Water Policy Observatory, Foundation for a New Water Culture (Observatorio de las Políticas del Agua, OPPA) ASSESSMENT OF THE FIRST WATER PLANNING CYCLE IN SPAIN UNDER THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE October 2014 In this report we present the main conclusions of the Assessment of the First Water Planning Cycle in Spain under the Water Framework Directive (WFD), carried out by the Water Policy Observatory (Observatorio de las Políticas del Agua, OPPA) of the New Water Culture Foundation (Fundación Nueva Cultura del Agua, FNCA). The report synthesises the main results of a series of individual reports that evaluate specific River Basin Management Plans as well as certain themes and regions of particular relevance. The synthesis report and the specific reports on which it is based are available at:
http://bit.ly/1zrEho0. While the OPPA is responsible for the synthesis report and this executive summary, the specific supporting reports are the responsibility of their authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the FNCA. Executive Summary 1.
Although the WFD was approved 14 years ago, its transposition into Spanish law remains incomplete and inadequate, particularly in what pertains to inter‐administrative coordination (Competent Authorities Committee), financial and economic regime, definition of water planning goals and their relationships with sectoral strategies and plans. 2.
The approval of most Spanish River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) has been delayed to the point that their implementation is merely symbolic, so that the first water planning cycle in Spain has been largely lost. 3.
There are serious governance deficiencies related to the effectiveness of the coordinating role of the Competent Authorities Committee as well as of the public participation processes in water planning and management. The public participation processes have not been able to influence the most important issues, such as the achievement of the environmental objectives, the program of measures (PoMs) or the cost recovery programs. In some river basins, key issues conditioning water management and the achievement of the WFD goals have been excluded from the water planning and public participation processes, as for instance the Tagus‐Segura water transfer. Fundación Nueva Cultura del Agua ‐ C/Pedro Cerbuna, 12‐50009 Zaragoza ‐ http://www.fnca.eu Página 2 de 3
4.
For most water bodies, the relationship state‐pressures‐objectives‐measures‐results are not defined in a specific and traceable way. For example, the relationship between irrigated agriculture and the deterioration of the affected water bodies is for the most part not analysed, nor are there quantitative objectives allowing for the monitoring of the effectiveness of measures. 5.
A high number of water bodies lack a definition of ecological status, there are gaps in the establishment of reference conditions, and key indicators (hydrologic alterations, hydromorphological pressures or fish communities) have not been applied. 6.
Environmental flows have not been established for many river water bodies as required by Spanish legislation. In those cases where environmental flows have been defined, they are not linked to the status of the water bodies. In most river basins the required mediation process for the establishment of environmental flows has been insufficient or non‐existent. 7.
In most river basins no specific conservation objectives have been established for water bodies in Natura 2000 sites, thus violating article 4.1.c of the WFD and threatening the conservation of such protected sites. 8.
Most RBMPs have generally extended the deadline to achieve good status for most water bodies, without proper justification in terms of disproportionate costs as required by the WFD. Moreover, the principle of no deterioration is not duly considered and is not properly justified. Furthermore, the application of this exemption is not carried back at least to the date on which the RBMPs should have come into force (22.12.2009). 9.
The programs of measures (PoMs) are conditioned by past policies and remain focused on the promotion of new hydraulic works to increase supply and meet existing and new demands, particularly from irrigated agriculture. They are not connected to the objective of achieving and maintaining the good status of water bodies. Most of the budget of the PoMs are allocated to these water works, while the budget assigned to basic environmental measures is much smaller or even symbolic. Moreover, the measures are not linked to the environmental objectives and lack an assessment of their environmental impacts at the water body scale. They also lack a cost‐
effectiveness assessment and a clear implementation and financing schedule. 10. Cost‐recovery remains at very low levels. In addition to the omission of environmental and resource costs, different accounting artifices are used to reduce total cost estimates and approximate them to the amounts being paid. These accounting artifices include, for instance, the application of discounts in dams and associated infrastructures based on their flood prevention function as a way to mask arbitrary public subsidies. Moreover, costs are assigned without taking into consideration the polluter pays principle. 11. The insufficient and inadequate cost recovery has important consequences. On one hand, it prevents the consideration of other more cost‐effective alternative measures, for instance in terms of flood prevention. On the other hand, it makes it possible to keep a large part of the desalination plants built with European funds in the Mediterranean coast largely unused. 12. In most river basins, the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) have only presented generic alternatives to the proposed measures, which in a strict sense cannot be properly considered as alternatives, thus distorting the practical effects of the SEA. Moreover, the SEA procedures have not Fundación Nueva Cultura del Agua ‐ C/Pedro Cerbuna, 12‐50009 Zaragoza ‐ http://www.fnca.eu Página 3 de 3
analysed specific management alternatives to each key problem in river basins, nor the impacts of the RBMPs on the Natura 2000 sites. 13. The low ambition in the implementation of the WFD in Spain and the persistence of old inertias focused on the development of new hydraulic works to meet demands are clearly exemplified in some significant cases such as the Ebro Delta, the Upper Guadiana Basin, the Doñana region, the Valencia Albufera and the Guadalquivir Estuary. Noncompliance with the WFD has significant negative consequences in these Natura 2000 and Ramsar protected areas of internationally recognized ecological importance. 14. In conclusion, the first water planning cycle under the WFD in Spain has been characterised by an adoption of the WFD language and rhetoric, but an absence of a coherent conceptual and methodological approach to its implementation and no real practical effects. Despite the political efforts by the Spanish Ministry of the Environment during the 2004‐2008 legislature and the significant commitment of staff members in some River Basin Authorities' water planning offices, the resulting RBMPs are an incoherent mix of old hydraulic works proposals juxtaposed with plans to “comply with the environmental objectives of the WFD”. The plans do not modify old inertias and therefore do not comply with the WFD requirements. 15. In short, the necessary process of renovation of Spanish water policy (2000‐2014) has been frustrated. The first planning cycle RBMPs did not incorporate the necessary innovations since they were approved close to the end of their implementation period (2015) and largely maintained the basic premises of the pre‐WFD 1998 Basin Hydrologic Plans. According to statements from public officials, the second planning cycle RBMPs (2015‐2021) will also not include significant improvements since the first plans have recently been approved. Therefore there is no radical shift in water policy in Spain. The hydraulic policies that predominated throughout the XXth century will continue to dominate Spanish water management in the first two decades of the XXIst century. Fundación Nueva Cultura del Agua ‐ C/Pedro Cerbuna, 12‐50009 Zaragoza ‐ http://www.fnca.eu