Bárbara Willaarts 1,2, Mario Ballesteros 2 and Nuria Hernández-Mora 3 1 Observatorio del Agua-Fundación Botín 2 CEIGRAM-Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 3 FNCA, Fundación Nueva Cultura del Agua Dialogue on Water Governance 2015 Fortaleza-Brazil

The Water Framework Directive: a changing paradigm to manage water resources The Water Framework Directive: a changing paradigm to manage water resources Overview of the monitoring program and current status of water bodies Overview of the monitoring program and current status of water bodies Management challenges Management challenges 2

Public Participation ESTIMATING DEMANDS AND RESOURCE ACCOUNTING DEFINING OBJECTIVES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS CONTROL AND MONITORING MEASURES TO IMPROVE ECOLOGICAL STATUS AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS= Providers of ecosystem services 3 Source: Hernández Mora year-planning cycle Public Participation

4 Source: IPH (2007) adapted from WFD (2000) Reference Status Very Poor Status Good Status Poor Status “River, lakes and wetlands’ hydrological performance and functioning” “River, lakes and wetlands’ pollution level” Reference Status Very Poor Status Reference Status Very Poor Status

5

6 Example of Biological Status. Source: WFD CIS Guidance Doc 13 PHYTOBENTHOS MACROINVERTEBRATES

7 Common GOAL: all WB reach GOOD STATUS by 2015 & NO WAY BACK Fuente: Peter Pollard, SEPA citado por D. Howell. SEO/BirdLife GES applies for WB with little or no human modification (rivers, lakes and wetlands) GEP applies for all heavily modified or artificial- HMWB (eg. reservoirs, canals, harbours) Fuente: Peter Pollard, SEPA citado por D. Howell. SEO/BirdLife

8  34% of the HMWB “rivers” are located in two basins: Tagus (1.100km) and Guadalquivir (1075 Km)  Greater number of HMWB evidences ↑ pressure on water bodies now and ↑ potential risk of lower compliance with environmental objectives (particularly if GEP is less ambitious than GES) WaterBodies Km/ Km/Km2 % of HMWBRivers Lakes/Wetlands Transitional water Coastal

9 A national overview of the ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies (SWB) to: 1.Identify where are the hotspots and what are the main pressures and drivers 2.Assess the consistency of the environmental assessment performed across basins to detect potential gaps and limitations that need to be address in the following planning cycle

10

11

12 Number of WB in poor Status (%) Km of rivers in poor Status (%) Km2 of SWB in poor Status (%)

Main pressures on surface water bodies (SWB) Agricultural diffuse pollution Insufficient urban and industrial wastewater treatment Over-regulation and high morphological alterations Over-allocation of water rights

14 HOTSPOTS: basins with 60% of total number of WB in poor status

Lessons learnt and management challenges ahead 15 Massive efforts have been developed to generate information of the status and mean threats of SWB. Today we know what kind of pressures are threatening the integrity of SWB and where. BUT…. Reversing the status of SWB requires the involvement of other administrations beyond the water authorities Larger budget is required to restore SWB Greater consistency in the use of indicators is required. Different indicators provide different outcomes Expensive monitoring system, perhaps not the most cost- effective solution in data-scarce regions

16 HOTSPOTS: basin with 60% of the total area or river lenght WB in poor status

17

Different assessment approaches make comparation across basins difficult 18 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Out of 7 criteria, RB mostly have assessed only 3-4 FISH indicators have been left out PHYSICO- CHEMICAL ASSESSMENT Most RB have assessed multiple criteria (up to 8) HYDRO- MORPHOLOGI CAL ASSESSMENT Out of 4 criteria, RB mostly have assessed only 1-2

FISH FAUNA DIATOMS BIOLOGICAL STATUS Source: Munné et al., 2012 MACROINVERTEBRATES

20 Water Bodies NumberGOOD status today GOOD status 2015 GOOD status 2021 GOOD status 2027 Rivers (21%)641 (92%)651 (94%)655 (94%) Lakes14014 (100%) Portugal France Is it realistic the 2015 objective given the current socio-economic context? 2021

Concluding remarks: 21 Since 2005 the volume of ecological information generated has been spectacular in Spain, but current analysis shows important technical gaps. Bad status of SWB is mostly due to poor ecological status and therefore because of over- regulation and overextraction and not that much because of pollution. Less than 50% of SWB have good ecological status and it seems difficult to reach the 2015 objective under current circumstances.

Concluding remarks: Technical and management gaps 22 Comparing environmental results of WB across all basins in Spain is not possible yet. Mostly because: Hydromorfological indicators have not been fully considered since we are missing reference conditions for most indicators. Hydromorfological indicators have not been fully considered since we are missing reference conditions for most indicators. Among biological indicators, fishes represent a highly sensitive bioindicator, but it has not been included in most assessments due to the lack of reference conditions. Among biological indicators, fishes represent a highly sensitive bioindicator, but it has not been included in most assessments due to the lack of reference conditions.

Thanks