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

2021/DocumentoCoordenacaoInternacional_2016_2021_ES_PT.pdf  

26 

 
 
                                                      
been  fulfilled  for  the  first  RBMPs.  As  for  the  second  RBMPs,  as  of  mid-2017,  18  of 

Spain's 25 RBDs had published RBMPs. 

  Recommendation: ensure consultation and adoption of the second RBMPs according to 

the WFD timetable, avoiding delays.  

Assessment:  17  RBMPs  were  published  with  a  small  delay  but  six  RBMPs  were  not 
published as of late 2018. This recommendation can be considered partially fulfilled.  

  Recommendation:  Fill  as  soon  as  possible  the  gaps  in  transposition  in  the  intra-

community RBDs.  

With  regard  to  this  Recommendation,  the  CSWD  cites  ECJ  judgement  C-151/12  and 
calls  for  full  transposition  of  the  WFD  for  regions  (Autonomous  Communities) 

responsible for intra-community RBDs.  

Assessment:  Spain  has informed  that  the  Spanish  Regional  Authorities  completed  the 
the 
the  approval  of 
required 

the  second  RBMPs, 

transposition  before 

thus 

recommendation is considered fulfilled. 

27 

 
 
 
Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District 

2.1   Assessment  of 

implementation  and 

compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle  

2.1.1

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

Overall, in 18 of the 25 RBDs in Spain (there are no reported data for the seven Canary Island 

RBDs in 2016), there was a small decrease in the numbers of lake water bodies (0.9 %) and 
coastal waters (15 %) but there was a small increase in the number of river water bodies (0.42 

%) and transitional water bodies (3.3 %) between the two cycles (Table 2.1). For coastal water, 
bodies there was a decrease in 3 RBD, an increase in one and no change in the other 12 RBDs 

with coastal waters. There was a decrease in transitional water bodies in one RBD, an increase 
in  one  and  no  change  in  the  12  other  RBDs  with  transitional  waters.  Five  RBDs  showed  an 

increase in numbers, four a decrease and nine no change in river water body numbers between 
the two cycles. For lakes, there were increases in four RBDs a decrease in three RBD and no 

change in the other 12 RBDs with lakes. 

Overall in Spain, there was an increase of 162 in the number of river water bodies designated 

as  heavily  modified  between  the  two  cycles  (Figure  2.1)  For  the  first  cycle,  16.8  %  of  river 
water  bodies  were  designated  as  heavily  modified,  in  the  second  cycle,  the  percentage  of 

heavily modified as a proportion of total river water bodies had increased to 20 %. The largest 
increase was in the Duero RBD (number from 80 (11.5 % of total river water  bodies) to 208 

(30  %  of  total  river  water  bodies)  and  proportion  of  total  river  length  from  4.6  %  to  28  %).   
The  RBMP  explained  that  this  was  due  to  a  review  of  designated  heavily  modified  water 

bodies  in  connection  to  hydrological  and  hydromorphological  pressures.  There  was  also  an 
increase in  numbers of heavily modified rivers in five other RBDs, no change in  nine RBDs 

and decrease in two RBDs. There was a small decrease in the number of heavily modified lake 
water bodies (5) and coastal water bodies (7) and an increase in heavily modified transitional 
water (10) in Spain as a whole between the two cycles. Further information related to changes 

in the designation of heavily modified water bodies is provided in Chapter 7.2. of this report. 

28 

 
 
 
 
Table 2.1 

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

second and first cycles 

Year 

RBD 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Number 
of water 
bodies 

Total 
area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

Number 
of water 
bodies 

Total 
length of 
water 
body 
(km) 

Number 
of water 
bodies 

Total 
area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

Number 
of water 
bodies 

Total 
area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

ES010 

ES014 

ES017 

ES018 

ES020 

ES030 

ES040 

ES050 

ES060 

ES063 

ES064 

ES070 

ES080 

ES091 

ES100 

ES110 

ES150 

ES160 

3 

0 

3 

7 

19 

16 

59 

35 

10 

10 

6 

6 

19 

106 

27 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 

17 

15 

62 

896 

22 

2 

1 

38 

42 

65 

4 

0 

0 

0 

272 

415 

117 

250 

690 

307 

251 

395 

133 

65 

47 

90 

304 

698 

261 

94 

0 

1 

3 973 

4 172 

1 581 

3 696 

12 949 

7 361 

7 156 

9 282 

2 056 

1 017 

781 

1 448 

5 140 

12 293 

3 784 

576 

0 

5 

2 

22 

14 

21 

0 

0 

4 

13 

7 

10 

11 

1 

4 

16 

25 

36 

0 

0 

15 

105 

49 

91 

0 

0 

51 

132 

15 

122 

157 

25 

15 

161 

2 

44 

0 

0 

2 

29 

4 

15 

0 

0 

2 

3 

27 

12 

4 

17 

22 

3 

33 

41 

3 

3 

21 

3 198 

578 

1 553 

0 

0 

62 

490 

2 067 

535 

176 

1 209 

2 134 

308 

1 600 

3 741 

40 

11 

 2016 

Total 

326 

1 169 

4 390 

77 272 

186 

985 

220 

17 725 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

ES010 

ES014 

ES017 

ES018 

ES020 

3 

0 

11 

7 

14 

2010 

ES030 

7 (16) 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

ES040 

ES050 

ES060 

ES063 

ES064 

ES070 

ES080 

58 

35 

8 

10 

5 

6 

19 

1 

0 

4 

2 

12 

1 

61 

949 

21 

2 

1 

22 

42 

270 

411 

109 

250 

696 

307 
(308) 

249 

392 

133 

65 

48 

90 

300 

3 957 

4 189 

1 537 

3 694 

12 945 

7 342 

7 154 

9 301 

1 998 

997 

783 

1 435 

5 078 

29 

4 

22 

14 

21 

0 

0 

4 

13 

7 

10 

11 

1 

4 

25 

105 

48 

92 

0 

0 

51 

138 

15 

123 

158 

25 

15 

1 

29 

4 

15 

0 

0 

2 

3 

27 

12 

4 

17 

22 

16 

3 198 

578 

1 556 

0 

0 

63 

491 

2 066 

536 

175 

1 209 

2 136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Year 

RBD 

Number 
of water 
bodies 

2010 

ES091 

2010 

ES100 

2010 

2010 

2010 

ES110 

ES150 

ES160 

2010 

Total 

110 

27 

0 

0 

0 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Total 
area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

68 

4 073 

0 

0 

0 

Number 
of water 
bodies 

Total 
length of 
water 
body 
(km) 

Number 
of water 
bodies 

Total 
area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

Number 
of water 
bodies 

(304) 

700 

261 

94 

0 

1 

12 148 

3 790 

579 

0 

5 349 

8 

25 

36 

0 

0 

155 

1 899 

44 

0 

0 

3 

33 

42 

6 

5 

Total 
area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

310 

1 599 38
5 

3 746 

536 

1 240 

52 680 9
58 

329 

5 260 

4 381 

82 277 

180 

2 894 

260 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. Values in brackets provided by Spain in the frame of the assessment. 

Figure 2.1 

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Table 2.2 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in Spain between 

the  second  and  first  cycles.  The  changes  in  minimum  sizes  are  difficult  to  compare  because 
they  were  not  reported  for  each  RBD  and  there  also  appears  to  be  some  unit  errors  in  the 
reporting. The minimum size criteria reported were 10 km2 catchment area for rivers and for 
lakes it varied between RBD but the largest minimum surface area was 0.5 km2.  

30 

 
 
 
 
There was a  small increase in  the numbers of  groundwater bodies  (2 %)  overall (Table 2.3): 

with a decrease in numbers in three RBDs, an increase in one RBD and no change in 14 RBDs. 
The  changes  in  the  number  and  delineations  are  based  on  the  results  of  work  done  in  close 

collaboration with the Geological and Mining Institute of Spain  

31 

 
 
 
 
Table 2.2 

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

Lake area (km2) 

River length (km) 

Transitional (km2) 

Coastal (km2) 

Year 

RBD  Min 

Max 

Average 

Min 

Max 

Average 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

Average 

2016  ES010 

0.03 

0.97 

0.48 

2016  ES014 

2016  ES017 

0.04 

0.16 

2016  ES018 

0.07 

2016  ES020 

0.02 

0.5 

3.8 

2016  ES030 

0.01 

7.82 

2016  ES040 

0.03 

22.35 

0.09 

0.23 

0.88 

0.95 

1.05 

2016  ES050 

0.02 

345.77 

25.61 

2016  ES060 

0.02 

13.15 

2016  ES063 

0.03 

2016  ES064 

0.05 

2016  ES070 

0.84 

1.12 

0.87 

20.1 

2016  ES080 

0.01 

24.89 

2016  ES091 

2016  ES100 

0 

0 

11.3 

1.32 

2.21 

0.23 

0.22 

6.39 

2.22 

0.61 

0.15 

2016  ES110 

2016  ES150 

2016  ES160 

3.47 

2.82 

4.06 

3.47 

4.05 

2.48 

0.86 

1.07 

4.33 

1.93 

1.46 

1.42 

1.60 

0.80 

1.76 

0.36 

69.89 

63.02 

78.00 

80.82 

97.00 

161.20 

234.89 

136.73 

74.12 

121.54 

134.43 

68.11 

99.45 

140.35 

80.52 

54.03 

16.42 

10.54 

14.64 

15.40 

19.98 

29.56 

35.96 

27.46 

17.28 

17.53 

19.53 

18.81 

18.62  

19.27 

15.26 

6.33 

5.38 

5.38 

5.38 

2010  ES010 

0.03 

0.97 

0.48 

2010  ES014 

2010  ES017 

0.06 

1.31 

2010  ES018 

0.07 

0.5 

2010  ES020 

0.09 

2010  ES030 

0.01 

3.49 

0.46 

0.48 

0.23 

0.89 

0.11 

3.00 

2.82 

4.03 

3.75 

4.05 

0.01 

70.00 

63.00 

76.97 

80.75 

96.88 

161.21 

16.49 

10.63 

14.23 

15.39 

19.95 

29.49 

32 

Avera
ge 
7.49 

4.77 

3.52 

4.33 

5.53 

1.6 

10.47 

1.8 

9.74 

18.92 

19.09 

18.7 

25.71 

12.81 

4.61 

30.61 

10.15 

122.2 

6.08 

2.14 

0.57 

80.93 

12.24 

0.1 

42.42 

14.29 

12.77 

5.23 

0.14 

0.41 

0.41 

1.52 

0.54 

0.61 

0.25 

2.3 

25.16 

25.16 

25.16 

0.79 

0.19 

0.11 

0 

0.01 

4.17 

0.14 

0.42 

0.41 

14.1 

3.69 

2.6 

70.09 

10.04 

62.48 

0.37 

21.21 

0.08 

1.23 

9.74 

18.9 

19.08 

18.68 

6.33 

4.77 

3.46 

4.37 

0.65 

0.55 

0.99 

2.01 

15.98 

1.6 

10.46 

1.81 

15.35 

656.12 

231.6 

499.87 

57.85 

213.22 

478.54 

106.19 

126.09 

390.73 

268.16 

171.87 

247.33 

906.83 

25.06 

4.73 

15.98 

655.85 

231.22 

500.42 

10.44 

110.28 

144.61 

103.53 

31.23 

163.28 

76.56 

44.58 

44.03 

71.13 

97.02 

102.7 

48.5 

91.25 

13.48 

3.51 

15.98 

110.26 

144.43 

103.75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lake area (km2) 

River length (km) 

Transitional (km2) 

Coastal (km2) 

Year 

RBD  Min 

Max 

Average 

Min 

Max 

Average 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

Average 

0.82 

1.07 

4.23 

1.92 

1.46 

1.42 

1.59 

0.79 

1.76 

0.36 

235.05 

136.64 

69.99 

121.61 

134.82 

68.12 

99.42 

96.60 

80.51 

53.97 

35.95 

27.69 

16.79 

17.19 

19.57 

19.13 

18.60 

18.92 

15.28 

6.16 

Avera
ge 
12.85 

25.79 

4.62 

36.57 

10.64 

122.4 

6.08 

2.14 

0.57 

81.02 

12.26 

0.1 

42.52 

14.33 

12.75 

25.17 

25.17 

25.17 

0.79 

14.11 

3.69 

2.61 

70.23 

19.42 

63.05 

1.52 

0.92 

0.61 

0.25 

2.3 

0.19 

0.03 

4.34 

0.01 

58 

213.56 

478.22 

106.41 

125.79 

390.67 

268.34 

172.4 

31.31 

163.56 

76.53 

44.65 

43.69 

71.13 

97.09 

103.4 

2010  ES040 

0.03 

2010  ES050 

0.02 

2010  ES060 

0.02 

2010  ES063 

0.03 

2010  ES064 

0.07 

2010  ES070 

0.84 

2010  ES080 

0.01 

2010  ES091 

0 

22.33 

359.1 

13.15 

1.12 

0.87 

20.11 

24.91 

11.29 

1.05 

27.11 

2.59 

0.23 

0.25 

7.48 

2.22 

0.65 

2010  ES100 

0.23 

1,323.11  150.84 

2010  ES110 

2010  ES120 

2010  ES122 

2010  ES123 

2010  ES124 

2010  ES125 

2010  ES126 

2010  ES127 

2010  ES150 

2010  ES160 

364.49 

75.97 

647.22 

247,421.95 

48,466.22 

21.22 

1.23 

0.1 

5.77 

20.59 

0.91 

0.26 

1.36 

15.89 

4.8 

909.63 

195.72 

607.64 

988.32 

541.6 

204.17 

76.09 

230.62 

89.18 

89.29 

248.1 

212.07 

72.67 

55.13 

40.58 

87.17 

987,841.11 

25,066,119.47 

13,482,672.28 

2,009,619.00 

4,745,374.00 

3,537,643.33 

5.35 

5.35 

5.35 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.3 

Number  and  area  of  delineated  groundwater  bodies  in  Spain  for  the  second 

and first cycles 

Year 

RBD 

Number 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

ES010 

ES014 

ES017 

ES018 

ES020 

ES030 

ES040 

ES050 

ES060 

ES063 

ES064 

ES070 

ES080 

ES091 

ES100 

ES110 

ES150 

ES160 

Total 

ES010 

ES014 

ES017 

ES018 

ES020 

ES030 

ES040 

ES050 

ES060 

ES063 

ES064 

ES070 

ES080 

ES091 

6 

18 

20 

20 

64 

24 

20 

86 

67 

14 

4 

63 

90 

105 

37 

87 

1 

3 

729 

6 

18 

28 

20 

64 

24 

20 

60 

67 

14 

4 

63 

90 

105 

Area (km2) 
Minimum  Maximum  Average 

188.26 

7,787.77 

2,931.24 

2,442.48 

1,610.00 

3,985.93 

722.31 

286.67 

693.16 

5,571.13 

1,365.10 

4,332.10 

910.52 

2,576.96 

1,123.93 

42.87 

2.54 

21.02 

71.84 

68.51 

12.26 

27.39 

4.29 

24.15 

64.93 

6.71 

10.26 

17.8 

5.71 

3.07 

11.15 

1.92 

4,845.53 

1,037.22 

361.1 

630.86 

1,586.79 

7,121.90 

4,083.45 

754.73 

295.52 

11.15 

5.89 

394.12 

155.48 

135.86 

376.76 

241.75 

450.27 

520.36 

252 

54.58 

11.15 

4.4 

2934.1 

729.51 

205 

693.58 

1232.6 

910.1 

1124.1 

624.6 

155.2 

 304.5 

 257.5 

243.8 

453.6 

521.5 

43.07 

2,455.49 

2.5 

21 

977 

3,992.00 

24.16 

63.33 

362.38 

470.2 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Year 

RBD 

Number 

Area (km2) 
Minimum  Maximum  Average 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

ES100 

ES110 

ES120 

ES122 

ES123 

ES124 

ES125 

ES126 

ES127 

ES150 

ES160 

Total 

39 

90 

10 

4 

1 

4 

5 

5 

3 

1 

3 

748 

288.6 

52.6 

155.8 

413.2 

846.1 

508.2 

142 

73.6 

89.7 

11.2 

5 

Source: WISE electronic reporting.  

Table 2.4 summarises the information  provided  by Spain  on how water  bodies have  evolved 
between the two cycles for both surface water and groundwater.  For groundwater bodies and 

river water bodies the main changes were deletions and splitting of water bodies.  

Table 2.4 

Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in 

Spain between the second and first cycles 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Groundwater 

Type of water body change for 
second cycle (wiseEvolutionType) 

Aggregation 

Splitting 

Aggregation and splitting 

Change 

Creation 

Deletion 

Code 

Extended area 

Reduced area 

No change 

2 

16 

6 

33 

2 

22 

10 

1401 

14 

24 

387 

1 

99 

3 

1 

33 

269 

2554 

50 

Total water bodies before deletion 

Delineated for second cycle (after 
deletion from first cycle) 

326 

326 

4414 

4390 

187 

186 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

35 

7 

28 

21 

298 

1 

3 

41 

1 

2 

362 

764 

729 

2 

68 

1 

1 

18 

1 

170 

261 

260 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.2

  Identification of transboundary water bodies 

Spain  reported  transboundary  coastal  (two  RBDs),  river  (five  RBDs)  and  transitional  (three 
RBDs) water bodies. The delineation of transboundary water bodies was reported to have been 

coordinated  with  some  but  not  all  neighbouring  Member  States.  For  example,  the  Eastern 
Cantabrian  RBD  has  updated  the  list  of  transboundary  water  bodies  with  France  and  some 

specific coordination work has been carried out between the two countries. 

In the Duero RBD, in accordance with the Albufeira Convention, some action has been taken 

to  coordinate  delineation  of  water  bodies  with  Portugal.  In  the  Guadiana  RBD,  Portugal 
informed that one water body was changed by being split in three and consequently Spain has 

changed  the  water  body  (20664  Embalse  de  Alqueva)  to  be  split  into  three  water  bodies, 
corresponding to the Portuguese ones. This close cooperation and coordination with Portugal 

took place for the four shared RBDs (Miño, Duero, Tagus and Guadiana), in the framework of 
the Albufeira Convention. 

Spain has not reported that any transboundary groundwater bodies have been delineated.  

2.1.3

  Typology of surface water bodies 

Overall, there was  a significant  increase in  the number of water body types in  all  four water 

categories  in  Spain  as  a  whole  for  the  second  cycle  compared  to  the  first  (Table  2.5).  The 
largest increase was for rivers where there was an increase from 32 types for the first RBMPs 

to 48 types in the second cycle RBMP. There was no change in numbers of types in six of the 
18  RBDs  that  reported  information.  There  was  a  decrease  in  number  of  river  types  in  four 

RBDs, an increase in 5 RBDs and no change in seven RBDs: one RBD did not identify rivers. 
No information is provided in the RBMPs on why the number of types has increased. 

The  RBMPs  do  not  include  information  regarding  the  cross-checking  of  the  different 
theoretical water body types against biological data, nor a detailed description of the typology 

methodology,  typology  factors  (descriptors)  and  related  ranges,  methods  for  testing  typology 
versus biological data. There is also no information in the RBMPs on whether system A or B 
has been used7.  

Overall in Spain, 29 types of coastal water bodies were identified. 35 % of coastal water bodies 

in  Spain  were  reported  not  to  have  corresponding  intercalibration  types.  For  a  number  of 
national  types,  intercalibration  types  were  reported  in  some  RBDs  but  in  other  RBDs  no 

7   Spain clarified that the works involving reference conditions and their adjustment with biological data, as well 
as  related  issues,  have  been  coordinated  at  national  level  since  2005  and  their  results  were  used  in  the 
preparation of the RBMPs.  

36 

 
                                                      
corresponding  intercalibration  types  were  reported  for  the  same  national  type  code.  Spain 

clarified  that  there  are  some  mismatches  between  the  national  and  the  common  types,  and 
further work is planned to solve these mismatches.  

Of  the  36  lake  types  reported  for  Spain,  32  were  reported  not  to  have  a  corresponding 
intercalibration type, representing 90 % of lake water bodies in Spain. 

Table 2.5 

Number  of  surface  water  body  types  at  RBD  level  in  Spain  for  the  first  and 
second cycles 

RBD 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

2010 

2016 

2010 

2016 

2010 

2016 

2010 

2016 

ES010 

ES014 

ES017 

ES018 

ES020 

ES030 

ES040 

ES050 

ES060 

ES063 

ES064 

ES070 

ES080 

ES091 

ES100 

ES110 

ES150 

ES160 

9 

7 

6 

12 

17 

27 

14 

17 

13 

7 

6 

10 

12 

9 

15 

2 

0 

1 

11 

7 

8 

12 

17 

19 

12 

20 

13 

7 

7 

9 

12 

16 

14 

3 

0 

1 

3 

0 

3 

5 

7 

8 

12 

12 

7 

4 

1 

4 

7 

19 

12 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

3 

5 

8 

8 

12 

11 

9 

4 

2 

3 

7 

18 

11 

0 

0 

0 

1 

3 

3 

6 

1 

3 

4 

2 

3 

2 

2 

2 

3 

4 

0 

0 

1 

3 

3 

6 

0 

0 

1 

3 

4 

2 

3 

1 

2 

4 

3 

3 

0 

0 

1 

7 

1 

3 

2 

2 

4 

3 

2 

5 

6 

1 

8 

4 

2 

2 

1 

7 

1 

3 

0 

0 

2 

2 

4 

3 

2 

6 

6 

1 

9 

4 

2 

2 

Total 

36 
Source: WISE electronic reporting. Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are 
shared by RBDs. 

13 

21 

29 

32 

48 

30 

18 

Overall  in  Spain,  48  different  (coded)  river  types  were  reported.  Some  of  the  national  type 

codes were  reported to  have an intercalibration  type in  some RBDs but  not  in  others, and in 
other RBDs different intercalibration types were reported for the same national type code. 47 

%  of  the  river  water  bodies  in  Spain  did  not  have  a  reported  corresponding  intercalibration 
type. 

18  different  (coded)  transitional  water  body  types  were  reported  in  Spain.  In  some  RBDs,  a 
national  type  code  had  a  reported  intercalibration  type  whereas  in  another  RBD  no 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
corresponding  intercalibration  type  was  reported  for  the  same  national  type  code.  69  %  of 

transitional water bodies in Spain did not have a reported intercalibration type.  

16 of the 18 RBDs that have reported to WISE to date have identified coastal waters, 14 RBDs 

lake waters, 17 RBDs river waters and 14 RBDs transitional waters. Three coastal waters types 
were shared by four RBDs and 13 types by only one RBD. In terms of lakes, three types were 

common  to  six  RBDs  and  nine  different  types  were  reported  by  only  one  RBD.  Two  river 
types  were  common  to  10  RBDs  and  eight  types  were  reported  by  only  one  RBDs.  For 

transitional waters one type was common to five RBDs and eight types were reported by only 
one  RBD.  Only  one  national  type  had  the  same  code  but  different  description  (AC-T10  in 

coastal waters), but this was due to a reporting mistake concerning one of the three RBDs that 
reported this national type 

No information  was found in  the RBMPs  about whether typology has been coordinated with 
other Member States.  

2.1.4

  Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies 

Table 2.6 shows the percentage of surface water body types in Spain with reference conditions 
established  for  different  quality  elements  for  the  first  and  second  cycles.  In  lakes,  reference 

conditions have been established for all biological quality elements for 78 % of types, for some 
biological quality elements for 19 % of types and for no biological quality elements for 3 % of 

types.  Reference  conditions  have  not  been  established  for  any  hydromorphological  quality 
elements  for  any  of  lakes  types  and  all  lake  types  have  reference  conditions  for  some 

physicochemical  quality  elements.  There  are  seven  cases  where  common  types  reported  by 
different RBDs have different information on the quality elements used in the establishment of 

reference  condition.  For  example,  lake  water  body  type  L-T21  is  reported  to  have  reference 
conditions for all biological quality elements in the Duero, Guadiana, Guadalquivir, Ebro and 

Andalusian Mediterranean RBD and for none in the Guadalete and Barbate RBD.  

Almost a third of the river types had reference conditions established for all biological quality 

elements, 69 % for some biological quality elements and 2 % for none of the biological quality 
elements.  No  type  had  reference  conditions  for  all  of  the  relevant  hydromorphological  or 

physicochemical quality elements, and 35 % of types did not have reference conditions for any 
of the hydromorphological quality elements. All river types had reference conditions for some 

physicochemical  quality  elements.  21  river  types  shared  between  more  than  one  RBD  had 
different  information  reported  on  the  establishment  of  quality  elements.  For  example,  river 

water  body  type  R-T19  had  reference  conditions  for  all  biological  quality  elements  in  the 
Guadalquivir RBD and for none in the Tinto, Odiel and Piedras RBD. 

38 

 
Table 2.6 

Percentage  of  surface  water  body  types  in  Spain  with  reference  conditions 

established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and 
physicochemical quality elements8 

Water 
category 

Water types 
reference 
conditions 
established 

All  

Rivers (48) 

Some  

None 

All  

Lakes (36)  

Some  

Transitional 
(18) 

None 

All  

Some  

None 

All  

Coastal (29)  

Some  

None 

Biological quality 
elements 

Hydromorphological 
quality elements 

Physicochemical 
quality elements 

29 % 

69 % 

2 % 

78 % 

19 % 

3 % 

6 % 

89 % 

6 % 

38 % 

62 % 

0 % 

65 % 

35 % 

0 % 

100 % 

0 % 

100 % 

14 % 

86 % 

100 % 

0 % 

100 % 

0 % 

94 % 

6 % 

100 % 

0 % 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

In  coastal  waters,  reference  conditions  have  not  been  established  for  all  relevant 

hydromorphological  and  physicochemical  quality  elements  in  any  of  the  types.  Reference 
conditions  have  been  established  for  some  physicochemical  quality  elements  in  all  reported 

types, for some hydromorphological quality elements in around 14 % of types and in 86 % of 
types  for  none  of  the  hydromorphological  quality  elements.  Around  38  %  of  types  had 

reference  conditions  for  all  relevant  biological  quality  elements  and  62  %  of  types  for  some 
biological  quality  elements.  For  two  types  shared  between  more  than  one  RBD,  different 

information was reported for the completeness of reference conditions: for example, a coastal 
water body type  AC-T04 was reported to  have reference conditions  for all biological  quality 
elements in the Catalan RBD and for some in the Western Cantabrian RBD9. 

None of the 18 transitional water body types had established reference  conditions  for any of 

the hydromorphological quality elements. In terms of biological quality elements, only 6 % of 
types had reference conditions in terms of all biological quality elements, 89 % for some and 6 

% for none. Two types shared between more than one RBD had different information reported 
on the establishment of reference conditions. 

8   Spain subsequently highlighted that values in this table did not match the national database. 
9   Spain subsequently clarified that differences between RBDs for shared types are due to reporting mistakes, as 

the reference conditions are set per type and not per RBD. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
There  are  no  water  bodies  in  Spain  that  have  had  reference  conditions  established  for  all 

relevant  hydromorphological  or  all  relevant  physicochemical  quality  elements.  The  list  of 
reference conditions is fixed in the Spanish legislation. Two measures foreseen in the RBMPs 

of the Miño-Sil and Guadiana RBDs concern coordination with Portugal on the identification 
of type-reference conditions, and further work is planned, jointly with Portugal, to improve the 

harmonisation of methodologies for status assessment of transboundary water bodies. 

2.1.5

  Characteristics of groundwater bodies 

All  18  Spanish  RBDs  that  have  reported  their  second  RBMPs  have  characterised  their 
groundwater bodies in terms of their geological formation and as to whether or not the water 

bodies  were  layered.  All  RBDs  also  identified  which  groundwater  bodies  were  linked  to 
surface water bodies and/or terrestrial ecosystems. 

2.1.6

  Significant pressures on water bodies 

In terms of surface water bodies in Spain, the pressure with the greatest percentage of affected 

water bodies was point urban waste water (37 % of surface water bodies), followed by diffuse 
agriculture (34 %), abstraction or flow diversion for agriculture (22 %) (Figure 2.2). 16 % of 
surface water bodies were affected by abstraction or flow diversion for public water supply and 

20 % by introduced species and diseases and 15 % by dams, barriers and locks for irrigation. 

The  three  surface  water  pressures  reported  by  most  RBDs  were  urban  waste  water  (all  18 

RBDs);  abstraction  or  flow  diversion  for  public  water  supply  (17  RBDs);  and  diffuse 
agricultural  (16 RBDs).  It  is  difficult to  compare the number and proportion  of water bodies 

affected  by  significant  pressures  because  of  changes  introduced  to  the  types  of  pressures 
reported for the second cycle and because Spain only reported pressures at the aggregated level 

in the first cycle: disaggregated pressures were reported in the second cycle. Figure 2.3 shows 
that there is an apparent increase in diffuse, point and hydromorphological pressure types, due 

to  a  more  detailed  analysis  of  pressures  compared  to  the  one  done  for  the  first  RBMPs. 
Changes in methodologies for defining pressures are discussed below.  

The most significant  pressures on groundwater bodies in  terms  of proportion  of groundwater 
bodies  affected  at  the  national  level  was  diffuse  agricultural  (56  %  of  groundwater  bodies), 

abstraction or flow diversion for agriculture (32 %), and abstraction or low diversion for public 
water  supply  (27  %)  (Figure  2.2).  The  three  most  common  pressures  on  groundwater  at  the 

country  level  were  diffuse  agriculture  (significant  in  14  of  the  18  RBDs  with  reported 
information), abstraction or flow diversion for agriculture (12 RBDs) and abstraction or flow 
diversion for public water supply (10 RBDs). 

40 

 
Figure 2.2 

The  10  most  significant  pressures  on  surface  water  bodies  and  groundwater 

bodies in Spain for the second cycle 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

41 

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

second cycles. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Note there were 
5122 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 5124 for the first 

cycle 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

2.1.7

  Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater 

The  approach  adopted  for  the  first  RBMPs  relied  first  on  a  qualitative  assessment  and,  in  a 
second stage, on a quantitative assessment based on a simplified model. The objective of this 

approach  study  was  to  identify  the  water  bodies  at  risk  of  failing  the  WFD  environmental 
objectives.  The  qualitative  assessment  included  thresholds  of  significance  for  the  various 

pressure categories. An inventory of pressures was used as input for modelling tools.  

For  the  second  RBMP,  expert  judgement  was  exclusively  used  by  three  RBDs  (Andalusian 

Mediterranean  Basins,  Guadalete  and  Barbate  and  Tinto,  Odiel  and  Piedras)  to  define 
significant  pressures  to  surface  waters.  Expert  judgment  was  also  used  by  the  Galicia-Coast 

RBD to define three of four assessed pressure groups (diffuse source pressures were defined by 
a combination of expert judgment and numerical tools). Catalan RBD and Balearic Islands also 

used  expert  judgment  to  define  diffuse  source  and  water  flow  pressures,  respectively.  A 
combination  of  expert  judgment  and  numerical  tools  (including  modelling)  was  used  in  12 

RBDs for point source and water abstraction pressures, 11 for diffuse pressures and in 10 for 
water flow pressures. The Segura RBD used numerical tools for all pressures types reported. 

The  exclusive  use  of  expert  judgment  may  make  the  assessment  of  the  significance  of 

42 

 
 
 
pressures to be less robust than if more quantitative tools (such as numerical tools) had been 

developed  and  applied.  Significance  of  pressures  to  surface  water  was  defined  in  terms  of 
thresholds and in terms of the potential failure of objectives in the same 12 of the 18 reported 

RBDs. 

Expert judgment was used by more RBD to  define significant  pressures to  groundwater than 

for  surface  waters.  Four  RBDs  (Tagus,  Andalusian  Mediterranean  Basins,  Guadalete  and 
Barbate, and Tinto, Odiel and Piedras) used it for all four pressure types, Balearic Islands for 

the three pressure types assessed, Catalan RBD for two of the four pressure types assessed and 
Galicia-Coast RBD for three of the four  types assessed. Expert judgment was used for seven 

RBDs in terms of point source pressures and for six RBDs for diffuse source pressure, water 
abstraction  pressures  and  for  artificial  recharge  pressures.  Numerical  tools  were  exclusively 

used by Segura and Jucar RBDs for all assessed pressures. As for surface waters, similarly, the 
exclusive use of expert judgment may make the assessment of the significance of pressures to 

be less robust than if more quantitative tools (such as numerical tools) had been developed and 
applied.  Significance  of  pressures  on  groundwater  bodies  has  been  defined  in  terms  of 
thresholds in 15 of the 18 reported RBDs and was linked to the potential failure of good status 

in 12 RBDs. 

No information was found in the RBMPs on the changes in the methodology or the criteria for 

the assessment of significance from the first to the second RBMPs. Eastern Cantabrian, Duero 
and Guadiana RBDs reported that there was a re-assessment of pressures. However, following 

the criteria already applied in the first planning cycle (Legal  Order ARM 2656/2008), Duero 
RBD also described how newly agricultural and livestock data available at local district level 

helped  to  facilitate  the  pressures  assessment;  and  Guadiana  RBD  referenced  additional 
information available from Portugal on pressures. 

2.1.8

  Significant impacts on water bodies 

The  most  significant  impact  on  surface  water  bodies  in  Spain  in  terms  of  the  proportion  of 

water  bodies  was  altered  habitats  due  to  morphological  changes  (36  %  of  water  bodies  and 
significant  in  all  RBDs  that  reported)  followed  by  nutrient  pollution  (33  %  surface  water 

bodies  and  17  RBDs)  and  organic  pollution  (24  %  and  17  RBDs)  (Figure  2.4).  Chemical 
pollution was reported to be significant in 17 RBDs and affected 16 % of surface water bodies 

in Spain.  

43 

 
Figure 2.4 

Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Spain for the 

second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The  most  significant  impact  type  at  the  country  level  in  terms  of  proportion  of  groundwater 
bodies was nutrient pollution that affected 39 % of groundwater bodies and was reported by 13 

of the 18 RBDs (Figure 2.4). The next most significant was chemical pollution affecting 27 % 
of  groundwater  bodies  across  11  RBDs  and  abstraction  exceeding  available  groundwater 

resources in 22 % of groundwater bodies across 10 RBDs. 

2.1.9

  Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status 

16  of  the  18  RBDs  in  Spain  that  reported  had  some  groundwater  bodies  that  were  at  risk  of 
failing of not meeting good chemical status, ranging from one in the Eastern Cantabrian RBD 

44 

 
 
 
 
(5 %) to  79 (92 %) in  the  Guadalquivir RBD.  Overall in  Spain  55 % of groundwater bodies 

were at risk. Nitrate was the pollutant causing a risk of failing good chemical status in the most 
groundwater  bodies  in  Spain  (46  %  of  all  groundwater  bodies)  followed  by  chloride  (11  %) 

and  pesticides  (9  %).  Nitrate  was  causing  a  risk  in  13  of  the  18  reported  RBDs,  chloride  in 
eight RBDs and pesticides in three. 

10 of the 18 reported RBDs indicated that there were groundwater bodies at risk of not being in 
good quantitative status. All three groundwater bodies were at risk in the Melilla RBD and the 

next highest proportion of groundwater bodies at risk was in the Segura RBD (68 %): overall 
in Spain, 24 % of groundwater bodies were at risk. Water balance was reported as the cause of 

the risk to quantitative status in all 10 RBDs that indicated that some groundwater bodies were 
at such risk. Overall, water balance was the cause of the risk in 23 % of groundwater bodies in 

Spain. 

2.1.10

 Quantification and apportionment of pressures  

There are 20 different types of pressures reported to be significant on surface water for which 
specific measures have not been reported: for example in four RBDs this is in terms of point 
urban  water,  in  four  RBDs  for  point  waste  disposal  sites  and  three  for  abstraction  or  flow 

diversion  for  industry.  Spain  subsequently  explained  that  these  pressures  were  not  addressed 
by  measures  because  they  did  not  lead  to  significant  impacts.  Diffuse  agricultural  pressures 

were  significant  in  14  RBDs:  gaps  to  the  achievement  of  objectives  were  identified  in  these 
RBDs  and  measures  to  address  the  pressures  were  reported  in  each.  Abstraction  and  flow 

diversion  for  agriculture  (10  RBDs),  for  public  water  supply  (eight  RBDs),  industry  (four 
RBDs) and fish farms in one RBD were reported to be significant,  gaps and measures to the 

achievement  of  objectives  were  reported  in  each:  this  indicated  that  there  has  been  some 
apportionment of these pressures between the responsible sectors in some RBDs. 

In terms of groundwater, the RBD that reported the most types of pressures (13) with gaps to 
the achievement of objectives  was Jucar. On the other hand, the  Guadalquivir RBD reported 

the  most  types  of  pressure  (13)  on  groundwater  without  associated  gaps:  Guadalquivir  also 
reported three pressures with gaps. The significant pressure on groundwater where most RBDs 

(14)  reported  gaps  was  diffuse  agriculture,  followed  by  abstraction  or  flow  diversion  for 
agriculture (10 RBDs), public water supply (eight RBDs) and from industry (four RBDs). Gaps 

were  not  reported  in  terms  of  point  source  pressures  from  urban  waste  water  in  four  RBDs, 

45 

 
from  waste  disposal  sites  in  four  RBDs  and  from  Industrial  Emissions  Directive10  plants  in 
three RBDs. 

In  terms  of  point  source  pressures  to  surface  waters  from  urban  waste  water,  gaps  had  been 

identified  for  16  of  the  18  RBDs  where  these  pressures  were  reported  to  be  significant,  and 
measures implemented. No gaps or measures were reported for the other two RBDs (Balearic 

Islands  and  Melilla,  though  relatively  few  surface  water  bodies  were  affected:  21  and  one 
respectively).  Gaps  had  also  been  reported  for  other  sectors  responsible  for  point  source 

pressures:  storm  overflows  (four  out  of  five  RBDs  with  this  significant  pressure),  Industrial 
Emissions Directive plants (13 out of 14 RBDs), non-Industrial Emissions Directive plants (10 

RBDs  out  of  12  RBDs),  contaminated  sites  or  abandoned  industrial  sites  (one  out  of  two 
RBDs), waste disposal sites (seven out of 12 RBDs), mine waters (six out of eight RBDs) and 

aquaculture  (six  out  of  eight  RBDs).  Gaps  to  the  achievement  of  objectives  had  also  been 
reported for 13 of the 16 RBDs reporting diffuse agriculture as a significant pressure. Gaps to 

the achievement of objectives in terms of abstraction or flow diversion for public water supply 
were reported for 10 of the 17 RBDs with this  as a significant  pressure and for 12 of the 14 
RBDs in terms of agriculture. A gap was not reported for pressures arising from public water 

supply in  Guadalquivir  where 260  (58 %) of surface waters were affected by this significant 
pressure  and  where  no  specific  measures  to  tackle  this  pressure  have  been  reported.  In 

summary,  gaps  were  not  reported  for  all  significant  pressures  on  surface  water  in  all  RBDs 
because not all the significant pressures as identified by Spain generate impacts. 

In terms  of surface water, the RBD that  reported gaps for the most pressures types  (35) was 
Western  Cantabrian  followed  by  Ebro  (32)  and  Miño-Sil  (31).  The  RBD  that  reported  the 

fewest types of pressures (1) with gaps was Ceuta. Guadalquivir (25), Balearic Islands (24) and 
Catalan  RBD  (20)  reported  the  most  types  of  pressures  without  associated  gaps:  these  three 

RBDs did report gaps for 6, one and 26 types of pressure respectively. 

16 RBDs reported gaps for point source pressures to surface waters: two did not. There were 

reported  gaps  for  diffuse  agriculture  pressures  in  13  RBDs:  three  did  not  report  gaps.  There 
were  also  reported  gaps  for  abstraction  or  flow  diversion  pressures  from  agriculture  in  12 

RBDs  and  two  RBDs  did  not  report  gaps  for  this  pressure.  The  type  of  pressure  without 
reported gaps in the most RBDs was abstraction or flow diversion pressures for public water 

supply (7 RBDs): gaps for this pressure had been reported by 10 other RBDs. 

10  Directive  2010/75/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  November  2010  on  industrial 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

(integrated 

prevention 

control) 

and 

emissions 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010L0075. 

pollution 

46 

 
                                                      
29  different  groundwater  pollutants  and  43  different  chemical  substances  in  surface  waters 

were reported with gaps to the achievement of objectives in Spain as a whole. The groundwater 
pollutant reported with gaps by the most RBDs (11) was nitrate, followed by chloride by seven 

RBDs.  Lead,  cadmium  and  nickel  were  the  chemical  substances  in  surface  waters  that  were 
reported with gaps by the most RBDs: 12, 11 and 10, respectively. 

2.1.11

 Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances 

Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (2008/105/EC11) requires Member 
States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all Priority Substances 
and the eight other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I EQS Directive for each RBD, or part 

thereof,  lying  within  their  territory.  This  inventory  should  allow  Member  States  to  further 
target measures to tackle pollution from priority substances. It should also inform the review of 

the  monitoring  networks,  and  allow  the  assessment  of  progress  made  in  reducing  (or 
suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for priority substances. 12 

All RBDs in Spain reported inventories, except Ceuta. Four RBDs reported inventories for 30 
(Eastern Cantabrian) or 35 (Western Cantabrian, Ebro and Catalan RBD) Priority Substances. 
Seven RBDs reported inventories for less than 10 Priority Substances, notably Miño-Sil (4)13. 
The remaining six RBDs had inventories for 11 to 19 Priority Substances.  

4-nonylphenol,  octylphenol 

(4-(1,1',3,3'-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol),  carbon 

tetrachloride, 

trichloromethane, total cyclodiene pesticides (aldrin + dieldrin + endrin + isodrin), Total DDT 
(DDT, p,p'  + DDT, o,p'  + DDE, p,p'  + DDD, p,p')  and brominated diphenylethers (congener 

numbers 28, 47, 99, 100, 153 and 154) were not reported as being included in the inventory by 
any  of  the  RBDs  that  reported,  even  if  Spain  clarified  that  they  were  indeed  included  in  the 

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 
European Parliament and of the Council  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02008L0105-20130913  

12  Spain  subsequently  stated  that  the  emissions  inventory  is  done  on  the  basis  of,  amongst  other  elements,  the 
pollutants  in  the  waste  water  effluents.  In  this  sense,  the  effluents  have  been  analysed,  and  loads  or 
concentrations can be obtained for each water body. The parameters that are monitored are  directly associated 
with the characterisation of these waters. Spain stated that there are also other emissions that form part of these 
inventories,  control  over  which  is  not  the  direct  jurisdiction  of  the  basin  authorities.  However,  it  must  be 
pointed  out  that  the  information  about  the  emissions  into  the  water  from  industrial  facilities  and  urban 
treatment plants is inventoried in the state’s “Pollutant Release & Transfer Register” (PRTR) and is validated 
by the River Basin Authorities, taking into account that information is only given about those emissions that at 
the source exceed a certain threshold established in the register itself. 

13  Spain  subsequently  stated  that  the  correct  numbers  are  33  substances  (Eastern  Cantabrian)  and  31  (Western 

Cantabrian, Ebro and Catalan RBD) and that 5 RBDs had inventories for 11 to 19 Priority Substances. 

47 

 
                                                      
 
 
Eastern  Cantabrian  RBD  inventory.  However,  lead,  mercury,  nickel  and  cadmium  were 

included by all the 17 RBDs that reported an inventory.  

The two step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document No 28 

has not been followed for any of the substances included in the inventories.  

The Guidance Document also describes a Tiered approach (comprising four tiers in total). An 

increase in tier corresponds to an increase in understanding of sources and pathways. For these 
inventories,  the  Guidance  Document  recommended  to  implement  Tier  1+  2  to  capture  both 

point  and  diffuse  sources,  at  least  for  substances  deemed  relevant  at  RBD-level.  Spain 
implemented these two tiers for all substances included in the inventories. The data quality was 

assessed as uncertain. 

2.2   Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Overall in 18 of the 25 RBDs in Spain (there are no reported data for the seven Canary Island 

RBDs  in  2016),  there  was  a  small  increase  in  the  numbers  of  groundwater  bodies  (2  %),  a 
small  decrease  in  the  number  of  lake  (0.9  %)  and  coastal  water  bodies  (15  %)  and  a  small 

increase  in  the  number  of  river  water  bodies  (0.42  %)  and  transitional  water  bodies  (3.3  %) 
between  the  two  cycles.  There  have  also  been  some  improvements  such  as  the  geographic 

delineation  of  the  connection  of  six  transitional  and  river  water  bodies.  For  groundwater 
bodies, the RBMPs reported that several of them have been grouped, and a new one delineated. 

In the Guadiana RBD, there has been the new delineation of five transboundary water bodies 
with Portugal since the first cycle.  

Overall in Spain,  for the first  cycle 16.8 % of  river water bodies were designated as heavily 
modified, in the second cycle, the percentage of heavily modified as a proportion of total river 

water bodies had increased to 20 %. The largest increase was in Duero (number from 80 (11.5 
% of total river water bodies) to 208 (30 % of total river water bodies) and proportion of total 

river length from 4.6 % to 28 %).  

Overall,  there  was  significant  increase  in  the  number  of  water  body  types  in  all  four  water 

categories in Spain as a whole for the second cycle compared to the first. The largest increase 
was for rivers where there was an increase from 32 types for the first to 48 types in the second 

RBMP.  The  RBMPs  explain  that  reference  conditions  have  been  improved  (e.g.  adopting 
recent ones of the National regulation).  

48 

 
It is difficult to compare the situation in the first RBMPs with that in the second. However, it is 

clear from the reporting of the second RBMPs to WISE that reference conditions still have not 
been completed for all relevant quality elements in all water categories and RBDs. 

Because  there  has  been  a  re-delineation  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Spain  between  the  two 
cycles  resulting  in  28  fewer  surface  water  bodies  for  the  second  cycle  and  because  of 

significant differences between the defined pressure types between the two cycles, it is difficult 
to make a quantitative comparison of pressures between the two cycles. The most comparable 

pressure  types  between  the  cycles  are  point  source  and  diffuse  source  pressures  at  an 
aggregated level. In the first RBMPs, 34.8 % of surface water bodies in Spain were subject to 

significant  point  source  pressures,  this  had  increased  to  44.1  %  in  2016.  For  diffuse  source 
pressures, 23.4 % of surface water bodies were affected in the first RBMPs, which increased to 

43.2 % in the second cycle. No significant pressures were reported for 1958 (38.3 %) surface 
water bodies in Spain in the first cycle. In the second cycle, the number had decreased to 1057 

(20.6 %), which reflects the improvements in the analysis of significance of pressures used for 
the second RBMPs. The RBMPs reported that there was a re-assessment of pressures and more 
data available on agriculture and livestock at district level which helped facilitate the pressures 
assessment. 

2.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  Consider  reviewing  the  legislation  to  incorporate  explicitly  the 
identification, by way of the pressures and impacts analysis, of water bodies at risk. 

Assessment: Spain has improved its pressure and impacts analysis since the first cycle 

but  there  are  a  number  of  RBDs  where  expert  judgment  is  used  to  define  the 
significance of pressures rather than more numerical methods such as modelling which 

would make the analysis more quantitative and robust. However, there is evidence that 
additional quantitative data has been used. Spain reported that the legislation has been 

reviewed  and  Royal  Decree  817/2015  establishes  the  criteria  for  monitoring  and 
assessing  the  status  of  the  surface  waters  and  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards. 

This recommendation can therefore be considered as fulfilled.  

  Recommendation:  Ensure  that  there  is  a  proper  integration  of  the  pressures  and 
impacts analysis, the status assessment and the design of the Programme of Measures. 
Avoid  defining  the  Programme  of  Measures  on  the  basis  of  business  as  usual  and  a 

non-transparent assessment of what can be done, but rather on a genuine gap analysis 

49 

 
that identifies which measures are needed to achieve good status and can also support 

the justification of exemptions. 

Assessment:  There  has  been  a  gap  analysis  for  all  the  significant  pressures  that  can 

cause  significant  impacts  in  the  surface  waters  and  groundwater  and  measures  have 
been  established  to  address  those  pressures.  Further  progress  is  needed  to  better 

correlate the pressures and impacts analysis, the status assessment and the design of the 
Programme  of  Measures.  There  has  been  some  progress  on  this  aspect  of  the 

recommendation and therefore this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Ensure 

that  RBMPs  apportion 

impacts 

to  pressures  and 

sources/drivers,  to  increase  the  understanding  of  which  activities  and  sectors  are 

responsible and in which proportion - for achieving objectives. 

Assessment: As indicated above a gap analysis appears to have been performed for the 

second RBMP in some RBDs in Spain. This analysis has identified which sectors are 
responsible  for  some  significant  pressures  e.g.  point  source  pollution.  In  some  of  the 

RBMPs a matrix is reported that includes drivers and impacts showing the relationship 
between them. However, the numbers of water bodies affected were not included and 

therefore  there  was  not  a  quantitative  assessment.  There  is  no  evidence  that  source 
apportionment  has  been  undertaken  and  therefore  this  recommendation  has  been 

partially fulfilled.  

  Recommendation:  Ensure  all  water  bodies  are  delimited,  in  particular  in  the  Canary 
Islands, where so far no river, lake or transitional water bodies have been identified. 

Assessment:  The  Canary  Island  RBDs  have  not  reported  their  second  RBMPs  and 
therefore progress with this recommendation cannot be assessed; this recommendation 

is so far not fulfilled. 

50 

 
 
 
Topic 3

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  ecological 

status in surface water bodies 

3.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second RBMPs 

3.1.1

 Monitoring of ecological status/potential 

Monitoring programmes 

There was a wide variation in the number of monitoring programmes reported by each of the 
18 of the 25 RBDs in Spain that had reported, with the Ebro RBD reporting 41 and four other 

RBDs only 1. The Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, Guadalete and Barbate and Tinto, Odiel 
and  Piedras  RBDs  reported  one  programme  (hydrological  plan)  that  covered  all  four  surface 

water categories and groundwater. The only reported programme for the Melilla RBD was for 
surveillance  monitoring  of  coastal  waters:  note  that  this  RBD  had  also  identified  rivers.  No 

reported monitoring programme in  Spain  included territorial  waters which are required to  be 
monitored for chemical status only. 

Monitoring sites 

It is difficult to assess the changes of total numbers of monitoring sites in Spain because there 

are no reliable data for the first RBMPs. However, there are comparable data for sites used for 
surveillance and operational monitoring. 

Table  3.1  compares  the  number  of  monitoring  sites  used  for  surveillance  and  operational 

purposes from the first to the second RBMPs, and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for 
different purposes for the second RBMPs. 

Overall for the 18 RBDs in Spain that had reported on the second RBMPs, there was a 39 % 
reduction  in  the  number  of  surveillance  sites  between  the  first  RBMPs  (5529  sites)  and  the 

second (3353 sites). There was a smaller reduction (18 %) in the number of operational sites 
between the two periods, 3362 for the first RBMPs and 2753 for the second. The ratio between 

surveillance and operational sites was 1:6 for the first RBMPs and 1:2 for the second indicating 
that  there  had  been  a  proportionally  larger  reduction  in  surveillance  compared  to  operational 

sites. 

51 

 
 
Table 3.1 

Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Spain for 

the second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of comparability with data 
reported  in  the  first  RBMPs,  the  second  RBMPs  data  does  not  take  into 

account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

Second RBMPs  

ES_010 

ES_014 

ES_017 

ES_018 

ES_020 

ES_030 

ES_040 

ES_050 

ES_060 

ES_063 

ES_064 

ES_070 

ES_080 

ES_091 

ES_100 

ES_110 

ES_150 

147 

153 

207 

61 

160 

357 

148 

31 

130 

37 

35 

88 

202 

337 

262 

0 

0 

90 

35 

89 

55 

569 

179 

243 

114 

74 

37 

20 

67 

262 

186 

259 

33 

0 

0 

0 

5 

5 

14 

0 

21 

0 

10 

10 

4 

4 

14 

41 

28 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

0 

16 

0 

6 

0 

1 

6 

18 

20 

0 

0 

0 

44 

33 

131 

7 

12 

8 

14 

14 

7 

1 

28 

1 

4 

13 

3 

7 

14 

14 

1 

20 

Total by type of site 

2355 

2312  

156 

71 

299 

77 

41 

21 

58 

5 

6 

34 

15 

5 

31 

320 

7 

543 

12 

1 

6 

15 

3 

66 

157 

26 

7 

293 

Total number of monitoring 
site used for surveillance 
and/or operational 
monitoring 

First RBMPs 

ES_010 

ES_014 

ES_017 

ES_018 

ES_020 

ES_030 

ES_040 

ES_050 

ES_060 

ES_063 

3637 

187 

324 

699 

0 

0 

3 

2 

4 

17 

0 

2 

4 

5 

68 

25 

0 

0 

4 

0 

70 

11 

0 

0 

1 

187 

73 

106 

64 

8 

41 

9 

21 

6 

20 

9 

21 

5 

9 

46 

35 

0 

0 

18 

35 

86 

519 

165 

505 

819 

466 

165 

274 

48 

30 

74 

29 

239 

204 

726 

169 

217 

114 

72 

79 

0 

6 

8 

32 

20 

18 

4 

3 

4 

52 

 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ES_064 

ES_070 

ES_080 

ES_091 

ES_100 

ES_110 

ES_150 

ES_160 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Surv. 

30 

101 

154 

358 

301 

63 

Op 

64 

78 

101 

286 

111 

33 

0 

1 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

5 

6 

20 

40 

29 

6 

1 

17 

22 

7 

42 

7 

31 

42 

28 

31 

42 

0 

12 

41 

7 

20 

16 

31 

226 

36 

31 

72 

7 

4 

Op 

16 

104 

113 

36 

16 

15 

7 

0 

Total by type of site 

4084 

2597 

195 

85 

545 

255 

705 

425 

Total number of monitoring 
sites 

6681 

280 

800 

1130 

Source: Member States electronic reporting to WISE. 

Table 3.2 

Number  of  monitoring  sites  in  relevant  water  categories  used  for  different 
purposes for the second RBMPs in Spain: Note that no differentiation is made 

between  sites  used  for  ecological  monitoring  and/or  chemical  monitoring. 
Also  there  are  differences  between  the  RBDs  included  in  this  Table  and  the 

previous Table. 

Monitoring Purpose 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional 

Coastal 

BWD - Recreational or bathing water - WFD 
Annex IV.1.iii 

CHE - Chemical status 

DRI - Groundwater abstraction site for human 
consumption 

DWD - Drinking water - WFD Annex IV.1.i 

ECO - Ecological status 

HAB - Protection of habitats or species 
depending on water - WFD Annex IV.1.v 

INT - International network of other 
international convention 

INV - Investigative monitoring 

MSF - Marine Strategy Framework Directive 
monitoring network 

NID - Nutrient sensitive area under the 
Nitrates Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 

OPE - Operational monitoring 

QUA - Quantitative status 

REF - Reference network monitoring site 

RIV - International network of a river 
convention (including bilateral agreements) 

SEA - International network of a sea 

17 

43 

11 

175 

17 

30 

5 

71 

28 

53 

59 

279 

7 

345 

1 

9 

5 

77 

20 

2 

366 

347 

6 

750 

384 

79 

293 

14 

1 

124 

1010 

20 

891 

2522 

675 

3 

536 

3 

65 

2312 

109 

326 

37 

46 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Monitoring Purpose 
convention 

SHE - Shellfish designated waters - WFD 
Annex IV.1.ii 

SOE - EIONET State of Environment 
monitoring 

SUR - Surveillance monitoring 

TRE - Chemical trend assessment 

UWW - Nutrient sensitive area under the 
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive - 
WFD Annex IV.1.iv 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional 

Coastal 

2 

36 

156 

17 

2 

43 

479 

2355 

282 

312 

48 

299 

43 

20 

543 

168 

3 

Total sites irrespective of purpose 

248 
Source: WISE electronic reporting 

4669 

536 

1360 

In terms of surveillance monitoring, there was a decrease in the number of sites in most RBDs 

for  all  relevant  water  categories:  11  of  the  14  RBDs  with  transitional  waters,  10  of  the  17 
RBDs with rivers, 10 of the 16 RBDs with coastal waters and nine of the 14 RBDs with lakes. 
The  largest  decrease  was  in  the  Duero  RBD  where  for  the  first  RBMP  there  were  819  river 
sites used for surveillance, and the number decreased to 160 for the second RBMP. There are 

also RBDs with increased numbers of surveillance sites for the second RBMPs: two for coastal 
waters, four for lakes, six for rivers and one for transitional waters. The biggest increase was in 

the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins RBD where there were 48 sites for the first RBMPs and 
130 for the second. There were similar decreases in  the number of monitoring sites used  for 

operational  purposes:  seven  RBDs for coastal  waters, seven RBDs for lakes, eight  RBDs for 
rivers  and  nine  RBDs  for  transitional  waters.  The  Duero  RBD  again  showed  the  largest 

decrease from 726 operational sites in rivers for the first RBMPs to 569 sites for the second. 
There were also increases in operational sites in some RBDs: three RBDs for coastal waters, 

three RBDs for lakes, seven RBDs for rivers and one RBD for transitional water. The largest 
increase was for rivers in the Jucar RBD from 101 for the first RBMPs to 262 for the second. 

54 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3.1 

Percentage  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  and  operational 

monitoring in Spain for the first RBMPs  (2010) and second RBMPs (2016). 
Note  no  differentiation  is  made  between  water  bodies  included  in  ecological 
and/or chemical monitoring14 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure  3.1  shows  the  percentage  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  and  operational 
monitoring in Spain for the first RBMPs and second RBMPs, while Figure 3.2 shows the share 

of  water  bodies  in  each  ecological  status/potential  class  that  are  included  in  surveillance 
monitoring. 

In general in Spain, ecological monitoring is undertaken at more sites and in more water bodies 

than for chemical monitoring in all water categories. 

Further  information  was  obtained  from  three  RBMPs.  The  RBMP  for  the  Guadiana  RBD 

reports  that  no  changes  have  been  undertaken  in  the  surface  water  monitoring  programmes. 
Hhowever, changes are in progress for the third RBMP. 

The Guadalquivir RBMP explains that there are different reasons for the changes:  

  The increase in  the number of surveillance monitoring sites in  lakes  and  reservoirs is 
due to the changes in their programmes. No further explanation is provided. However, 
it should be noted that the revised set of monitoring sites is not yet operational (it seems 

14  Spain  subsequently  clarified  that  the  percentages  for  lakes  in  the  second  RBMPs  should  be  53  %  for 

surveillance and 25 % for operational monitoring. 

55 

 
 
                                                      
that  it  has  been  reported  as  basis  for  the  second  RBMP)  and  that  the  number  of 

monitoring sites might still change.  

  Regarding  the  changes  of  the  operational  monitoring  sites,  an  evaluation  was  carried 
out addressing i) location of the monitoring sites, ii) evaluation of the historical dataset 

to validate their continuity in the programme, iii) validation of non-compliance of the 
water body and thus continuity of the site in the programme, iv) review of water bodies 

in  worse  than  good  status  (first  RBMP)  and  new  allocation  of  monitoring  sites.  In 
consequence,  21  monitoring  sites  have  been  incorporated  from  other  monitoring 

programmes  for  water  bodies  in  worse  than  good  status,  in  addition  to  22  new 
monitoring sites for water bodies in bad status in the first RBMP.  

  Monitoring of fish under the Fresh Water Fish Directive15 has been supressed.  

Details obtained from the Ebro RBMP shows an overview table on the numerical changes in 
the  different  programmes,  and  does  not  provide  any  textual  justification  or  explanation  of 

changes,  though  a  list  of  studies  that  have  been  carried  out  in  the  past  year  is  attached 
(including  fish  behaviour  studies,  fish  fauna  studies,  and  ecological  status  studies  in 

transitional waters). Note that the monitoring programmes for transitional waters in  the Ebro 
RBD are only in an “experimental phase”. 

15  Council  Directive  78/659/EEC  of  18  July  1978  on  the  quality  of  fresh  waters  needing  protection  or 

improvement in order to support fish life - Repealed by Directive 2006/44/EC. 

56 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 3.2 

Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class which are 
included in surveillance monitoring in Spain16 

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

Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) 

Table  3.3  illustrates  the  quality  elements  used  for  the  monitoring  of  lakes  and  rivers  for  the 
second RBMPs: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. 

For the second RBMPs, there were still gaps in the expected biological quality elements to be 
included  in  monitoring  for  all  water  categories  in  at  least  some  of  the  Spanish  RBDs.  For 

example, in the Galicia-Coast RBD only phytoplankton were monitored in coastal waters for 
the second RBMP. In three RBDs (Guadiana, Ebro, Catalan RBD), benthic invertebrates were 

monitored in coastal waters in the first RBMPs but were not reported as being monitored for 
the  second17.  On  a  more  positive  note,  whereas  for  the  first  RBMP  no  biological  quality 
elements  were  reported  to  be  monitored  in  the  Balearic  Islands,  for  the  second  all  expected 
biological quality elements were reported. 

16  Spain  subsequently  clarified  that  for  coastal  water,  there  are  no  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance 

monitoring that are classified as unknown. 

17 Spain subsequently clarified that benthic invertebrate are monitored in the Guadiana and Catalan RBDs. This 

must be a reporting error. 

57 

 
 
                                                      
Table 3.3 

Quality elements monitored for the second RBMPs in Spain (excluding River 

Basin Specific Pollutants). Note; quality element may be used for surveillance 
and/or operational monitoring 

Biological quality elements 

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

Rivers 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

Lakes 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

Yes  Yes 

No 

Transitional  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  No 

Coastal 

Yes  Yes  No  Yes  No  Yes  Yes  Yes 

No 

No 

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 

General physicochemical quality elements 

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 

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 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

s
u
r
o
h
p
s
o
h
P

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
C

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

r
e
h
t
O

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

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

e
t
a
c
i
l
i
S

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

In  four  RBDs,  all  expected  biological  quality  elements  were  included  in  the  monitoring  of 
rivers for the second RBMPs: fish were reported not to be monitored any more in rivers in five 

RBDs.  Though  not  an  expected  biological  quality  element  for  rivers,  phytoplankton  was 
monitored  in  14  RBDs  for  the  second  RBMPs:  in  two  RBDs  phytoplankton  had  been 

monitored  for  the  first  RBMPs  but  not  the  second.  There  was  an  increase  in  the  number  of 
different biological quality elements monitored for the second in seven RBDs compared to the 

first. 

Only one RBD (Eastern Cantabrian) reported for the second RBMP that all expected biological 

quality  elements  are  monitored  in  transitional  water.  In  all  other  13  RBDs  with  transitional 
waters, fish were not monitored though fish were reported for three of these RBDs for the first 

RBMP. For six RBDs, fewer biological quality elements were monitored for the second RBMP 
compared to the first, and in four RBDs, an increase. 

58 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored 

221 different River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported for Spain as a whole. Of these, 215 
were monitored in water. Zinc, copper, fluoride, selenium and arsenic were monitored in all of 

the 14 RBDs which reported information, and in all water categories. 

41 River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored in biota including fish. Five 

substances (arsenic, selenium, zinc, copper and  chromium) were monitored in  four of the 14 
RBDs that reported. Arsenic was monitored in biota in rivers and lakes; selenium, zinc, copper 

and chromium were also monitored in transitional waters. 

64  different  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  reported  to  be  monitored  in  sediment  or 
settled sediment in nine of the 14 RBDs that reported. Five substances (arsenic, selenium, zinc, 

copper  and  chromium)  were  monitored  in  eight  of  the  reported  14  RBDs,  and  they  were 
monitored in all four water categories. 

For  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants,  the  WFD  indicates  that,  the  frequency  of  surveillance 

monitoring in water should be at least once every three months for one year during the RBMP 
cycle.  The  frequency  for  operational  monitoring  should  be  at  least  once  every  three  months 
every year. Greater intervals can be applied provided they are justified on the basis of expert 

judgment  or  technical  knowledge.  In  Spain,  monitoring  was  performed  at  or  above  this 
minimum  intra-annual  frequencies  of  four  times  per  year  in  many,  but  not  all  cases18.  No 
explanation could be found for the reduced frequencies. 

Minimum  monitoring  frequencies  in  biota  are  specified  for  the  assessment  of  Priority 
Substances  in  Article  3(2)c  of  EQS  Directive  2008/105/EC:  this  is  once  per  year  for 

operational  and surveillance monitoring purposes, unless greater intervals  can be justified on 
the basis of technical knowledge or expert judgment. It thus seems consistent to monitor River 

Basin Specific Pollutants at the same frequency in biota.  

For two-thirds of the substances, the monitoring frequency in biota (fish and other biological 
matrices) was at least once per year at all sites where these substances were monitored. Every 

substance  was  sampled  at  least  once  per  year  at  some  of  the  sites.  Around  half  of  the 
substances monitored in sediment (settled and/or suspended) were monitored at least once per 
year at all sites where they were monitored and for two substances no sites met this frequency. 

No information could be found for the reduced frequencies.  

18   Spain subsequently stated that monitoring was performed at or above the minimum intra-annual frequencies in 

more than 70 % of the cases. 

59 

 
                                                      
Table 3.4 

Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants as reported in 

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

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

there were no equivalent data for the first RBMPs 

RBMPs 

first  

second  

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

Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific 
Pollutants 

Lakes 

Rivers  Transitional  Coastal 

150 

2 817 

52 

1 990 

382 

210 

670 

388 

Sources: WISE electronic reporting  

Surveillance monitoring of surface water bodies 

Overall  in  the  16  RBDs  with  information  for  both  cycles,  there  was  a  decrease  in  the 
proportion  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  monitoring  in  all  four  categories  for  the 

second  RBMPs.  The  largest  decrease  of  28  %  was  in  coastal  and  transitional  waters.  For 
operational monitoring there were increases in the proportion of coastal water and river water 

bodies  monitored,  no  changes  in  lake  water  bodies  and  a  decrease  in  the  proportion  of 
transitional water bodies. The largest increase of 19 % was for coastal water bodies. 

In terms of the proportion of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring 

for the second RBMPs, there were differences between the RBDs. For coastal waters in eight 
RBDs,  a  higher  proportion  of  water  bodies  was  used  for  surveillance  than  operational 

monitoring, in two RBDs a smaller proportion and in six RBDs the proportion was the same. 
In  terms  of  lake  water  bodies  the  respective  values  were  nine  RBDs,  two  RBDs  and  three 

RBDs, respectively; for river water bodies, 10 RBDs, five RBDs and two  RBDs, respectively; 
and, for transitional water bodies, eight RBDs, one RBD and five RBDs, respectively. 

In terms of the proportion of river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring, there was 
an increase from the first to the second RBMPs in nine of the 16 RBDs with information for 

both cycles, and a decrease in the other 7. There were no changes from the first to the second 
RBMPs for around 50 % of RBDs for coastal and transitional waters. For lakes, there was a 

decrease in seven RBDs, an increase in six RBDs and no change in one RBD. 

In terms of the proportion of river water bodies included in operational monitoring, in 10 of the 
16  RBDs  with  information  from  both  cycles  there  was  an  increase  in  the  proportion  of  river 

water  bodies  included  in  operational  monitoring  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs  and  a 

60 

 
 
decrease  in  the  proportion  in  the  other  six  RBDs.  For  the  other  water  categories,  there  were 

RBDs  where  there  were  increases,  decreases  and  no  changes  in  the  proportions  used  for 
operational monitoring in the different RBDs. 

Any  changes  in  monitored  water  bodies  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs  have  to  be 
assessed  in  relation  to  changes  in  the  delineation  of  water  bodies.  Generally  there  were 

relatively small changes  in  the numbers  of identified water bodies in  each category from the 
first  to  the  second  RBMPs.  Of  the  16  RBDs  with  information  for  both  the  first  and  second 

cycles, there were no changes in the numbers of coastal water bodies in 12 of the 14 RBDs, of 
lake water bodies in eight of the 14 RBDs, of river water bodies in seven of the 16 RBDs, and 

of transitional water bodies in 12 of the 14 RBDs. More rivers were identified than in any other 
water category, and in five RBDs there was an increase in numbers from the first to the second 

RBMPs in five RBDs and a decrease in 4. 

All  relevant  quality  elements  should  be  monitored  in  a  water  body  that  is  included  in 
to  water  category  and  biological, 
surveillance  monitoring:  relevancy 

in  relation 

is 

physicochemical  and hydromorphological  quality  elements should be included.  In Spain  as  a 
whole, all required physicochemical  elements  are monitored in  59 % of coastal water bodies 

included in surveillance monitoring, all required biological quality elements in 13 % of water 
bodies  and  all  required  hydromorphological  quality  elements  in  only  5  %  of  water  bodies 

included in surveillance monitoring.  

There are significant gaps in the monitoring of all required quality elements in all water bodies 

included in surveillance. The physicochemical quality elements are the closest type of quality 
element  to  full  compliance,  at  best  59  %  of  river  and  coastal  water  bodies  included  in 

surveillance monitoring.  

For  the  surveillance  monitoring  of  lakes,  only  5  %  of  water  bodies  have  all  the  required 
biological quality elements included, 15 % of water bodies for the hydromorphological quality 
elements and 43 % of water bodies for the required physicochemical quality elements. 

In rivers, the type of quality element with the largest proportion of water bodies where all the 
required  quality  elements  are  included  in  surveillance  monitoring  are  the  physicochemical 
quality elements (59 % of water bodies), followed by the biological quality elements (30 % of 

water bodies) and hydromorphological quality elements (11 % of water bodies). 

61 

 
There  is  a  similar  situation  in  transitional  waters  where  54  %  of  water  bodies  included  in 

surveillance monitoring are monitored for all required physicochemical quality elements, 11 % 
for  all  required  biological  quality  elements  and  none  for  all  required  hydromorphological 

quality elements. 

In conclusion, there are significant gaps in the monitoring of all required quality elements in all 

water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  monitoring.  The  physicochemical  quality  elements  are 
the closest type of quality element to meet full compliance, at best 59 % of river and coastal 

water bodies. 

Operational monitoring of surface water bodies. 

For  the  second  RBMPs  the  predominant  biological  quality  element  used  in  operational 

monitoring of coastal waters, lakes and transitional waters was phytoplankton (>90 % of water 
bodies included in operational monitoring) closely followed by benthic invertebrates in lakes 

and  transitional  waters:  these  are  the  two  elements  traditionally  used  in  many  European 
countries before the implementation of the WFD. All other relevant biological quality elements 

were  also  used  for  the  operational  monitoring  of  all  four  water  categories  including  fish  in 
lakes, rivers and transitional waters. 

The  information  provided  in  the  first  RBMPs  and  reported  to  WISE  regarding  monitoring 
systems  was  not  always  fully  consistent.  In  bilateral  contacts  with  the  Spanish  authorites 

regarding the first RBMPs, it was concluded that the monitoring programmes were not being 
implemented  as  reported,  as  the  information  that  had  been  reported  was  not  accurate:  it  is, 

therefore,  difficult  to  make  comparisons  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs  in  terms  of 
monitoring.  In  terms  of  the  operational  monitoring  of  surface  waters,  the  data  in  WISE 

indicates  a  similar  use  of  biological  quality  elements  as  had  been  reported  for  the  second 
RBMPs. 

Transboundary surface water body monitoring 

71  transboundary  surface  water  bodies  were  reported  across  five  RBDs.  All  five  RBDs  had 
transboundary rivers, three RBDs transitional waters and two coastal waters: no transboundary 

lakes were reported. All five RBDs that reported transboundary surface water bodies also had 
monitoring sites/monitored water bodies that  were part of international network of a river or 

sea  convention  or  of  an  international  network  of  other  international  convention:  note  not 
necessarily the transboundary water bodies. However, there were no transitional water bodies 

said  to  be  included  in  international  networks  in  the  Eastern  Cantabrian  and  Guadiana  RBDs 

62 

 
even though they had reported transboundary water bodies in this category19. The Jucar RBD 
also reported some water bodies that were included in a sea convention network. 

Use of monitoring results for classification 

The majority of water bodies are classified based on monitoring at the quality element level, 
which  is  a  huge  improvement  for  the  second  RBMPs.  However,  very  few  water  bodies  are 

classified for macrophytes and fish. Fish and hydromorphological quality elements are rarely 
classified in lakes, and not at all in transitional and coastal waters.  

For  Spain  as  a  whole,  overwhelmingly  monitoring  results  were  used  in  the  classification  of 

biological quality elements in coastal water: the biological quality elements most often used in 
the  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  was  phytoplankton  followed  by  benthic 

invertebrates: macroalgae were only used in the classification of 32 % of coastal water bodies 
and  angiosperms  20  %.  Monitoring  was  predominately  used  in  the  classification  of  general 

physicochemical quality element and River Basin Specific Pollutants and expert judgment was 
only used in the classification of 6 % of coastal water bodies. Grouping was only used for one 

coastal water body for phytoplankton, some physicochemical quality elements and River Basin 
Specific Pollutants. 

For  lakes,  also  the  classification  of  biological  quality  elements  was  mainly  based  on 
monitoring results with a higher proportion (around 10 %) of water bodies classified by expert 

judgment: grouping was not used in lakes. Fish were reported to be monitored in 4 % of lakes 
but  the  results  were  not  used  in  the  classification.  The  Common  Implementation  Strategy 

Working Group on Ecological Status has accepted Spain's justification for not developing an 
ecological status assessment method for fish in lakes. 

Phytoplankton was the most frequently classified biological quality element in lakes (48 % of 

classified  lakes).  Monitoring  results  were  mainly  used  in  the  classification  of  the 
physicochemical  quality  elements  though  again  expert  judgment  was  used  to  classify  around 

10 % of water bodies some physiochemical quality elements. 

The  most  frequently  biological  quality  elements  used  to  classify  rivers  was  benthic 
invertebrates (72 %) followed by phytobenthos (48 %), fish were only used for 9 % of rivers. 

19   Spain subsequently stated that in the Guadiana RBD, the assessment is made in coordination with Portugal and 
there is an ongoing project to establish a coordinated monitoring and assessment of the transboundary water 
bodies in Miño, Duero, Tagus and Guadiana. In the Eastern Cantabrian, there have been some exchanges of 
information with France regarding the monitoring networks, and further work will be done. 

63 

 
                                                      
Again,  monitoring  results  were  mainly  used  to  classify  individual  quality  elements  though 

expert judgement (~5 %) and grouping (~2 %) was used. Rivers were classified according to 
the  hydromorphological  quality  elements  with  morphological  conditions  being  used  for  the 

most  river  water  bodies  (60  %  of  total)  with  most  classified  by  monitoring  results  (45  %), 
expert judgment (12 %) and grouping (~3 %). Monitoring results were mainly used to classify 

river  water  bodies  according  to  the  physicochemical  quality  elements  (~60  %),  followed  by 
expert judgment (~13 %) and by grouping (~3 %).  

Again  for  transitional  waters,  monitoring  results  are  mainly  used  to  classify  the  individual 
quality  elements  with  only  very  few  classified  by  expert  judgment  or  by  grouping:  the 

exception was morphological conditions which was the only quality elements of this type used 
to classify transitional waters by expert judgment but in only 8 % of water bodies.  

Overall  in  Spain,  there  were  differences  between  water  categories  in  the  proportion  of  water 

bodies  classified  according  to  the  different  types  of  quality  elements.  In  terms  of  biological 
quality elements 82 % of those rivers classified (i.e. those that had a reported overall ecological 

status/potential), 75 % of coastal waters, 66 % of lakes and 55 % of transitional waters were 
classified according to these elements. For physicochemical quality elements, 85 % of rivers, 

63  %  of  lakes,  60  %  of  coastal  water  and  48  %  of  transitional  water  bodies  were  classified 
using these elements. The equivalent values for the hydromorphological quality elements were 

66 % of rivers, 30 % of lakes, 8 % of transitional waters and 7 % of coastal water bodies. In 
terms of those water bodies with a reported overall ecological status/potential, 58 % of rivers, 

43  %  of  transitional  waters,  35  %  of  coastal  waters  and  31  %  of  lakes  were  also  classified 
according to River Basin Specific Pollutants. 

Generally,  when  more  than  one  quality  element  within  the  three  main  types  (biological, 
physicochemical,  hydromorphological)  was  used  in  the  classification,  it  was  in  terms  of  the 

physicochemical  quality  elements.  For  example,  five  different  physicochemical  quality 
elements were used for 33 % of river water bodies whereas 39 % of river water bodies were 

classified  using  two  different  biological  quality  elements.  This  was  also  the  case  for  coastal, 
lakes and transitional waters. The classification of water bodies using the hydromorphological 

was  based  on  just  one  element  in  coastal  waters,  lakes  and  transitional  waters:  in  rivers  the 
classification  of  50  %  of  classified  water  bodies  was  based  on  one  element,  4  %  on  two 

elements and three for 12 % of water bodies. 

64 

 
3.1.2

 Ecological Status/potential of surface water  

The  ecological  status/potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Spain  for  the  second  RBMPs  is 
illustrated in Map 3.1. This is based on the most recent assessment of status. Almost all water 

bodies have been classified for ecological status or potential (5015 out of 5122 surface water 
bodies in  the 18 RBD reporting their second RBMPs).  Most water bodies are classified with 

high or medium confidence, which is a great improvement since the first RBMPs. 

Map 3.1 

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

most recently assessed status/potential of the surface water bodies 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
High 

Good 

Moderate 

Poor  

Bad 

Unknown 

River Basin Districts 

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 
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 

Figure 3.3 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. 

Figure 3.3  Confidence  in  the  classification  of  ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface 

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 3.4 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies in Spain for the first RBMPs 

with  that  for  the  second  (based  on  the  most  recent  assessment  of  status/potential)  and  that 
expected by 2015. 

66 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
Figure 3.4  Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Spain 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  both  cycles.  Note  the 

period  of  the  assessment  of  status  for  the  second  RBMPs  was  2003  to  2014. 
The year of the assessment of status for first RBMPs is not known 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological 

status/potential. The information for Spain is shown in Figure 3.5. 

67 

 
 
Figure 3.5  Expected  date  of  achievement  of  good  ecological  status/potential  of  surface 

water bodies in Spain. The number in the parenthesis is the number of water 
bodies in each category 

Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The classification is more often based on several quality elements in all water categories than 
was  the  case  for  the  first  RBMPs,  although  for  many  lakes  and  coastal  water  bodies,  the 

assessment is still based on phytoplankton and nutrients. Most of the rivers are assessed using 
only two biological quality elements: phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates.  

The overall ecological  status  has not  improved much since the first  RBMPs. 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.  

The assessment of the RBMP and background documents for Guadiana RBD indicates that the 
status  classification  is  based  on  monitoring  data  for  2008-2011  (however,  not  all  monitoring 

sites  have  annual  data  available,  thus  the  latest  available  data  have  been  used),  except  for 
transitional  and  coastal  water  bodies  where  2011  monitoring  data  have  only  been  used.  The 

RBMP does not provide any explanation or justification of changes; it only includes overview 
tables. 

68 

 
 
The  Guadalquivir  RBMP  explains  that  changes  are  due  to  the  following  reasons:  1) 

effectiveness  assessment  of  the  Programme  of  Measures  for  the  first  RBMPs.  However,  the 
RBMP informs that the majority of the measures have not been implemented yet, and that the 

main  type  of  implemented  measures  so  far  is  urban  waste  water  treatment  works.  2)  Latest 
available  data  from  the  physicochemical  monitoring  from  2009.  3)  Review  of  ecotypes  of 

water bodies. There is however, no information on the different effects of these three points.  

The Ebro RBMP provides a table that shows the differences in the quality elements used for 

status classification. However, no further explanation is provided beyond a small text reference 
to  different  studies  carried  out  during  the  previous  planning  cycle.  An  overview  table  is 

provided for the evolution of the status  classification between 2009 and  2013, and Table 3.2 
provides  details  on  the  justification  for  those  water  bodies  whose  status  has  worsened, 

including: a) new indicators; b) natural variation; c) improved datasets.  

The overall classification of the ecological status/potential of water bodies in Spain seems to be 
largely based on biological quality elements (not necessarily all relevant quality elements) and 

general physicochemical quality elements: the role of the hydromorphological quality elements 
plays a very limited role in the classification. In addition, 11 % of classified lake water bodies, 

10  %  of  river  water  bodies  and  5  %  of  transitional  water  bodies  are  classified  using  no 
biological quality elements. 54 % of classified transitional waters, 37 % of classified rivers, 26 

% of classified lakes and 26 % of classified coastal water bodies are classified using only one 
biological  quality  element.  This  is  inconsistent  with  the  requirements  of  the  WFD  and  calls 

into question the validity  of the assessment/classification of status  of surface water bodies in 
Spain.20 

20  Spain  subsequently  clarified  that  4  %  of  classified  lake  water  bodies,  6  %  of  river  water  bodies  and  1  %  of 
transitional  water  bodies  are  classified  using  no  biological  quality  elements,  and  that  42  %  of  classified 
transitional  waters,  38  %  of  classified  rivers,  27  %  of  classified  lakes  and  23  %  of  classified  coastal  water 
bodies are classified using only 1 biological quality element.   

69 

 
                                                      
Figure 3.6  Ecological  status/potential  of  the  biological  quality  elements  used  in  the 

classification  of  surface  waters  in  Spain.  Note  that  water  bodies  with 
unknown status/potential or those where the quality element was reported as 

not applicable or monitored but not used for classification are not presented.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting. A differentiated presentation of this data 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  

Figure  3.7  compares  the  classification  of  biological  quality  elements  in  terms  of  ecological 
status/potential  for  the  two  cycles.  It  should  be  noted  that  this  comparison  should  be  treated 

70 

 
 
with  some  caution  as  there  are  differences  between  the  numbers  of  surface  water  bodies 

classified for individual elements from the first to the second RBMPs. 

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

biological  quality  elements  in  rivers  and  lakes  from  the  first  to  the  second 
RBMPs21

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  

Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9 illustrate the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential 
of rivers and lakes in Spain for the second RBMPs. 

21  Spain  subsequently  clarified  that  the  values  shown  in  parentheses  for  the  second  RBMPs  should  be: 
Angiosperms  (50);  Macroalgae  (70);  Other  aquatic  flora  (15);  Phytoplankton  (731);  Phytobenthos  (2115); 
Macrophytes (151); Fish (397); Benthic invertebrates (3459). 

71 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 3.8 

The  classification  of  the  ecological  status  or  potential  of  rivers  and  lakes  in 

Spain using 1, 2, 3 or 4 types of quality element 
Note: The 4 types are: biological; hydromorphological, general physicochemical and River Basin Specific 
Pollutants. 

 Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 3.9 

The percentage of river and lake water bodies in Spain 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 

The classification of the individual quality elements is illustrated in Figure 3.10.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

72 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3.10  Basis of the classification of ecological status/potential in Spain 

73 

 
 
Source: WISE electronic reporting 

74 

 
 
Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements 

For  the  second  RBMPs,  there  are  now  assessment  methods  developed  for  all  relevant 
biological quality elements missing for the first RBMPs, except macroalgae and angiosperms 

in coastal and transitional waters, and fish in lakes and transitional waters. It should be noted 
that the Common Implementation Strategy Working Group on Ecological Status has accepted 

Spain's  justification  for  not  developing  an  ecological  status  assessment  method  for  fish  in 
lakes. Macrophytes in rivers are reported for the Ebro RBD, but not for the other RBDs, and 

are not used for classification of any water body. There are still no classification of macroalgae 
and angiosperms in coastal and transitional waters. 

The  assessment  of  the  RBMP  and  background  documents  for  Guadiana  RBD  does  not  have 
information on the changes in the biological quality assessments methods between the first and 

second cycles. The RBMP explains that the biological quality elements used are different from 
those  for  the  first  planning  cycle  because  of:  1)  changes  in  the  legislation,  2)  availability  of 

budget,  3)  knowledge  evolution  of  water  bodies.  None  of  the  three  aspects  has  been  further 
clarified. The Guadalquivir RBMP does not have any relevant information. The Ebro RBMP 

lists  the  changes  in  an  overview  table:  for  rivers  a  method  has  been  developed  for  fish,  for 
lakes,  phytoplankton,  macrophytes,  phytobenthos,  and  benthic  invertebrates;  for  transitional 

waters  for  phytoplankton,  benthic  invertebrates  and  fish,  and  for  coastal  waters  for  no 
biological quality element. Similar to the information on monitoring, it has only experimental 

character so far; and it remains unclear if the methods are finalised. 

Intercalibration of biological assessment methods and national classification systems 

Many national types are linked to the common intercalibration types, but it is not clear which 

biological quality element methods have been intercalibrated. 

Some  national  types  are  not  linked  to  common  intercalibration  types,  in  particular  lakes  and 

transitional  waters.  Some  national  river  types  are  linked  to  several  common  intercalibration 
types. It is not clear how reference conditions and class boundaries have been set for the non-

linked types, and for the river types linked to several common intercalibration types.  

The RBMPs and background documents assessed contained no information on how the class 
boundaries have been set for national types not linked to the common intercalibration types. 

75 

 
Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements 

The hydromorphological quality elements have been used for the classification of rivers in 11 
RBDs, of lakes in  only two RBDs and for  coastal  waters and transitional  waters in  only one 

RBD. 

The  classification  boundaries  for  supporting  hydromorphological  quality  elements  were 

reported  to  be  related  to  the  class  boundaries  for  the  sensitive  biological  quality  elements  in 
rivers,  lakes  and  transitional  waters  in  some  but  not  all  RBDs.  Only  one  RBD  reported  this 

information  for hydromorphological  quality elements  in  coastal waters and indicated that the 
boundaries were related to sensitive biological quality elements. 

The assessment of selected RBMPs and background documents indicated that the hydrological 

regime  was  only  used  for  classifying  high  status  in  the  details  obtained  from  the  Guadiana 
RBMP, and ecological flows have not been assessed. No information on changes since the first 

RBMPs in this respect was provided in the Guadiana RBMP nor in the Guadalquivir RBMP. 
The Ebro RBMP indicates that hydromorphological quality elements have been used for lakes 

and transitional waters for the second RBMPs, when they had not in the first. 

Assessment methods for general physicochemical quality elements 

Standards  are  reported  for  nutrients  in  all  water  categories  and  are  reported  to  be  consistent 
with the good-moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. 

However,  many  of  them  appear  not  to  be  sufficiently  stringent  to  be  compatible  with  the 
classification  boundary.  No  direct  references  to  these  aspects  have  been  found  in  any  of  the 

three RBMPs assessed. 

Some standards for physicochemical quality elements are type-specific; others are reported as 
quite broad ranges for a range of types. There may also be some reporting errors in terms of 

values of the standards and the units used.  

The  basis  for  stating  compatibility  with  the  sensitive  biological  quality  elements  should  be 
further investigated.  

The sensitivity of the biological quality elements assessment methods to different impacts have 
been reported, and seem logical in that they are sensitive to all significant impacts. 

76 

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

The  assessment  of  RBMPs  and  background  documents  did  not  find  any  information  on  how 
the River Basin Specific Pollutants have been identified22.  

Overall  in  Spain,  Environmental  Quality  Standards  are  reported  for  95  different  River  Basin 
Specific  Pollutants  (including  both  organic  pollutants  and  metals).  However  221  different 

River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored: it seems that some substances 
were  monitored  but  they  couldn’t  be  taken  into  account  in  the  assessment  of  status,  in  the 

absence of a corresponding environmental quality standard.  

Standards are set for 93 substances in water, six substances in biota (fish) and nine substances 
in  settled  sediment.  Overall,  Spain  reported  456  Environmental  Quality  Standards 

(corresponding to standards in different matrices, different water categories, etc.., in 18 RBDs).  

The  2011  Technical  Guidance  Document  No  2723  was  used  to  set  87  %  of  the  standards.  The 
analytical methods used met the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4.1 of the 
QA/QC Directive (2009/90/EC24) for 92 % of the standards. For 5 % of the standards, Spain 
used the best available analytical techniques not entailing excessive costs, in accordance with 
Article 4.2 of the same Directive. 

River Basin Pollutants were reported to be classified in 2867 surface water bodies. In 69 % of 

the  cases  this  classification  was  based  on  monitoring  results.  However,  the  status  of  River 
Basin  Specific  Pollutant  was  reported  in  only  2749  surface  water  bodies,  and  the  reporting 

seems  therefore  incomplete.  4  %  (109)  of  these  water  bodies  were  of  less  than  good 
status/potential because of River Basin Specific Pollutants.  

Member States also reported the individual River Basin Specific Pollutants causing failure of 

objectives:  Spain  reported  that  29  substances  (from  13  RBDs)  were  causing  failure  in  191 
surface  water  bodies.  Selenium  was  reported  to  be  causing  failure  in  the  most  surface  water 
bodies  (45  or  0.9  %  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Spain),  followed  by  zinc  (33  surface  water 

22 Spain indicated that this list contains substances identified under the Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused 
by  certain  dangerous  substances  discharged  into  the  aquatic  environment  of  the  Community  (now  repealed). 
Substances in Annex VIII of the WFD were also considered as possible river  basin specific pollutants, on the 
basis of the standards set under Directive 76/464/EC. 

23  https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0cc3581b-5f65-4b6f-91c6-433a1e947838/TGD-EQS%20CIS-

WFD%2027%20EC%202011.pdf. 

24 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:201:0036:0038:EN:PDF. 

77 

 
                                                      
bodies),  phosphate  (29  surface  water  bodies),  4-nonylphenol,  branched  (29  surface  water 

bodies and copper (17 surface water bodies). 

There is contradictory information on the number of water bodies with at least one River Basin 

Specific Pollutant causing failure (129 versus 109) – this may be partly due to the incomplete 
reporting highlighted above. 

Although  environmental  quality  standards  have  been  set  for  many  river  basin  specific 

pollutants, these river basin specific pollutants are causing failure in very few water bodies. It 
should be noted that River Basin  Specific Pollutants are classified in  only 30 to  60 % of the 

waterbodies  depending  on  the  water  category.  This  may  partly  explain  the  low  number  of 
water bodies failing because of these substances. In addition, it is not clear how far the current 

list of river basin specific pollutants is related to the pressures on the water bodies. Finally the 
fact  that  some  of  the  environmental  quality  standards  were  not  set  according  to  the  EU 
guideline might also mean some of the exceedances are overlooked25. 

Overall classification of ecological status (one-out, all-out principle) 

Spain reported that the one-out, all-out principle has been used in all RBDs.  

The assessment of RBMPs and background documents did  not  find any  relevant  information 
on how the no-deterioration principle has been applied, nor how spatial variability within water 

bodies has been dealt with.  

3.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs 

3.2.1

 Monitoring of ecological status/potential 

In terms of surveillance monitoring, there was a decrease in the numbers of sites in most RBDs 

for  all  relevant  water  categories.  The  biggest  decrease  was  in  the  Duero  RBD  where  for  the 
first RBMPs, there were 819 river sites used for surveillance; the number decreased to 160 for 

the  second  RBMPs.  There  also  RBDs  with  increased  numbers  of  surveillance  sites  for  the 
second RBMPs: the largest increase was in the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins RBD where 

there were 48 sites in the first RBMPs and 130 in the second. 

25  Spain  subsequently  explained  that  a  new  regulation  has  been  adopted  in  September  2015,  establishing  new 
criteria  to  monitor  and  assess  ecological  status.  This  regulation  includes  the  criteria  to  derive  environmental 
quality standards for River Basin Specific Pollutants, and these criteria take into account the EU CIS Guidance 
Document. These will be used as a basis for the preparation of the third RBMP. 

78 

 
                                                      
Overall for the 18 RBDs that have reported their second RBMPs in Spain, there was a 39 % 

reduction  in  the  number  of  surveillance  sites  between  the  first  RBMPs  (5529  sites)  and  the 
second (3353 sites). There was a smaller reduction (18 %) in the numbers of operational sites 

between the two periods, 3362 for the first RBMPs and 2753 for the second. The ratio between 
surveillance and operational sites was 1:6 for the first RBMPs and 1:2 for the second indicating 

that  there  had  been  a  proportionally  larger  reduction  in  surveillance  compared  to  operational 
sites26. 

There were still gaps in the expected biological quality elements to be included in monitoring 
for  all  water  categories  in  at  least  some  of  the  RBDs  in  Spain  for  the  second  RBMPs.  For 

example,  in  the  Galicia-Coast  RBD  only  phytoplankton  were  reported  to  be  monitored  in 
coastal waters for the second RBMPs. In three RBDs (Guadiana, Ebro and the Catalan RBDs), 

benthic  invertebrates  were  monitored  in  coastal  waters  for  the  first  RBMPs  but  were  not 
reported  as  being  monitored  for  the  second27.  On  a  more  positive  note,  whereas  for  the  first 
RBMPs no biological quality elements were reported to be monitored in the Balearic Islands 
RBD, for the second all expected biological quality elements were reported. 

For  the  second  RBMPs,  all  expected  biological  quality  elements  were  included  in  the 

monitoring of rivers in four RBDs. Also in five RBDs fish were reported not to be monitored 
anymore in rivers for the second RBMPs. Though not an expected biological quality element 

for rivers, phytoplankton was monitored in 14 RBDs for the second RBMPs: many of these are 
reservoirs  that  used  to  be  rivers  (phytoplankton  would  be  expected  to  be  monitored  in 

reservoirs). In two RBDs phytoplankton had been monitored for the first RBMPs but not for 
the  second.  There  was  an  increase  in  the  number  of  different  biological  quality  elements 

monitored for the second RBMPs in seven RBDs compared to the first. 

Only the Eastern Cantabria RBD reported for the second RBMPs that all expected biological 

quality  elements  are  monitored  in  transitional  water.  In  all  other  13  RBDs  with  transitional 
waters, fish were not monitored though fish were reported for three of these RBDs for the first 

RBMPs.  For  six  RBDs  it  was  reported  for  the  second  RBMPs  that  fewer  biological  quality 
elements were monitored compared to the first, and in four RBDs, an increase was reported. 

There was increase in nine of the 16 RBDs with information for both cycles in the proportion 

of rivers included in surveillance monitoring, and a decrease in the other seven RBDs. There 

26  Spain  subsequently  stated  that  the  changes  in  the  monitoring  programme  are  due  to  better  assessment  of 
pressure and impacts for surface water and to broader experience in the collection of data for groundwater. 
27   Spain subsequently clarified that benthic invertebrate are monitored in the Guadiana and Catalan RBDs. This 

must be a reporting error. 

79 

 
                                                      
were no changes from the first to the second RBMPs for around 50 % of RBDs for coastal and 

transitional waters in the proportion of water bodies included in surveillance monitoring. For 
lakes there was a decrease in seven RBDs, an increase in six RBDs and no change in one RBD. 

In  10  of  the  16  RBDs  with  information  from  both  cycles,  there  was  an  increase  in  the 
proportion of river water body included in operational monitoring from the first to the second 

RBMPs and a decrease in the proportion in the other six RBDs. For the other water categories, 
there were RBDs where there were increases, decreases and no changes in the proportions used 

for operational monitoring in the different RBDs. 

Any  changes  in  monitored  water  bodies  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs  have  to  be 
assessed  in  relation  to  changes  in  the  delineation  of  water  bodies.  Generally,  there  were 

relatively small changes  in  the numbers  of identified water bodies in  each category from the 
first  to  the second RBMPs. Of the 16 RBDs with information  for both  cycles, there were no 

changes  in  the  numbers  of  coastal  waters  in  12  of  the  14  RBDs,  of  lakes  in  eight  of  the  14 
RBDs,  of  rivers  in  seven  of  the  16  RBDs,  and  of  transitional  waters  in  12  of  the  14  RBDs. 

More rivers were identified than in any other water category, and in five RBDs there was an 
increase in numbers from the first to the second RBMPs in five RBDs and a decrease in 4. 

For  the  second  RBMPs  the  predominant  biological  quality  elements  used  in  operational 
monitoring of coastal waters, lakes and transitional waters was phytoplankton (>90 % of water 

bodies included in operational monitoring) closely followed by benthic invertebrates in lakes 
and  transitional  waters:  these  are  the  two  elements  traditionally  used  in  many  European 

countries before the implementation of the WFD. All other relevant biological quality elements 
were  also  used  for  the  operational  monitoring  of  all  four  water  categories  including  fish  in 

lakes, rivers and transitional waters.  

The information provided in the first RBMPs and reported to the Water information System for 
Europe in  the first  RBMPs regarding monitoring systems  was not  always fully  consistent.  In 
bilateral contacts with the Spanish authorites regarding the first RBMPs, it was concluded that 
monitoring programmes were not being implemented as reported, as the information that had 

been reported was not accurate: it is, therefore, difficult to make comparisons between the two 
cycles  in  terms  of  monitoring.  In  terms  of  the  operational  monitoring  of  surface  waters,  the 

data in WISE indicates a similar use of biological quality elements as had been reported for the 
second RBMPs. 

80 

 
3.2.2

 Ecological Status/potential of surface waters 

For  Spain  as  a  whole,  the  proportion  of  water  bodies  with  unknown  status/potential  has 
decreased from 20 % to 2 % for rivers and lakes and from around 15 % to 5 % for coastal and 

transitional  waters  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs  (EEA  State  of  Water  Report).  The 
confidence in ecological status classification has changed from 40 % to 70 % for river and lake 

water bodies classified with high or medium confidence from the first to the second RBMPs. 
For transitional and coastal waters the proportion classified with  high or  medium  confidence 

has  changed  from  one  third  to  two  thirds  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs.  Reported 
information about confidence has increased from 60 % to 90 % for rivers and lakes and from 

40 % to 70-80 % for transitional and coastal waters.  

The classification is based on more comprehensive classification methods that consider more 

of  the  relevant  biological  quality  elements,  e.g.  fish  and  phytoplankton  in  rivers,  and  some 
hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements.  

The  overall  ecological  status  is  reported  as  worse  in  the  second  RBMPs  than  in  the  first  for 

coastal water bodies, mainly due to changes in the monitoring and classification methods. For 
lakes, rivers and transitional waters there was an increase in the proportion of waters at good or 

better  status/potential  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs.  However,  some  changes  at  the 
quality element level are reported to be consistent (to the worse or to the better status class). 

3.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  the  completion  as  soon  as  possible  of  the  framework  for 
the 

status  assessment  considering 
the 
intercalibration exercise to the assessment systems in a transparent way. 

following:  Translate 

the  results  of 

Assessment: Many but not all national types are linked to the common intercalibration 

types,  but  it  is  not  clear  which  biological  quality  element  methods  have  been 
intercalibrated, and how the class boundaries have been set for national types not linked 

to  the  common  intercalibration  types.  No  information  on  this  has  been  found  in  the 
this 
assessed  RBMPs.  In  conclusion, 

limited  progress  has  been  made  and 

recommendation is not fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be more 
transparent,  with  clear  information  on  how  pollutants  were  selected,  how  and  where 

they  were  monitored,  where  there  are  exceedances  and  how  such  exceedances  have 

81 

 
been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status. It is important that there 

is an ambitious approach to combating chemical pollution and adequate measures are 
put in place. 

Assessment: No information on the selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants could 
be found in the RBMPs and background documents. The CIS Guidance Document No 

27  was  used  to  derive  most  but  not  all  of  the  environmental  quality  standards  set. 
Detailed information was reported on which substances were causing failure in which 

water body, but this information seems sometimes inconsistent, or at least incomplete. 
The one-out-all-out principle has been applied in all RBDs. This recommendation has 

been partly fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  the  completion  as  soon  as  possible  of  the  framework  for 
status  assessment  considering  the  following:  Fill  the  gaps  in  assessment  systems  for 

biological quality and supporting elements, in particular for fish. 

Assessment:  Fish  are  now  monitored  in  rivers  (19  %  of  total  river  water  bodies), 
transitional waters (8 %) and lakes (4 %). Fish is the quality element monitored in the 

fewest water bodies, for example in rivers benthic invertebrates are monitored in 63 % 
of  river  water  bodies.  There  are  no  reliable  data  from  the  first  RBMPs  to  make 

comparisons  between  the  two  cycles.  However,  for  the  second  RBMPs  there  are  still 
significant  gaps  in  the  expected  quality  elements  to  be  included  in  monitoring  for  all 

in  Spain.  For  example, 
water  categories 
hydromorphological quality elements are only monitored to a limited extent in coastal, 

least  some  of 

the  RBDs 

in  at 

lake  and  transitional  waters.  However,  Spain  has  made  some  progress  with  this 
recommendation in terms of monitoring.  

Reference conditions and class boundaries have now been set for all biological quality 
elements in rivers, including fish in the Ebro RBD, which was not fully developed in 
the  first  RBMPs.  The  fish  metric  adopted  is  the  EFI+  index,  which  is  supposed  to 
respond  to  impacts  of  many  pressures,  including  habitat  alterations  caused  by 

hydromorphological  pressures.  Methods  for  fish  in  rivers  were  also  reported  for  two 
other  RBD  but  not  in  the  other  three  RBDs  which  had  reported  on  methods  for  fish. 

Three RBD reported a method for fish in transitional waters; no methods were reported 
for  fish  in  lakes  in  any  RBD.  It  should  be  however  noted  that  the  Common 

Implementation  Strategy  Working  Group  on  Ecological  Status  has  accepted  Spain's 
justification for not developing an ecological status assessment method for fish in lakes. 

82 

 
The sensitivity of the biological quality elements assessment methods to impacts seems 

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

benthic  flora  biological  quality  elements  (except  phytobenthos  in  rivers)  in  all  water 
categories  being  sensitive  to  habitat  alterations  caused  by  hydromorphological 

pressures.  

From this evidence, Spain has made some progress with this recommendation in terms 

of assessment methods, therefore this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  the  completion  as  soon  as  possible  of  the  framework  for 
status assessment considering the following: Include the complete assessment systems 

for coastal and transitional waters. 

Assessment:  There  has  been  limited  progress  with  this  recommendation.  The 
assessment  systems  for  coastal  and  transitional  waters  are  largely  based  on  the 

physicochemical  quality  elements  with  an  equal  focus  on  some  but  not  all  biological 
level  of  monitoring  and  assessment  of 
quality  elements  and  very 

low 

hydromorphological  quality  elements  in  coastal  and  transitional  waters.  In  addition, 
the 
expert 

the  assessment  of 

status/potential 

judgment 

is  used 

for 

in 

hydromorphological  quality  elements.  Therefore,  this  recommendation  has  been 
partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  the  completion  as  soon  as  possible  of  the  framework  for 
status  assessment  considering  the  following:  Report  transparently  the  confidence  and 
limitations of the assessments as appropriate. 

Assessment:  There  has  been  a  significant  improvement  in  information  on  the 
confidence of the classification reported for the second RBMPs compared to the first. 
For the first RBMPs 54 % of surface water bodies were reported to have no information 
on  the  confidence  in  classification,  this  had  decreased  to  10.5  %  for  the  second.  In 

addition, the proportion with a high confidence classification increased from 14 % for 
the  first  RBMPs  to  31  %  for  the  second.  There  was  a  decrease  in  the  proportion  of 

water bodies reported to have unknown status from 19 % for the first RBMPs to 2 % 
for the second. Note this comparison is based on the same RBDs for both periods: the 

number  of  surface  water  bodies  reported  for  the  first  RBMPs  was  5122  and  for  the 
second, 5115. Therefore this recommendation has been fulfilled.  

83 

 
  Recommendation:  Fill  urgently  the  gaps  in  monitoring  of  surface  waters  and  ensure 
consistent  monitoring  with  appropriate  coverage  (and  thereby  classify  all  water 
bodies).  Ensure  that  monitoring  is  adequately  resourced  and  maintained  to  inform 

adequately the RBMPs and the decisions on the Programme of Measures. 

Assessment: As already described there has been limited progress in filling gaps in the 
monitoring programme and significant gaps still remain. However, a larger proportion 

of  water  bodies  have  been  classified  for  the  second  than  for  the  first  (19  %  with 
unknown  status  in  Spain  in  the  first  RBMPs  and  2  %  in  the  second).  Therefore,  this 

recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

84 

 
 
 
Topic 4

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  chemical 

status in surface water bodies 

4.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle  

4.1.1. 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  (see  chapter  2),  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 programme of measures. 

Section 3.1.1 of this report summarises the characteristics of the surveillance and operational 

monitoring programmes in Spain for the second RBMP. 

Figure  4.1  summarises  the  proportion  of  sites  used  for  the  monitoring  of  chemical  status  in 

surface waters for the second RBMP. Territorial waters have not been delineated, monitored or 
assessed  for  chemical  status.  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 Agency28. 

Figure  4.1  shows  that  a  relatively  low  proportion  of  sites  are  monitored  in  lakes,  rivers  and 

coastal waters (17 %, 22 % and 26 % respectively) for chemical status. A higher proportion of 
transitional waters are monitored for chemical status (52 %). In contrast, the proportion of sites 

monitored for ecological status is significantly higher.  

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

85 

 
                                                      
Figure 4.2 summarises the proportion of water bodies monitored for chemical status in surface 

waters  for  the  second  RBMP.  In  this  figure,  no  distinction  is  made  between  sites  used  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. Relatively 
low proportions of lake and river water bodies were monitored for chemical status (13 % and 

20  %  respectively),  with  higher  proportions  of  transitional  waters  and  coastal  waters  being 
monitored for chemical status (48 % and 67 % respectively). 

Figure 4.1 

Proportion  of  sites  used  for  monitoring  of  chemical  status  and,  for 
comparison,  ecological  status,  in  Spain.  The  number  in  parenthesis  next  to 

the  category  is  the  total  number  of  monitoring  sites  irrespective  of  their 
purpose29 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

29  There  seemed  to  be  inconsistencies  in  the  WISE  reporting:  a  different  section  of  the  reporting  indicates  that 
monitoring for chemical status is carried out in 38 % of sites in lakes, 53 % in rivers, 31 % in coastal waters 
and 48 % in transitional waters. 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 4.2 

Proportion  of  total  water  bodies  in  each  category,  monitored  for  chemical 

status  and,  for  comparison,  monitored  for  ecological  status,  in  Spain.  The 
number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of water bodies 
in that category30 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

In 14 RBDs in Spain, 80 % or more of the river water bodies failing to achieve good chemical 

status  are  monitored  as  part  of  the  operational  monitoring  programme.  In  the  Guadalete  and 
Barbate RBD, only 20 % of the river water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status are 

monitored. For the four RBDs where lake water bodies are reported as failing to achieve good 
chemical status, two RBDs monitor all such lakes (Duero, one lake and Jucar, five lakes) and 

two  RBDs  do  not  monitor  any  of  these  lakes  (three  lakes  in  Guadalquivir  and  two  lakes  in 
Guadalete and Barbate). 

Where coastal water bodies are failing to achieve good chemical status (seven RBDs), all such 

water  bodies  are  monitored  in  six  RBDs,  but  only  one  out  of  the  three  coastal  water  bodies 
failing to achieve good chemical status are monitored in the Guadalete and Barbate RBD. All 

of the transitional water bodies failing to  achieve good chemical  status  are monitored in  five 
out of the seven RBDs in which they are reported. Only one transitional water body failing to 

achieve  good  chemical  status  is  reported  in  the  Guadalquivir  RBD  and  this  is  not  monitored 
and two out of three such water bodies in the Andalusian Mediterranean RBD are monitored. 

30 There seemed to be inconsistencies in the WISE reporting: a different section of the reporting indicates that 33 
% of lake water bodies, 44 % of river water bodies, 63 % of transitional water bodies and 69 % of coastal water 
bodies are monitored for chemical status. 

87 

 
 
                                                      
No data on the sites and water bodies monitored is provided for the Balearic Islands, Ceuta and 

Melilla RBD.  

Long term trend monitoring and monitoring of Priority Substances in water, sediment and 

biota 

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 numbers 

of sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of status. According to 
in  2009),  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and 
the  EQS  Directive 

(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 

Information on the monitoring of Priority Substances for chemical status was reported to WISE 

for 15 RBDs. No information was reported for the Balearic Islands, Ceuta and Melilla RBDs.  

The  number  of  Priority  Substances  monitored  in  water  for  status  assessment  is  variable 

between the RBDs in Spain; between 4 and 41 Priority Substances are monitored. Four RBDs 
(Andalusian Mediterranean Basins; Guadalete and Barbate; and Tinto, Odiel and Piedras and 

Jucar)  reported  to  be  monitoring  41  Priority  Substances,  whereas  the  Segura  RBD  reported 
only to have monitored four Priority Substances with remainder monitoring between 27 and 40 

substances.  The  RBMPs  provide  some  explanations  for  this  variation:  in  some  cases  the 
previous  assessment  of  pressures  have  concluded  that  certain  substance  were  not  presenting 

any significant risk or samples have previously shown very low concentrations; in other cases 
this was due to budgetary constraints. 

There is also a high degree of variability between RBDs and water categories in the proportion 

of water bodies for more/less than 10 Priority Substances.  

88 

 
Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  are  monitored  in  biota  for  status 

assessment in 4 RBDs (Miño-Sil, Eastern Cantabrian, Duero and Ebro); in the Jucar RBD only 
mercury  and  hexachlorobutadiene)  are  monitored  in  biota.  None  of  these  substances  is 

monitored  in  biota  for  status  assessment  in  the  remaining  RBDs.  In  the  RBDs  where  these 
substances  are  monitored,  coastal  water  bodies  are  not  monitored  but  the  remainder  of  the 

water  categories  are  generally  monitored  (apart  for  hexachlorobenzene  in  lakes  and  not  for 
hexachlorobutadiene in transitional waters). Monitoring is undertaken at up to between one and 

13 sites; the spatial extent is limited. 

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. 

The  recommended  minimum  frequencies  were  met  at  least  at  some  sites  for  38  of  the  41 

substances  for  operational  monitoring,  and  for  40  substances  surveillance  monitoring.  Fewer 
substances  meet  these  recommended  minimum  frequencies  in  coastal  and  transitional  waters 

than  in  surface  freshwaters.  There  is  however  some  variation  between  RBDs.  Spain 
subsequently clarified that further standardisation in the frequency of monitoring is planned for 

future monitoring programmes.  

Monitoring of biota for mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene is undertaken at 
the  recommended  minimum  frequency  in  some  but  not  all  sites  for  four  of  the  five  RBDs 

where such monitoring is undertaken (the reported frequency in the Jucar RBD is 12 times per 
year at least once in the monitoring cycle).  

89 

 
 
 
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  substances31  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 

With  respect  to  long-term  trend  assessment,  Spain  monitors  up  to  14  Priority  Substances  in 
sediment  (including  settled  sediment)  and  or  biota.  However,  this  is  undertaken  in  only  one 

RBD  (Eastern  Cantabrian)  with  fewer  substances  monitored  in  five  RBDs  (Miño-Sil  (10), 
Andalusian Mediterranean Basins (3), Guadalete and Barbate (3), Tinto, Odiel and Piedras (3) 

and Jucar (13)) and for no priority substances  in nine RBDs. Monitoring is undertaken at some 
sites in all water categories. The spatial extent of monitoring is limited; between 2 and 15 sites 

are monitored for sediment and/or biota for trend assessment. 

Frequencies 

The required monitoring frequency for long-term trend assessment of at least once every three 

years is met at the majority of sites where this monitoring is undertaken. 

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 

31  Anthracene,  brominated  diphenylether, 

cadmium,  C10-13 

hexachlorobenzene,  hexabutadiene,  hexachlorocyclohexane, 
Tributyltin. 

90 

chloroalkanes,  DEHP, 

fluoranthene, 
lead,  mercury,  pentachlorobenzene,  PAH, 

 
                                                      
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.  

Information on Priority Substances included in inventories and discharged into RBDs has been 
reported  to  the  WISE  database  for  17  RBDs;  including  two  RBDs  (Balearic  Islands  and 

Melilla) where no information on monitoring was reported (so it is assumed that no monitoring 
was performed). For Ceuta, no monitoring programme was reported, and Spain  subsequently 

clarified that an inventory has been established for this RBD. 

In 10 out of the 17 RBDs, all Priority substances included in an inventory and discharged were 
monitored.  In  seven  RBDs  at  least  some  of  the  discharged  substances  were  not  monitored 

according to WISE.  

Not all inventories considered all priority substances, so it is not clear whether all discharged 

substances have been identified. 

Performance of the analytical methods used  

In Spain, for all of the 41 Priority Substances listed, the analytical methods meet the minimum 

performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of the Directive 2009/90/EC in nearly all RBDs 
(never for less than 15 of the 18 RBDs listed). In the RBDs where the analytical methods did 

not  meet  these  criteria,  the  analytical  methods  complied  with  the  requirements  laid  down  in 
Article 4(2) of the Directive (best available techniques not entailing excessive costs). The only 

RBD  where  analytical  methods  were  reported  not  to  meet  either  Article  4(1)  or  Article  4(2) 
was for Guadiana for 11 out of the 41 Priority Substances listed for this RBD32.  

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/EC33 for 16 RBDs in Spain 
but  not  for  two  RBDs  (Ceuta  and  Melilla).    This  must  be  a  reporting  mistake,  as  Ceuta  and 
Melilla did not report any monitoring for priority substances. 

32  Spain  subsequently  clarified  that  this  is  due  to  an  error  in  reporting  and  that  all  RBDs  have  used  the  same 

analytical methods. 

33  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 

91 

 
                                                      
4.1.2. Chemical Status of surface water bodies 

Member States  are  required to  report the  year on which the  assessment of chemical  status  is 

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.  In  Spain,  50  %  of  chemical  status  assessments  were  carried  out  in  unspecified  years 

between  2009  and  2013.  However  25  %  of  the  assessments  were  reported  to  occur  in  the 
specific years of 2013 and 2014. 

The chemical status of surface water bodies in Spain for the second RBMP is illustrated on the 
map below. This is based on the most recent assessment of status. 

92 

 
 
Map 4.1 

Chemical status of surface water bodies  in Spain 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) 

In Spain overall, 87 % of water bodies are reported as being at good chemical status. 

The  chemical  status  of  surface  waters  in  Spain  for  the  first  and  second  RBMPs  is  given  in 
Table 4.1.  

93 

GoodFailing to achieve to goodUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4.1 

Chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Spain  for  the  second  and  first 

RBMP.  Note:  the  number  in  parenthesis  next  to  the  water  category  is  the 
number  of  water  bodies.  Note:  Chemical  status  assessment  is  based  on  the 

standards  laid  down  in  EQS  Directive.  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 (326) 

Rivers (4390) 

Coastal (220) 

Transitional (186) 

Total  (5122) 

first RBMP 

Lakes (310) 

Rivers (4374) 

Coastal (260) 

Transitional (180) 

Total  (5124) 

Good 

Failing to achieve good 

Unknown 

Number 

% 

Number 

% 

Number 

% 

275 

3950 

152 

99 

4476 

75 

2662 

161 

63 

2961 

84 % 

90 % 

69 % 

53 % 

11 

272 

22 

24 

87.4 %  329 

24 % 

61 % 

62 % 

35 % 

3 

236 

17 

17 

3 % 

6 % 

10 % 

13 % 

6.4 % 

1 % 

5 % 

7 % 

9 % 

58 % 

5 % 
273 
Source: WISE electronic reporting 

40 

168 

46 

63 

317 

232 

1476 

82 

100 

1890 

12 % 

4 % 

21 % 

34 % 

6.2 % 

75 % 

34 % 

32 % 

56 % 

37 % 

Improvements  in  chemical  status  were  observed  across  all  water  body  types  with  a 

concomitant decrease in water bodies classified with unknown status. 

Figure 4.3 shows the confidence in the classification of chemical status for the second RBMP. 
33 % of surface water bodies were classified for chemical status with high confidence, 23 % 

with medium confidence and 37 % with low confidence (no information was reported for the 
remainder).  Confidence  in  the  classification  of  chemical  status  for  the  first  RBMPs  was  not 

reported. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.3 

Confidence in the classification of chemical status of surface water bodies in 

Spain based on the most recently assessed status/potential 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 4.4 compares the chemical status of surface water bodies in Spain for the first RBMPs 
with  that  for  the  second  RBMPs  (based  on  the  most  recent  assessment  of  status)  and  that 
expected  by  2015.  Between  the  two  RBMPs  there  was  a  large  increase  in  the  proportion  of 

surface water bodies with good chemical  status  from 58 to  87 % and a small  increase in  the 
proportion failing to achieve good chemical status. Furthermore, the proportion with unknown 

status has reduced from 37 to 6 %.  

54 % of water bodies were classified by monitoring, 45 % by expert judgement and less than 1 
%  by  grouping.  The  majority  of  surface  water  bodies  (92  %)  were  expected  to  be  achieving 

good  chemical  status  at  the  end  of  the  first  cycle;  however,  slightly  fewer  (87  %)  were 
observed in the second RBMP (Figure 4.4).   

The  assessment  of  chemical  status  for  the  second  RBMP  was  expected  to  be  based  on  the 
standards  laid  down  in  the  EQS  Directive  (version  in  force  on  13  January  200934).  Some 
Member States did not fully implement the Directive in the first RBMPs as the transposition 
deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption of the first RBMPs. 

34  Please  note  that  following  Directive  2013/39/EU,  which  amended  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards 
Directive,  introduced  a  less  stringent  annual  average  EQS  for  naphthalene  in  transitional  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.  

95 

 
 
                                                      
 
More information on the chemical status in each RBD and water category can be found on the 
website of the European Environment Agency35. 

Figure 4.4 

Chemical status of surface water bodies in Spain 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  both  cycles.  Note  the  period  of  the 

assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2007 to 2014. The year of the 
assessment of status for first RBMP is not known 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Directive  2013/39/EU  amended  the  EQS  Directive.  In  particular,  it  sets  more  stringent 
environmental  quality  standards  for  seven  substances36.Member  States  were  asked  to  report 
whether the new standards caused the status of the surface water body to appear to deteriorate. 
This was the case for 1.8 % of surface water bodies as a result of the more stringent standard 
for  nickel,  and  1.2  %  of  surface  water  bodies  for  lead.  Deteriorations  due  to  more  stringest 

standards  for  fluoranthene,  benzo(a)  pyrene,  total  benzo(b)fluor-anthene  +  benzo(k)fluor-
anthene and total benzo(g,h,i)-perylen + indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene occurred to a lesser extent. 

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

96 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
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) and/or less 
stringent objectives under WFD Article 4(5). 

Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good chemical 
status.  The  information  for  Spain  is  shown  in  Figure  4.5.  Good  chemical  status  of  surface 

water bodies is expected to be achieved by the end of the third cycle in all water bodies in 12 
out  the  18  RBDs  that  have  reported.  In  the  Tagus,  Guadalquivir,  Andalusian  Mediterranean 

and  Ebro  RBDs,  2  %,  0.25  %,  4.5  %  and  3  %  of  river  water  bodies  respectively  are  not 
expected  to  achieve  good  status  by  the  end  of  the  3rd  cycle.  No  data  on  the  expected 
achievement of good status in the first RBMPs was provided. 

Figure 4.5 

Expected  date  of  achievement  of  good  chemical  of  surface  water  bodies  in 
Spain. The number in the parenthesis is the number of water bodies in each 

category 

Priority Substances causing the failure of good chemical status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Member States were expected to report exceedances for individual substances on the basis of 
the revised, more stringent standards from Directive 2013/39/EU. 

97 

 
 
 
The  substances  causing  the  greatest  proportion  of  water  bodies  to  fail  good  chemical  status 

were cadmium, lead, nickel and mercury. The “top-ten” substances are shown in Figure 4.6. 

Figure 4.6 

The  top-10  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  to  achieve  good  chemical 
status in surface water bodies in Spain37 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Spain subsequently clarified that the top ten substances are Cadmium (2.19 % of water bodies 

failing), Nickel (1.68 %), Lead (1.33 %), Mercury (1.00 %), nonylphenol (0.68 %), 
Chlorpyrifos (0.66 %), Hexachlorocyclohexane (0.29 %), Total Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene + 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene (0.27 %), Endosulfan (0.25), Tributyltin-cation (0.25 %). 

Ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substances 

According  to  article  8(a)  of  the  EQS  Directive38,  eight  priority  substances  and  groups  of 
priority  substances  are  behaving  like  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic 
substances39.  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 

37  Spain  subsequently  provided  alternative  figures  for  the  top  ten  failures  occurring  because  of  Cadmium  (2.19 
%),  Nickel  (1.68  %),  Lead  (1.33  %),  Mercury  (1.00  %),  nonylphenol  (0.68  %),  Chlorpyrifos  (0.66  %), 
Hexachlorocyclohexane (0.29 %), Total Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene + Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene (0.27 %), Endosulfan 
(0.25), Tributyltin-cation (0.25 %). 
38 Amended by Directive 2013/39/EU. 
39 Brominated diphenylether, Mercury and its compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), Tributyltin,  PFOS, 

dioxins, hexabromocyclodecane and heptachlor. 

98 

 
 
                                                      
States have the possibility to present the information related to chemical status  separately for 

these substances.  

6.4 % of surface water bodies are failing to achieve good status and 24 % of these had at least 

one  ubiquitous  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and 
its 
environmental quality standard. However, only a proportion of these failures were caused by 

toxic  Priority  Substance  failing 

these  substances  alone;  without  ubiquitous  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic  Priority 
Substances  5  %  of  surface  water  bodies  fail  to  achieve  good  status.  The  influence  of  these 

substances on the chemical status of surface water bodies is assessed as limited. 

This is illustrated in the 2018 State of Water report of the European Environment Agency40. 

Priority Substances used in the assessment of chemical status compared to those monitored 

Spain  subsequently  clarified  that  information  reported  to  WISE  regarding  the  Priority 

Substances used in the assessment of chemical status was incorrect.  It appears that Spain has 
used all substances reported as monitored in the assessment of chemical status. 

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. 

No alternative and/or additional standards were reported to be used for the any of the RBDs in 

Spain.   

Use of mixing zones  

Article 4 of the EQS Directive 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 standard within such mixing zones if they do 
not affect the compliance of the rest of the surface water body with those standards. Member 

40  https://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/SWB
_Failing_Good_Chemical_Status_RBD?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&:di
splay_count=no&:showVizHome=no  

99 

 
                                                      
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 not been designated in any of the 18 RBDs in Spain. 

Background Concentrations and Bioavailability 

The  EQS  Directive  stipulates  that  Member  States  have  the  possibility,  when  assessing  the 

monitoring results against the environmental quality standard, to take into account: 

(a) natural background concentrations for metals and their compounds, if they prevent 
compliance with the environmental quality standard, and; 

(b)  hardness,  pH  or  other  water  quality  parameters  that  affect  the  bioavailability  of 
metals. 

Natural  background  concentrations  for  metals  and 

their  compounds  are 

taken 

into 

consideration in nine of Spain’s RBDs. 

Water  quality  parameters  that  affect  the  bioavailability  of  metals  when  assessing  monitoring 
results against relevant  environmental quality standards have been taken into account in nine 
RBDs in Spain but not in nine other RBDs.  

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

Between  the  first  and  second  RBMP  there  was  a  net  decrease  in  the  number  of  operational 
monitoring  sites,  but  an  increase  in  the  number  of  surface  water  bodies  monitored  for 

operational  purposes.  The overall decrease in  surface monitoring sites reflects  a considerable 
reduction in monitoring of coastal and transitional sites offset to some extent by an increase in 

river monitoring sites. Both the surveillance monitoring sites and the water bodies monitored 
for  surveillance  purposes  have  decreased  significantly  from  the  first  cycle.  Some  possible 

explanations are provided including: the previous assessment of pressures has deemed certain 
substance  as  not  presenting  any  significant  risk  (hence  a  reduction  in  monitoring);  samples 

have previously shown very low concentrations (hence not considered relevant and monitoring 
has been reduced), and budgetary constraints. 

100 

 
There has been a re-delineation of water bodies between the two RBMPs and therefore a direct 

comparison  of  the  number  of  water  bodies  in  each  status  class  should  be  treated  with  some 
caution. 

Between  the  two  RBMPs,  the  proportion  with  unknown  status  has  reduced  from  37  to  6  %. 
This resulted in a large increase in the proportion of good chemical status (from 58 % to 87 %) 

and a small increase in the proportion of water bodies failing to achieve good status (from 5 to 
6  %).  Spain  subsequently  clarified  that  this  due  to  a  better  spatial  characterisation  of  the 

pressures impacting on chemical status. A similar pattern of changes was observed in natural, 
heavily modified and artificial water bodies. 

25  Priority  Substances  were  reported  to  have  resulted  in  the  improvement  of  surface  water 

bodies from failing to achieve good to good chemical status since the first RBMP. In terms of 
the  total  number  of  water  bodies  improved,  the  percentages  were  relatively  low:  lead  (1  %), 

mercury (0.5 %), cadmium (0.4 %), endosulfan (0.4 %) and diuron (0.25 %).  

4.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  first  Programme  of 
Measures requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  the  completion  as  soon  as  possible  of  the  framework  for 
status assessment considering the following: The complete assessment framework, and 
in particular the intercalibration results of 2013 and the new standards introduced by 

Directive  2013/39/EU  for  existing  priority  substances,  should  be  considered  in  the 
status assessments for the second RBMP. 

Assessment:  The  number  of  Priority  Substances  monitored  in  water  for  status 

assessment is variable between the 15 of the 18 RBDs in Spain for which information 
on  monitoring  was  reported;  between  4  and  41  Priority  Substances  are  monitored. 

Many but not all discharged substances are reported to be monitored. The proportion of 
water bodies monitored in each category varies significantly between RBDs and water 

categories. No monitoring and assessment is undertaken in territorial waters.  

Mercury and hexachlorobutadiene are monitored in biota and the biota standard is used 

for status assessment in 4 RBDs, this was also the case for hexachlorobutadiene in four 
RBDs. For the remainder of the RBDs, these substances are not monitored.  

101 

 
Spain  is  reporting  exceedances  for  individual  substances  based  on  the  revised 

environmental quality standards from Directive 2013/39/EU. 

Progress has therefore been made with the completion of the assessment framework for 

chemical  status  in  surface  waters;  this  needs  to  be  extended  to  all  RBDs.  The 
recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  There  are  important  gaps  that  need  to  be  addressed  in  the  status 
assessment.  There  is  confusion  between  Priority  Substances  and  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants. 

Assessment:  There  is  evidence  to  suggest  that  some  progress  has  been  made  as,  in 

general, only Annex I substances of Directive 2008/105/EC are now referred to in the 
information provided under this topic. In 10 out of the 18 RBDs, all Priority substances 

included  in  an  inventory  and  discharged  were  monitored.  In  a  further  seven  RBDs, 
some of the substances discharged are not monitored. Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and 

hexachlorobutadiene  are  monitored  in  biota  for  status  assessment  in  four  RBDs 
(mercury  and  hexachlorobutadiene  are  also  monitored  in  one  more  RBD).  For  the 

remainder  of  the  RBDs,  these  substances  are  not  monitored  in  biota  for  status 
assessment.  The  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  with  unknown  status  has  reduced 

from  37  %  to  6  %  indicating  progress  towards  a  more  comprehensive  classification. 
Overall in Spain, 54 % of water bodies were classified by monitoring, 45 % by expert 

judgement  and  less  than  1  %  by  grouping.  Further  examination  of  the  basis  and 
justification  of  this  expert  judgement  was  explored  further  but  none  of  the  assessed 

RBMPs  provided  clear 
information  on 
recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

the  method  applied.  Therefore, 

this 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  the  completion  as  soon  as  possible  of  the  framework  for 
status assessment considering the following: Include the complete assessment systems 
for coastal and transitional waters; report transparently the confidence and limitations 

of the assessments as appropriate. 

Assessment:  The  complete  assessment  systems  have  been  partially  implemented  in 

coastal  and  transitional  waters;  monitoring  in  water  is  well  represented  in  these 
categories  but  monitoring  of  biota  is  not  undertaken  in  coastal  waters.  The  overall 

proportion of surface water bodies with unknown status has reduced from 37 % to 6 % 
indicating  that  progress  has  been  made.  Confidence  in  the  classification  of  chemical 

102 

 
status  is  reported but  remains relatively low with 37 % of  all surface  water bodies in 

Spain  being  classified  with  low  confidence.  The  proportion  is  similar  for  coastal  and 
transitional  waters  with  40  %  and  22  %  of  coastal  and  transitional  waters  combined 

classified  with  high  and  medium  confidence  respectively;  the  remainder  (38  %)  with 
low  confidence  or  no  information  where  unknown  status  has  been  assigned.  Some 

progress has therefore been made and this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Fill  urgently  the  gaps  in  monitoring  of  surface  waters  and  ensure 
consistent  monitoring  with  appropriate  coverage  (and  thereby  classify  all  water 

bodies).  Ensure  that  monitoring  is  adequately  resourced  and  maintained  to  inform 
adequately the RBMPs and the decisions on the Programme of Measures. 

Assessment: Monitoring of Priority Substances reported in the second RBMP includes 
monitoring in water and biota for status assessment and in sediments and biota for trend 

assessment.  

Monitoring  in  water  is  undertaken  for  the  majority  of  Priority  Substances  including 
almost  all  of  those  discharged  into  the  RBDs.  It  is  undertaken  in  all  water  categories 

(except territorial waters) and in all RBDs reporting information on monitoring (15 out 
of 25). The recommended minimum frequencies were met at least at some sites for 40 

of the 41 substances for operational monitoring, and for all substances for surveillance 
monitoring.  

Monitoring in biota for  status assessment is undertaken in only five RBDs and not in 
coastal  (or  territorial)  waters.  The  spatial  extent  of  monitoring  appears  to  be  very 

limited  though  the  frequency  meets  the  recommended  minimum  frequency  at  the 
majority of monitoring sites. 

Monitoring  in  sediment  and  biota  for  trend  assessment  is  undertaken  for  up  to  14 

Priority Substances in sediment (including settled sediment) and or biota. However, this 
is undertaken in only one RBD with fewer substances monitored in five RBDs and for 

no  priority  substances  in  nine  RBDs.  Monitoring  is  undertaken  at  some  sites  in  all 
water  categories.  The  spatial  extent  of  monitoring  appears  to  be  very  limited.  The 

recommended minimum frequency was met in the majority of sites. 

The number of water bodies with unknown status has decreased substantially (from 37 
%  to  6  %)  since  the  first  RBMP;  a  small  proportion  of  water  bodies  remain  to  be 

103 

 
classified  in  the  18  RBDs.  54  %  of  the  classified  water  bodies  were  classified  by 

monitoring, 45 % by expert judgement and less than 1 % by grouping. A relatively high 
proportion  of  water  bodies  are  therefore  classified  by  expert  judgement,  and  this  is 

probably  linked  to  the  low  level  of  confidence  in  the  assessment  for  a  significant 
proportion of water bodies. 

The second RBMPs report an overall decrease in monitoring sites since the first RBMP 
but Spain has clarified that plans and resources are in place to extend the monitoring to 

cater for all of the requirements concerned in monitoring programmes to be reported in 
the next RBMP. This suggests that resources for monitoring have been limiting. 

The  remaining  gaps  include  the  need  to  extend  the  monitoring  to  all  RBDs  and  all 

water  categories  and  to  increase  and  harmonise  the  frequency  of  monitoring.  Spatial 
coverage should also allow classification of all water bodies with sufficient certainty. 

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Extend  monitoring  of  chemicals  beyond  water  bodies  affected  by 
industrial discharges. Consider as well atmospheric deposition and urban waste water 
discharges as relevant sources of chemical pollution. 

Assessment:  The  overall  number  of  operational  and  surveillance  monitoring  sites  has 
decreased between the two RBMPs indicating that monitoring of chemicals has perhaps 

not been diversified to any great extent. Atmospheric deposition and urban wastewater 
discharges  have  been  reported  as  pressures  associated  with  water  bodies  failing  to 

achieve good status. In 14 RBDs in Spain, a very high proportion (80 % or more) of the 
river water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status are monitored as part of the 

operational monitoring programme. For a more complete assessment of the monitoring 
programmes,  please  see  recommendation  above.  Therefore,  this  recommendation  has 

been partially fulfilled. 

104 

 
Topic 5

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative 

status of groundwater bodies 

5.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

5.1.1

 Monitoring of quantitative status in groundwater 

For the 18 RBDs which reported their second RBMPs, the total number of groundwater bodies 

in Spain is 729 (Table 2.3). According to the reported information, 85 groundwater bodies are 
not subject to monitoring for quantitative status (Table 5.1)41. Overall, this means that 12 % of 
groundwater bodies are not monitored. There is no monitoring at all in Ceuta and Melilla, in 
which there are four groundwater bodies. In some, but not all RBMPs assessed, grouping was 

applied. No information on the methodology and considered elements were provided in any of 
the RBMPs assessed. 

The overall number of groundwater bodies decreased from 748 in the first RBMP to 729 in the 
second  RBMP  and  the  total  groundwater  body  area  remained  nearly  the  same.  It  has  to  be 
considered,  that  the  first  RBMP  includes  information  on  the  32  groundwater  bodies  of  the 

Canary Island RBDs, but they have not been reported for the second RBMP. 701 groundwater 
bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMP. 

Overall,  the  number  of  monitored  groundwater  bodies  (groundwater  quantity  monitoring) 
increased from 642 (in 21 RBDs) in the first RBMP to 644 (16 RBDs) in the second RBMP. 

Comparing  only  RBDs  where  information  is  available  for  both  RBMPs,  the  number  of 
groundwater  bodies  monitored  for  quantitative  status  increased  from  620  to  644.  Significant 

changes  happened  in  three  RBDs  (Guadalete  and  Barbate,  Tinto,  Odiel  and  Piedras  and 
Andalusian Mediterranean Basins) where monitoring is now reported and in Segura where the 

number of monitored  groundwater bodies dropped from 62 to  39 and in Guadalquivir where 
the number increased from 58 to 78. The number of monitoring sites is listed in Table 5.3 and 
shows  that  the  total  number  increased  from  2946  in  the  first  RBMP  to  3189  in  the  second 
RBMP. But it has to be considered that in the first RBMP monitoring sites have been reported 

for 16 RBDs and in the second RBMP for 18 of 25 RBDs. When comparing only RBDs where 
information is available for both RBMPs, the number of monitoring sites increased from 2785 

to 3189, an increase of around 15 %. 

41 Taking into account the data subsequently provided by Spain, the number of not monitored groundwater bodies 

would be 78. 

105 

 
                                                      
637 of 729 groundwater bodies are identified as drinking water protected areas, allocated in 17 

RBDs. 

106 

 
Table 5.1 

Number of water bodies in Spain directly monitored and the purpose of monitoring 

Total 
ground 
water 
bodies 
directly 
monitored 

AGR – 
Ground
water 
abstract
ion site 
for 
irrigatio
-n 

CHE – 
Chemic-
al status 

DRI – 
Ground
water 
abstract
ion site 
for 
human 
consum
ption 

DWD – 
Drinkin-
g water 
- WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.i 

Monitoring Purpose 

IND – 
Ground-
water 
abstract
ion site 
for 
industri
al 
supply 

INV – 
Investig
ative 
monitori
ng 

NID - 
Nutrient 
sensitive 
area 
under 
the 
Nitrates 
Directiv
e - WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.iv 

OPE – 
Oper-
ational 
monitori
ng 

QUA – 
Quant-
itative 
status 

SOE - 
EIONET 
State of 
Environ-
ment 
monitor-
ing 

SUR – 
Surveil-
lance 
monitor
-ing 

TRE – 
Chemic-
al trend 
assessm
ent 

HAB – 
Protecti-
on of 
habitats 
or 
species 
dependi
ng on 
water - 
WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.v 
3 

3 

3 

2 

7 

13 

19 

20 
50 

18 
20 
20 

6 
18 
20 
20 
64 
24 
20 
81  
65  
14 
4 
57  
90 
105 
36  
86  
Source: WISE electronic reporting. The numbers in brackets were subsequently provided by Spain and do not match the data reported to WISE. 

6 
17(18) 
17 
13 
63 
24 
19 
78 
48 
12 
4 
39 (44) 
86 
102 
30 (31) 
86 

20 
49 
64 (65) 
14 
4 
54 
89 
104 
30 
86 

65 
14 
4 
42 
89 
104 
36 

80 
40 
14 
3 
20 
53 
72 
31 
47 

82 
101 
26 

20 
61 
20 

13 
30 

66 
36 

6 
18 

20 
19 

8 
4 

32 

19 

20 

79 

13 

16 

99 

19 

58 

19 

7 

3 

20 

20 

54 

RBD 

ES010 
ES014 
ES017 
ES018 
ES020 
ES030 
ES040 
ES050 
ES060 
ES063 
ES064 
ES070 
ES080 
ES091 
ES100 
ES110 

107 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5.2 

Proportion of groundwater bodies in Spain monitored for quantitative status 

RBD 

No. of groundwater bodies with 
quantitative monitoring 

Total No. 
groundwater bodies 

% of total groundwater bodies 
monitored for quantitative status 

ES010 

ES014 

ES017 

ES018 

ES020 

ES030 

ES040 

ES050 

ES060 

ES063 

ES064 

ES070 

ES080 

ES091 

ES100 

ES110 

6 

17 (18) 

17 

13 

63 

24 

19 (20) 

78 

48 

12 

4 

39 (44) 

86 

102 

30 

86 

6 

18 

20 

20 

64 

24 

20 

86 

67 

14 

4 

63 

90 

105 

37 

87 

100 % 

94 % (100 %) 

85 % 

65 % 

98 % 

100 % 

95 % (100 %) 

90.70 % 

71.64 % 

85.71 % 

100.00 % 

61.90 % (69.84 %) 

95.56 % 

97.14 % 

81.08 % 

98.85 % 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. The numbers in brackets were subsequently provided by Spain and do not match the data reported to WISE. 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5.3 

Number of groundwater monitoring sites in Spain and their purpose  

Monitoring Purpose 

RBD 

Total 
ground-
water 
monitoring 
sites 

AGR – 
Ground
water 
abstract
ion site 
for 
irrigatio
-n 

CHE – 
Chemic-
al status 

DRI – 
Ground
water 
abstract
ion site 
for 
human 
consum
ption 

DWD – 
Drinkin-
g water 
- WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.i 

HAB – 
Protecti-
on of 
habitats 
or 
species 
dependi
ng on 
water - 
WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.v 

IND – 
Ground-
water 
abstract
ion site 
for 
industri
al 
supply 

INV – 
Investig
ative 
monitori
ng 

80 
83(73) 
150 
74 
991 
402 

552 
482 

558 
155 
86 
369 
615 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

383 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1,996 

219 

0 
83(73) 
57 
38 
0 
0 
169 
(229) 
171 
189 
(192) 
96 
56 
121 
322 
1723 
(1724) 

8 
0 
0 
37 
135 
0 

64 
69 

0 
0 
0 
30 
0 

0 
0 
64 
0 
0 
45 

0 
0 

0 
26 
16 
0 
83 

539 

425 

18 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

383 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

28 

14 
0 
0 
0 
0 
3 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

ES010 
ES014 
ES017 
ES018 
ES020 
ES030 

ES040 

ES050 

ES060 

ES063 
ES064 
ES070 
ES080 

ES091 

ES100 

ES110 

NID - 
Nutrient 
sensitive 
area 
under 
the 
Nitrates 
Directiv
e - WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.iv 

0 
0 
0 
0 
38 
0 
169 
(229) 
0 

0 
0 
0 
28 
0 

OPE – 
Oper-
ational 
monitori
ng 

QUA – 
Quant-
itative 
status 

SOE - 
EIONET 
State of 
Environ-
ment 
monitor-
ing 

SUR – 
Surveil-
lance 
monitor
-ing 

TRE – 
Chemic-
al trend 
assessm
ent 

23 
0 (3) 
0(16) 
0 
131 
68 

60 
400 

142 
96 
45 
46 
116 

23 
57 
30 
36 
547 
215 

383 
311 

366 
59 
30 
193 
293 

0 
0 
0 
0 
64 
0 

53 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

44 
83(75) 
0(41) 
38 
341 
71 

0 (169) 
0 (31) 

183 
96 
56 
75 
261 

675 

0 
0 
57 
0 
0 
0 

169 
0 

0 
0 
0 
121 
0 

0 

0 
0 

472 
893 
279 
0 (184) 
Source: WISE electronic reporting. The numbers in brackets were subsequently provided by Spain and do not match the data reported to WISE.

0 
165 

114 
0 

496 
122 

117 
184 

546 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

761 

1040 

312 
207 
(225) 
127 

109 

 
 
 
5.1.2

 Assessment and classification of quantitative status for groundwater42 

Map 3 displays the most recently assessed quantitative status of groundwater bodies. It shows 
that 550 of 729 groundwater bodies (75 %) were in good quantitative status and 179 (24,55 %) 

were failing good status (Figure 5.1). In terms of area, this means that about 19 % were failing 
good  quantitative  status.  Figure  5.2  shows  the  confidence  in  status  classification.  All 

groundwater bodies now have a clear status. This situation improved as for the first RBMPs 11 
groundwater bodies were of unknown status. About 25 % of the groundwater bodies are at risk 

of failing good quantitative status. 

The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good  quantitative  status  declined  from  187 

groundwater bodies in the first RBMP to 179 in the second RBMP.  

For most RBDs, a water balance method was reported to have been applied. In 14 RBDs water 

balance was assessed by a comparison of annual average groundwater abstraction against the 
‘available  groundwater  resource’  for  every  groundwater  body.  In  three  RBDs  water  balance 

was  assessed  by  using  reliable  information  on  groundwater  levels  across  the  groundwater 
body. In Jucar the water balance method was not reported.43  

Several reasons for failing good quantitative status of groundwater bodies were reported from 

11 RBDs as shown in Figure 5.3: 165 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. 53 groundwater bodies are failing 
due  to  deterioration  of  the  status  of  associated  surface  waters,  27  due  to  damage  to 

groundwater  terrestrial  ecosystems  and  20  groundwater  bodies  are  failing  due  to  saline 
intrusion. The expected date of achievement of good quantitative status  in Spain is shown in 

Figure 5.4. 

The  criterion  of  ‘available  groundwater  resource’  has  been  applied  in  accordance  with  WFD 

Article 2(27) in 17 of 18 reported RBDs. For the Jucar RBD the information was not reported. 

All environmental objectives have been widely considered in status assessment but not in all 

RBDs. In Catalan RBDs, deterioration of the status of associated surface waters has not been 
considered although such ecosystems exist. In Duero, Jucar and in Catalan River Basin District 

42  It  has  to  be  considered,  that  the  first  RBMP  includes  information  on  the  groundwater  bodies  of  the  Canary 

Islands RBDs, but they have not been reported for the second RBMP. 

43 Spain subsequently clarified that there was an error in the reporting, and that the water balance test is applied in 

the Jucar RBD as well as the ‘available groundwater resource’ criterion. 

110 

 
                                                      
the  damage  to  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  has  not  been  reported  as 
considered exist. Saline intrusion was considered in 10 of 18 reported RBDs.44 

In total 179 of 729 groundwater bodies are at risk of failing good quantitative status. Risk is 

mainly related to harm to actual or potential legitimate uses or functions of groundwater (127 
groundwater bodies) and 49 due to deterioration or damage of aquatic or terrestrial ecosystems. 

Map  5.1  displays  the  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  based  on  the  most  recently 
assessed status.  

Figure 5.2 shows the confidence in status classification.  

44  Spain  subsequently  clarified  that  there  was  an  interpretation  error  (report  of  impact  vs.  report  on  the  use  of 
saline intrusion test). Thus, the reported information is not fully correct and the test has been applied in RBDs 
which are islands or have coast lines. 

111 

 
 
 
                                                      
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)(*For  the  Ebro  RBD  there  is  one 
groundwater body at poor status, which proportion is too small to show up in the pie 

chart.  The  scale  of  pie  charts  of  Ceuta  and  Melilla  have  been  altered  for  better 
visilibity).  

112 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
  
 
5.1.3

 Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/or  groundwater 
dependent ecosystems 

Groundwater  associated  surface  waters  have  been  partially  considered  in  quantitative  status 

assessment. In the Jucar and Catalan RBDs, groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems have 
not been reported.45  

In  88  groundwater  bodies  of  five  RBDs  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  were 
identified46. Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have not been considered in status 
assessment  in  all  RBDs  where  such  ecosystems  were  reported  to  exist,  but  there  is  no  risk 
associated.  

Figure 5.1  Quantitative status of groundwater bodies in Spain for the second RBMP, for 
the  first  RBMP  and  expected  in  2015.  The  number  in  the  parenthesis  is  the 

number  of  groundwater  bodies  for  both  cycles.  Note  the  period  of  the 
assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2002 to 2014. The year of the 
assessment of status for first RBMP is not known47 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

45 Spain subsequently clarified that there was an error in the reporting and groundwater associated surface waters 
and/or groundwater dependent ecosystems have been considered in quantitative status assessment, and that the 
information  can  be  found  in  the  RBMPs.  (For  instance  in  the  Duero  RBMP,  annex  8.2,  chapter  6.1.2.  p.88, 
Jucar. Annex 12 of the memory, chapter 4.3.3, p.197, or Guadiana RBMP, annex 9, chapter 5.1.2, p. 125). 
46 Spain subsequently clarified that the correct information should be that in 275 groundwater bodies of 14 RBDs 

groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were identified. 

47 Spain subsequently indicated that the “expected good status in 2015” should be 75 %. 

113 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 5.2  Confidence in the classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 

in Spain based on the most recent assessment of status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 5.3  Reasons  for  the  failure  of  good  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  in  Spain 

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. 

114 

 
 
 
‘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  Spain.  729  groundwater  bodies  delineated  for 
second RBMP48 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

5.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The assessment of RBMPs and background documents revealed that basically  no  changes or 

updates  where  explicitly  described  in  the  RBMPs.  For  example  Jucar  reported  that  no 
significant changes have been undertaken as the first RBMP was approved very recently.49 

Overall, the number of monitored groundwater bodies remained the same but with significant 
changes at RBD level. 701 groundwater bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMP. In 
Eastern  Cantabrian  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  decreased  significantly  and  in 
Guadalquivir it increased significantly. 

48  Spain  subsequently  indicated  that  the  “good  quantitative  status  in  2015”  should  be  561  and  “good  chemical 

status” should be 467 groundwater bodies. 

49  Spain  subsequently  indicated  that  the  assessment  of  the  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  between 
planning cycles is very similar, but some updates have been recorded in the RBMPs: All groundwater bodies 
have  received  a  diagnosis  of  their  quantitative  assessment  and  there  is  an  improved  assessment  of  the 
quantitative status of groundwater bodies compared to the first cycle. The new assessment has been carried out 
considering  all  the  relevant  criteria  (such  as  water  balance  tests,  surface  flow  test,  test  on  land  ecosystems 
dependent on groundwater bodies and saline intrusion tests among others).  

115 

 
 
 
                                                      
The number of monitoring sites increased by approximately 10 % but it has to be considered 

that  in  the  first  RBMP  monitoring  sites  have  been  reported  for  16  RBDs  and  in  the  second 
RBMP for 18 of 25 RBDs. Comparing the 16 RBDs where information  is  available for both 

RBMPs,  the  number  increased  by  15  %.  Now  all  of  these  RBDs  are  subject  to  operational 
monitoring, but not for all groundwater bodies50. 

The  overall  status  situation  improved:  for  the  RBDs  for  which  information  is  also  available 
from  the  first  RBMP,  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good  quantitative  status 

declined  slightly.  The  assessment  of  RBMPs  and  background  documents  revealed  that 
significant changes (±10 %) are only present in few RBDs. In one RBMP, it is mentioned that 

due  to  new  hydrogeological  information  and  the  consideration  of  land-use  criteria  23 
groundwater bodies have either been divided or extended and one groundwater body is  new. 

Seven groundwater bodies have not been changed.  

5.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  that  the  assessment  of  groundwater  quantitative  status 
considers all aspects of the definition, including local falls in the water table that may 

lead to a risk in water-dependent ecosystems, and including protected areas. 

Assessment: The recommendation to establish quantitative monitoring was completely 

fulfilled  in  Guadalete  and  Barbate,  Tinto,  Odiel  and  Piedras  and  the  Andalusian 
Mediterranean  Basins.  Ceuta  and  Melilla  have  not  reported  on  this  issue  yet  and 
progress cannot be assessed.51 It is to be noted that an assessment of the progress of this 
recommendation for other river basin districts that have reported quantitative problems 

was not carried out, and cannot be considered fulfilled. 

The  recommendation  regarding  the  status  assessment  to  consider  all  aspects  of  the 

definition is not fulfilled. Yet, Spain subsequently indicated that a complete assessment 
of groundwater quantitative status considering all aspects of the definition was carried 
out in 8 of the 18 RBDs reported. There are still 85 groundwater bodies (12 %) without 
monitoring  of  water  levels.  For  Jucar  the  water  balance  method  was  not  reported.  In 

Jucar and in Catalan RBDs deterioration of the status of associated surface waters has 

50 Spain subsequently clarified that although the result of the assessment of the quantitative status of groundwater 
bodies  does  not  show  remarkable  differences  between  planning  cycles,  there  have  been  some  important 
improvements.  In  this  2nd  cycle  all  groundwater  bodies  have  received  a  diagnosis  of  their  quantitative 
assessment and the new assessments have been carried out considering all the relevant criteria (such as water 
balance tests, surface flow test, test on land ecosystems dependent on groundwater bodies and saline intrusion 
tests among others). 

51 Spain subsequently clarified that for Ceuta and Melilla monitoring sites are under study.  

116 

 
                                                      
not  been  reported.  In  Duero,  Jucar  and  in  Catalan  RBD  the  damage  to  groundwater 

dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  has  not  been  reported.  The  saline  intrusion  test  was 
not reported for some RBDs which are islands or have coastal areas.52 

Having taken into consideration the lack of information and indicated reporting errors, 
this recommendation is still considered as partially fulfilled given the identified gaps. 

52 As previously indicated, Spain subsequently clarified that there were errors in in the reporting related to these 

tests. 

117 

 
 
 
                                                      
 
Topic 6

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  chemical 

status of groundwater bodies 

6.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

6.1.1

 Monitoring of chemical status in groundwater 

The total number of groundwater bodies in Spain is 729 (Table 2.3)53. In total 250 groundwater 
bodies are not subject to surveillance monitoring (Table 5.1). In Eastern Cantabrian, Guadiana, 
Guadalquivir,  Balearic  Islands,  Ceuta  and  Melilla  no  surveillance  monitoring  at  all  is 

established  although  groundwater  bodies  at  risk  exist.  Not  all  groundwater  bodies  at  risk  are 
subject to operational monitoring54. In total 398 groundwater bodies (55 %) are at risk and 402 
groundwater  bodies  are  subject  to  operational  monitoring,  but  at  RBD  level  in  three  RBDs 
(Duero, Segura, Catalan RBDs) the number of groundwater bodies at risk is higher than those 

under operational monitoring which suggest there is room for improvement. The assessment of 
RBMPs  and  background  documents  found  indications  that  grouping  of  groundwater  bodies 
was applied, but not in all assessed RBMPs. No information on the grouping methodology and 

the  considered  elements  was  found  in  the  RBMPs.  The  coverage  of  groundwater  bodies  by 
monitoring is not complete, neither for surveillance monitoring nor for operational monitoring. 

The number of groundwater bodies decreased from 748 in the first RBMP to 729 in the second 

RBMP and the total groundwater body area remained nearly the same. 701 groundwater bodies 
remained unchanged since the first RBMP. In Eastern Cantabrian the number decreased from 

28 to 20 and in Guadalquivir the number increased from 60 to 86. 

The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  with  surveillance  monitoring  decreased  from  624  in  the 
first RBMP to 479 in the second RBMP. The number of monitoring sites in the second cycle is 

listed  in  Table  5.3  (see  Chapter  5).  The  number  of  surveillance  monitoring  sites  in  the  first 
cycle RBMP was 2 893, a significant decrease from the 2 395 in the second RBMP. The sites 

are located in 479 out of 729 groundwater bodies. The number of operational monitoring sites 
has increased significantly since the first RBMP, from 2 375 to 2 725. 

53  It has to be considered that the first RBMPs information includes the groundwater bodies of the Canary Island 

RBDs, but they have not been reported for the second RBMP. 

54 Spain subsequently clarified that if there is a groundwater body at risk, the associated monitoring is operational. 
There is a reporting mistake as all the groundwater bodies at risk included in the Guadiana RBMP are subject 
to operational monitoring while those not at risk are subject to surveillance monitoring. In the case of Eastern 
Cantabrian, the only groundwater body at risk has 16 operational monitoring points, which should have been 
reported as surveillance monitoring points.  

118 

 
                                                      
A considerable number of substances at risk of causing deterioration in chemical status are not 

subject  to  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring  in  all  relevant  groundwater  bodies.  All 
WFD  core  parameters  nitrate,  ammonium,  electrical  conductivity,  oxygen  and  pH  are 

monitored in seven of 16 RBDs. In the remaining RBDs some parameters are not monitored. 

6.1.2

 Assessment and classification of chemical status in groundwater 

Map  6.1  and  Figure  6.1  display  the  most  recently  assessed  chemical  status  of  groundwater 
bodies. It shows that 475 of 729 groundwater bodies (65 %) are of good chemical status, 253 

groundwater bodies (35 %) are failing good status and one groundwater body is of unknown 
status  (Balearic  Islands  RBMP).  In  terms  of  area  this  means  that  about 31  %  is  failing  good 

chemical  status.  Figure  6.2  shows  the  confidence  in  status  classifications.  The  number  of 
groundwater  bodies  in  unknown  status  declined  from  eight  in  the  first  to  one  in  the  second 

RBMP.  

119 

 
 
 
Map 6.1 

Map  of  the  most  recently  assessed  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  in 

Spain  

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.  
Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

120 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.1  Chemical status of groundwater bodies in Spain for the second RBMP, for the 
first  RBMP  and  expected  in  2015.  The  number  in  the  parenthesis  is  the 

number  of  groundwater  bodies  for  both  cycles.  Note  the  period  of  the 
assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2012 to 2014. The year of the 

assessment of status for first RBMP is not known 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The total number of groundwater bodies failing good chemical status slightly increased since 

the first RBMP from 251 (32 %) to 253 (35 %) groundwater bodies (see Figure 6.1) (from 30 
%  to  31  %  of  the  total  groundwater  body  area).  The  expected  date  of  achievement  of  good 

chemical status in Spain is shown in Figure 5.4 (see Chapter 5). 

The reasons for the failure of good chemical status of groundwater bodies are shown in Figure 
6.3.  For  232  groundwater  bodies  the  general  assessment  of  the  chemical  status  for  the 

groundwater body as a whole 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.  57  groundwater  bodies  are  failing  the  drinking  water  test  which  means 

that  the  requirements  of  drinking  water  protected  areas  have  not  been  met.  52  groundwater 
bodies are failing good chemical status due to saline or other intrusion. 41 groundwater bodies 

are failing the groundwater associated surface water test which means that there is diminution 
of  the  status  of  groundwater  associated  surface  water.  34  groundwater  bodies  are  failing  the 

groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystem  test  which  means  that  there  is  damage  to 

121 

 
 
 
groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems. Figure 6.4 shows the top 10 pollutants causing 

failure of status, and Figure 6.5 shows the pollutants causing a sustained upward trend.  

The calculation of the extent of exceedance of a groundwater quality standard or a groundwater 
threshold value55 is in six RBDs based on the number of monitoring sites in the groundwater 
body, in three RBDs based on the groundwater body area and for seven RBDs it is not clear 

how  the  extent  of  exceedance  of  a  groundwater  quality  standard  or  a  groundwater  threshold 
value  was  calculated  as  ‘other’  method  was  reported.  For  one  RBD  no  method  was  reported 

although two groundwater bodies are at risk and fail good status. 

In  five  RBDs,  groundwater  threshold  values  have  not  been  established  for  all  pollutants  or 
indicators of pollution causing  a risk of  failure  of good chemical  status.56 The assessment of 
RBMPs and background documents did not reveal any related explanation for that but showed 
that that all Groundwater Directive57 Annex II Part B substances were considered in threshold 
value establishment but there are differences between the RBMPs assessed. 

In  14  RBDs58  natural  background  levels  have  been  considered  in  the  groundwater  threshold 
value establishment. In two RBDs, they have been considered in status assessment but in two 
of  18  RBDs  (Western  Cantabrian  and  Ebro)  natural  background  levels  have  not  been 
considered in the establishment of groundwater threshold values.  

A trend methodology is available and assessments have been performed in five of 18 RBDs.  

55 Threshold values are quality standards that have to be set by Member States for pollutants causing a risk of not 

meeting WFD requirements. 

56 Spain subsequently clarified, that there  must  have been a  reporting error because threshold values  have been 

established in all RBDs. 

57 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  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006L0118-20140711. 

58 Spain subsequently clarified that there are 15 RBDs where natural background levels have been considered. 

122 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 6.2  Confidence in the classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies in 

Spain based on the most recent assessment of status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 6.3  Reasons  for  failing  good  chemical  status  in  Spain  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 

123 

 
 
 
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. 

Figure 6.4 

Top  10  groundwater  pollutants  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status  in 
Spain 

Figure 6.5  Most common pollutants with upward trends in groundwater bodies in Spain 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
6.1.3

 Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/  or  groundwater 
dependent ecosystems 

In 13 of 18 RBDs surface water bodies are associated to groundwater bodies, in seven RBDs a 

related  risk  is  indicated  and  41  groundwater  bodies  are  failing  good  chemical  status.  These 
aquatic ecosystems have been considered in status assessment in all RBDs, apart from Balearic 

Islands. 

In  14  of  18  RBDs,  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  were  identified,  in  seven 

RBDs a related risk is indicated and 34 groundwater bodies are failing good chemical status. 
Groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  have  been  considered  in  status  assessments  in 

all RBDs. 

Groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems 
have been partially considered in the establishment of groundwater threshold values. In Duero, 
Guadiana, Ebro and Balearic Islands groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems have not been 
considered59  although  they  exist  and  cause  a  risk.  In  Guadiana,  Ebro  and  Balearic  Islands 
groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  have  not  been  considered  although  they  exist 
and cause a risk. 

Figure 6.6 

Percentage  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Spain  at  risk  of  failing  good  chemical 
status and good quantitative status for the second RBMP 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

59 Spain subsequently clarified that there must have been a reporting error as Duero, Guadiana, Ebro and Balearic 

Islands considered groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems.  

125 

 
 
                                                      
6.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  slightly  decreased  although  the  total  groundwater  body 
area remained nearly the same. 701 of 729 groundwater bodies remained unchanged since the 

first  RBMP. Spain  subsequently  clarified that the decrease observed could be because of the 
counting number of the groundwater bodies in Canary Islands, but they have not been reported 

for the second RBMP. Spain also mentioned that in fact the number of groundwater bodies has 
increased.  

The  monitoring  situation  deteriorated:  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  covered  by 

surveillance monitoring dropped significantly and the coverage of groundwater bodies at risk 
by operational monitoring is not complete. Spain subsequently clarified that there were some 

errors  in  the  reported  information  for  both  cycles,  this  being  particularly  evident  in  the  first 
RBMP  and  the  number  of  operational  monitoring  sites  has  increased  (18  %  )  since  the  first 

RBMP, which reflects the effort made in order to complete the monitoring of the groundwater 
bodies at risk. 

The chemical status situation did not improve and 31 % of the total groundwater body area is 
still failing good chemical status. 

The initial assessment for the Guadiana RBD showed that three groundwater bodies changed 

status from good to poor. However, Spain subsequently clarified that there is in fact only one 
groundwater body that changed from good to poor. 

The  Guadalquivir  RBD  describes  the  methodological  approach  e.g.  for  groundwater  body 
characterisation (including the modelling tools used), and the calculation of nitrates objectives 

has  changed  from  the  previous  cycle.  No  other  changes  are  reported.  As  there  are  26  new 
groundwater bodies, the surveillance network has increased in terms of water bodies monitored 

(but not the operational network). 

The Jucar RBMP reports that the trend analysis of pollutants has changed, considering not only 
one year (2010, in the previous plan) but a timespan 2010–2013. 

The  Balearic  Islands  RBMPs  did  not  report  any  changes  in  the  characterisation  except  for  a 

lower number of groundwater bodies (no explanation was provided). Similarly, although there 
was  a  significant  increase  of  monitoring  stations,  no  explanation  was  provided  regarding  the 

motivation for this. No explanation is provided for the increase in the number of groundwater 
bodies at poor chemical status. The chemical status has been judged on the basis of 2006–2012 

126 

 
data  on  chloride  and  nitrate,  and  it  is  recognised  that  many  groundwater  bodies  still  do  not 

have a monitoring station. 

6.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  first  Programme  of 
Measures requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation: “Monitoring gaps should be filled (hydromorphological parameters; 
analytical  methods  for  priority  substances  and  other  pollutants,  including  the  use  of 
biota  monitoring  where  relevant  to  overcome  problems  with  limits  of  detection; 

monitoring methodologies to identify groundwater pollution trends, etc.).” 

Assessment: A trend methodology is available and assessments have been performed in 
five of 18 river basin districts. This recommendation is considered partially fulfilled.  

127 

 
 
 
Topic 7

  Designation  of  Heavily  Modified  and  Artificial  Water 

Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential 

7.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle for designation  

7.1.1

 Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies 

In the second planning cycle, heavily modified water bodies are reported so far for 18 RBDs. 

For the first cycle, 16.8 % of river water bodies were designated as heavily modified, while in 
the second cycle the percentage of heavily modified as a proportion of total river water bodies 

has increased to 20 %. Overall, there are no widespread changes to the level of designation of 
heavily  modified  water  body  and  artificial  water  body  since  the  first  RBMPs,  but  there  are 

some RBD-specific issues which are outlined in Chapter 7.2.  

In  16  out  of  18  RBDs,  there  are  designated  river  heavily  modified  water  bodies  which  are 

reservoirs and were originally rivers. In three out of 18 RBDs, there are lake heavily modified 
water bodies designated, which are reservoirs and were originally lakes.  

The  main  water  uses  for  which  river  water  bodies  are  designated  as  heavily  modified  water 

bodies are hydropower production, flood protection, drinking water supply for urban areas as 
well as irrigation for agriculture. In some RBDs, several heavily modified water bodies are also 

designated due to tourism and recreational uses.  

For lake water bodies, the main water uses for designation as heavily modified water body are 

hydropower  production,  irrigation  for  agriculture  and  tourism/recreation.  For  coastal  water 
bodies  heavily  modified  water  body  designation  is  mainly  related  to  navigation  /  ports.  For 

transitional heavily modified water bodies, the main water uses are flood protection, navigation 
/ ports, tourism / recreation, agricultural land drainage and the wider environment. 

The  main  physical  alterations  of  river  heavily  modified  water  bodies  are  channelisation  / 

straightening  /  bed  stabilisation  /  bank  reinforcement  and  weirs  /  dams  /  reservoirs.  For  lake 
heavily  modified  water  bodies,  the  main  alterations  are  weirs  /  dams  /  reservoirs;  for  coastal 

heavily  modified  water  bodies,  land  reclamation  /  coastal  modifications  /  ports  and  for 
transitional  heavily  modified  water  bodies,  channelisation  /  straightening  /  bed  stabilisation  / 

bank reinforcement and land reclamation / coastal modifications / ports. 

128 

 
The second RBMPs include assessments of the significant adverse effects of measures on the 

use and wider environment and an assessment of better environmental options on the level of 
water  bodies.  However,  no  criteria  and  thresholds  to  define  what  is  significant  or  not 

significant are provided in the RBMPs or the methodological documents. 

Figure 7.1 

Proportion  of  total  water  bodies  in  each  category  in  Spain  that  has  been 

designated as heavily modified or artificial  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

7.1.2

 Definition of Good Ecological  Potential for Heavily Modified  and Artificial  Water 
Bodies 

Good  ecological  potential  is  reported  as  defined  in  the  18  reported  RBDs.  In  14  out  of  18 
RBDs,  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  approach  (approach  based  on 

biological  quality  elements  as  illustrated  in  Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance 
Document No 4) has  been applied to  define  good ecological  potential.  In the remaining four 

RBDs  (Guadalquivir,  Segura,  Ceuta,  Melilla),  a  hybrid  approach  combining  elements  of  the 
Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  and  the  Prague  approach  (based  on  the 

identification of mitigation measures) has been used. 

Good ecological potential is defined at water body level in 12 out of  18 RBDs. In six RBDs, 

good  ecological  potential  is  defined  for  groups  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies  /artificial 
water bodies of the same use/physical modification.  

129 

 
 
There  is  a  specific  national  method  for  defining  good  ecological  potential  of  reservoirs  and 

ports,  which  is  a  national  regulation  that  establishes  criteria  for  monitoring  and  status 
assessment  in  surface  water  bodies.  Differentiations  in  the  methodology  are  provided  for 

specific  categories  in  different  RBDs,  e.g.  in  the  RBD  Guadalquivir,  a  method  has  been 
developed for good ecological potential in transitional waters, while for rivers downstream of 

reservoirs,  the  method  is  not  clear  and  is  considered  as  provisional  until  specific  studies  are 
developed.  For  good  ecological  potential  of  lake  heavily  modified  water  bodies,  the  same 

method  is  used  as  for  good  ecological  status  of  natural  water  bodies.  In  the  Segura  RBD, 
specific  methods  to  define  good  ecological  potential  for  channelised  rivers  and  for  lakes  are 

reported. 

Good ecological potential is reported to have been defined in terms of biology in 16 out of 18 

reported  RBDs  (good  ecological  potential  has  not  been  defined  in  terms  of  biology  in  Ceuta 
and  Melilla).  Biological  quality  elements  for  which  biological  values  have  been  derived  to 

define maximum  ecological  potential  and  good ecological  potential  are reported;  these differ 
for the various RBDs but the one reported for all RBDs is phytoplankton. Biological values to 

define maximum ecological potential / good ecological potential for benthic invertebrates have 
been derived in 15 out of 16 RBDs. Biological values to define maximum ecological potential / 

good ecological potential for fish have been derived in seven out of 16 RBDs.  

For most RBDs the RBMPs include information on whether actual values for biological quality 
elements are estimated or not for good ecological potential, including for reservoirs and ports, 

for which values for phytoplankton are defined at national level. In the Segura RBD, values are 
given for phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates for channelised rivers and for phytoplankton 

and  macrophytes  in  lakes.  In  the  Jucar  RBMP  the  additional  class  change  limits  have  been 
identified.  

Various biological quality element assessment methods which are sensitive to hydrological and 
morphological  changes  are  reported  for  all  water  categories.  Sensitive  methods  to  both 

hydrological  and  morphological  changes  are  in  place  in  rivers  for  benthic  invertebrates, 
phytobenthos,  fish  phytoplankton,  other  aquatic  flora  and  macrophytes),  in  lakes  (for 

macrophytes,  phytoplankton  and  benthic  invertebrates)  in  coastal  waters  (for  phytoplankton, 
transitional  waters  (for 
benthic 

invertebrates,  macroalgae  and  angiosperms)  and 

in 

phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates, fish and macrophytes).  

Mitigation measures for defining good ecological potential have been reported for all 18 RBDs 
as well as the ecological changes expected due to those mitigation measures. 

130 

 
A comparison between good ecological potential and good ecological status has been done in 

six  RBDs  (Western  Cantabrian,  Duero,  Andalusian  Mediterranean  Basins,  Guadalete  and 
Barbate,  Tinto,  Odiel  and  Piedras,  Segura).  In  the  other  RBDs,  there  is  no  such  comparison 

made. 

7.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

As  indicated  above,  there  are  no  widespread  changes  to  the  level  of  designation  of  heavily 
modified water bodies and artificial water bodies, but there are some RBD-specific issues to be 

indicated.  Some  of  the  consequences  of  these  changes  are  discussed  in  the  RBMPs.  In  the 
Miño-Sil RBD, there is a significant increase of designated river heavily modified water bodies 

from 49 to 68 (18 % to 25 % of all river water bodies). All RBMPs include an annex with the 
explanation on the designation process for all heavily modified and artificial water bodies. 

In  Eastern  Cantabrian,  the  eight  reservoirs  were  designated  as  heavily  modified  lake  water 

bodies in the first cycle. In this second plan, with the aim of improving the characterisation of 
water  bodies,  these  reservoirs  have  been  included  in  the  category  of  heavily  modified  river 

water bodies. 

In Duero, there is a significant increase of designated river heavily modified water bodies from 

80 to 208 (11 % to 30 % of all river water bodies). The RBMP explains that this change is due 
to  a  thorough  review  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies,  especially  due  to  hydrological  and 

morphological alterations. 

In Ebro, there is a significant increase of designated transitional heavily modified water bodies, 
from  3  to  13  (37  %  to  81  %  of  transitional  water  bodies),  due  to  the  improvement  of 

knowledge of transitional waters in the River Ebro Delta (boundaries, ecological status...). 

There are three new artificial water bodies designated in the Guadiana and in the Andalusian 

Mediterranean  Basins.  In  the  first  RBMPs,  a  full  methodology  for  good  ecological  potential 
definition  was  missing.  In  the  second  cycle,  there  have  been  significant  improvements 

regarding  the  methods  for  assessing  the  potential  and  establishing  the  GEP.  As  a  result,  the 
diagnosis probles have considerably been reduced. This progress is particularly relevant in the 

RBDs of Jucar, Guadiana, Tagus, and especially in the Ebro.  

Furthermore,  mitigation  measures  for  the  definition  of  good  ecological  potential  have  been 
reported  in  all  18  RBDs.  The  RBMPs  include  specific  fact  sheets  for  each  heavily  modified 

131 

 
water  body  with  the  expected  ecological  changes  due  to  the  application  of  those  mitigation 

measures. 

7.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation: The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements 
of  Article  4(3).  The  assessment  of  significant  adverse  effects  on  their  use  or  the 
environment  and  the  lack  of  significantly  better  environmental  options  should  be 

specifically  mentioned  in  the  RBMPs.  This  is  needed  to  ensure  transparency  of  the 
designation process.  

  Recommendation:  In 

the  context  of  designation  of  HMWBs,  develop  clear 
criteria/thresholds  to  define  the  significant  adverse  effect  of  restoration  measures  on 

water  uses,  and  a  proper  (real)  assessment  of  other  alternatives  that  could  be  better 
environmental options. 

Assessment: In the first RBMPs, there were some gaps in the methodology for heavily 

modified  water  body  designation.  In  the  second  RBMPs,  it  is  noted  that  a  water 
planning  regulation  with  detailed  methodology  for  heavily  modified  water  body 

designation  is  in  place.  For  the  Balearic  Islands  RBD,  the  first  cycle  RBMP  did  not 
provide  complementary  information  on  the  methodology  for  heavily  modified  water 

body  designation,  and  this  seems  to  be  unchanged  in  the  second  cycle  RBMP,  which 
provides no information on such methodology. The RBMP of the Balearic Islands was 

being  revised  at  the  time  of  the  publication  of  this  report,  and  this  issue  may  be 
updated. 

Concerning the methodology on the designation tests under WFD Articles 4(3)(a) and 
4(3)(b),  the  second  RBMPs  include  assessments  of  the  significant  adverse  effects  of 

measures on the use and wider environment and an assessment of better environmental 
options on the level of water bodies. However, no criteria and thresholds to define what 

are  significant  or  not  significant  effects  are  provided  in  the  RBMPs  or  in  the 
methodological documents. 

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

132 

 
 
  Recommendation:  Ensure  that  good  ecological  potential  is  correctly  defined  for  all 
heavily  modified  water  bodies  and  artificial  water  bodies  (in  terms  of  biological 
condition and mitigation measures). 

Assessment: Good ecological potential is reported to be defined at water body level in 

12  out  of  18  RBDs,  and  is  also  defined  in  terms  of  biology  in  16  out  of  18  reported 
RBDs.  According  to  the  second  RBMPs  for  most  RBDs  though,  information  is  not 

entirely clear on whether actual values for biological quality elements are estimated or 
not for good ecological potential, except for reservoirs and ports, for which values for 

phytoplankton  are  defined  at  national  level.  Mitigation  measures  for  defining  good 
ecological potential have been reported for all 18 RBDs. 

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

133 

 
 
 
Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions 

8.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

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 201560), groundwater (good chemical and quantitative status by 2015) and 
for Protected Areas (achievement of the objectives of the associated Directive by 2015 unless 
otherwise specified).  

Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical surface status have been reported in all 
RBDs as well as for good chemical and quantitative groundwater status, although for a number 

of water bodies (which represent only less than 2 % of the total), the date for the achievement 
of  the  objectives  is  unknown.  Good  ecological  potential  is  defined  and  objectives  for 

transitional waters and coastal waters are reported. 

Member States are also required to specify additional environmental objectives and standards 
in Protected Areas where these are required to ensure that the requirements of the associated 

Directive are met. An assessment of such additional objectives for Spain is provided in Chapter 
15 of this report. 

Assessments  of  the  current  status  of  surface  and  groundwater  bodies  in  Spain  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 are required to report the date when they expect each 
surface  and  groundwater  body  to  meet  its  environmental  objective.  This  information  is 

60   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. 

134 

 
                                                      
summarised for Spain 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). 

8.1.2

 Exemptions 

Where environmental objectives are not  yet achieved, exemptions may be applied in case the 

respective conditions are met and the required justifications are explained in the RBMP. 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  Spain  for  the  four  main  sets  of  environmental 
objectives. 

Figure 8.1 

Water bodies in Spain 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 reporting. For some water bodies the date for achievement of good status is unknown. 
Spain provided the following data: Expected good in 2015: Ecological: 57,8 %  2964 SW, Chemical SW: 91,5 % 
(4688 SW, Chemical GW: 64,1 % 467 GW, Quantitative: 77 %  561 GW, At least one exemption:, Ecological: 
41,6 %  2132 SW, Chemical SW:5,4 % (278 SW, Chemical GW:34,8 % 254 GW, Quantitative:23 % 168 GW. 

Article  4  of  the  WFD  allows  under  certain  conditions  for  different  exemptions  to  the 
objectives:  extension  of  deadlines  beyond  2015;  less  stringent  objectives;  a  temporary 

135 

 
 
deterioration,  or  deterioration  non-achievement  of  good  status  /  potential  due  to  new 

modifications, provided a set of conditions are fulfilled. The exemptions under WFD Article 4 
include the provisions in Article 4(4)  - extension of deadline, Article 4(5) - lower objectives, 

Article 4(6) - temporary deterioration, and Article 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  costs  or 
technical feasibility. 

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 objective in Spain. 

136 

 
Figure 8.2 

Type  of  exemptions  applied  to  surface  water  and  groundwater  bodies  for 

the  second  RBMP  in  Spain.  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 

Application of Article 4(4) 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The number of cases where Article 4(4) has been applied has increased in around two thirds of 

RBDs. Spain subsequently clarified that this is a consequence of the efforts to prioritise the use 

137 

 
 
of this exemption in order to limit the application of exemptions under Article 4(5) on setting 

less stringent objectives.  

In  the  assessment  of  the  first  RBMPs,  the  justification  was  considered  to  be  insufficient  and 

referred for groundwater and surface water to technical feasibility, disproportionate costs and 
natural  conditions  for  Article 4(4).  In the second cycle, the justifications  included have been 

improved,  and  these  have  been  justified  on  the  grounds  of  reasons  of  technical  feasibility, 
disproportionate costs and natural conditions.  

Disproportionate  costs  under  Article  4(4)  are  used  as  a  reason  based  on  affordability,  social 

and  sectorial  impacts  and  cost  benefit  ratios.  The  disproportionate  costs  are  applied  in  a 
distinguished  way  between  Articles  4(4)  and  4(5),  and  Spain  subsequently  informed  the 

Commission that further efforts are planned for the third cycle to improve the application and 
justification  of  this  condition.  The  disproportionate  costs  are  the  reason  for  exemptions  in  5 

RBMPs, for both article 4(4) and 4(5). For example: 

  The Guadiana RBMP includes an assessment of  the paying  capacity,  which is  briefly 
reflected in the water body exemption fiche and lists the costs (by "measure groups") of 

other basic and complementary costs identifying their costs against the paying capacity 
thresholds established.  

 

In  the  Ebro  RBMP,  a  similar  exercise  has  been  undertaken.  However,  for  one  water 

body  fiche  analysed  (water  body  403  Río  Ebro  desde  el  río  Oroncillo  hasta  el  río 
Bayas), disproportionate costs and the justification for disproportional costs states that 

the average of investment per square km was much larger for this water body than for 
the  average  of  the  RBD  in  the  past  years;  and  water  prices  (due  to  modernisation) 

cannot  be  afforded  by  irrigators.  However,  these  investments  include  complementary 
measures  like  irrigation  modernisation  (€9.7  m  out  of  €13.7  m  of  the  overall  budget) 

and  do  not  mention  that  these  are  partly  covered  by  European  Union  funds  (e.g.  the 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development).  

  The  Guadalquivir  RBMP  provides  a  methodological  explanation  for  disproportionate 
costs which is related to paying capacity. This capacity is based on one of the following 
criteria:  i)  related  to  the  limit  of  5  %  of  family  expenses,  ii)  the  limit  of  5  %  of 
economic  revenues  or  iii)  a  limit  of  70  EUR/inhabitant/year.  It  is  stated  that  these 

criteria  are  based  on  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and  Development  and 
DEFRA experiences. In the fiches included in the RBMP, no specific references to data 

138 

 
or  justification  have  been  encountered  for  such  paying  capacity  related  to  specific 

measures or water bodies. 

Exemptions under Article 4(4) to good chemical status of groundwater bodies justified due to 

technical feasibility is being defined in the Guadalquivir RBMP by a modelling exercise. This 
has  been  developed  with  a  tool  called  “PATRICAL”,  which  explains  that  results  will  not  be 

achieved  within  the  current  RBMP  cycle  timeline.  The  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the 
PATRICAL system have not been further assessed in the frame of this compliance assessment. 

The specific exemption fiche for water body ES050MSBT000056900 (Osuna - La Lentejuela) 
additionally explains that the basic and complementary measures of the first cycle have been 

insufficient  to  achieve  good  status,  and  that  due to  their  socio-economic  impact,  most  of  the 
measures are being implemented slowly. 

In the Guadalquivir RBD, for a groundwater body with diffuse agricultural pollution pressure 

(e.g.  ES050MSBT000052300  –  Úbeda),  a  combined  Article  4(4)  exemption  of  technical 
feasibility  and  natural  conditions  has  been  applied.  A  brief  textual  explanation  refers  to  the 

slow  physical  characteristics  of  this  groundwater  body,  such  as  shown  by  the  PATRICAL 
simulation  tool.  Similar  texts  have  been  drafted  for  other  groundwater  bodies.  In  the  Ebro 

RBMP, the corresponding Annex does not include a description of how natural conditions are 
defined.  

The  pressures  responsible  for  exemptions  in  surface  water  come  from  a  broad  range  of 
activities  including  urbanisation,  industry,  agriculture,  mining,  abstraction  and  activities 

leading to changes in hydromorphology.  

For groundwater, the main pressures responsible for exemptions are point and diffuse pollution 
from industry and agriculture. Abstraction is referred to in the Duero, Guadalquivir, Guadiana, 

Guadalete  and  Barbate,  Jucar,  Balearic  Islands,  Miño-Sil,  Andalusian  Mediterranean  Basins, 
Segura, Catalan and Melilla RBDs.  

The  main  drivers  for  exemptions  are  urban  development,  tourism  and  recreation,  industry, 

flood protection, fisheries and aquaculture, energy and agriculture. 

Application of Article 4(5) 

The number of cases where Article 4(5) has been applied has increased in most RBDs. In the 
assessment of the first RBMPs, the justification was considered to be insufficient and referred 

for  groundwater  and  surface  water  to  technical  feasibility,  disproportionate  costs  for  Article 

139 

 
4(5). In the second cycle, the justifications for the use of this exemption have been improved, 

and the reasons for exemptions are again technical feasibility and disproportionate costs.  

Disproportionate  costs  under  Article  4(5)  are  used  as  a  reason  based  on  affordability,  social 

and  sectorial  impacts  and  cost  benefit  ratios.  The  disproportionate  costs  are  applied  in  a 
distinguished way between Articles 4(4) and 4(5). The disproportionate costs are the reason for 

exemptions in five RBMPs, for both article 4(4) and 4(5). 

Another  surface  water  body  (278  Río  Linares  desde  su  nacimiento  hasta  el  inicio  del  tramo 
canalizado  en  la  población  de  Torres  del  Río)  faces  high  sulphate  concentrations  due  to  a 

geological gypsum riverbed, leading to the application of an Article 4(5) exemption, which is 
textually described in a fiche. However, the option to correct typology and reference conditions 

is  not  discussed.  The  RBMP  assessment  does  not  include  the  establishment  of  the  indicator 
values for less stringent objectives.  

In the case of Article 4(5) exemption for a surface water body due to chemical pollution (e.g. 

ES050MSPF011008047),  the  Guadalquivir  RBMP  states  that  industrial  activities  are 
responsible  for  the  pollution,  and  it  is  not  feasible  to  stop  their  activity,  so  less  stringent 
objectives  have  to  be  adopted,  due  to  "technical  feasibility".  The  available  information  is 

displayed  in  table  format  at  water  body  level,  and  references  are  provided  for  background 
documents  and  Appendixes,  such  as  the  one  describing  the  results  of  the  PATRICAL  tool 

simulation. 

The  pressures  responsible  for  exemptions  in  surface  water  come  from  a  broad  range  of 
activities  including  urbanisation,  industry,  agriculture,  mining,  abstraction  and  activities 

leading to changes in hydromorphology.  

For groundwater the main pressures responsible for exemptions are point and diffuse pollution 
from industry and agriculture. Abstraction is referred to in the Duero, Guadalquivir, Balearic 

Islands, Catalan and Melilla RBDs.  

The  main  drivers  for  exemptions  are  urban  development,  tourism  and  recreation,  industry, 

flood 

protection, 

fisheries 

and 

aquaculture, 

energy 

and 

agriculture.

140 

 
Table 8.1 

Pressure responsible for Priority Substances in Spain failing to achieve good chemical status in surface water and 
for which exemptions have been applied 

Significant pressure on surface water bodies 

1.1 - Point - Urban waste water 

1.2 - Point - Storm overflows 

1.3 - Point - Industrial Emissions Directive plants 

1.4 - Point - Non Industrial Emissions Directive plants 

1.6 - Point - Waste disposal sites 

1.7 - Point - Mine waters 

1.9 - Point - Other 

2.1 - Diffuse - Urban run-off 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2.4 - Diffuse - Transport 

2.5 - Diffuse - Contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites 

2.6 - Diffuse - Discharges not connected to sewerage network 

2.7 - Diffuse - Atmospheric deposition 

2.8 - Diffuse - Mining 

2.10 - Diffuse - Other 

3.1 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Agriculture 

3.2 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Public water supply 

3.3 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Industry 

3.4 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Cooling water 

3.7 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Other 

4.1.4 - Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Other 

4.2.1 - Dams, barriers and locks - Hydropower 

Number of failing 
Priority Substances 

Number 

21 

9 

14 

21 

4 

2 

4 

13 

18 

5 

6 

6 

2 

7 

6 

4 

3 

4 

3 

2 

3 

1 

141 

Number of Article 4(4) - 
Technical feasibility 
exemptions 

Number of Article 4(5) - 
Technical feasibility 
exemptions 

Number 

185 (138) 

20 (19) 

20 (16) 

131 ( 99) 

6 

3 

0 

38 (35) 

139 (98) 

6 

9 (8) 

19 

7 

71 (70) 

14 (13) 

8 

11 

11 

3 

2 

3 

1 

Number 

3 

0 

4 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

 
Significant pressure on surface water bodies 

4.2.2 - Dams, barriers and locks - Flood protection 

4.2.7 - Dams, barriers and locks - Navigation 

4.2.8 - Dams, barriers and locks - Other 

4.3.1 - Hydrological alteration - Agriculture 

4.3.3 - Hydrological alteration - Hydropower 

4.3.4 - Hydrological alteration - Public water supply 

4.3.6 - Hydrological alteration - Other 

5.1 - Introduced species and diseases 

7 - Anthropogenic pressure - Other 

Number of failing 
Priority Substances 

Number of Article 4(4) - 
Technical feasibility 
exemptions 

Number of Article 4(5) - 
Technical feasibility 
exemptions 

Number 

Number 

Number 

4 

2 

2 

1 

3 

1 

2 

4 

3 

8 

2 

3 

1 

3 

1 

3 

10 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8 - Anthropogenic pressure - Unknown 

7 
Source: WISE electronic reporting. Spain subsequently informed that there were errors in the data, the corrected numbers are in brackets in this table. 

20 

0 

Table 8.2 

Pressure responsible for pollutants in Spain failing to achieve good chemical status in groundwater and for which 
exemptions have been applied  

Significant pressure on 
groundwater 

Number of 
failing pollutants 

Article 4(4) - 
Technical 
feasibility 

Article 4(4) - 
Disproportionate 
cost 

Number of exemptions 

Article 4(4) - 
Natural conditions 

Article 4(5) – 
Technical 
feasibility 

Article 4(5) - 
Disproportionate 
cost 

1.1 - Point - Urban waste 
water 
1.2 - Point - Storm overflows 
1.3 - Point - Industrial 
Emissions Directive plants 
1.4 - Point - Non Industrial 
Emissions Directive plants 
1.5 - Point - Contaminated 
sites or abandoned industrial 
sites 

8 

2 

2 

8 

7 

10 

2 

1 

22 

4 

7 

2 

142 

1 

1 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Significant pressure on 
groundwater 

Number of 
failing pollutants 

Article 4(4) - 
Technical 
feasibility 

Article 4(4) - 
Disproportionate 
cost 

Number of exemptions 

Article 4(4) - 
Natural conditions 

Article 4(5) – 
Technical 
feasibility 

Article 4(5) - 
Disproportionate 
cost 

1.6 - Point - Waste disposal 
sites 

2.1 - Diffuse - Urban run-off 

2.10 - Diffuse - Other 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2.4 - Diffuse - Transport 
2.5 - Diffuse - Contaminated 
sites or abandoned industrial 
sites 
2.6 - Diffuse - Discharges not 
connected to sewerage 
network 

2.8 - Diffuse - Mining 

3.1 - Abstraction or flow 
diversion - Agriculture 
3.2 - Abstraction or flow 
diversion - Public water 
supply 
3.3 - Abstraction or flow 
diversion - Industry 
3.6 - Abstraction or flow 
diversion - Fish farms 
3.7 - Abstraction or flow 
diversion - Other 
7 - Anthropogenic pressure - 
Other 
8 - Anthropogenic pressure - 
Unknown 

5 

5 

5 

14 

2 

1 

1 

5 

9 

8 

5 

1 

2 

1 

7 

3 

16 

3 

7 

10 

158 (106) 

64 (45) 

97 (93) 

16 

28 (21) 

2 

1 

1 

1 

82 

23 (21) 

94 (93) 

33 (31) 

32 (28) 

54 (53) 

2 

1 

2 

2 

19 

8 

9 

11 

1 

3 

18 

5 

11 

4 

11 (9) 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. Values in brackets provided by Spain in the frame of the assessment. 

Spain subsequently informed that there were errors in the data, the corrected numbers are in brackets in this table.

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Application of Article 4(6) 

In  the  Duero  RBD,  Article  4(6)  is  applied  in  the  second  RBMP  because  of  accidents.  In  the 
Guadiana  RBD,  17  water  bodies  are  listed  for  temporary  deterioration  due  to  prolonged 

droughts. 

Application of Article 4(7) 

In the first RBMPs, most RBDs stated that there is the possibility of applying exemptions for 
new modifications, Article 4(7), and provided examples of conditions  and examples of those 

modifications. However, none of these RBMPs or Programme of Measures included any case 
for which this exemption was finally applied to any water body. In the second RBMPs, Article 

4(7) is applied in several basins (Western Cantabrian, Eastern Catabrian, Duero, Guadalquivir, 
Júcar, Segura, Tinto, Odiel and Piedras, Ebro, Ceuta and Melilla). In the first cycle, Andalusian 

Mediterranean Basins mentioned the intention of using this type of exemption and it is unclear 
why this is no longer the case in the second cycle. The RBMP Guadalquivir states that for two 

groundwater  bodies  exemptions  under  Article  4(7)  have  been  included  in  the  second  cycle. 
Appendix  6  includes  a  list  of  six  initiatives  (mining,  river  dredging  and  dam  construction) 

which lead to Article 4(7) exemptions; for each of them a fiche is included in the RBMP. For 
the Ebro RBMP, 2261 surface water bodies were reported applying exemptions  under Article 
4(7).  

There  is  evidence  that  the  impact  of  the  new  modifications  on  the  water  status  has  been 
assessed  in  the  RBMPs,  as  the  corresponding  RBMPs  include  fiches  for  each  of  the  new 

modifications foreseen under Article 4(7). These fiches include tick-box information as well as 
overview maps, textual description and small tables. In the Guadalquivir RBMP, the impact of 

the new modification of the status of the affected water bodies has been assessed. However, in 
the case of the dam construction (Recrecimiento del Embalse del Agrio) the effects have only 

been  assessed  by  the  Spanish  authorities  for  the  four  water  bodies  directly  affected  by 
“physical changes” (which is the terminology used for describing the change), and not for the 
downstream water bodies of the Guadiamar river, which might be affected by the water uses 
and  abstractions.  The  corresponding  fiche  of  the  RBMP  refers  however  to  the  need  to  study 
ecological  flows  downstream  the  dam,  whilst  no  mention  is  made  to  the  implementation  of 

ecological flows, as studied or assessed.  

61 Spain subsequently clarified that this number should be 7. 

144 

 
                                                      
In  the  Guadalquivir  RBD,  no  assessment  of  possible  cumulative  effects  has  been  carried  out 

for  the  six  new  modifications.  As  mentioned  already,  downstream  modifications  of 
hydrological conditions seem to be only marginally considered. 

In  the  Ebro  RBMP,  the  impact  of  the  new  modifications  on  the  status  of  the  affected  water 
bodies  appears  to  be  assessed  by  the  Spanish  authorities  in  a  generic  way.  For  example, 

regarding  one  dam  construction  (Embalse  de  Riomayor  en  río  Ega),  tick  boxes  of  the  fiche 
describe  that  deterioration  of  water  bodies  will  occur,  and  additional  textual  information 

informs  about  the  type  of  the  change  (e.g.  from  natural  to  artificial  water  body).  The 
information regarding the expected trend or change in status classification is scarce, with one 

line per water body affected, and refers to uncertainties and the fact that the future status can 
only be defined after the construction of the dam and the start of the operations. No assessment 

of possible cumulative effects has been carried out for the new modifications in the RBD Ebro. 
The  main  type  of  cumulative  effects  of  the  new  dams  foreseen  in  the  RBMP  may  include 

hydrological  and  hydromorphological  changes  downstream  (for  shorter  or  longer  river 
stretches)  and  their  effects  on  biological  elements.  In  this  sense,  the  fiches  appear  to  reflect 

significant gaps, as the changes in downstream hydrology are perceived as “improvements of 
water  availability  in  the  river  bed,  with  likely  positive  effects  on  fish  population  and 

invertebrates” according to the used indicators (e.g. in fiche “Embalse de Robres del Castillo 
en  río  Jubera”).  The  RBMP  text  might  reflect  misperceptions  of  the  WFD  objectives  and/or 

inappropriate indicators to determine the biological status.  

The fiches used for the justification of Article 4(7) exemptions include a section with a generic 
tick  box  to  clarify  if  mitigation  actions  have  been  taken,  including  a  reference  to  the 

corresponding  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  studies,  as  well  as  a  text  box  for  further 
justification.  In  the  case  of  a  dam  construction  (Recrecimiento  del  Embalse  del  Agrio)  in 

Guadalquivir, the text refers to the site selection (e.g. already deteriorated due to pre-existing 
mining  materials)  and  future  considerations  under  the  Environmental  Impact  Assessment. 

Regarding  the  planned  river  dredging  in  the  river  estuary  (Measure  Guadalquivir  0554),  the 
Article  4(7)  fiche  includes  a  list  of  measures  foreseen,  such  as  mainly  additional  studies, 
environmental control measures, and a rehabilitation plan (included as Measure in the RBMP: 

Guadalquivir 0551). In the case of Ebro, a list of the mitigation actions is provided, with a tick 
box next to each to indicate whether the measure is already ongoing or planned, and the text 

refers also to the status of the corresponding Environmental Impact Assessment. However, the 
mitigation  measures  listed  are  not  water-body  specific,  and  they  do  not  refer  specifically  to 

those quality elements which would be deteriorated by the new modification. 

145 

 
As  regards  to  overriding  public  interest  and/or  that  the  benefits  of  the  project  outweigh  the 

benefits  of  achieving  the  WFD  environmental  objectives,  the  RBMP  Ebro  shows  that  a 
balancing  test  of  the  benefits  of  the  Project  (Embalse  de  Riomayor  en  río  Ega)  has  been 

undertaken,  with  a  monetary  quantification,  which  is  however  not  supported  by  background 
documents or references. It refers to the additional incomes of farmers when changing current 

land-use to irrigation, and the possibility of creating irrigation-associated jobs, it also accounts 
for  the  direct  employment  for  constructing  the  planned  dam.  However,  the  benefits  from 

achieving  the  WFD  objectives  are  not  quantified  in  monetary  terms  (protected  areas  are 
affected  by  the  dam  construction  and  the  new  irrigation  area)  for  the  balancing  test,  and  the 

section  which  lists  the  corresponding  benefits  also  includes  references  to  the  benefits  of  the 
dam construction, such as increased water availability. In this sense, the balancing test does not 

seem  to  consider benefits and losses in  a similar or comparable way. Spain  clarified that  the 
state  of  the  art  regarding  the  approach  to  ecosystem  services  is  still  limited.  Another  dam 

project  (Embalse  de  Mularroya  en  río  Grío)  included  in  Ebro  RBMP  refers  in  its  fiche  to 
overriding public interest. Out of the four possible tick boxes to choose from, it refers to social 
and  economic  benefits,  and  provides  a  textual  explanation.  This  text  refers  to  the  regulatory 

decisions  since  the  1998  river  management  plan  to  consider  the  dam  as  of  overriding  public 
interest, which has been incorporated in latter regulatory documents, including the first RBMP. 

Within  its  arguments,  the  text  refers  to  the  fact  that  the  dam  will  enable  supply  of  water  for 
agriculture  and  other  uses,  groundwater  recharge,  flood  protection  and  guarantee  flow  in  the 

river. The RBMP text refers to additional studies, which e.g. model the future decline of water 
resources in the sub-basin due to climate change. Regarding the social and economic benefits, 

the  text  refers  to  expected  investments  in  irrigation  agriculture  in  the  lower  part  of  the  sub-
basin, with likely positive impacts in the secondary and tertiary economic sectors. References 

are  made  to  studies.  However,  no  specific  figures  on  the  expected  economic  benefits  are 
included in the justification text. Secondary reasons related to improved drinking water supply 

and  human  health,  as  well  as  to  flood  risk  mitigation  are  briefly  mentioned  within  a  phrase. 
Reference is also made to additional studies of the Environmental Impact Assessment, which 

explain how the character and status of water bodies might evolve in future. 

In  the  Guadalquivir  RBMP,  overriding  public  interest  for  the  Cerrada  de  la  Puerta  dam 
(Measure  0291)  is  argued  on  the  basis  of  ‘public  security’  and  ‘other  social  and  economic 

reasons’,  for  addressing  ‘flood  protection’ and ‘water deficit reduction’ in the basin.  Though 
irrigation  agriculture  (for  olive  crops)  has  not  been  selected  as  beneficiary  sector  of  the 

measure within the tick boxes, the textual description refers exclusively to such uses. No data 
nor  information  is  included  in  the  justification  regarding  flood  risks  or  public  security.  The 

river dredging project for the Guadalquivir estuary is considered of overriding public interest 

146 

 
due to three different reasons, namely ‘human health’, ‘public security’ and ‘other social and 

economic arguments’. The textual description refers to the reduction of flood risks by higher 
discharge speed due to the dredged flow channel. However, no further data or references are 

included in the justification. Regarding economic aspects, a table is provided on the individual 
transport costs referred to different ship sizes. However, no further considerations or references 

are  included  in  the  justification.  It  might  additionally  be  considered  that  the  Guadalquivir 
Flood Risk Management Plan neither establishes an Area of Potentially Significant Flood Risk 

in  the project  area, nor includes the dredging in  its Programme of Measures;  which weakens 
the flood risk argument for justifying overriding public interest. 

The  San  Calixto  dam  of  Guadalquivir  targets  flood  risks  and  public  security;  and  the  Agrio 
dam public security and environmental reasons, with irrigation agriculture and industrial water 

supply  being  benefitted.  The  Article  4(7)  fiche  includes  the  water  supply  in  substitution  of 
agricultural  groundwater abstractions which currently affect the Doñana protected areas, thus 

the project aims indirectly to benefits in the protected area. 

As regard to whether better environmental options have been taken into account, the exemption 
fiches included in the RBMPs specify the alternatives assessed with a tick-box exercise, and a 

short  textual  description.  However,  the  information  included  in  the  RBMPs  about  the 
assessment of alternatives is rather limited and mainly focusing on different technical options 

for  dam  construction  but  not  on  alternatives  addressing  drivers  behind  the  planned  projects, 
although they may be considered by the RBD competent authorities at the stage of planning of 

the project. For example, in the Guadalquivir RBMP, the Agrio dam alternatives assessed are 
‘non-action’  and  dam  capacity  increase  alternatives  at  the  same  site.  Alternatives  for 

addressing  the  underlying  problem/cause  with  other  means  have  not  been  analysed.  The 
alternatives for the San Calixto dam assessed are three dam projects, with only varying altitude 

levels  of  the  dam  (154,  156  and  160  meters).  The  alternative  to  dredge  the  Guadalquivir 
estuary  along  80  kilometres  assesses  three  alternatives,  including  non-action  and  the 

construction  of  a  new  shipping  canal.  In  this  case,  alternatives  that  have  been  proposed  in 
public  discussions  such  as  the  combined  use  of  the  major  ports  around  Sevilla  (e.g.  Huelva, 
Cadiz  and  Algeciras)  have  not  been  included  in  the  assessment.  In  the  Ebro  RBD,  the 

Mularroya  dam  project  justification  refers  to  the  Environmental  Impact  Assessment 
Declaration from 2015, and lists nine alternatives, including non-action and eight different dam 

alternatives, in different water bodies. The La Valcuerna project exemption fiche refers in tick-
boxes  to  19  alternatives,  including  non-action,  14  dam  construction  alternatives  and  four 

management  alternatives  (reduction  of  irrigated  area,  water  trading  schema,  abandonment  of 
salinised  soils  and  combined  use  of  alluvial  groundwater),  and  adds  a  text  paragraph  which 

147 

 
refers  to  an  alternative  study  carried  out  by  the  River  Basin  Authority  in  2009  and  other 

studies. The embalse de Albagés dam project includes in its exemption fiche three alternatives, 
including  non-action  and  two  dam  options,  with  distance  of  one  kilometre  amongst  both, 

different height and volume. The justification for the Robres del Castillo dam project is based 
on  two  alternatives  (non-action,  and  dam),  and  includes  a  short  paragraph  in  textual  form 

without further references. 

Application of Article 6(3) Groundwater Directive 

According  to  WISE,  exemptions  under  Article  6(3)  Groundwater  Directive  have  not  been 
applied in any of the RBMPs. Spain subsequently clarified that it was considered that some of 

the reasons for applying this exemption may be covered by exemptions under Article 4 WFD.   

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

An  important  effort  has  been  done  since  the  previous  plans,  which  has  led  to  a  significant 

decrease in the number of water bodies for which the environmental objective was not set (106 
water bodies as compared to 335 in the first cycle). 

The  number  of  cases  where  Article  4(4)  and  4(5)  exemptions  are  applied  has  increased  in  a 
number of RBDs since the first RBMP. Spain subsequently clarified that this is a consequence 

of  the  efforts  to  prioritise  the  use  of  this  exemption  in  order  to  limit  the  application  of 
exemptions under Article 4(5) on setting less stringent objectives. 

Exemptions  under  Article  4(6)  were  not  applied  in  the  first  cycle,  but  have  been  applied 

because of an accident in the Duero RBD and in Guadiana for temporary deterioration in the 
second  cycle.  Most  RBMPs  stated  in  the  first  cycle  that  there  is  the  possibility  of  applying 

exemptions  for  new  modifications  (Article  4(7))  and  provided  examples  of  conditions  and 
examples of those modifications. However, these were finally not applied. In the second cycle, 

Article 4(7) is applied in some several RBDs. Spain subsequently informed that, following the 
recommendations from the Commission, a Technical Instruction was adopted at national level 

for the analysis of the the requirements of Article 4(7) for new modifications,  and that in all 
RBMPs a detailed explanation on the exemptions applied is provided in the fact sheets specific 

per water body. 

148 

 
8.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programme  of  Measures 
requested action on the following: 

  Recommendations: A) The application of exemptions needs to be more transparent and 
the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans. B) Provide better 
justification  of  exemptions.  There  is  no  analysis  of  the  measures  needed  to  achieve 

justify  whether  measures  are 
good  status.  Therefore, 
disproportionately costly or technically unfeasible. Measures need to be taken as far as 
possible in water bodies where exemptions are applied, and report them in the RBMPs. 

is  not  possible 

to 

it 

Assessment:  Some  progress  has  been  made  regarding  this  recommendation,  for 

example by increasing the transparency in the application of exemptions and providing 
the justifications for those exemptions, for whish specific exemption fiches have  been 

developed,  including  the  measures  foreseen.  However,  further  efforts  are  needed  to 
better  justify  the  reasons,  including  the  reference  to  relevant  studies  or  documents 

supporting the decision. Therefore, this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  in  the  second  RBMPs  that  the  status  of  all  water  bodies  is 
assessed  in  accordance  with  the  WFD  before  considering  any  further  infrastructure 

that would be liable to cause deterioration in the status of water bodies or prevent the 
achievement  of  good  status.  These  infrastructures  can  only  be  authorised  if  the 

conditions  of  Article  4(7)  are  fulfilled.  The  justification  needs  to  be  included  in  the 
RBMP.  The  "declaration  of  general  interest"  in  the  Spanish  legislation  cannot  be 

automatically  equated  with  the  concept  of  "overriding  public  interest"  in  article 
4(7)(c). This has to be justified case by case in the second RBMPs 

Assessment:  The  recommendation  has  been  applied  by  Spain  for  some  types  of 
modifications,  such  as  new  dams  or  the  estuary  dredging  of  the  Guadalquivir  river. 

However, it has not been applied to other modifications, e.g. related to flood prevention 
or water abstractions. Thus, the recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: As regards new dams, Spain should justify the flood protection share 
on a case by case basis, including the justification that there is no better environmental 
option. 

149 

 
Assessment:  No  change  has  been  observed  in  the  second  RBMPs  for  many  types  of 

modifications.  Nevertheless,  Spain  subsequently  clarified  that  for  dams  intended  for 
flood protection the river basin competent authorities carry out a multifactorial analysis 

on  a  case  by  case  basis,  which  includes  the  consideration  of  other  possible  better 
environmental  options.  For  the  justification  of  all  other  new  infrastructure,  Spain 

informed  that  further  efforts  will  be  needed  for  the  next  cycle.  Thus,  the 
recommendation has been partially fulfilled.  

  Recommendation:  Ensure  in  the  second  RBMPs  that  the  status  of  all  water  bodies  is 
assessed  in  accordance  with  the  WFD  before  considering  any  further  infrastructure 
that would be liable to cause deterioration in the status of water bodies or prevent the 

achievement  of  good  status.  These  infrastructures  can  only  be  authorised  if  the 
conditions  of  article  4(7)  are  fulfilled.  The  justification  needs  to  be  included  in  the 

RBMP.  The  "declaration  of  general  interest"  in  the  Spanish  legislation  cannot  be 
automatically  equated  with  the  concept  of  "overriding  public  interest"  in  article 

4(7)(c). This has to be justified case by case in the second RBMPs. 

Assessment: All the RBMPs include a detailed explanation in individual factsheets for 

each  water  body,  where  the  justification  for  the  use  of  Article  4(7)  for  new 
modifications  is  provided.  There  remain  however  some  shortcomings,  e.g.  that  the 

information  included  in  the  RBMPs  about  the  project  alternatives  suggests  that  these 
are  assessed  mainly  in  terms  of  different  technical  options  but  not  in  a  broader  sense 

addressing  the  actual  drivers  behind;  or  that  the  benefits-losses  balance-tests  do  not 
seem  to  address  benefits  and  losses  in  a  comparable  way.  Even  if  significant  efforts 

have  been  made  to  improve  these  aspects  in  the  second  RBMPs,  in  line  with  the 
commitments  undertaken  in  the  action  programmes  included  in  the  Association 

Agreement  (EU-Spain  2014-2020),  the  generic  approach  to  the  application  of 
exemptions  under  Article  4(7)  needs  to  be  further  changed  to  specific  criteria.  The 

concept  of  ‘overriding  public  interest’  continues  to  be  insufficiently  addressed  by  the 
‘declaration  of  general  interest’  of  the  Spanish  legislation.  No  change  has  been 

observed  in  the  treatment  of  the  concept  of  ‘overriding  public  interest’.  This 
recommendation has therefore been partly fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  that  environmental  objectives  are  established  for  all  water 
bodies  in  the  second  cycle,  including  for  HMWBs  and  AWBs.  If  no  objectives  are 
defined, appropriate measures cannot be established either. 

150 

 
Assessment:  Environmental  objectives  for  ecological  and  chemical  status  of  surface 

water have been reported in all RBDs as well as for chemical and quantitative status of 
groundwater.  Information  is  also  provided  on  when  the  objectives  will  be  achieved, 

although for a number of water bodies the date for the achievement of the objectives is 
unknown.  Ecological  potential  has  been  classified  for  heavily  modified  and  artificial 

water  bodies  for  all  water  categories.  There  is  only  a  small  share  of  river  and  lake 
heavily modified / artificial water bodies whose potential is unknown, but this share is 

slightly  higher  for  coastal  water  bodies  amounting  to  14  %.  Therefore,  this 
recommendation can be considered as fulfilled. 

151 

 
 
 
 
Topic 9

  Programme of measures  

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the Programme of Measures reported by 

Members;  more  specific  information  on  measures  relating  to  specific  pressures  (for  example 
arising from agriculture) is provided in subsequent chapters. 

The Key Types of Measures (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 Measures for the purpose of reporting. The same individual measure 

can be part of more than one Key Types of Measure because it may be multi-
purpose,  but  also  because  the  Key  Types  of  Measures  are  not  completely 

independent silos. Key Types of Measures 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 Types of Measure may be one national measure but it would typically 

comprise more than one national measure. The 25 predefined Key Types of 
Measures are listed in the WFD Reporting Guidance 2016. 

The  Key  Types  of  Measures  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 implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

9.1.1

 General issues 

An  indication  as  to  whether  or  not  measures  have  been  fully  implemented  and  made 

operational is when they have been reported as being planned to tackle significant pressures (at 
the  Key  Types  of  Measure  level).  Significant  pressures  are  also  reported  at  the  water  body 

level.  It  would  therefore  be  expected  that  there  would  be  measures  planned  in  the  RBMP  to 
tackle  all  significant  pressures.  Significant  pressures  for  which  KTMs  were  operational,  and 

152 

 
 
 
significant  pressures  causing  failure  of  objectives,  were  reported  for  all  18  RBDs  for  which 

information  was  provided,  both  for  groundwater  and  surface  water.  Coverage  of  significant 
pressures with operational KTMs is variable for different RBDs.  

Spain subsequently clarified that due to the fact that the reporting guidance and the reporting 
system  tools  were  available  for  the  Member  States  after  the  completion  of  the  RBMPs,  the 

organization  of  measures  does  not  reflect  the  reality.  When  the  classification  of  KTM  was 
established,  Spain  has  already  catalogued  thousands  of  measures  according  to  the  described 

typologies  in  the  Spanish  Hydrological  Planning  Instruction.  The  assignment  of  KTM  was 
made at the end of the process, translating each subtype (over 200) to a determined KTM. It 

was  not  possible  to  translate  measures  one  by  one,  in  an  individual  way,  due  to  the  large 
number of them. 

For surface water, seven representative RBDs were selected for detailed checking of KTM and 

their links to pressures. Two of these RBDs had reported operational KTMs for all significant 
pressures causing failure (Guadiana and Andalusian Mediterranean Basins) and three reported 

most  of  the  pressures  covered  by  operational  KTMs  (Segura,  Jucar,  and  Ebro).  Two  other 
RBDs  had  only  a  small  proportion  of  pressures  covered:  the  Guadalquivir  RBD  reported 

KTMs  for  six  of  31  pressures,  and  the  Balearic  Islands  RBD  reported  KTMs  for  six  of  23 
to 
an 
pressures. 

all  pressures 

absence  of 

In  both 

cases 

there 

due 

is 

physical/hydrological/hydromorphological  alterations,  as  well  as  introduced  species  or 
exploitation  of  animals/plants.  The  Guadalquivir  RBD  also  did  not  address  abstraction/flow 

diversion  pressures.  All  seven  of  the  RBDs  checked  included  KTMs  for  physico-chemical 
parameters,  individual  chemical  substances  and  priority  pollutants,  and  two  of  them  (Segura 

and  Jucar)  listed  ‘Significant  Other  Pressures  causing  failure’,  but  none  were  reported  to  be 
addressed with KTMs.  

For  groundwater,  three  of  the  seven  representative  RBDs  checked  in  detail  had  reported 
operational  KTMs  for  all  significant  pressures  causing  failure  (Andalusian  Mediterranean 

Basins,  Jucar,  and  Ebro),  two  of  these  (Andalusian  Mediterranean  Basins  and  Ebro)  also 
included  operational  KTMs  for  some  pressures  not  reported  as  causing  failure  of  objectives. 

For three others (Guadiana, Segura, and Balearic Islands) about 60 % of reported pressures had 
reported operational KTMs, whilst one other (Guadalquivir) only had KTMs for three of the 15 

reported  pressures.  All  four  RBDs  reported  KTMs  for  one  or  more  additional  pressures  not 
causing  failures.  Pressures  not  covered  included  some  point  and  diffuse  sources,  and 

abstraction/flow diversions.  

153 

 
The number of national or RBD specific measures incorporated into each key type of measure 

(KTM), including some national KTMs developed by Spain, are reported for all 18 RBDs for 
which  information  has  been  reported.  However,  many  additional  national  KTMs  have  been 

mapped  in  each  of  the  RBDs.  Therefore,  it  is  not  clear  if  these  are  relevant  or  will  be  made 
operational. In total, 5365 national basic measures and 6051 national supplementary measures 

have been mapped against key types of measure, including 12 KTMs developed by Spain. 65 
% of the national basic measures and 30 % of the national supplementary measures are mapped 

against  KTM1  -  Construction  or  upgrades  of  wastewater  treatment  plants,  and  10  %  of  the 
national  basic  measures  and  17  %  of  the  basic  supplementary  measures  are  mapped  against 

KTM14  -  Research,  improvement  of  knowledge  base  reducing  uncertainty.  At  the  other 
extreme, only 13 national basic measures (0.24 %) and three national supplementary measures 

(0.05 %) are mapped against 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.  Spain  has  reported  the  type  of  the  national  basic  measures  in 
place, and a wide range of types of measure are being applied. No basic measures have been 
reported relating to  the  Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC) and the 

Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU), or to prohibit direct discharges of pollutants into 
groundwater as required by Article 11(3)(j). 

The  percentage  of  water  bodies  not  expected  to  achieve  good  status  or  potential  has  been 

marked  zero  by  2027  for  all  significant  pressures  in  eight  RBDs  (groundwater  and  surface 
water), some others are estimated at 0-10 %, mainly for surface waters, whilst for groundwater 

are estimated at 10-20 % (Duero and Catalan RBDs) and even 20-50 % (Catalan RBD or >50 
% (Melilla). For example in the Melilla RBD, two of the >50 % failures of groundwater bodies 

by  2027  relate  to  diffuse  sources  (urban  run-off  and  agriculture)  which  do  not  appear  to  be 
covered by KTMs. Similarly, in the Catalan RBD two of the 20-50 % failures of groundwater 

bodies  by  2027  relate  to  nitrate  and  diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  and  these  may  be 
covered by KTM99-02 (other national measures to reduce diffuse sources of pollution).  

KTM23  -  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  (NWRM)  is  not  reported  to  be  tackling 
significant  pressures  in  any  of  the  RBDs,  although  39  national  basic  measures  and  four 

national  supplementary  measures  have  been  mapped  against  it  in  11  RBDs,  and  the 
information  on  coordination  with  the  Floods  Directive62  indicates  that  NWRM  have  been 
included in the Programme of Measures of 18 RBDs. 

62  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 

154 

 
                                                      
KTMs  have  been  mapped  against  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  causing  a  failure  of 

objectives in surface water in 11 of the 18 RBDs for which information has been reported in 
WISE  (no  information  was  available  for  the  Galicia-Coast63,  Eastern  Cantabrian,  Western 
Cantabrian,  Guadiana, Balaeric  Islands, Ceuta, or Melilla RBDs). However, for some RBDs 
no information was provided on which River Basin Specific Pollutants are causing failure of 

objectives in surface water in order to identify whether the measures are sufficient to address 
this issue.  

For  groundwater,  KTMs  have  been  mapped,  and  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  where 
individual chemical pollutants are causing a failure of objectives were reported for all 11 of the 
RBDs.  No  information  was  provided  for  Galicia-Coast64,  Eastern  Cantabrian,  Western 
18 
Cantabrian,  Guadiana,  Balearic  Islands,  Ceuta  and  Mililla  RBDs.  “KTM99  -  Other  key  type 

measure  reported  under  Programme  of  Measures”  was  reported  as  addressing  the  individual 
substances  causing  groundwater  bodies  to  fail  to  be  of  good  status  in  all  the  RBDs  that 

reported  measures.  All  KTMs  were  reported  as  KTM99  -  Other  key  type  measure  reported 
under Programme of Measures, and no “Significant Other Pressures” were listed, except other 

chemical  parameters  in  surface  water  in  the  Catalan  RBD  and  in  groundwater  Terbumeton-
desethyl in Jucar, nitrate in Guadalquivir and ammonia in Catalan RBD. 

Priority Substances failing objectives in surface water bodies, including the number of surface 

water  bodies  failing  objectives,  and  KTMs  mapped  against  these  have  been  reported  for  15 
RBDs (there is no information for the Balearic Islands, the Ceuta RBD and the Melilla RBD). 

All  Priority  Substances  causing  a  failure  of  good  status  are  reported  to  be  addressed  by 
measures in four RBDs only (Miño-Sil, Tagus, Guadiana and Guadalete and Barbete). For all 

other RBDs a few Priority Substances are not covered by a KTM; these are mainly related to 
pesticides, several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and a few other substances. All 

KTMs  were  reported  as  KTM99  -  Other  key  type  measure  reported  under  Programme  of 
Measures. 

Spain  reported  quantitative  indicators  and  gap  values  for  18  RBDs  for  significant  pressures 
(including  individual  chemical/Priority  Substances  and  physico-chemical  parameters)  in 

groundwater  and  surface  water  for  2015,  2021  and  2027.  The  gap  indicator  are  presented 
mainly  as  surface  area  or  length  and  number  of  water  bodies  affected  by  the  relevant 

63 Spain reported that Galicia-Coast RBD competent authority is  working on the  identification of basin-specific 
contaminants.  In  addition,  in  the  design  of  the  Galicia-Coast  RBMP  PoM  the  failures  objectives  have  been 
taken into account, and solutions are proposed in all water bodies with an observed impact. 

64  Spain  reported,  as  previously  mentioned,  that  solutions  are  proposed  in  all  water  bodies  with  an  observed 
impact. This is the case of the only groundwater body in the RBD where the operational monitoring has been 
increased. 

155 

 
                                                      
significant pressure. KTMs indicators are listed for most significant pressures including KTMs 

developed  by  Spain,  together  with  measure  indicators  for  2015,  2021  and  2027.  KTM 
indicators  are  mainly  investment  and  number  of  measures  required,  or  ‘other  indicator’ 

(KTM099); in many cases the latter are not associated with any quantitative gap indicators and 
values, and many refer merely to ‘dummy indicators’. Some RBDs reported null values (i.e. no 
gap  analyses)  for  a  considerable  number  of  significant  pressures,  notably  the  Galicia-Coast65 
Eastern  Cantabrian,  Guadalquivir,  Catalan  RBD,  Ceuta  and  Melilla.  Many  but  not  all  of  the 

reported gaps are expected to be closed (zero) by 2027, some by 2021. 

Cost-effectiveness  analysis  is  an  appraisal  technique  that  provides  a  ranking  of  alternative 

measures  on  the  basis  of  their  costs  and  effectiveness,  where  the  most  cost-effective  has  the 
highest  ranking.  In  the  first  Programme  of  Measures,  some  cost-effectiveness  analysis  was 

carried  out  but  the  approach  used  varied,  and  it  was  not  clear  how  the  results  of  the  cost-
effectiveness analysis were used in the selection of measures. According to the data reported to 

WISE,  a  qualitative  cost-effectiveness  analysis  was  carried  out  in  all  18  main  RBDs  for  the 
second  Programme  of  Measures.  The  RBMP  and  background  documents  for  the  Ebro  RBD 

were examined in more detail. It was found that measures have been established on the basis of 
the objectives of the RBMP (environmental objectives of the WFD, water supply objectives), 

and the available budget. An effectiveness analysis was carried out for (only) eight measures 
(irrigation  modernisation,  integrated  Delta  protection,  urban  wastewater  treatment,  agro-

environmental  measures,  water  rights  management,  effluents  authorisation,  definition  of 
ecological flows targeting future demands, and improvement of urban water supply), referring 

briefly  to  the  type  of  status  indicators  which  would  benefit  from  such  measures.  No  further 
justification for the selection of measures is included. 

A  critical  factor  in  the  success  of  the  implementation  of  the  Programme  of  Measures  is  the 

availability of funding to support the investments required. Investment costs were reported for 
18 RBDs for the first cycle (covering years 2009-15) and second cycle (2015-21) separately for 

WFD  Article  11(3)(a)  requirements  (measures  required  to  implement  Community  legislation 
for the protection of water)  and measures required by  Articles 11(3)(b-l), 11(4) and 11(5) of 
the  WFD  (all  other  measures).  For  the  first  Programme  of  Measures  (2009-2015)  a  total  of 

€2998 million was invested in Article 11(3)(a) measures in the 18 RBDs for which information 
was  reported,  whilst  a  total  of  €6735  million  was  invested  in  all  other  measures  (Articles 

11(3)(b-l), 11(4) and 11(5). 

65 Spain reported that in the Galicia-Coast RBMP a gap analysis was carried out regarding the currents situation. 
Further efforts will be done in this RBD and in the other Spanish ones to improve this part of the RBMPs and 
in particular for the analysis of the joint effect of different pressures and the reduction of the gap. 

156 

 
                                                      
All  18  RBDs  reported  capital  investment  requirements  for  Article  11(3)(a)  measures  in  the 

second  Programme  of  Measures  (2015-2021),  these  range  from  €1.4  million  in  the  Melilla 
RBD  to  €1440  million  in  the  Tagus  RBD.  The  total  investment  required  for  all  18  RBDs  is 

€5311  million,  a  significant  increase  on  the  investment  made  during  the  first  Programme  of 
Measures.  11  RBDs  reported  annual  operation  and  maintenance  costs  for  Article  11(3)(a) 

measures ranging from €0.24 million per year in the Eastern Cantabrian RBD to €141 million  
in the Guadalquivir RBD. The total reported operation and maintenance costs for the 11 RBDs 

is €785 million.  

All 18 RBDs also reported capital investment requirements for the measures required by WFD 

Articles  11(3)(b-l),  11(4),  and  11(5).  These  range  from  €21  million  in  the  Melilla  RBD  to 
€1236 million in the Ebro RBD. In total €8176 million capital investment will be required for 

the implementation of measures required by WFD Articles 11(3)(b-l), 11(4), and 11(5) in the 
18  RBDs  which  reported,  again  a  significant  increase  on  the  investment  made  in  the  first 

Programme of Measures. 11 RBDs reported annual operation and maintenance costs for these 
measures ranging from  €1.51 million in the Ceuta RBD to €208  million in the Guadalquivir. 

The  total  annual  operation  and  maintenance  costs  that  will  be  required  are  €405  million.  It 
should be noted that the Galicia-Coast RBD reported annual operation and maintenance costs 

for measures required by Article 11(3)(a) only, using the available information at that moment, 
whilst the Tinto, Odiel and Pedras RBD only reported annual maintenance and operation costs 

for  measures  required  by  Articles  11(3)(b-l),  11(4)  and  11(5).  Depreciation  has  not  been 
included in any of the reported investment costs calculations.  

Seven RBDs reported  receiving  European Union funds to  finance measures in  the first  cycle 

(2009-2015). Funding received ranged from €4 million in the Eastern Cantabrian RBD to €329 
million  in  the  Galicia-Coast  RBD.  In  total  €953  million  of  European  Union  funding  was 

reported. For the second Programme of Measures (2015-2021) six RBDs report that European 
Union funding is available to support the implementation of measures. This ranges from €24 

million  in  the Andalusian Mediterranean  Basins  RBD to  €178 million  in the Duero RBD.  In 
total, it is expected that a total of €579 million will be received from European Union funds to 
support 
the implementation of the second Programme of Measures, which is an increase from 

the first cycle. It should be noted that two RBDs (Eastern Cantabrian and Western Cantabrian) 
both received European Union funding to support the implementation of the first Programme 

of  Measures,  but  did  not  report  any  European  Union  funding  for  the  second  Programme  of 
Measures,  whilst  the  Andalusian  Mediterranean  Basins  did  not  receive  any  European  Union 

funding for the first Programme of Measures. 

157 

 
A lack of finance was reported as an obstacle to the implementation of the first Programme of 

Measures  and  no  clear  financial  commitments  are  reported  to  have  been  secured  for  the 
implementation  of  the  second  Programme  of  Measures  in  any  of  the  18  main  RBDs  for  any 

sector.  This  gives  cause  for  concern  for  the  potential  success  of  the  second  Programme  of 
Measures, particularly as the investment costs required have significantly increased. 

Spain  reported  coordination  of  the  preparation  of  all  RBMPs  and  programmes  of  measures 
with  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive66,  but  no  joint  consultation  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 for all 18 RBDs for which information has been reported. 

The RBMPs and the Flood Risk Management Plans have not been integrated. However, for all 
18 RBDs for which information is provided:  

 

joint consultation of RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans was carried out,  

 

the objectives and requirements of the Floods Directive were considered in the second 

RBMPs and Programme of Measures,  

  win-win  measures  in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  Floods 
Directive,  drought  management  and  use  of  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures 

(NWRM) have been included in the Programme of Measures,  

 

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, and WFD Article 9(4) has been applied to impoundments for 
flood  protection  and,  as  such,  it  would  be  an  activity/use  which  should  be  subject  to 

cost  recovery  under  Article  9.  However,  no  clear  financial  commitments  have  been 
secured  for  the  implementation  of  Programme  of  Measures  in  the  flood  protection 

sector in any RBDs. 

66 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. 

158 

 
                                                      
9.1.2

 Measures related to other significant pressures 

Other significant  pressures have been reported for 14 of the 18 RBDs for which information 
was reported. These relate to anthropogenic pressures and introduced species or diseases. The 

indicator  gaps  for  2015,  2021  and  2027  are  given  as  surface  area  or  length,  and  number  of 
water bodies affected by the relevant pressure. KTM 18 – ‘Measures to prevent or control the 

adverse  impacts  of  invasive  alien  species  and  introduced  diseases’  is  reported  as  tackling 
introduced  species  or  diseases,  with  indicators  and  gap  values  for  2015,  2021  and  2027 

reported  as  investment  and  number  of  measures  required.  All  anthropogenic  pressures  are 
addressed  with  KTM99  –  ‘Other  key  type  measure  reported  under  Programme  of  Measures’ 

and no quantitative indicators are presented (‘dummy indicators’- all zero). Many but not all of 
the gaps are expected to be closed (zero) by 2027, some 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 Programme of Measures by 

associating  their  national  measures  with  predefined  KTM.  KTM  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 KTMs, 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 

KTMs in Spain. Also shown is the number of RBDs for which the 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. 

159 

 
 
 
Table 9.1 

Mapping of the types of national measures to Key Types of Measure in Spain  

Key Type of Measure 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number of 
RBDs 
where 
reported 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants 

3479 

1826 

KTM10 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the 
recovery of cost of water services from industry 

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 
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). 
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 

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 
KTM23 - Natural water retention measures 
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 
KTM99-01 - Other national measures to reduce point sources of 
pollution 
KTM99-02 - Other national measures to reduce diffuse sources of 
pollution 
KTM99-03 - Other national measures to reduce pressure caused by 
water abstractions 

160 

2 

6 

8 

33 

558 

13 

19 

6 

16 
148 

25 

117 
4 
18 

12 

45 

57 

103 

246 

12 

23 

38 

21 

95 

7 

1023 

3 

28 

191 

130 
38 

65 

39 
39 
11 

25 

220 

671 

55 

445 

97 

80 

18 

2 

4 

15 

13 

18 

5 

11 

18 

17 
16 

13 

13 
11 
8 

9 

15 

17 

16 

18 

5 

17 

16 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
KTM99-04 - Other national measures to improve morphological 
conditions of water bodies 

KTM99-06 - Other national measures to preserve and improve the 
structure and functions of aquatic ecosystems 
KTM99-07 - Other national measures linked to impacts 

KTM99-08 - Other national measures linked to drivers 
KTM99-11 - Other national measures (not directly linked to pressures or 
impacts): Governance 
KTM99-12 - Other national win-win measures to increase available 
resources 
KTM99-13 - Other national win-win measures to flood prevention 

KTM99-15 - Other national win-win measures to flood preparation 
KTM99-19 - Other national win-win measures to satisfy other water 
uses 

Total number of Mapped Measures 

11 

30 
41 

6 

132 

62 
74 

5365 

Source: Member States reporting to WISE

67 

83 
116 

13 

153 

151 
330 

13 

37 

6051 

10 

13 
15 

9 

18 

15 
18 

7 

7 

18 

161 

 
 
 
Table 9.2 

Type of basic measure mapped to Key Type of Measures in Spain  

Basic Measure Type 

Key Type of Measure 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater 
treatment plants 
KTM10 - Water pricing policy measures for the 
implementation of the recovery of cost of water services 
from industry 
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 
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). 
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 

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 
KTM23 - Natural water retention measures 

r
e
t
a
w
s
l
o
r
t
n
o
C

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

y
r
e
v
o
c
e
r

t
s
o
C

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

r
e
t
a
w

l
a
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
A

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
p

10 

2 

6 

1 

e
s
u
r
e
t
a
w

t
n
e
i
c
i
f
f

E

1 

3 

1 

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

1 

e
g
r
a
h
c
e
R

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
u
a

s
r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

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

e
t
s
a
W
n
a
b
r
U

r
e
t
a
W

1 

3366 

y
g
o
l
o
h
p
r
o
m
o
r
d
y
H

D
E
I
C
P
P
I

s
e
t
a
r
t
i

N

e
c
r
u
o
s

t
n
i
o
P

s
e
g
r
a
h
c
s
i
d

2 

1 

96 

e
s
u
f
f
i
d
s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

1 

5 

31 

214 

59 

1 

9 

109 

3 

100 

134 

1 

1 

3 

1 

10 

2 

1 

16 

25 

162 

5 

5 

2 

11 

1 

1 

11 

2 

25 

2 

144 

1 

25 

2 

4 

111 

5 

5 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key Type of Measure 

l
a
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
A

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
p

r
e
t
a
w
s
l
o
r
t
n
o
C

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

y
r
e
v
o
c
e
r

t
s
o
C

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

r
e
t
a
w

e
s
u
r
e
t
a
w

t
n
e
i
c
i
f
f

E

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 

11 

4 

26 

2 

220 

9 

3 

Basic Measure Type 

D
E
I
C
P
P
I

s
e
t
a
r
t
i

N

e
c
r
u
o
s

t
n
i
o
P

s
e
g
r
a
h
c
s
i
d

9 

e
s
u
f
f
i
d
s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

18 

1 

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

e
g
r
a
h
c
e
R

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
u
a

s
r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

e
t
s
a
W
n
a
b
r
U

r
e
t
a
W

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

2 

y
g
o
l
o
h
p
r
o
m
o
r
d
y
H

45 

57 

97 

37 

1 
Source: Member States reporting to WISE 

156 

100 

23 

176 

150 

6 

2 

1 

15 

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. 
‘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) . 
‘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. 
‘Recharge augmentation groundwaters’ = Article 11(3)(f): Controls, including a requirement for prior authorisation of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies. 
‘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) . 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9.1.4

 Pressures for which gaps need to be filled to achieve WFD objectives and the Key 
Types of Measures 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  water  and 

groundwater,  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 the first cycle 

The level of implementation of the first cycle of Programme of Measures in all 18 RBDs for 
which information was provided was reported as ‘some measures completed’, although Spain 
chose not to provide a brief description for any of the RBDs. Obstacles were reported for all 

164 

 
 
RBDs in terms of delays, governance, lack of finance and lack of mechanisms. No obstacles 
were  reported  in  terms  of  extreme  events,  lack  of  measures  or  cost  effectiveness.  Links  to 

documents were provided for six of the 18 RBDs. The RBMP and background documents for 
the Ebro RBD were further examined in the assessment and it was found that the summary of 

changes mainly refers to numerical figures of measures executed or not.  

Significant progress seems to have been achieved on the issues included in recommendations 
from the assessment of the first RBMPs by the listing of:  

  significant pressures for each of the 18 RBDs,  

  number of water bodies failing objectives due to specific pressures,  

  Key Type of Measures to tackle these pressures, and  

  mapping of national measures.  

In  addition,  gap  analyses  for  2015,  2021  and  2027  have  been  reported  for  most  significant 
pressures in 18 RBDs and including investment costs required for some measures. 

New legislation or regulations to implement the Programme of Measures in the first cycle was 

reported necessary and already implemented in all of the 18 RBDs for which information was 
provided. 

9.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation: Separate very clearly in the second RBMPs the measures designed 
to  achieve  the  environmental  objectives  from  others.  The  latter  need  to  be  treated  as 

Article 4(7) exemptions whenever appropriate (i.e. modifications to water bodies liable 
to cause deterioration or prevent the achievement of good status or potential).    

Assessment:  No  information  was  found  to  answer  the  issues  addressed  in  this 
recommendation  in  the  assessment  of  data  reported  to  WISE.  In  the  assessment  of 

RBMPs  and  background  documents  the  RBMP  for  the  Ebro  RBD  was  examined  in 
more  detail  and  it  was  found  that  this  plan  differentiates  between  four  groups  of 

measures,  with  one  of  them  (40.8  %  of  the  RBMPs  investment)  targeting  the  WFD 
environmental objectives, and others targeted to water supply, floods and droughts and 

governance. A number of major water infrastructure projects for water supply such as 

165 

 
dams have been considered as Article 4(7) exemptions and some justification provided 
accordingly. However, this might not be the case for all other infrastructure projects as 

flood dykes or similar. In summary, not enough information on progress regarding this 
recommendation  could  be  found  in  the  plans67.  Therefore,  this  recommendation  has 
been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  that  there  is  a  proper  integration  of  the  pressures  and 
impacts analysis, the status assessment and the design of the PoMs. Avoid defining the 

PoMs on the basis of business as usual and a non-transparent assessment of “what can 
be  done”,  but  rather  on  a  genuine  gap  analysis  that  identifies  which  measures  are 

needed to achieve good status and can also support the justification of exemptions. 

Assessment: Gap analyses have been reported for most significant pressures for 2015, 
2021  and  2027  in  all  of  the  18  RBDs  for  which  information  was  reported.  The 

investment  costs required for some measures were  also  reported.  It appears that  cost-
effectiveness  analysis  has  been  used  to  support  decision  making  in  the  selection  of 
measures  for  a  few  Key  Types  of  Measure.  In  the  assessment  of  RBMPs  and 

background documents the RBMP for the Ebro RBD was examined in more detail and 
it  was  found  that  the  RBMP  includes  an  overview  table  and  fiches  describing  the 

quality-element  specific  gaps 
is  no 
apportionment  of  the  gap  to  sectors  or  a  detailed  explanation  of  the  selection  of 

to  achieve  good  status.  However, 

there 

measures.  The  fiche  usually  provides  brief  texts  which  state  that  ‘measure  A  will 
contribute  to  achieving  good  status  by  2021/2027’,  without  further  description  of 

effectiveness assessment or modelling tools used. Therefore, this recommendation has 
been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  that  RBMPs  provide  much  more  information  about  the 
measures, such as their location (including the number of water bodies), classification 
(basic, other basic, supplementary) and character (voluntary or binding), the targeted 

sector and source, the pressure they address (beyond the current grouping by general 
topics) and the expected specific effects in terms of status improvement. 

Assessment:  This  has  been  addressed  to  some  extent  by  the  listing  of  significant 

pressures  for  each  of  the  18  RBDs,  number  of  water  bodies  failing  objectives  due  to 
specific pressures, Key Type of Measures to tackle these pressures, mapping of national 

67 Spain subsequently clarified that has clearly differentiated the measures in 19 types and 206 subtypes. The 19 
types  allow  to  clearly  distinguish  those  measures  which  are  aimed  to  the  achievement  of  the  environmental 
objectives from the rest. 

166 

 
                                                      
measures, and the gap analyses for 2015, 2021 and 2027. However, the assessment of 
data  reported  to  WISE  could  not  address  the  level  of  detail  required  in  this 

recommendation,  especially  details  for  specific  water  bodies.  In  the  assessment  of 
RBMPs and background documents the Ebro RBMP was examined in more detail, and 

it was found that the RBMP includes information about the name of the measure, the 
planning  cycle  in  which  it  will  be  implemented,  the  budget  and  the  financing  level 

(European  Union,  National,  Regional,  Municipal,  Individual).  However,  it  does  not 
provide  details  on  the  location  (including  the  number  of  water  bodies),  classification 

(basic,  other  basic,  supplementary)  and  character  (voluntary  or  binding),  the  targeted 
sector and source, the pressure addressed and the expected specific effects in terms of 

status improvement (in the specific water bodies). Therefore, this recommendation has 
been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Ensure that the process of selecting (or not) measures is more sound 
and transparent, providing in the RBMPs not only statements that a cost-effectiveness 
analysis  has  been  carried  out,  but  also  informing  on  the  measures  that  have  been 

considered  in  the  analysis,  its  results  and  how  this  assessment  has  influenced  the 
selection of measures. 

Assessment: This recommendation has been addressed in part by the gap analyses for 
the 18 RBDs for which information was reported, but the assessment of data reported to 

WISE  cannot  address  the  level  of  detail  required  by  this  recommendation,  such  as 
unsuccessful  measures  and  modelling/methodology/decision-support  tools.  In  the 

assessment  of  RBMPs  and  background  documents  the  Ebro  RBMP  was  examined  in 
more detail and it was found that it refers to the measures which have been discarded 

(1001) in the first planning cycle or added (11) to it, but there is no explanation of such 
changes. A list of potential measures for the first cycle is included (which includes all 

measures  listed),  but  it  is  also  unclear  how  the  RBMP  will  deal  with  this  set  of 
measures.  The  RBMP  chapter  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  measures  during  the  first 

cycle  lists  the  types  of  measures  implemented  (e.g.  irrigation  modernisation, 
wastewater treatment plants), the amount spent and includes 1-2 phrases on the possible 

effects on the status of water bodies. However, no quantitative assessment is provided. 
The  cost-effectiveness  assessment  is  a  brief  table  which  compares  the  overall 

investment amount per planning cycle with the number of water bodies in good status, 
calculating  a  ratio.  No  measure-specific  analysis  is  included,  or  lessons  learned  from 

the  first  cycle  are  included  in  the  RBMP.  Therefore  this  recommendation  has  been 
partially fulfilled. 

167 

 
  Recommendation:  Clarify  in  the  RBMPs  what  technical  measures  are  behind 
legislation  and  how  much  they  contribute  to  closing  the  gap  to  good  status  as  basic 

measures are mostly presented as legislative acts (e.g. articles of  the  Water Law  and 
related regulations). 

Assessment:  This  has  been  addressed  to  some  extent  by  the  listing  of  significant 

pressures for each of the 18 RBDs for which information was reported, operational Key 
Type of Measures to tackle these pressures, numbers of water bodies failing to achieve 

good  status,  and  the  gap  analyses  for  2015,  2021  and  2027  (see  also  the 
recommendations  addressed  above).  The  Ebro  RBMP  was  examined  in  more  detail, 

and  it  was  found  that it does  not  clarify  what  actions  are  taken  in  practice  (including 
this 
e.g. 

the  basic  measures.  Therefore, 

technical  measures) 

implement 

to 

recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  all  water  bodies  are  delimited,  in  particular  in  the  Canary 
Islands, where so far no river, lake or transitional water bodies have been identified. 

Assessment:  With  the  exception  of  information  on  the  administrative  responsibilities, 
no  information  was  reported  for  the  7  RBDs  of  the  Canary  Islands  by  the  time  this 

assessment was carried out. Therefore, this recommendation has not been fulfilled. 

168 

 
 
Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

10.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

10.1.1

 Water exploitation and trends  

Water  abstraction  and  exploitation  continues  to  be  very  significant  for  a  large  part  of  Spain. 
According to  the WISE-reported data, the RBDs with  the highest  WEI+  are  Balearic  Islands 

(97  %),  Segura  (77  %),  Jucar  (50  %)  and  Guadalquivir  (45  %),  all  of  them  beyond  the  risk 
threshold  of  40  %.  Another  important  set  of  RBDs  show  values  between  20-40  %,  namely 

Guadiana,  Guadalete  and  Barbate,  Ebro  (39.94  %,  very  close  to  the  40  %  risk  threshold,  in 
particular given the uncertainties about water abstraction and consumption), as well as Catalan 

RBD and Ceuta; these being areas with significant abstraction pressures.  

In  two  of  the  assessed  RBDs  (Guadiana  and  Balearic  Islands),  water  consumption  pressures 
have  decreased  in  the  recent  past,  and  in  two  other  (Guadalquivir,  Ebro)  no  such  summary 
statement can be made, based on the information available in the RBMP.  

Spanish RBMPs include a water resource allocation and management plan.  

10.1.2

 Main uses for water consumption  

In  most  of  the  Spanish  RBDs,  the  main  water  consumer  is  agriculture  (irrigation),  for  both 
surface and groundwater. It should be noted however, that most of the data, and in particular 

for  irrigation,  rely  on  surveys  and  modelling,  and  are  often  not  backed  by  metering.  In 
Guadiana,  water  demands  have  been  estimated  with  real  data  available  on  abstractions  and 

consumption in the most significant demand units of the RBD; whilst for the Balearic Islands, 
estimations are based on water allocation and water use authorisations. The water consumption 
of energy production is not always specified in the Spanish RBMPs68.  

68  Spain  subsequently  clarified  that  refrigeration  and  evaporation  consumptions  are  considered.  However,  no 
evidence could be found in the assessed RBMPs. In addition, Spain clarified that water consumption for energy 
production purposes is described for instance in the Guadalquivir and Ebro RBMPs. 

169 

 
                                                      
10.1.3

 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity69  

According to the WISE reported data, basic measures such as abstraction control under Article 
11(3)(e) are in  place in  all RBDs. However, the  intensity of the abstraction control might  be 

insufficient  as  Spain  reports  (in  2017  and  for  previous  years)  that  approximately  8  %  of  the 
agricultural  holdings  inspected  under  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  cross  compliance 

standards  concerning  the  good  agricultural  and  ecological  conditions  are  infringing  the 
requirement  for  legal  water  abstractions.  Small  abstractions  do  not  require  permitting 

procedures but have to be registered.  

According to Spanish Water Law, River Basin Authorities must maintain a Water Register of 

concessions to control abstractions. The Water Register is organised into three sections: 

  Section A: surface or groundwater concessions, reserves legally set aside for river basin 
authorities, special authorisations referred to in Article 59(5) of the Revised Water Act, 

and rights deriving from the previous Public Water Use Register.  

  Section B: water usage from rainwater, wells and springs when the total annual volume 

does not exceed 7000 m³ within the same piece of land.  

  Section C: temporary use of private waters referred to in the temporary provision of the 

Revised Water Act. 

River  Basin  authorities  also  maintain  a  Private  Water  Catalogue,  which  consists  of  an 
inventory of water abstractions classified as private by the Water Law of 1879, whose owners 

have chosen to keep them in such regime and not to include them in the Water Register. 

The information  on a systematic review of the concessions according to  the WFD objectives 
could not be found in the RBMPs assessed.70 The following measures regarding a concession 

69 Spain subsequently clarified that Spanish RBMPs include the allocation and reservation of water resources so 
as to meet the water needs for current and future uses, establishing water distributions within each river basin 
district. This information is critical not only for dealing with the socio-economic aspects, but also for assessing 
the impact produced by them, for calculating accurately environmental objectives in water bodies and, as the 
case  might  be,  for  rationalising  the  application  of  exemptions  to  the  compliance  of  such  objectives.  The 
allocation and reservation of resources available for the foreseeable demands has been carried out based on the 
results of the balance obtained for the demands scenario established for the year 2021. Likewise, RBMPs have 
listed  those  demands  which  cannot  be  met  with  the  available  resources  within  the  corresponding  river  basin 
districts.  The  allocation  and  reservation  of  resources  is  considered  a  key  measure  by  Spain  to  address  water 
scarcity and to manage abstractions.   

70  Spain  subsequently  clarified  that  this  review  is  a  routinary  work  of  every  River  Basin  Authority  and  many 

measures addressing this issue have been planned. 

170 

 
                                                      
review have been included in the Programmes of Measures of some RBMPs (selection of plans 

assessed in more detail on this aspect): 

  Guadiana includes the analysis of water rights with two types of measures: a study and 
monitoring  of  concessions  for  an  adjustment  to  real  consumption,  and  a  study  and 

monitoring  of  groundwater  bodies  at  risk  of  failing  to  meet  their  environmental 
objectives for an adjustment of abstractions to available water resources. 

  Guadalquivir  includes,  associated  to  modernisation  of  irrigation  systems,  a  review  of 
concessions  to  adjust  water  rights  to  new  reduced  consumption,  following  the 
commitments  from  the  Rural  Development  Plans  as  by  Article  46  of  the  Rural 
Development Regulation71. 

  Ebro: No information could be found in the RBMP. 

  Balearic  Islands  includes  three  types  of  measures  related  to  abstraction  control:  a) 
Updating of the Water Register and regularisation of concessions (review of data of all 

abstractions, completion of Water Register and Private Water Catalogue, and inventory 
of undeclared abstractions); b) Establishment of rules for abstractions and granting of 

concessions on groundwater bodies (proposal of modification or adaptation of rules for 
granting concessions, substitutions and guidelines for the exploitation and management 
of water bodies); c) Review of concessions on groundwater bodies according to water 

balances to ensure the achievement of the WFD objectives. In addition, Balearic Islands 
established  in  its  Regulatory  Document  that  no  concessions  will  be  granted  in 

groundwater bodies in bad quantitative status. 

Under  Article  11(3)(c),  measures  promoting  efficient  and  sustainable  water  use  (e.g.  water 
metering  and  allocations)  were  implemented  in  the  previous  cycle  and  no  new  measures  nor 
significant changes are planned in any of the RBDs.72 

No  plan  to  extend  and  generalise  the  use  of  flow  meters  for  all  water  abstractions  and  uses 
(especially agriculture) and to require users to report regularly the volumes actually abstracted 

to  the River Basin  Authorities has been found in  the RBMPs assessed in more detail  on this 

71  Regulation  (EU)  No  1305/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  December  2013  on 
support  for  rural  development  by  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD)  and 
repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. 

72 Spain subsequently clarified that water allocations were updated in the second cycle RMBPs and published as 

regulation in the State Official Gazette. 

171 

 
                                                      
aspect  (Guadiana,  Guadalquivir, Ebro, Balearic  Islands).73 The  following measures regarding 
metering have been included in the Programmes of Measures in some RBMPs: 

  Guadiana.  The  Programme  of  Measures  includes  a  €120  million  investment  for  the 

installation of metering devices.  

  Guadalquivir.  The  Programme  of  Measures  indicates  that,  according  to  water 
regulations,  in  all  water  abstractions  the  owner  is  obliged  to  install  and  maintain  a 
metering device.  

  Ebro: No information has been found. 

  Balearic  Islands.  The  Programme  of  Measures  includes  the  installation  of  about  150 
metering devices in order to control the most significant water abstractions, mainly for 
irrigation. 

As to the process of compulsorily including abstractions in the Water Register, no information 
could  be  found,  although  Spain  subsequently  indicated  that  10  RBDs  have  reported  related 

measures.  

Regarding  measures  under  Article  11(3)(f),  i.e.  controls,  including  a  requirement  for  prior 
authorisation  of  artificial  recharge  or  augmentation  of  groundwater  bodies,  these  were 

implemented in the previous cycle, and no new measures nor significant changes are planned 
in any of the RBDs. 

Water pricing measures for water services from agriculture (KTM11) are only considered for 
abstraction  pressures  in  a  few  RBDs  (Guadalquivir,  Guadalete  and  Barbate,  Jucar),  mainly 

focused  on  studies.  Water  pricing  measures  for  water  services  from  households  (KTM9)  are 
considered for abstraction pressures in three RBDs (Western Cantabrian, Guadalquivir, Jucar). 

In the majority of RBDs, the measure applied to tackle abstraction pressures is KTM8 on water 
efficiency and KTM99-other KTM reported under the Programmes of Measures. Water reuse 
is foreseen as a measure in most of the RBDs (except Galicia-Coast74, Duero and Guadiana). 

73 Spain subsequently indicated that 9 of the 18 reported RBMPs include metering measures (Eastern Cantabrian, 
Western  Cantabrian,  Duero,  Tagus,  Guadiana,  Guadalquivir,  Guadalete  and  Barbate  and  Tinto,  Odiel  and 
Piedras and Balearic Islands). 

74  Spain  subsequently  clarified  that  in  the  Galicia-Coast  RBD  the  first  water  reuse  authorisations  are  being 

granted, and the data will be incorporated into the program of measures. 

172 

 
                                                      
In  most  of  the  RBDs,  water  abstraction  constitutes  a  major  pressure  on  the  status  of  water 

bodies, and hinders them from achieving good status. The measures taken are not sufficiently 
clear  to  identify  if  they  fully  address  these  pressures.  In  particular,  only  the  RBDs  Western 

Cantabrian, Eastern Cantabrian, Guadalquivir, Guadalete and Barbate, Tinto, Odiel and Piedras 
and Jucar include measures under KTM 11 and KTM9 (water pricing), which might indicate 

an insufficient implementation of Article 9 of the WFD. 

10.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Overall,  no  major  changes  have  occurred.  Water  abstractions  and  scarcity  continue  being 
extremely  relevant  for  the  majority  of  the  RBDs  (except  Miño-Sil,  Galicia-Coast,  Eastern 

Cantabrian  and  Western  Cantabrian  RBDs),  and  Spain  continues  addressing  this  issue  by 
investing in more efficiency (KTM8). 

10.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  ‘Spain  should  consider the  review  of  the  legislation  to  incorporate 
explicitly  the  identification  of  water  bodies  at  risk  as  a  result  of  the  pressures  and 

impacts analysis.’ 

Assessment: No change can be detected in this assessment. Therefore, it is considered 
that this recommendation has not been fulfilled75.  

  Recommendation: ‘Develop a plan to extend and generalise the use of flow meters for 
all  water  abstractions  and  uses  -  in  particular,  agriculture  -,  and  to  require  users  to 

report  regularly  to  the  river  basin  authorities  the  volumes  actually  abstracted.  This 
information should be used to improve quantitative management and planning.’ 

Assessment:  No  plan  to  extend  and  generalise  the  use  of  flow  meters  for  all  water 

abstractions and uses (especially agriculture) and to require users to report regularly to 
the  River  Basin  Authorities  the  volumes  actually  abstracted  has  been  found  in  the 

RBMPs assessed but as subsequently indicated by Spain, measures aiming to increase 
the number of flow meters have been reported. These include some information which 

does  not  clarify  if  the  approach  by  the  Spanish  authorities  is  to  generalise  the  use  of 

75  Spain  subsequently  clarified,  that  is  preparing  a  systematic  work  to  update  the  required  report  of  the  WFD 
Article 5 (to be published in 2018), which addresses this issue. Moreover, and linked to the compliance with 
Article 46 of the EAFRD Regulation, it is possible to take as reference the information on water bodies status 
reported in the RBMPs. 

173 

 
                                                      
flow  meters  and  by  when  such  generalisation  would  be  achieved.  For  some  RBMPs, 

there  is  a  clear  indication  that  such  generalisation  will  not  be  achieved  in  the  next 
decade (e.g. Balearic Islands referring to the installation of 150 flow meters until 2027 

with  a  public  investment  of  600,000  EUR,  to  cover  3-5  %  of  the  agricultural  area), 
whilst  for  others  (Guadiana,  Guadalquivir)  the  investment  is  private,  but  it  remains 

unclear if the measure is being implemented and which control and sanction actions are 
foreseen  in  case  of  non-compliance.  Finally,  the  Ebro  RBMP  does  not  refer  to  such 

metering.  In  summary,  it  is  concluded  that  this  recommendation  has  been  partially 
fulfilled, with a major challenge to assure its full implementation. 

  Recommendation: ‘Ensure that all abstractions are registered and permits adapted to 
the available resources’. ‘Ensure that: the necessary amendments to the legislation are 
enacted  to  require  all  abstractions  to  be  registered  and  regulated,  no  matter  under 

which regime they got their permit (pre- or post-1985 Law)’.  

Assessment: This recommendation is not considered as fulfilled, as on-going measures 

are yet to be assessed. As to whether the process of including abstractions in the Water 
Register  is  compulsory  or  not,  no  information  could  be  found  in  the  RBMPs  and  no 

corresponding  regulatory  changes  were  identified.  No  indication  has  been  found  that 
the RBMPs have made a concession review to ensure that they are aligned to the WFD 

objectives.  In  addition,  the  Spanish  licensing  system  usually  allocates  water  for  long 
periods  (a  maximum  of  75  years  is  established,  although  it  is  not  systematically 
applied).76 

  Recommendation: ‘Ensure that: all abstractions are metered and subject to control of 

the river basin authorities’.  

Assessment:  According  to  Spanish  Water  Law,  and  as  previously  mentioned,  the 

inclusion of abstractions in the Water register remains voluntary for a proportion of the 
water  rights;  namely  the  Private  Water  Catalogue,  which  consists  of  an  inventory  of 

water abstractions classified as private by the Water Law of 1879, whose owners have 
chosen  to  keep  them  in  such  regime  and  not  to  include  them  in  the  Water  Register. 

However,  Spanish  authorities  promote  the  conversion  of  private  rights  (which  are 
considered temporary) into public concessions, considering limitations if good status is 

76  Spain  subsequently  clarified  that  it  is  compulsory  to  register  all  the  water  abstractions,  either  in  the  Water 
Register or in the Private Water Catalogue and that several measures related to the concession review to ensure 
that  they  are  aligned  to  the  WFD  objectives  have  been  reported. The  results  of  these  measures  are  yet  to  be 
assessed. 

174 

 
                                                      
at  risk  (Real  Decreto  670/2013,  Art.  139bis,  196bis).  In  addition,  Spain  subsequently 

indicated that several measures have been reported to better meter abstractions, which 
results  are  yet  to  be  assessed.  Thus,  this  recommendation  is  considered  partially 
fulfilled.77 

  Recommendation:  ‘The  way  the  modernisation  of  irrigation  is  considered  in  the 
Programmes  of  Measures  needs  to  be  reviewed.  Only  those  projects  which  genuinely 

contribute to the WFD objectives should be labelled as such. Such contribution should 
the  RBMPs  on  a  case  by  case  basis.  The 
be 

justified  and  quantified 

in 

concession/permits  should  be  reviewed  and  set  to  meet  environmental  objectives  and 
then modernisation should be the efficiency measure put in place to achieve compliance 

with the new permit condition.’  

Assessment: The implementation of this recommendation has not yet been assessed as 

not enough information on progress could be found in the Plans. 

  Recommendation:  Spain  should  introduce  abstraction  volumetric  fees  for  all  users 
covering  also  properly  calculated  environmental  and  resource  costs.  Ensure  that  the 

cost-recovery instruments are adapted as soon as possible to the WFD to ensure that 
they provide adequate incentives to use the water efficiently. In addition, the revenues 

of  cost-recovery  instruments  should  be  sufficient  for  the  river  basin  authorities  to 
effectively execute their water management tasks (update and maintenance of register 

of abstractions, monitoring, etc.). 

Assessment: The assessment on this recommendation is included in chapter 14 of this 
report. 

77  Spain  subsequently  clarified  that  in  addition  to  the  fact  that  all  water  abstractions  need  to  be  compulsory 
registered  (Water  Register  or  the  Private  Water  Catalogue),  those  included  in  the  Private  Water  Catalogue 
represent only a small proportion in comparison to those included in the Water Register. All the abstractions 
included  in  the  Water  Register  declare  the  volume  or  flow  authorised.  Spain  has  reported  several  measures 
addressed to increase the number of metered abstractions. 

175 

 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture  

11.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

The  main  pressures  from  agriculture  are:  diffuse  pollution  (nutrients  and  chemicals), 

hydromorphological changes and abstractions in surface water and groundwater. For details on 
pressures, refer to Figure 2.2 in chapter 2. A gap assessment has been partly performed and for 

all basins the number of measures or the investment to achieve the objectives is provided.  

The  link  between  pressures  and  measures  related  to  pollution  from  agriculture  is  fully 
established, but for abstractions related to agriculture this link is missing78. In the first cycle, 
KTMs applied in many RBMPs included increased efficiency of water usage in agriculture, by 

improving  or  changing  supply  infrastructure  (e.g.  Segura,  Jucar,  Balearic  Islands),  and  the 
RBMPs  usually  referred  to  gross  water  savings  that  are  transferred  to  the  water  balances. 

Irrigation  efficiency  measures  or  similar  measures  with  the  same  rationale  continue  being 
applied  in  the  second  cycle  Programme  of  Measures.  The  same  applies  to  water  reuse. 

Measures against erosion have been largely lacking in the first cycle but have been introduced 
in many basins in the second cycle.  

No specific scope was given for the measures related to agricultural pollution in the first cycle. 
In  the  second  cycle,  the  area  of  agricultural  land  to  be  covered  by  measures  to  achieve 

environmental  objectives  is  provided  for  several  measures.  The  measures  applied  in  most 
RBDs  are  KTM12  -  Advisory  services  for  agriculture,  KTM13  -  Drinking  water  protection 

measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones), KTM17 - Measures to reduce 
sediment  from  soil  erosion  and  surface  run-off,  KTM2  -  Reduce  nutrient  pollution  from 

agriculture  and  KTM23  -  Natural  water  retention  measures.  KTM3  -  Reduce  pesticides 
pollution from agriculture is applied to a lesser extent. In all basins a combination of basic (the 

minimum requirement to be complied with) and supplementary measures can be found. Details 
on the application of KTMs are given in chapter 9 of this report. 

It remains unclear if measures reported are voluntary or mandatory as the information from the 

RBMPs is not clear and not related to the KTMs. The WISE references to the Programme of 
Measures types are not always correct.  

78  Spain  subsequently  informed  that  there  is  a  mistake  in  the  reporting.  Measures  have  been  taken  to  limit  the 
effects of abstractions (e.g. implementation of ecological  flow regimes). The same  measures that are applied 
for the first cycle continue to apply in the second cycle. 

176 

 
                                                      
Regarding  safeguard  zones  around  drinking  water  protection  areas,  the  situation  seems  to  be 

very different in the different RBMPs in Spain as the following shows: 

  Detail  obtained  from  the  Ebro  RBMP  refers  to  safeguard  zones,  explaining  that  only 
one protection zone has been formally approved so far, and that all other drinking water 
sources do have a safeguard zone (with either light or strong restrictions). However, the 

safeguard  zones  are  apparently  a  proposal  by  the  River  Basin  Authority  only. 
According to the RBMP, the number of drinking water abstractions has been reduced 

from  3319  to  3258  from  the  first  cycle  to  the  second  cycle;  no  justification  for  this 
change is provided. 

 

Information  obtained  from  the  Duero  RBMP  shows  reporting  on  protection  zones 

which  will  be  established  in  the  future;  potentially  harmful  developments  (e.g. 
irrigation, livestock or industrial areas) require a favourable municipal report. 

 

Information obtained from the Guadalquivir RBMP lists the drinking water protection 

areas  and shows them in  a map, differentiating  whether the protection refers to  water 
quality  or  quantity.  From  the  river  basin  map,  it  appears  that  not  all  drinking  water 

abstraction areas are protected, but the RBMP does not add information to show which 
proportion  of  the  drinking  water  protection  areas  are  already  protected.  In  the 

Programme  of  Measures,  one  measure  (€140000)  is  foreseen  to  revise  or  extend  the 
protection areas, during the second and third planning cycle. 

  The Jucar RBMP makes reference to the number of drinking water supply areas from 
surface  and  groundwater  (1961  from  groundwater).  These  are  included  in  Annex  4 
which  lists  the  protected  areas.  However,  the  RBMP  does  not  make  any  further 

statement regarding their status or level of protection. 

General binding rules under Article 11(3)(h) are applied for nitrates and pesticides in all RBDs 

The  basic  measures  defined  in  Article  11(3)(h)  for  the  control  of  diffuse  pollution  from 
agriculture at source are applied with the same rules across the whole of the following RBDs; 

Galicia-Coast,  Andalusian  Mediterranean,  Guadalete  and  Barbate,  Tinto,  Odiel  and  Piedras, 
Catalan,  Balearic  Islands,  Ceuta  and  Melilla.  In  all  other  basins  there  are  differentiated  rules 
for different parts of the RBDs79. 

79 It  must be taken into account that  the  adoption of this type  of  measures is a competence of the  Autonomous 

Community, not of the RBD Authority. 

177 

 
                                                      
For  additional  control  measures  on  land  (not  just  in  safeguard  zones  but  in  the  wider 

catchment) to prevent nitrogen, phosphorus or pesticides from entering drinking water sources, 
the situation is also very diverse as the following shows:  

 

Information  obtained  from  the  Ebro  RBMP  shows  that  there  is  only  reference  to 
voluntary measures in the first and second cycle. The measures listed include; studies to 

analyse  the  origin  of  nitrates  and  sulphates;  nitrates  risk  assessment  in  an  alluvial 
aquifer;  studies  to  understand  the  reasons  for  infringement  and  to  define  measures; 

studies to understand drinking water supply vulnerability in specific areas, re-design of 
Nitrate Vulnerable Zones, agri-environmental experiments in some Navarra areas, and 

dissemination  of  agri-environmental  measures.  Aragon  also  includes  controls  of 
irrigation return flows as a specific measure. Most of these measures (at regional level) 

have been included in the previous RBMP and have now been modified. 

 

Information obtained from the Guadalquivir RBMP includes Measure 0283 aiming to 
extend  the  obligations  of  Nitrate  Vulnerable  Zones  beyond  their  geographic  scope; 

however  the  measure  is  only  associated  with  a  budget  of  €10000/year,  and  does  not 
make specific reference to drinking water areas.  

 

Information  obtained  from  the  Jucar  RBMP  lists  all  measures  to  address  diffuse 

agricultural  pollution  pressures.  Outside  Nitrate  Vulnerable  Zones,  the  following 
measures  are  included:  1)  follow-up  on  the  regulation  for  the  use  of  sludge  from 

wastewater  treatment  plants,  2)  follow-up  of  the  regulation  on  fertilizers,  and  waste 
from  olive  oil  plants  (in  the  Valencia  region).  One  measure  generally  addresses 

improvement  in  the  control  of  drinking  water  pollution,  but  its  description  does  not 
refer to diffuse pollution in particular. All measures for diffuse pollution together have 

an estimated budget of less than €10000000 for the 2016-2021 period. 

Farmers Unions have been consulted under the Public Consultation process in all basins.  

Financing of agricultural measures is not secured in all basins. 

It remains unclear if the application of the polluter pays principle in the agricultural sector has 

been fully implemented.  

178 

 
11.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Measures against erosion have been largely lacking in the first cycle but have been introduced 
in  many basins in  the second cycle. No specific  scope was  given for the  measures related to 

agriculture in the first cycle. In the second cycle, the area of agricultural land to be covered by 
measures to achieve environmental objective is provided for several measures. 

11.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programme  of  Measures 
requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation: Concerning agriculture, it is important to have more information on 
the link with relevant pressures (such as water abstraction) in order to address those 
pressures appropriately in the PoM. 

Assessment: The main agricultural  pressures on water quality and quantity have been 
identified in the Spanish RBMPs, they are: diffuse pollution (nutrients and chemicals), 

hydromorphological changes and abstractions in surface water and groundwater. A gap 
assessment has been partly performed and for all basins the number of measures or the 

investment  needed  to  achieve  the  objectives  is  provided.  The  link  between  pressures 
and  measures  related  to  pollution  from  agriculture  is  fully  established,  but  for 

abstractions related to agriculture this link is missing. Therefore, this recommendation 
has been partially fulfilled80. 

  Recommendation: Ensure that appropriate basic measures are established for control 
of  diffuse  pollution.  The  basic  measures  for  diffuse  pollution  should  go  beyond  the 

Nitrates Directive codes of practice, which are voluntary instruments limited to nitrates 
issues. They do not address other agricultural pressures (phosphates, pesticides, etc.). 

Mandatory measures that are controllable should be included in the second RBMPs. 

Assessment: In general as regard to diffuse pollution, Spanish RBMPs refer to the basic 
legislation  and  the  implementation  of  Rural  Development  Programmes  as  basic 

elements.  However,  there  is  no  specific  assessment  of  how  these  have  specifically 
contributed  to  the  WFD  objectives.  Mandatory  measures  to  reduce  diffuse  pollution 

seem  to  be  established.  However,  it  remains  unclear  if  they  go  beyond  Nitrate 

80  Spain  subsequently  clarified  that  the  link  is  not  reported  due  to  a  one  to  one  correlation  schema,  but  it  is 
analysed  in  the  RBPMs  and  that  there  are  1438  registers  in  the  information  reported  linking  surface  and 
groundwater bodies with the pressure type ‘3.1 – Abstraction or flow diversion – Agriculture’. 

179 

 
                                                      
Vulnerable Zones. Cost-effectiveness assessments are widely transferred from the first 

RBMPs,  and  it  is  unclear  if  any  further  assessments  have  been  undertaken.  Measures 
beyond  Nitrate  Vulnerable  Zones  have  been  rarely  included  in  the  Programme  of 

Measures and are only reported with low budgets. Therefore, this recommendation has 
been partially fulfilled. 

180 

 
 
 
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. KTM 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.  

KTMs81  relevant  to  non-agricultural  sources  of  pressures  causing  failure  of  WFD  objectives 
have been reported for the majority of the RBDs in Spain. In total, five different KTMs have 

been reported which are: 

KTM 1 – ‘Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants’ 

KTM4  –  ‘Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical  pollution  including  sediments, 

groundwater, soil)’ 

KTM17 – ‘Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off’ 

KTM 21 – ‘Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport 
and built infrastructure’.  

KTM  99  –  ‘Other  key  type  measure  reported  under  Programme  of  Measures  (Historical 
pollution)’. 

81  Spain  subsequently  clarified  that  it  has  only  identified  one  KTM  per  measure.  Each  measure  has  been 
associated with the KTM that best explains the reason for establishing that measure, without including others 
that could also benefit from the action. Thus, for example, many wastewater treatment plants have been linked 
to KTM-1, concealing the fact that they could also be associated to other KMTs. Therefore, the analysis in this 
chapter could lead to gaps in the reported data that do not really exist, but are merely a consequence of the data 
organisation system.  

181 

 
                                                      
The Spanish RBMPs have not reported the significant pressures tackled by 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  and  KTM16  - 

Upgrades  or  improvements  of  industrial  wastewater  treatment  plants  (including  farms). 
However, these KTM have been mapped against national measures.  

The  WFD  specifies  that  the  Programme  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  (see  the  chapter  9  in  this 
report).  

Quantitative information on basic and supplementary  measures used to  tackle pollution from 

non-agricultural  sources  (number  of  measures  per  KTM)  is  provided  for  18  RBDs  in  Spain. 
The number of basic measures to tackle pollution from non-agricultural sources is provided for 

10 types of basic measures incorporated into each KTM for 16 out of 18 Spanish RBDs (such 
information is not provided for the RBDs Balearic Islands, and Melilla). 

Spain provided more targeted information on basic measures required under Article 11(3)(c to 
k).  Use  of  authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  to  control  waste  water  point  source 

discharges (Basic measures Article 11(3)(g)) is in place in the majority of the Spanish RBDs 
for surface and  groundwater. Similarly, a register of waste water discharges (Basic measures 

Article 11(3)(g)) is available in most of the Spanish RBDs for surface and groundwater.  

In  all 18 Spanish  RBDs which reported information, the waste water discharges subjected to 
legal authorization, in accordance with the Spanish Law, in order to guarantee the protection of 

the  waters  (Basic  measure  Article  11(3)(g)).  Some  direct  discharges  to  groundwater  are 
authorised in accordance with Article 11(3)(j). 

Spain reported that the measures to eliminate or reduce pollution from Priority Substances and 

other substances (Basic measures Article 11(3)(k)) are missing in almost half of the RBDs.  

As far as measures for all those Priority Substances causing failure are concerned, in the Ebro 

RBMP  only  a  few  surface  water  bodies  have  been  classified  for  their  chemical  status,  i.e., 
monitoring of Priority Substances have been carried out.  From the measures included in this 

RBMP it is unclear how the measures will address the chemical pollution, and an Article 4(4) 
exemption has been applied until 2027. The only two water body groups for which measures 
for chemical status have been included in the RBMP are those containing the industry-polluted 

182 

 
sites of Flix and of Sabiñánigo. The measure group A16 addresses both of them with a set of 

10  measures,  out  of  which  three  have  been  finished  in  2015,  and  two  are  on-going  with  no 
budget  allocation  for  the  2016-2021  period.  The  overall  budget  for  A16  for  the  second 
planning cycle is €75 million, and no budget is foreseen for the 3rd planning cycle. Given that 
the Ebro river basin district is one of the most industrial ones of Spain, the number and volume 

of such measures seems extremely low. In the Catalan RBD, KTMs have been reported for 4-
nonylphenol, endosulfan, chlorpyrifos, terbuthylazine, lead and its compounds, mercury and its 

compounds, nickel and its compounds and metolachlor.  

In the Catalan RBD, a number of chemical substances were reported as relevant River Basin 

Specific  Pollutants,  even  though  these  include  Priority  Substances:  4-nonylphenol,  total 
benzo(g,h,i)-perylene  +  indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene  and  Sum  of:  aldrin,  dieldrin,  endrin  and 

isodrin. The RBMP includes a list of eight water bodies which are prioritised for action as they 
e.g. affect drinking water protection areas. However, the RBMP also indicates that only one of 

these  eight  water  bodies  is  targeted  with  a  specific  action  to  reduce  industrial  pollution. 
Furthermore, it should be noted that out  of the  four measures (with € 700000 budget  for the 

second  planning  cycle)  all  are  targeting  collecting  information  on  the  pollution,  and  none  is 
directly addressing pollution reduction. 

As  far  as  measures  for  all  those  pollutants  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status  in 

groundwater are concerned, in the Catalan RBD, volatile organic halogens (VOX) are detected, 
and  are  addressed  by  other  KTM.  In  this  RBMP  almost  half  of  the  groundwater  bodies  are 

reported  to  be  in  bad  chemical  status;  though  the  source  of  pollution  is  not  specified.  The 
Programme  of  Measures  does  not  specify  any  measures  for  groundwater  bodies  related  to 

industrial pollution.  

12.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle  

In the first cycle the Programmes of Measures did not specify which substances are targeted by 
each measure.  

In the second RBMPs, measures are reported for some substances causing non-compliance. 

For surface waters in some RBDs there are substances which are causing failure of objectives 
for which no measures have been planned. The Programmes of Measures do not specify any 

measures  for  groundwater  bodies  related  to  industrial  pollution  and  do  not  provide  clear 
information about measures addressing River Basin Specific Pollutants. Measures to eliminate 

183 

 
or  reduce  pollution  from  Priority  Substances  and  other  substances  (Basic  measures 

Art11(3)(k)) are missing from most of the RBDs. 

Spain subsequently provided the following explanation with a view to clarifying the design of 

the Programme of Measures:  

Spain  submitted  the  document  “Classification  of  the  Measures  in  Spain”,  in  which  it  can  be 
seen  that  the  structure  proposed  for  the  database  used  for  the  report  to  the  European 

Commission considers different interpretations when it comes to the ratio of the measures with 
the KTMs, the latter allowing 1:n ratios, whereas in Spain the ratio is 1:1. The KTM measures 

referred to are: 

• 

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). 

For  both  cases  there  is  hardly  any  measure  associated  to  them,  because  the  measures  for 
reducing  pollution  by  Priority  Substances  will  initially  have  to  be  classified  mainly  as 

measures  for  reducing  pollution  from  point  sources  or  measures  for  reducing  pollution  from 
diffuse sources,  and will thus  be allocated to  different  KTMs. The only  specific measure for 

KTM15  concerns  preparing  the  inventories  for  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  priority 
substances. 

In  the  case  of  the  measures  for  improving  industrial  wastewater  treatment  plants,  an 
overwhelming  majority  of  them  will  be  included  within  the  types  of  measures  for  reducing 

point sources. In fact, the measures reported associated with KTM15 are as follows: 

184 

 
 
 
KTM_Description 

ES017  ES020 

ES07
0 

ES08
0 

ES10
0 

Gener
al 
Total 

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 
General Total 

6 

3 

1 

4 

2 

16 

6 

3 

1 

4 

2 

16 

The fact that there are no measures with KTM15 in most of the RBDs is explained by the way 
in which the information about the measures has been organised in the Spanish database. 

12.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  made  one  relevant  recommendation  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  first 

Programmes of Measures: 

Recommendation:  “[The  identification  of  river  basin  specific  pollutants  needs  to  be  more 

transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were 
monitored,  where  there  are  exceedances  and  how  such  exceedances  have  been  taken  into 

account in the assessment of ecological status.] It is important to take an ambitious approach 
to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place.” 

Assessment: The reporting of the relevant information in the Spanish RBMPs makes it difficult 
to  assess the level  of  ambition,  because it is  not  clear to  what  extent the measures identified 

will tackle the pollutants causing failure. This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

185 

 
 
 
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 associated to 

the significant hydromorphological pressures reported in Spain are very diverse. The following 
sectors are driving hydromorphological pressures for the largest number of water bodies: flood 

protection  and  agriculture  (including  for  the  purpose  of  irrigation).  In  some  RBDs,  the 
following  sectors  are  associated  to  a  high  number  of  water  bodies  affected  by  dams: 

hydropower,  industry,  drinking  water  and  recreation.  Furthermore,  a  significant  number  of 
water bodies are affected by hydromorphological pressures, whose driver is unknown/obsolete 

or indicated as “other” (not specified as one of the key sectors in the WISE reporting). 

Operational KTM to tackle significant hydromorphological pressures are reported for 15 out of 
18 reported RBDs. The main KTM made operational to reduce hydromorphological pressures 
are KTM99- ‘other measures’, and in a few RBDs KTM6.  – ‘improving hydromorphological 

conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity’. 

The  types  of  specific  hydromorphological  measures  planned  are  diverse  across  the  different 
RBDs,  including  fish  ladders,  sediment  management,  removal  of  physical  structures,  re-

meandering,  setting  of  ecological  flows,  river  and  floodplain  restoration,  managed  aquifer 
recharge as natural water retention measure, amongst others. 

No  operational  KTM  to  tackle  hydromorphological  pressures  are  reported  for  Guadalquivir, 

Balearic Islands and Ceuta (it is noted that, in Ceuta, all surface water bodies are coastal) At 
the  same  time,  for  these  three  RBDs,  national  measures  are  mapped  against  certain  KTM 

relevant  to  hydromorphology  (mainly  KTM7  -  improvements  in  flow  regime  and/or 
establishment of ecological flows or KTM99 - other measures). This discrepancy seems to be 
related to an incomplete reporting into WISE due to Spanish legal meaning of the significance 
of a pressure and inherent difficulties to reflect the reality in the reporting model.  

In  terms  of  basic  measures,  there  is  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 in all reported RBDs, according to 
WFD Article 11(3)(i). 

186 

 
Overall,  management  objectives  for  restoring  river  continuity  have  been  set  in  13  out  of  18 

reported RBDs.  In addition, the management objectives for continuity are quantitative for 11 
out  of  the  13  RBDs  which  have  set  such  objectives.  Nevertheless,  KTM5  (improving 

longitudinal continuity) was reported as an operational measure to tackle significant pressures 
in some 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 Programme of Measures of all reported RBDs. However, the specific KTM23 on Natural 
Water  Retention  Measures  was  applied  to  tackle  significant  pressures  in  some  RBDs.  At  the 

same time, specific measures included in the second RBMPs have clear links to Natural Water 
Retention  Measures,  e.g.  the  removal  of  weirs,  river  and  floodplain  restoration,  managed 

aquifer recharge and erosion-preventing measures. However, the RBMPs do not provide clear 
explanations of how such measures contribute to water retention in their specific context. 

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. 

Ecological flows have been derived for all relevant water bodies in all reported RBDs, but have 
been  implemented  only  in  some  of  the  water  bodies  (work  still  ongoing).  The  timeline  for 

completing the process of implementing ecological flows differs for different RBDs. E.g. in the 
RBD Guadiana all activities for the implementation of ecological flows are programmed until 

2021.  Other  RBDs  (e.g.  Guadalquivir,  Segura  and  Ebro)  programme  studies  for  the 
implementation  of ecological  flows until  2027, so that at  least  partially ecological  flows will 

not  be  in  place  by  the  end  of  the  second  planning  cycle.  For  some  RBDs,  no  information  is 
given on the timeline for completing the implementation of ecological flows.  

The second RBMPs make reference to actions of prioritising the implementation of ecological 
flows in ‘strategic’ or priority river stretches in the second cycle and in non-priority stretches 
by  2027.  They  also  refer  to  certain  specific  measures  for  the  implementation  of  ecological 

flows, such as the control or review of water rights and concessions, infrastructural changes at 
dams  to  allow  for  the  discharge  of  ecological  flows,  new  gauging  stations  for  control  of 

ecological flows, further studies and monitoring of ecological flows.  

Indicators on the gap to be filled for significant hydromorphological pressures are provided for 

all RBDs. Progress indicators for the KTM tackling significant hydromorphological pressures 

187 

 
are only reported for three out of 18 RBDs (Miño-Sil, Jucar and Catalan RBDs). In Jucar, the 

number of water bodies affected by significant hydromorphological pressures will be reduced 
by around 10 % until 2021 by taking one of two required measures. It is unclear whether the 

remaining 90 % of the pressure gap to achieve the objectives will be tackled with the measure 
taken between 2021 and 2027. In Catalan and Miño-Sil RBDs, the information provided is not 

fully clear as KTM indicator values are only reported for 2015. At the same time, the level of 
the significant hydromorphological pressures does not drop between 2015 and 2021 but drops 

to zero from 2021 to 2027. This may imply either that measures are taken in the second cycle 
which will not reduce the pressures by 2021 but will eliminate the pressures by 2027, or that 

no  measures  are  taken  by  2021  but  all  measures  are  taken  between  2021  and  2027.  Overall, 
very little can be concluded on the level of ambition in tackling hydromorphological pressures 

in Spain as a whole. 

13.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Concerning 
the  different  RBDs, 
hydromorphological measures are reported for more RBDs in the second RBMPs than was the 

the  coverage  of  hydromorphological  measures 

in 

case  in  the  first  cycle.  However,  the  second  RBMPs  do  not  explicitly  discuss  elements  of 
progress  on  hydromorphological  measures  comparing  them  to  the  planning  under  the  first 

plans.  

13.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  that  the  Ecological  Flows  established  guarantee  good 
ecological  status.  If  this  is  not  the  case,  report  transparently  the  deviations  and  the 
justifications  on  the  basis  of  technical  feasibility  or  disproportionate  costs.  In  the 

relevant  water  bodies,  consider  the  objectives  of  water-dependent  protected  habitats 
and species in setting Ecological Flows.  

Assessment:  Specific  information  on  ecological  flows  in  some  of  the  second  RBMPs 
indicates  that  their  setting  has  considered  hydro-biological  criteria,  as  per  a  few  fish 

species,  and  their  preference  curves  associated  to  habitats.  Based  on  the  information 
found, it cannot be concluded how much ecological flows contribute to achieving the 

WFD objectives or whether the most adequate fish species in terms of conservation and 
requirements  have  been  chosen  for  this  exercise.  In  the  current  regulatory  framework 

(Spanish Hydrological Planning Instruction, 2008), ecological flows restrictions can be 
lowered  except  when  affecting  Natura  2000  or  Ramsar  sites.  These  limitations 

188 

 
however,  are  no  longer  included  in  the  draft  Instruction  for  Drought  Management. 

Spain subsequently informed that the requirement is set in higher regulations, both in 
the Regulation of Hydrological Planning and in the Regulation of the Public Hydraulic 

Domain,  which  was  precisely  modified  in  2016  to  advance  harmoniously  in  the 
definition  and  implementation  of  the  ecological  flow  regimes.  Overall,  not  enough 

information  on  progress  regarding  the  specific  issues  raised  in  this  recommendation 
could be found in the plans, and thus is considered partially fulfilled.  

  Recommendation: Avoid presenting the maintenance of ecological flow in new dams as 
an  ecological  benefit  of  the  dam,  but  consider  it  as  a  mitigation  measure.  Justify  the 
flood protection share on a case by case basis, including the justification that there is 

no better environmental option. 

Assessment: The second part of this recommendation is assessed under the chapter on 

environmental objectives and exemptions. For the first part of this recommendations, in 
some of the second RBMPs (e.g. for RBDs Guadalquivir and Ebro), evidence has been 

found  that  the  maintenance  of  ecological  flow  is  considered  still  as  an  ecological 
benefit  of  the  dam.  Spain  subsequently  informed  that  the  Government  issued  a 

regulatory rule that modified the Regulation of the Public Hydraulic Domain in 2016 to 
harmoniously clarify all these issues. The ecological flows are a restriction imposed to 

exploitation  systems.  With  this  new  regulatory  rule,  the  recommendation  would  be 
fulfilled, but this has not been subject of this assessment. 

  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  of  infiltration  and  thus  aquifer  recharge,  flood  protection, 

habitat  conservation  etc.),  social  and  economic  benefits  which  can  be  in  many  cases 
more  cost-effective  than  grey  infrastructure,  as  well  as  other  restoration  measures, 

removal of dams and other hydro morphological barriers. 

Assessment: The specific KTM23 on Natural Water Retention Measures is not applied 
to tackle significant pressures in any of the RBDs. At the same time, specific measures 

included in the second RBMPs have clear links to Natural Water Retention Measures, 
e.g.  the  removal  of  weirs,  river  and  floodplain  restoration,  managed  aquifer  recharge 
and  erosion-preventing  measures.  However,  the  RBMPs  do  not  provide  clear 

explanations  of  how  such  measures  contribute  to  water  retention  in  their  specific 
context. Furthermore, no reference was found in  the RBMPs to a national or regional 

189 

 
strategy  that  prioritises  the  implementation  of  natural  water  retention  and  green 

infrastructure measures. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

190 

 
 
 
Topic 14

  Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

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

According  to  the  reported  information,  water  services  include  drinking  water  abstraction 
(surface  and  groundwater  supply),  irrigation,  urban  water  supply,  self-abstraction,  reuse  and 

desalinisation and wastewater collection and treatment.  

The information included in the RBMPs for the second cycle is more detailed compared to the 

first cycle and separately presented, and the relevant water uses that might contribute to cost 
recovery of water services per Article 9 have been identified at RBD level. The second RBMPs 

include the estimation of the financial, environmental and resource costs of the water services, 
as  well  as  the  income  obtained  by  the  different  existing  cost  recovery  instruments  for  the 

different water services in Spain.  

The  environmental  costs  of  water  services  have  not  been  internalised  in  all  the  RBMPs.  

Resource costs have been analysed, with a justification for cases for which this was not done. 

A general methodology for calculating cost recovery was provided by the General Directorate 

of  Water  to  be  applied  in  all  RBDs,  including  guidelines  for  calculating  financial  and 
environmental costs and an approach to estimate resource costs. As a result, RBMPs include a 

the  methodology  for 
harmonised  presentation  of  cost  recovery  rate  results.  Also, 
Environmental Costs has been streamlined resulting in significantly higher estimations of the 
costs than in the first planning cycle and higher lower cost recovery rates. 

The national average cost recovery rate is 80 % for financial costs, 68 % when including (the 
considered) environmental costs. The cost recovery rate for self-abstraction in both agriculture 

and urban/industry sectors is stated to be 75 % and 79 % respectively.  

Most  RBMPs  include  a  brief  justification  of  subsidies  and  not-applying  cost  recovery  for 

applying  Article  9(4),  based  on  criteria  such  as  the  economic,  social  and  environmental 
sustainability, the preservation of landscape and tradition, avoiding erosion and desertification, 

maintaining  population  in  the  countryside  and  diminishing  the  rural  exodus  as  well  as  its 
support to the agri-food industry and employment in the rural  areas, promoting adaptation to 

climate change. This is however documented only in short text form without further supporting 
analysis.  

191 

 
Subsidies  are  mentioned  for  reuse  and  desalinisation,  extraordinary  measures  to  reduce  costs 

for water supply on farms,  European Union investments  for irrigation infrastructure, drought 
situations, and water supply investments. Another type of subsidy is the so-called ‘discounts’ 

from  cost  recovery,  which  are  for  example,  applied  to  the  ‘impoundment  tariff’  or  ‘dam 
infrastructure  costs’  due  to  ‘flood  protection’  or  other  non-user  specific  beneficiaries  like 

‘restoration’.  

Regarding incentive pricing, some  instruments  target  environmental costs but  important  gaps 

remain,  in  particular  regarding  self-abstraction  and  diffuse  pollution.  A  limited  share  of  the 
irrigated area is estimated to have metering systems in place, and there are no plans presented 

to  increase  this  number  significantly,  apart  from  modernisation  projects  funded  by  the 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.  

Regarding the adequate contribution of water uses, not all agricultural users pay for water.  

Overall,  more  information  has  been  presented  as  compared  to  the  first  RBMPs,  an  updated 

economic  analysis  has  been  done  as  well.  On  most  of  the  topic  issues,  important 
methodological progress  can be noted, as well  as the effort  to present  information  in  a more 
homogenised manner (which is evident from the WISE reporting). 

14.2 Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation: The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, 
including  impoundments,  abstraction,  storage,  treatment  and  distribution  of  surface 

waters,  and  collection,  treatment  and  discharge  of  waste  water,  also  when  they  are 
"self-services",  for  instance  self-abstraction  for  agriculture.  The  cost  recovery  should 
be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource 

costs should be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on 
the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring 

an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken 
into account should be provided in the RBMPs. 

  Recommendation:  Introduce  volumetric  abstraction  fees  for  all  users  (including  self-
abstraction of groundwater) covering properly calculated environmental and resource 
costs. Ensure that the cost-recovery instruments are adapted as soon as possible to the 

WFD  to  ensure  that  they  provide  adequate  incentives  to  use  the  water  efficiently.  In 
addition,  the  revenues  of  cost-recovery  instruments  should  be  sufficient  for  the  river 

192 

 
basin  authorities  to  effectively  execute  their  water  management  tasks  (update  and 

maintenance of register of abstractions, monitoring, etc.). 

Develop a basic harmonisation of the minimum elements to be included in water tariffs 

for drinking water supply and waste water treatment for the second RBMPs to ensure 
long-term sustainability of investments in water protection across the country. 

Consider  water  use  for  energy  production  (hydropower  and  cooling)  as  a  water 
service,  and  present  relevant  information  (cost  recovery,  environmental  and  resource 

costs, "discount rates for dams") transparently in the updated RBMPs. 

Present  transparently  subsidies  and  cross-subsidies  in  the  second  RBMPs  (i.e. 

desalinated  water,  dam  construction,  etc.)  and  justify  dam  discount  calculation  on  a 
case by case basis. 

Extend  calculation  of  environmental  costs  to  costs  related  to  energy  production 
(hydropower, cooling) and diffuse pollution from agriculture. 

Assessment:  According  to  the  reported  information,  water  services  include  drinking 
water  abstraction  (surface  and  groundwater  supply),  irrigation,  urban  water  supply, 

self-abstraction,  reuse  and  desalinisation  and  wastewater  collection  and  treatment.  At 
the  level  of  the  RBD,  the  information  is  more  specific,  also  with  regard  to  the  water 

uses contributing to the recovery of costs. 

The second RBMPs contain a homogenous estimation of the degree of cost recovery of 

water  services.  In  order  to  guarantee  the  harmonization  of  calculation  criteria  and 
comparability of results, CIS WFD guidance documents have been used. 

Financial  costs,  including  capital,  operation  and  maintenance  costs  have  been 
calculated for each reported service (surface and groundwater supply, irrigation, urban 

water  supply,  self-abstraction,  reuse  and  desalinisation  and  wastewater  collection  and 
treatment). Also in this case, information provided in RBMPs is more detailed than that 

reported on WISE. 

The  national  average  cost  recovery  rate  is  80  %  for  financial  costs,  68  %  when 

including  environmental  costs.  However,  there  are  wide  variations  among  RBDs, 
ranging  from  35  %  (Galicia-Coast)  and  37,5  %  (Miño-Sil)  to  91  %  (Tagus)  or  94  % 

(Guadalete  and  Barbate)  for  financial  costs;  or  from  34  %  (Miño-Sil)  to  86  % 
(Guadalete and Barbate) when including the environmental costs.  

193 

 
The cost recovery rate for self-abstraction in both agriculture and urban/industry sectors 

is  stated  to  75  %  and  79  %  respectively  and  95  %  and  92  %  when  including 
environmental costs.  

Most RBMPs include a brief justification of subsidies and not-applying cost recovery 
for applying Article 9(4). This is however documented only in short text form without 

further supporting analysis. 

Regarding incentive pricing, some instruments target environmental costs but important 

gaps remain, in particular regarding self-abstraction and diffuse pollution. In Spain the 
price  paid  for  water  is  only  partially  based  on  the  volume  of  water  abstracted  by 

individual agricultural user or the volume abstracted by collective irrigation networks. 
Holders of administrative water concessions and private water users are entitled to their 

private use, are obliged to install and maintain appropriate metering systems to ensure 
the  provision  of  accurate  information  on  the  water  actually  consumed  or  used  or 

returned  to  the  environment.  This  obligation,  which  obviously  includes  agricultural 
users, has been already reinforced by the main water regulations since the consolidated 
text of the 2001 Water Act, Article 55. According to the commitments undertaken by 

virtue of the Association Agreement, the effectiveness of the recovery instruments and, 
when appropriate, their revision, is being considered by Spain regarding the present and 

future economic and financial regime of the water use. Nevertheless, despite these legal 
provisions not all irrigation users, especially those with older surface irrigation systems, 

have metering systems able to provide a reliable quantification. In Spain only a limited 
share of the irrigated area is estimated to have metering systems in place, and there are 

no plans presented to increase this number.  

Regarding  the  adequate  contribution  of  water  uses,  not  all  agriculture  users  pay  for 

water. All users in Spain are stated to pay for the water services, although there is some 
room  for  improvement  related  to  the  cost  recovery  of  the  water  as  resource  itself.  
Irrigators  connected  to  a  public  water  network  pay  for  the  Water  Canon82,  irrigators 
using  self-services  pay  their  own  costs  when  using  self-services,  e.g.  paying  for  the 

energy costs of pumping when abstracting themselves water from a groundwater body 
or from a surface water body intake only for their own plot. This applies to all users. 

No  thresholds  are  foreseen  in  the  Water  Act  for  the  application  of  cost  recovery  of 
water services. 

82 Water Canon in Spanish “Canon del Agua”  

194 

 
                                                      
Subsidies are mentioned for reuse and desalinisation, extraordinary measures to reduce 

costs  for  water  supply  on  farms,  European  Union  investments  for  irrigation 
infrastructure, drought situation Royal Decree, and water supply investments. Another 

type  of  subsidies  are  the  so-called  “discounts”  from  cost  recovery,  which  are  e.g. 
applied  to  the  “impoundment  tariff”  or  “dam  infrastructure  costs”  due  to  flood 

protection or other non-user specific beneficiaries.  The Spanish  RBMPs  consider that 
these  shall  be  paid  by  the  public  and  not  by  specific  users,  and  their  amount  is 

estimated and of different nature in the RBDs. In some of the RBMPs, the % values are 
explicitly included, in others only a general reference but no figures are provided. 

The environmental costs of water services, which still have not been fully internalised, 
are calculated as the equivalent annual cost of the measures to be implemented in order 

to  correct  the pressures  caused by  such  water services  and thus  meet the objective of 
good  status  or  good  ecological  potential.  These  measures  include  usually  all  pending 

measures  needed  to  achieve  objectives  in  the  2016-2027  period.  Also,  there  are 
differences in the RBMPs on calculating environmental costs. 

It  is  important  to  note  that,  according  to  the  state-level  general  methodology,  diffuse 

pollution  from  agriculture  is  considered  an  environmental  cost,  although  there  is  no 
general  instrument  in  Spain  for  its  recovery.  Some  estimations  have  been  made  in 

in  Western  Cantabrian,  Duero,  Guadiana, 
several  RBMPs  such  as 
Guadalquivir,  Andalusian  Mediterranean  Basins,  Segura  and  Jucar;  whilst  not  in  all. 

those 

in 

Note  also  the  recent  Upper  Court  decision  (March  2017)  revoking  part  of  the  Jucar 
RBMP and requesting application of the polluter pays principle to cover the additional 

costs of urban water supply services affected by nitrates pollution. 

Resource  costs  are  considered  relevant  only  when  there  is  an  inefficient  allocation 

among  users  (once  environmental  considerations  are  also  taken  into  account).  This 
means  that  when  there  is  a  water  shortage,  either  in  quantity  and/or  quality,  other 

alternatives generate a greater economic value. According to Article 7(4) of the Spanish 
Hydrological Planning Instruction, resource costs will be valued as the cost of scarcity, 

meaning the opportunity cost that arises when a scarce resource is allocated to one use 
rather than another. Its calculation is normally based on market prices, and where there 

are no water markets this is usually considered not significant; the result is that resource 
costs  are  not  recovered.  Also,  there  are  differences  in  the  RBMPs  on  calculating 

resource costs. 

195 

 
In summary, the recommendations by the European Commission are addressed only in 

a limited way (e.g. no change can be appreciated in the treatment of cost recovery for 
self-abstraction from groundwater, there are no indications to harmonise cost recovery 

mechanisms  in  accordance  with  the  polluter  pays  principle).  A  stepwise  increase  of 
volumetric  pricing  seems  to  be  in  place  for  urban,  industrial  and  irrigation  uses. 

However, this is not documented in most RBMPs. 

196 

 
 
Topic 15

  Considerations 

specific 

to 

Protected 

Areas 

(identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 

15.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

For  the  second  RBMPs,  Spain  has  reported  Protected  Areas  for  all  the  relevant  Directives 
(Table  15.2).  There  have  been  considerable  changes  in  the  number  of  some  Protected  Areas 

from  the  first  to  second  cycle;  e.g.  the  number  of  Protected  Areas  designated  under  the 
Habitats and Birds Directives have increased by more than 30 %83.  

Table 15.1 

Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD of Spain, for surface 
and groundwater 

Protected Area type 

Abstraction of water intended for 
human consumption under Article 7 

Recreational waters, including areas 
designated as bathing waters under 
Directive 76/160/EEC85 

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)86 

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)87 

Number of Protected Areas associated with84 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional  Coastal  Groundwater 

1239 

200 

8 

18 

4 

79 

1543 

7485 

282 

65 

51 

79 

303 

708 

101 

83 

145 

732 

83 Spain subsequently clarified that there was a 30 % increase and not 60 % because there are some duplicates in 

the WISE data. 

84  Spain  subsequently  informed  the  Commission  that  the  reported  information  in  WISE  was  not  accurate.  This 

table reflects the updated/corrected data. 

85  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. 

86  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. 

87  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. 

197 

 
 
 
                                                      
Protected Area type 

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including 
areas designated as vulnerable zones 
under Directive 91/676/EEC (Nitrates 
Directive)88 and areas designated as 
sensitive areas under Directive 
91/271/EEC (Urban Wastewater 
Treatment Directive)89 

Areas designated for the protection of 
economically significant aquatic 
species 

Number of Protected Areas associated with84 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional  Coastal  Groundwater 

310 

44 

53 

111 

102 

700 

4 

92 

175 

0 

Source: Member States reporting to WISE 

A  good  overview  of  the  status  of  surface  and  groundwater  water  bodies  associated  with 

Protected Areas is also reported (Figure 15.1) with the status classification reported with either 
high or medium degrees of confidence. 

88  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 

89  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. 

198 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 15.1  Status  of  water  bodies  associated  with  the  Protected  Areas  report  for  Spain. 

Note: based on status/potential aggregated for all water bodies associated with 
all Protected Areas 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

199 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 15.2 

Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD of Spain, for surface 

and groundwater 

Protected Area type 

Abstraction of water intended for 
human consumption under Article 7 

Recreational waters, including areas 
designated as bathing waters under 
Directive 76/160/EEC91 

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)92 

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)93 

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including 
areas designated as vulnerable zones 
under Directive 91/676/EEC (Nitrates 
Directive)94 and areas designated as 
sensitive areas under Directive 
91/271/EEC (Urban Wastewater 
Treatment Directive)95 

Areas designated for the protection of 
economically significant aquatic 
species 

Number of Protected Areas associated with90 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional  Coastal  Groundwater 

1239 

200 

8 

18 

4 

79 

0 

7485 

1543 

0 

282 

65 

51 

79 

303 

708 

101 

83 

145 

732 

310 

44 

53 

111 

102 

700 

4 

92 

175 

0 

Source: Member States reporting to WISE 

Spain  reported  that,  for  Protected  Areas  designated  under  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives, 

additional objectives have been set only in a few RBMPs and for a small number of Protected 
Areas.  In  the  few  RBDs  where  specific  objectives  have  been  set,  they  are  either  fulfilled  or 

further work is required to establish the needs of the water dependent interest features. For the 

90  Spain  subsequently  informed  the  Commission  that  the  reported  information  in  WISE  was  not  accurate.  This 

table reflects the updated/corrected data. 

91  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. 

92  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. 

93  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. 

94  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 

95  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. 

200 

 
                                                      
main  part,  the  approach  is  not  to  designate  specific  objectives  because  the  objectives  of  the 

WFD  are  sufficient  to  also  fulfil  the  objectives  according  to  other  Directives.  Spain 
subsequently clarified that all the objectives of WFD cover the objectives of the areas within 

the Natura 2000 Network. 

For areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species (shell fish), 

in general, additional objectives have been set in terms of the microbiological standards set in 
the repealed Directive. However, for a few, no objectives have been set. 

With  respect  to  Drinking  Water  Protected  Areas  (in  surface  and  groundwater),  specific 

objectives have been set only in one RBMP (Miño-Sil). 

Monitoring sites of surface water associated with Protected Areas are reported for all Protected 
Area  types  (Table  15.3).  Further  information  on  the  purpose  of  monitoring  sites  for  surface 

water  and  groundwater  status  assessment  can  be  found  in  Chapters  3  and  4  (ecological  and 
chemical  status  of  surface  waters)  and  Chapters  5  and  6  (quantitative  and  chemical  status  of 

groundwater bodies). 

Comparing the number of reported number of Protected Areas and the number of monitoring 

sites  associated  with  Protected  Areas  in  Spain  indicates  that  the  monitoring  programme 
reported in 2016 is insufficient to cover the needs. For example, in the Eastern Cantabrian and 
Western  Cantabrian  RBDs,  a  total  of  approximately  11696  Protected  Areas  designated  under 
the Habitats Directive is reported but with no associated monitoring sites. Furthermore, in the 

Andalusian  Mediterranean  Basins,  where  all  Protected  Area  types  are  reported,  the  reported 
monitoring programme only covers areas designated in relation to shell fish (but then only in 
rivers) and Drinking Water Protected Areas for surface waters97. 

The  monitoring  programme  has  been  changed  in  several  ways  between  the  first  and  second 
cycles.  Firstly, no monitoring activities have been reported in  the second cycle for Protected 

Areas  designated  under  the  Birds  Directive  whereas  monitoring  was  in  place  for  these 
Protected  Areas  in  the  first  cycle.  The  number  of  monitoring  sites  associated  with  Drinking 

Water Protected Areas has decreased for both surface and groundwater bodies but mostly for 
groundwater  monitoring  (approximately  reduced  to  a  third  of  the  sites  in  the  second  cycle 

96  Spain  subsequently  clarified  that  102  Protected  Areas  are  designated  under  the  Habitats  Directive  in  these 

RBDs. 

97 Spain has informed the Commission that this could be due to an error in the reporting of the stations, where this 

WFD stations would not have been marked as they also informed about Protected Areas. 

201 

 
                                                      
compared to the first). A similar picture emerges for monitoring in relation to Protected Areas 

designated under the Nitrates and Bathing Water Directives.  

Table 15.3 

Number of monitoring sites associated with Protected Areas in Spain.  

Protected Area type 

Abstraction of water intended for 
human consumption under Article 
7 
Recreational waters, including 
areas designated as bathing waters 
under Directive 76/160/EEC 
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) 
and Directive 79/409/EEC (Birds) 
Nutrient-sensitive areas, including 
areas designated as vulnerable 
zones under Directive 91/676/EEC 
(Nitrates Directive)  
Nutrient-sensitive areas, including 
areas designated as sensitive areas 
under Directive 91/271/EEC 
(Urban Wastewater Treatment 
Directive) 
Areas designated for the protection 
of economically significant aquatic 
species 

Number of monitoring sites associated with Protected Areas in98 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal  Groundwater 

911 

124 

11 

17 

675 

17 

65 

312 

43 

5 

2 

2 

7 

59 

1 

5 

20 

48 

6 

1487 

366 

0 

0 

18 

79 

1542 

3 

0 

0 

0 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The  monitoring  programme  associated  with  Protected  Areas  designated  under  the  Habitats 
Directive has increased significantly in a few RBDs, taking the network from 200-300 sites in 
the  first  RBMP  to  over  900  sites  in  the  second  cycle.  But  still,  only  seven  RBDs  have  a 

specific  monitoring  of  Protected  Areas  designated  under  the  Habitats  Directive  even  though 
such areas are reported in the status assessment for all RBDs and even with high confidence. 

Groundwater  monitoring  is  only  reported  in  WISE  for  11  RBDs99,  although  the  status  (both 
quantitative and qualitative) is reported for groundwater bodies for nearly all 18 Spanish RBDs 
and for a considerable part with high confidence.  

98  Spain  subsequently  informed  the  Commission  that  the  reported  information  in  WISE  was  not  accurate.  This 

table reflects the updated/corrected data. 

99 Spain subsequently stated that groundwater monitoring of water bodies associated with Protected Areas takes 

place in 14 RBDs. 

202 

 
                                                      
The  status  assessment  of  surface  and  groundwater  bodies  associated  with  Protected  Areas  is 

reported for all Protected Areas - by type and number. It is the general picture that the status 
assessment  is  made  with  a  high  or  medium  confidence.  A  reliable  assessment  of  status, 

especially  with  high  or  medium  confidence,  implies  an  adequate  underlying  monitoring 
programme. However, the reported number of monitoring sites indicates a limited monitoring 

programme  which  by  no  means  covers  the  rather  high  number  of  Protected  Areas  in  some 
RBDs and for some types of Protected Area, there are no monitoring sites at all. For example, 

in the Eastern Cantabrian and Western Cantabrian RBDs, the reported monitoring programme 
is very limited and covers only Protected Areas related to  a few Directives100 . Nevertheless, 
the status assessment is reported for all Protected Areas and for all with high confidence. For 
groundwater, both the quantitative and the chemical status assessment are made for all RBDs 

and mainly made with high or medium confidence. However, monitoring activities have only 
been reported to WISE for 14101 RBDs. 

With respect to measures, safeguard zones in connection with Drinking Water Protected Areas 
have been established in all RBDs and there are no plans to change the regulations as a result 

of this RBMP. In the safeguard zones, there is a ban for changes to the landscape, excavation 
and any kind of construction, permissions for the discharge of waste water can be revised and 

other types of activities (like livestock production or industrial activity) require an assessment 
before the can commence. 

For  other  types  of  Protected  Areas,  additional  objectives  have  largely  not  been  set  and 

consequently no additional measures would be expected. 

Exemptions have been applied for all types of surface water Protected Area with the exception 

of  those  under  Article  4(7).  On  average,  11  %  of  the  water  bodies  associated  with  Protected 
Areas have had exemptions applied ranging from 0 % for Drinking Water Protected Areas to 

20 % for those designated under the Habitats and Bathing Water Directives. For groundwater, 
only 2 % of the water bodies associated with  Protected Areas designated under the Habitats, 

Birds  and  Nitrate  Directives  have  had  exemptions  applied.  Further  assessment  of  the 
exemptions applied in Spain is provided in Chapter 8. 

100 Spain subsequently clarified that ES017 and ES018 reported sites related to the following monitoring purposes: 

Abstraction of water, Nitrates, Sensitive areas, Recreational waters, Shellfish. 

101  Spain  informed  the  Commission  that  it  was  reported  for  14  RBDs:  ES010,  ES017,  ES018,  ES020,  ES030, 

ES040, ES050, ES063, ES064, ES070, ES080, ES091, ES100 and ES110. 

203 

 
                                                      
15.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  number  of  Protected  Areas  has  changed  in  many  instances.  For  example,  in  the  Duero 
RBD, the number of protected areas under the Habitats Directive increased from 78 in the first 

cycle to 86 in the second.  

The  monitoring  program  has  changed  in  several  ways.  Firstly,  no  monitoring  activities  have 

been reported in the second cycle for Protected Areas related to the Birds Directive in contrast 
to the first cycle, where specific monitoring was performed102.  

Monitoring of Drinking Water Protected Areas has decreased for both surface and groundwater 

bodies; mostly for groundwater monitoring (decreased to approximately one third of the extent 
reported in the first cycle in the second). A similar picture emerges for monitoring in relation 

to Protected Areas designated under the Nitrates and Bathing Water Directives.  

The  extent  of  monitoring  related  to  Protected  Areas  designated  under  the  Habitats  Directive 

has increased significantly for a few RBDs with 200-300 sites in the first RBMP to over 711 
sites  in  the  second  cycle.  But  still,  only  half  of  the  RBDs  have  a  specific  monitoring  of 

Protected Areas designated under the Habitats Directive; although water bodies associated with 
these Protected Areas  are reported in  the status  assessment for  all RBDs and even with  high 

confidence. 

15.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation: Ensure monitoring includes all relevant parameters of the drinking 

water Directive:  

Assessment: The information reported to WISE for the second cycle does not allow for 
a check on the parameters monitored in Drinking Water Protected Areas. However, the 

very  limited  extent  of  specific  monitoring  of  these  areas  indicates  that  the  extent  of 
monitoring  in  itself  is  of  concern.  Progress  with  this  recommendation  could  not  be 

assessed. 

  Recommendation: Define status of Protected Areas to ensure a harmonized approach 

across the country.  

102 Spain subsequently clarified that when establishing the indicators or metrics for evaluating the environmental 
status,  it  took  into  account  the  environmental  requirements  of  protected  areas,  which  explains  why  no 
additional objectives were needed 

204 

 
                                                      
It  is  not  possible  to  check  if  such  a  common  approach  has  been  implemented.  The 

reported  status  assessment  of  water  bodies  associated  with  Protected  Areas  is  very 
comprehensive covering all Protected Area types. However, a very limited monitoring 

program  specific  for  Protected  Areas  has  been  reported  –  a  program  not  covering  all 
Protected Area types and not by far all of the areas reported. Progress has been made 

with  the definition of the status  assessment of water bodies  associated  with Protected 
Areas,  but  the  existence  of  a  harmonised  approach  could  not  be  assessed.  This 

recommendation has been partially fulfilled.    

  Recommendation:  Carry  out  a  comprehensive  study  together  with  the  responsible 
authorities  for  nature  to  derive  the  quantitative  and  qualitative  needs  for  protected 

habitats and species, translated into specific objectives for each protected area which 
should be inserted in the RBMPs. Appropriate monitoring and measures should also be 

included in the RBMPs. 

For Protected Areas designated under the Birds and Habitats Directives, it is reported 

for a few RBD, that specific objectives have been set - but in some cases the needs are 
unknown. For the majority of the RBDs, it is reported, that either the objectives for the 

WFD are sufficient to reach the objective for the particular parent Directive or that the 
needs are not known. There is no evidence therefore of a comprehensive study to define 

additional  objectives  and  to  implement  appropriate  monitoring  and  measures.  This 
recommendation has been partially fulfilled.  

205 

 
 
Topic 16

  Adaptation to drought and climate change 

16.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle and main changes since the first cycle 

Even though there is no legal obligation to prepare Drought Management Plans, many Member 

States have prepared them in  order to  cope with droughts.  Drought  is  a relevant  issue for all 
RBDs in Spain. However, so far none of the RBMPs have applied any exemption under Article 

4(6)  for  prolonged  droughts  (except  Guadiana  in  the  RBMP,  but  not  according  to  WISE). 
According to the reporting by Spain, no sub-plans are in place on water scarcity and droughts. 

It should be noted however, that Spain has updated 11 of the 2006-2007 drought management 
plans103.  The  updated  drought  management  plans  consider  combined  indicators  which  could 
lead  to  a  more  frequent  application  of  Article  4(6).  Practical  implications  of  their 
implementation are yet to be assessed.   

Climate change was considered in various ways in all RBDs and it is stated that the guidance 
on how to adapt to climate change (Guidance Document No. 24) was used. Climate change has 

been considered in all basins in the following aspects: when setting objectives, selecting robust 
adaptation  measures,  monitoring  change  at  reference  sites  and  when  assessing  direct  and 

indirect  climate  pressures.  Climate  change  is  also  considered  in  flood  risk  and  drought 
management  and  for  water  scarcity.  Detecting  climate  change  signals  is  another  aspect 

considered.  The  RBMP  Guadiana  reports  climate  change  as  driver  for  applying  Article  4(4) 
exemptions  but  no  RBMP  reports  climate  change  as  driver  for  applying  Article  4(5) 

exemptions. KTM24 (climate change adaptation measures) is not made operational to address 
significant  pressures  in  any  of  the  RBDs.  No  specific  sub-plans  addressing  climate  change 

have been reported in any of the RBDs but as in the first cycle there is a national strategy for 
adaptation to climate change104, with specific references to water management. 

16.2 Progress with Commission recommendations 

There were no recommendations relating to this topic. 

103  https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2018-17752. 
104http://www.mapama.gob.es/gl/cambio-climatico/temas/impactos-vulnerabilidad-y-adaptacion/plan-nacional-

adaptacion-cambio-climatico/ 

206