12th July 2018 - Europa

12th July 2018

Annex VIIII Application of the bottom-up multicriteria methodology in eight European River Basin District The Guadalquivir RDB Task A3 of the BLUE 2 project “Study on EU integrated policy assessment for the freshwater and marine environment, on the economic benefits of EU water policy and on the costs of its non- implementation” By: Carlos Benítez Sanz Juan José Benítez Sanz Bárbara Mora Navarro Beatriz Martí Corral Julio Berbel, Maria del Mar Borrego In collaboration with

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiMkJqXub7aAhWFXBQKHSMKCJkQjRx6BAgAEAU&url=https://www.justdial.com/Hyderabad/Ramboll-India-Pvt-Ltd-Gutla-Begumpet-Madhapur/040PXX40-XX40-110103152216-R3G5_BZDET/photos&psig=AOvVaw1WI4BKYaYAZ2BCbuOHTSdd&ust=1523956139404259

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi1m8G2ub7aAhUHXRQKHTt8BtgQjRx6BAgAEAU&url=http://www.ecorys.com.tr/Areas-of-Expertise&psig=AOvVaw0cb14UBuLXr3vBO_zz2M4l&ust=1523956200681846

Disclaimer: The arguments expressed in this report are solely those of the authors, and do not reflect the opinion of any other party. The report should be cited as follows: Sanz, Sanz, Navarro, Corral, Berbel, Borrego (2018). Annex VIIII. Application of the bottom-up multicriteria methodology in eight European River Basin Districts – The Guadalquivir RBD. Deliverable to Task A3 of the BLUE 2 project “Study on EU integrated policy assessment for the freshwater and marine environment, on the economic benefits of EU water policy and on the costs of its non- implementation”. Report to DG ENV. Client: Directorate-General for the Environment of the European Commission.

INTECSA-INARSA S.A. C/ Julian Camarillo, 53 28037 Madrid Spain WEARE: Water, Environmental and Agricultural Resources Economics Universidad de Córdoba Campus Rabanales; Edificio Gregor Mendel 14071, Córdoba, Spain

Email: [email protected]

Institute for European Environmental Policy London Office 11 Belgrave Road IEEP Offices, Floor 3 London, SW1V 1RB Tel: +44 (0) 20 7799 2244 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7799 2600 Brussels Office Rue Joseph II 36-38, 1000 Bruxelles Tel: +32 (0) 2738 7482 Fax: +32 (0) 2732 4004

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. 3

Preface ............................................................................................................................. 5

1 Description of the Guadalquivir River Basin District ................................................... 6

2 The Second River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and the related Programme of Measure (PoM) ................................................................................................................ 9

3 The measures included in the BAU level of effort .................................................... 11

General criteria for the selection of measures ........................................................................ 11

Key Pressures in the RBD ......................................................................................................... 11

Selection of measures for the Business as Usual ..................................................................... 12

4 The measures included in the HI level of effort ........................................................ 32

Identification of water bodies susceptible to need more ambitious measures ...................... 32

Analysis of additional measures for the High WFD implementation ...................................... 33

Evaluation of the effects of optimal fertilization in the RBD ................................................... 34

5 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort ........................................ 40

6 Costs of the measures included in the HI level of effort ........................................... 45

7 Outcomes of the measures included in the BAU and HI level of effort ...................... 47

8 Benefits of the measures included in the BAU and HI level of effort ......................... 51

9 Biodiversity improvements of the measures included in the BAU and HI level of effort (a quarter of a page per measure) ................................................................................... 52

10 Comparison of the costs and benefits in the two levels of effort .............................. 53

11 Challenges and recommendations to improve the methodology .............................. 65

12 References .............................................................................................................. 66

13 Annex. Detailed information on costs ...................................................................... 67

List of Tables Table 1 Characterisation of the River Basin District Guadalquivir ............................................. 6

Table 2 Measures in the BAU level of effort ............................................................................ 17

Table 3 Water bodies where exemptions because of disproportionate costs beyond 2027 are applied ..................................................................................................................................... 32

Table 4 Summary characteristics of the scenarios considered (2012) .................................... 35

Table 5 Estimation of the reduction of excess Nitrogen lixiviated to GWBs – Guadalquivir .. 35

Table 6 Measures in the HI level of effort ............................................................................... 38

Table 7 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort – total funding ................ 43

Table 8 Costs of the measures included in the HI level of effort – total funding .................... 46

Table 9 Summary of the costs in the two levels of effort ........................................................ 54

Table 10 Summary of the outcomes in the two levels of effort .............................................. 55

Table 11 Summary of the benefits in the two levels of effort ................................................. 59

Table 12 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort – public funding ............ 67

Table 13 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort – private funding .......... 69

Table 14 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort – other funding ............. 70

List of Figures Figure 1 Overview of the BLUE2 study ...................................................................................... 5

Figure 2 The Guadalquivir River Basin District ........................................................................... 6

Figure 3 Surface Water Bodies (SWB) status ........................................................................... 10

Figure 4 Groundwater Bodies (GWB) status ............................................................................ 10

Figure 5 Pressures leading to SWB exemptions in ES050, number of SWBs affected. Source: own elaboration based on data of the Guadalquivir RBMP .................................................... 11

Figure 6 Pressures leading to GWB exemptions in ES050 Guadalquivir, number of GWBs affected. Source: own elaboration based on data of the Jucar RBMP .................................... 12

Figure 7 Measures KTM scheduled in ES050 Guadalquivir, number ....................................... 13

Figure 8 Measures KTM scheduled in ES050 Guadalquivir, costs ........................................... 14

Preface

This annex report is one product of the “Study on European Union (EU) integrated policy assessment for the freshwater and marine environment, on the economic benefits of EU water policy and on the costs of its non-implementation” (BLUE2) commissioned by the European Commission (EC).

The overall aim of the BLUE2 study is to support the Commission in building up its analytical capacity and understanding of the economics and effectiveness of the EU water acquis.

BLUE2 is comprised of two parts, as shown in Figure 1:

Figure 1 Overview of the BLUE2 study

The overall objective of Part A of BLUE2 is to increase the understanding of the full (economic) value that water, and water services generate and how water resources contribute to economic development and citizens' well-being. The findings of BLUE2 will further assist in quantifying how the EU water acquis contributes to this value generation, using the most appropriate valuation techniques.

The overall objective of Part B of BLUE2 is to develop a method for the integrated socio-economic assessment of policies affecting the quality of the freshwater and marine environment, to be applied in connection with the water and marine modelling framework held by the Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC). The method and accompanying tools will be used to support policy development. In particular, Part B aims to establish an EU pressures inventory and measures database. Additionally, Part B will increase the understanding of the cost-effectiveness of measures and the benefits arising from a reduction of pressures on the freshwater and marine environment through the application of two online modelling tools. A Scenario Generation Tool for defining and generating policy scenarios for JRC modelling and an Evaluation Tool for cost-benefit assessment of the created scenarios.

Task A3 of BLUE2 developed a bottom-up multicriteria methodology to compare costs and benefits of water policy at the River Basin District level. This annex summarises the results of the application of the methodology developed in Task A3 to the Guadalquivir RBD.

1 Description of the Guadalquivir River Basin District

Figure 2 The Guadalquivir River Basin District

The Guadalquivir River is the longest river in southern Spain with a length of 657 km. Its basin covers an area of 57,679 km2 and has a population of 4,361,469 inhabitants. The basin has a Mediterranean climate with a heterogeneous precipitation distribution. The annual average temperature is 16.8°C, and the annual precipitation averages at 573 mm, with a range between 260 mm and 983 mm (standard deviation of 161 mm). The average renewable resources in the basin amount to 7,043 (arithmetic mean) and 5,078 hm3/year (median), ranging from a minimum of 372 hm3/year to a maximum of 15,180 hm3/year1 (Argüelles et al. 2012). In a normal year, a potential volume of around 8,500 hm3 can be stored through a complex and interconnected system of 65 dams. The main land uses in the basin are forestry (49.1%), agriculture (47.2%), urban areas (1.9%) and wetlands (1.8%) (CHG, 2015). Table 1 Characterisation of the River Basin District Guadalquivir

Name of the RBD

Country Spain

Population (number of inhabitants) 2 4,361,469

Total area (km2) 57,679

Population density (inhabitants/km2) 75.62

GDP per capita (€) 15,169

Unemployment rate 25%

Inland waters (km) 9281.978 (river type)

1 http://helvia.uco.es/bitstream/handle/10396/8754/berbel3.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 2 Permanent population

http://helvia.uco.es/bitstream/handle/10396/8754/berbel3.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Name of the RBD

Groundwaters (m3) 972,030,000

Lakes (km2) 896.346

Main cities and their population (number of inhabitants)

Sevilla (702.935), Córdoba (335,943), Granada (241,126), Dos Hermanas (139,563), Jaen (117,898), Alcala de Guadaira (80,067)

Water bodies in high status (%, in terms of surface area, not number)3

RW: 28.68% HMRW - reservoirs /LW: 63.85% CW: 0.00% TW: 0.00%

Water bodies in good status (%, in terms of surface area, not number)


Water bodies in moderate status (%, in terms of surface area, not number)


Water bodies in poor status (%, in terms of surface area, not number)


Water bodies in bad status (%, in terms of surface area, not number)


Name of the main Protected Areas, their size (ha) and their main biota(s)

Doñana (1,139 km2), Sierras de Cazorla, Segura y las Villas (2,101 km2), Sierra de Aracena y Picos de Aroche (1,868 km2), Sierra Norte (1,775 km2), Sierra Morena (1,343 km2), Sierras de Alcaraz y de Segura y Cañones del Segura y del Mundo (1,749 km2), Sierra Nevada (1,722 km2), Cuencas del Rumblar, Guadalen y Guadalmena (1,789 km2).

Percentage of agricultural surface out of total river basin surface (%)

47.2

Economic activities in Guadalquivir River Basin generated around €65.8 billion in 2012, equivalent to 7% of the value of Spanish production. Over 75% of GVA in the Guadalquivir River Basin is concentrated in the service sector. The weight of industrial activities is lower at about 18% of GVA, while agricultural activity at 5% and energy production at 1% are relatively less important in terms of GVA.

3 This and the following status classes (good, moderate, poor, bad) refer to the classification regarding good ecological status. RW: rivers; HMRW: heavily modified rivers; LW: lakes; CW: coastal; TW: transitional.

According to the Hydrological Management Plan 2016-2021, the sum of all water abstractions in Guadalquivir River Basin suppose an estimated total volume of 3,801.13 hm3/year, divided by the following uses:

Urban 379.45 hm3 Irrigation 3,342.44 hm3 Industry (including energy consumptive) 43.40 hm3 Recreational 35.84 hm3 Total 3,801.13 hm3

The main abstractive pressure in the basin is agricultural irrigation with almost 88% of total abstractions, followed by urban use that suppose a 10% and industrial and energetic uses with less than 2%. Regarding sources, approximately 74% are superficial abstractions - a total of 2,829.10 million cubic meters (regulated and non-regulated). The variability in water resource availability, the increasing demand from different water users, and the recurrent droughts, lead to episodes of cyclical scarcity. Local and seasonal droughts cause aquifer salinization and environmental stress. Moreover, water quality is a significant problem throughout the river basin. The main sources of pollution include urban and industrial waste water discharge, erosion, and nutrient and pesticide runoff from agricultural land (CHG, 2015). The Guadalquivir Hydrological Management Plan (2016-2021) identifies 446 surface water bodies (river, lake, transition and coastal), 273 (61.2%) in good status and 173 (38.8%) in less than good status (Figure 2).

2 The Second River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and the related Programme of Measure (PoM)

The Guadalquivir Hydrological Management Plan (2016-2021) identifies 446 surface water bodies (river, lake, transition and coastal), 273 (61.2%) in good status and 173 (38.8%) in less than good status (Figure 3). The main pressures exerted on surface waters are:

• Point waste water (urban, industrial IED and non IED).

• Agricultural diffuse pollution (rainfed and irrigation), other (urban runoff, forestry).

• Water abstraction (irrigation with regulated surface water resources -2.163 hm3-, irrigation with groundwater -859 hm3-, Irrigation with no regulated surface water resources -335 hm3, urban supply with regulated surface resources -290 hm3-, urban supply with spring waters -48 hm3-, urban supply with groundwater -40 hm3-, individual industrial supply with surface resources -30 hm3-, individual industrial supply with groundwater -14 hm3-) and energy uses.

• Water regulation.

• Morphological alterations: transversal (122 dams, 283 weirs, 6 locks in transitional waters); longitudinal (154 canalizations, 1 margin protection, 6 channel covers > 200 m, 83 poplar > 5 ha, 4 longitudinal defence structures > 500 m); others (river dredging, ports, aggregates extraction, modification of the natural connection with other bodies of water, dykes, breakwaters, docks, etc).

• Land uses: erosion (bad agricultural practices, olive groves, forest fires).

• Invasive alien species.

On the other hand, the Guadalquivir Hydrological Management Plan (2016-2021) identifies 86 groundwater bodies in the basin, 54 in good status (62.8%) and 32 (37.2%) in bad status (Figure 4). The main pressures are:

• Agricultural diffuse pollution (rainfed and irrigation –nitrates-), natural causes), other (urban runoff, forestry).

• Point pollution (contaminated soils, landfills, gas stations, mines, urban and industrial discharges).

• Water abstraction.

Figure 3 Surface Water Bodies (SWB) status

Figure 4 Groundwater Bodies (GWB) status

Status / Potential 2015

Good

Less than good

Sevilla

Granada

Jaén

Córdoba

Status 2015

Good

Less than good

Sevilla

Granada

Jaén

Córdoba

3 The measures included in the BAU level of effort

General criteria for the selection of measures

Following general methodology of Task A3, the measures to be prioritizes should be:

1) those targeting the water bodies in poor/bad ecological status;

2) those expected to deliver outcomes that can significantly contribute to address the most important

pressures in the water bodies included in the RBDs;

3) the most expensive measures, including those to meet key provisions of the UWWTD.

It is also important to consider the availability of information and the ease of its gathering, analysis and presentation. Two ‘levels of effort’ in applying measures to meet WFD objectives will be analysed for each RBD: 1) business as usual (BAU) and 2) high WFD implementation (HI). It must be noted that HI measures are not included in the RBMPs. The time horizon of the two ‘levels of effort’ is 2027, which is the compliance deadline for the WFD to achieve good status in all water bodies and the end of the 3rd RBMPs period.

Key Pressures in the RBD

The main pressures exerted on surface waters have been listed in the previous section. As a consequence of these pressures, 190 surface water bodies (SWBs) are subject to exemption (43% of the total), all of them are ecological exemptions and two also chemical. Main pressures leading to ecological exemption are point urban waste water (53% of cases) and agricultural diffuse pollution (39% of cases). The chemical exemptions are due to industrial point pollution (IED plants) in one case and to mining diffuse pollution in the other. PSB causing chemical failure are cadmium and its compounds in both cases and endosulfan because of IED plants pollution.

Figure 5 Pressures leading to SWB exemptions in ES050, number of SWBs affected. Source: own elaboration based on data of the Guadalquivir RBMP

For groundwaters, the main pressures are:

• Agricultural diffuse pollution (rainfed and irrigation –nitrates-), natural causes (Trias keuper), other (urban runoff, forestry)

• Point pollution (contaminated soils, landfills, gas stations, mines, urban and industrial discharges)

• Water abstraction (see above).

1.1 - Point - Urban waste water; 101

Other point pressures; 1

2.2 - Diffuse -Agricultural; 74

Other diffuse pressures; 12

4.5 -Hydromorphological alteration - Other; 4

32 ground water bodies (GWBs) present exemptions (37% of the total), among which 24 are chemical exemptions and 22 are quantitative exemptions; some GWBs are affected by both exemptions. Main pressures leading to exemption are agricultural diffuse pollution (chemical exemptions) and abstraction for agricultural uses (quantitative exemptions). PSB causing chemical failure are nitrates in all cases (see graphic).

Figure 6 Pressures leading to GWB exemptions in ES050 Guadalquivir, number of GWBs affected. Source: own elaboration based on data of the Jucar RBMP

Selection of measures for the Business as Usual

The BAU level of effort includes the implementation of the measures set out in the 2nd River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs). Its time horizon is 2027, which is the compliance deadline for the WFD to achieve good status in all water bodies and the end of the 3rd RBMPs period. According to the information reported, the Guadalquivir Program of Measures includes a total of 815 measures4, of which 613 are basic and 202 supplementary, corresponding to 17 different KTMs and including 59 measures classified as “Other key type measure reported under PoM” (KTM-99). The largest group of measures is KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants, 569 measures, followed by those of KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity, 63 measures, KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM, 59 measures, KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty, 43 measures, KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households, 37 measures, and KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture, 15 measures (see graphic below).

4 These measures are those included in Annex 12 "Program of measures" (pdf format). There are 31 additional measures included in the Wise database that do not appear in the aforementioned Annex.

2.2 - Diffuse -Agricultural; 23

3.1 - Abstraction or flow diversion -Agriculture; 20

3.2 - Abstraction or flow diversion -

Public water supply; 3

8 - Anthropogenic pressure - Unknown; 1

Figure 7 Measures KTM scheduled in ES050 Guadalquivir, number

The total costs foreseen for the period 2016-2027 for the development of the Program of Measures, including investment and operational costs, amount to around 3.670 million of euros, 47,5% corresponding to basic measures and 52,5% to supplementary. 47% goes to KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants, 26% to KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households, 13% to KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM and 6% to KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity, while only 2% goes to KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty or 0,2% to KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture. Within the measures corresponding to KTM99, those with the highest budget are for improvement of municipal water supply infrastructures, for the recovery of the piezometric levels of the Doñana National Park aquifers -acquisition of existing water rights and basic infrastructure for the provision of external resources-, and for improvement of systems of measurement and hydrological warning in the RB.

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater

treatment plants; 569

KTM11 - Water pricing policy measures for the

implementation of the recovery of cost of water

services from agriculture; 2

KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture; 1

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge

base reducing uncertainty; 43

KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial

wastewater treatment plants (including farms); 3

KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion

and surface run-off; 7

KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse

impacts of invasive alien species and introduced

diseases; 2

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture; 15

KTM23 - Natural water retention measures; 2

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture; 1

KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil); 1

KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish

passes, demolishing old dams); 7

KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions of

water bodies other than longitudinal continuity; 63

KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment

of ecological flows; 2 KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for

irrigation, industry, energy and households; 37

KTM9 - Water pricing policy measures for the

implementation of the recovery of cost of water

services from households; 1

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under

PoM; 59

Figure 8 Measures KTM scheduled in ES050 Guadalquivir, costs

Preselection of measures According to the criteria above, the preselection process started in general terms by determining the main pressures present in each river basin. Subsequently, water bodies that do not meet the environmental objectives because of these pressures are picked and then measures addressing these pressures are selected. Given the substantial number and diversity of measures included in the PoM, in the first phase of the pre-selection we tried to proceed as methodically as possible, taking advantage of the available information, which is organized systematically in the database. The adopted process has been the following: First step: using the information reported in the RBMP, to determine the pressures leading to exemption and the groundwater and surface WBs affected. This topic has been commented in section 02. In ES050 Guadalquivir RB pressures leading to some exemption are: GWBs:

Chemical exemption. Pressure 2.2 - Diffuse – Agricultural

Quantitative exemption. Pressure 3.1 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Agriculture

SWBs:

Ecological exemption Pressure 1.1 - Point - Urban waste water

Ecological exemption Pressure 2.2 - Diffuse – Agricultural

Chemical exemption Pressure 1.3 - Point - IED plants

The different relevance of these pressures has been already discussed in section Error! Reference source not found. Second step: Measures addressing the pressures that lead to exemptions are now classified using the KTM under which they have been classified in the PoM. The general methodology developed for Task A3 requires to assess the expected outcomes due to the application of each measure (classified according to the KTM), which allows to verify if the measures addresses

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater

treatment plants47%

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty

2%

KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and

surface run-off3%

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture

1%

KTM23 - Natural water retention measures

1%

KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g.

establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams)

1%

KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological

conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal

continuity6%

KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for

irrigation, industry, energy and households

26%

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM

13%

each indicated pressure. Based on this information, it has been determined in general terms against which pressures each KTM acts. However, KTMs are a very general classification and especially some KTMs include measures of several types, for example the KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty or the KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM, which in some cases are very numerous. In these cases, it has been necessary to analyse the measure - pressure correspondence individually. In particular, for KTM99 some general criteria have been used, namely: actions against diffuse pollution and control of nitrates and phytosanitary products have been considered to address agricultural diffuse pollution exclusively; all desalination and reuse actions have been considered to address agricultural, urban or industrial abstraction, depending on the case; and it has been assumed that the actions to build hydraulic infrastructures of conventional resources do not act against any pressure that leads to exemptions. Third step: Crossing the information on pressures leading to exemption in each water body (step 1) with the proposed measures in these WBs against these pressures (step 2), the measures are selected, which meet the condition of addressing pressures causing exemptions in the WBs that do not meet the good status. Comments:

• With the information provided in the PoMs and the methodology described, apparently there are no measures (or at least no measure is detected) for certain pressures leading to exemptions: for instance, Pressure 1.4 - Point - Non IED plants, Pressure 1.6 - Point - Waste disposal sites and Pressure 5.1 - Introduced species and diseases in ES080 Jucar.

• Sometimes, the information available for each measure in the database is not enough to establish the pressures against which it is directed.

• The general character of the KTM classes makes the application of this methodology difficult, since some classes include measures of a different nature; or because some measures, by their nature, could be included in different KTMs (maybe even that different RB include the same measure in different KTMs).

• As already mentioned, some relevant pressures are addressed by a limited number of measures, which are, besides, of a generic nature and with little or unknown budget allocation. This is the case of agricultural diffuse pollution. KTMs addressing this pressure are mainly 2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture and 3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture; however, irrigation modernization measures (included in KTM8- Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households) is not included among those that improve agricultural pollution according to the outcomes defined in the general methodology. Nevertheless, according Spanish river basin authorities one of the main effects expected from measures to improve the efficiency of irrigation systems is the reduction of diffuse contamination, so this outcome has been included in the analysis and the measures for the modernization of irrigation taken into account for the improvement of diffuse pollution.

• Some knowledge improvement measures, KTM14, for example, modelling of the nitrate pollution process -for the improvement of the diffuse contamination knowledge- are necessary but their effects are difficult to measure, so they have been excluded from the analysis in this phase.

Selection of measures Initially, a set of criteria has been followed to choose among the preselected measures:

• Measures that affect a single WB, under the assumption that it will be easier to evaluate its effects

• Basic measures

• Most expensive measures

• Measures being most representative from the budgetary point of view within a KTM (for example, in ES050 Guadalquivir there are measures of KTM1 with wide budgetary allocation -50,000 euros to 80 million- but the largest number of them is between 1 and 10 million of investment)

• Measures acting against each different pressure leading to exemption (for example, in ES080 Jucar there are many different types of pressures leading to exemption)

• Measures acting against more than one pressure leading to exemption

• Practicability of the assessment of outcomes and (available information and applicable methodology).

The following tables show the measures selected according to these criteria. The selection includes: 17 measures under KTM 01 (upgrade of wastewater treatment plants), 5 measures under KTM 08 (improvement of water efficiency in irrigation) and 2 measures of the miscellanea KTM 99, both in the Doñana National Park environment, one of them to buy water rights and thus eliminate water abstractions, and the other for the construction of infrastructures to convey water resources to the Doñana area and thus reduce local water catchments.

Table 2 Measures in the BAU level of effort

Code Name of the Individual basic measure Location

Does the measure target a river, a lake or groundwater?

EU legislation of relevance (WFD, BWD, DWD, Flood Directive…)

01.01 Saneamiento y depuración del núcleo urbano OLIVARES

ES050MSPF011002006 River WFD - Basic - Urban Waste Water Treatment

01.02 Agrupación de vertidos y construcción de EDAR VILLAVERDE DEL RIO


01.03 Agrupación de vertidos y construcción de EDAR CONSTANTINA. Eliminación de N y P


01.04 Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR VILLAVICIOSA DE CORDOBA


01.05 Explotación y mantenimiento de EDAR de VILLANUEVA DE CORDOBA


01.06 Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR BRAZATORTAS ES050MSPF011008047 River WFD - Basic - Urban Waste Water Treatment

01.07 Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR de VILLANUEVA DE SAN CARLOS


01.08 Tratamiento más riguroso. Eliminación de N y P PUERTOLLANO GUADALQUIVIR


01.09 Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR de PUERTOLLANO


01.10 Adecuación y mejora EDAR de MONTEMAYOR ES050MSPF011007004 River WFD - Basic - Urban Waste Water Treatment

01.11 Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR de FERNAN NUÑEZ


01.12 Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR de CASTRO DEL RIO





01.13 Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR de BAENA ES050MSPF011009007 River WFD - Basic - Urban Waste Water Treatment

01.14 Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR de COPERO ES050MSPF013213015 Other WFD - Basic - Urban Waste Water Treatment

01.15 Adaptación EDAR Copero 2ª Tratamiento más riguroso. Eliminación de N y P

ES050MSPF013213015 Other WFD - Basic - Urban Waste Water Treatment

01.16 Colector de trasvase Tablada - Copero ES050MSPF013213009 Other WFD - Basic - Urban Waste Water Treatment

01.17 Colector de trasvase Tablada - Copero. Tamices ES050MSPF013213009 Other WFD - Basic - Urban Waste Water Treatment

08.01 Modernización de regadíos. Regadíos Vega de Granada

ES050MSPF011009057-Acequia de Barro

River WFD - Supplementary

08.02 Modernización de regadíos. Riegos Subterráneos UH 0532 en el Alto Genil

ES050MSBT000053202-Vega de Granada

Groundwater WFD - Supplementary

08.03 Modernización de regadíos. Riegos No Regulados del Alto Genil

ES050MSPF011009057-Acequia de Barro

River WFD - Supplementary

08.04 Modernización de regadíos. Riegos Subterráneos en el Sistema 1

ES050MSBT000055101-Almonte ES050MSBT000055102-Marismas ES050MSBT000055105-La Rocina


08.05 Modernización de regadíos. Riegos Subterráneos UH 0551 en el Sistema 1

ES050MSBT000055101-Almonte ES050MSBT000055105-La Rocina





99.01 Recuperación de los niveles piezométricos de los acuíferos de Doñana. Adquisición de los derechos para la eliminación de captaciones.

ES050MSBT000055105-La Rocina


99.02 Infraestructura básica para la aportación de recursos externos al entorno del Espacio Natural de Doñana

ES050MSBT000055101-Almonte ES050MSBT000055102-Marismas ES050MSBT000055105-La Rocina


Code of the measure. Name of the measure

01.01. Saneamiento y depuración del núcleo urbano OLIVARES

Related KTM: KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants

Location:

Addressed water body: ES050MSPF011002006

Main objectives: See brief description

Overall budget5: 5,422

Addressed pressures: Ecological status. Pressure 1.1 - Point - Urban waste water

List of expected outcomes: O1 Reduction of BOD O2 Reduction of nitrogen O3 Reduction of phosphorus O4 Decrease in the urban areas with excessive overflows O6 Reduced concentration of priority substances (PS) or river basin specific pollutants (RBSP) (of most problematic substances) O17 Reduced microbial contamination of surface and GWs

Expected life time: 20

Brief description of the measure: Sanitation and UWWTP "Olivares".

Other relevant information: WB has other planned actions acting against agricultural diffuse pollution (no PLTE) and of forest hydrological restoration


01.02. Agrupación de vertidos y construcción de EDAR VILLAVERDE DEL RIO


Location:



Overall budget: 10,049




Brief description of the measure: Grouping of discharges and construction of UWWTP "Villaverde del Rio".

Other relevant information: WB has other planned action of environmental restoration


01.03. Agrupación de vertidos y construcción de EDAR CONSTANTINA. Eliminación de N y P


Location:



5 All budgets are in Thousand €.





Brief description of the measure: Grouping of discharges and construction of UWWTP "Constantina". Removal of N and P.

Other relevant information: No relevant additional measures


01.04. Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR VILLAVICIOSA DE CORDOBA


Location:







Brief description of the measure: Exploitation and maintenance UWWTP "Villaviciosa de Cordoba".



01.05. Explotación y mantenimiento de EDAR de VILLANUEVA DE CORDOBA


Location:







Brief description of the measure: Exploitation and maintenance of UWWTP "Villanueva de Cordoba".



01.06. Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR BRAZATORTAS


Location:




Addressed pressures: Chemical status. Pressure 1.3 - Point - IED plants



Brief description of the measure: Exploitation and maintenance UWWTP "Brazatortas".

Other relevant information: WBs has other planned actions acting against agricultural diffuse pollution (also PLTE leading to bad ecological status):"Extension of the obligation to apply action programs in vulnerable areas to areas outside these areas"; also other measures of forest hydrological restoration, improvement of hydromorphological conditions and removal of anthropic waste.


01.07. Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR de VILLANUEVA DE SAN CARLOS


Location:



Overall budget: 502




Brief description of the measure: Exploitation and maintenance WWTP "Villanueva de San Carlos".



01.08. Tratamiento más riguroso. Eliminación de N y P PUERTOLLANO GUADALQUIVIR


Location:







Brief description of the measure: More stringent treatment: removal of N and P UWWTP "Puertollano Guadalquivir".



01.09. Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR de PUERTOLLANO


Location:



Overall budget: 0




Brief description of the measure: Operation and maintenance UWWTP "Puertollano".



01.10. Adecuación y mejora EDAR de MONTEMAYOR


Location:







Brief description of the measure: Adaptation and improvement of UWWTP "Montemayor".

Other relevant information: WBs has other planned actions of irrigation modernization and environmental restoration


01.11. Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR de FERNAN NUÑEZ


Location:







Brief description of the measure: Operation and maintenance UWWTP "Fernan Nuñez".



01.12. Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR de CASTRO DEL RIO


Location:







Brief description of the measure: Operation and maintenance UWWTP "Castro del Rio".



01.13. Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR de BAENA


Location:



Overall budget: 0




Brief description of the measure: Operation and maintenance UWWTP "Baena".

Other relevant information: WBs has other planned actions of irrigation modernization


01.14. Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR de COPERO


Location:



Overall budget: 0




Brief description of the measure: Operation and maintenance UWWTP "Copero".

Other relevant information: WBhas other planned actions as monitoring services of the maritime terrestrial public domain and control on punctual spills and other activities with incidence on the state of the waters. Besides, action programs in areas vulnerable to nitrates (against agriculture diffuse, not PLTE); modernizaton of rice irrigation, recovery of longitudinal continuity for ictiofauna and general measures of conservation and maintenance of the coast in Seville


01.15. Adaptación EDAR Copero 2ª Tratamiento más riguroso. Eliminación de N y P


Location:







Brief description of the measure: Adaptation UWWTP "Copero". More stringent Treatment: removal of N and P.

Other relevant information: WBhas other planned actions as monitoring services of the maritime terrestrial public domain and control on punctual spills and other activities with incidence on the state of the waters. Besides, action programs in areas vulnerable to nitrates (against agriculture diffuse, not PLTE); modernizaton of rice irrigation, recovery of longitudinal continuity for ictiofauna and general measures of conservation and maintenance of the coast in Seville


01.16. Colector de trasvase Tablada - Copero


Location:







Brief description of the measure: Transfer pipe Tablada - Copero.

Other relevant information: WBs has other planned actions acting against Point urban pollution (several WWTP in ES050MSPF013213009) and also monitoring services of the maritime terrestrial public domain and control on punctual spills and other activities with incidence on the state of the waters. Besides, action programs in areas vulnerable to nitrates (against agriculture diffuse, not PLTE); modernizaton of rice irrigation, recovery of longitudinal continuity for ictiofauna and general measures of conservation and maintenance of the coast in Seville . Besides in ES050MSPF013213009 measures to study and mitigate impacts in the Guadalquivir estuary


01.17. Colector de trasvase Tablada - Copero. Tamices


Location:



Overall budget: 612




Brief description of the measure: Transfer pipe Tablada - Copero. Sieves.

Other relevant information: WBs has other planned actions acting against Point urban pollution (several WWTP in ES050MSPF013213009) and also monitoring services of the maritime terrestrial public domain and control on punctual spills and other activities with incidence on the state of the waters. Besides, action programs in areas vulnerable to nitrates (against agriculture diffuse, not PLTE); modernizaton of rice irrigation, recovery of longitudinal continuity for ictiofauna and general measures of conservation and maintenance of the coast in Seville . Besides in ES050MSPF013213009 measures to study and mitigate impacts in the Guadalquivir estuary


08.01. Modernización de regadíos. Regadíos Vega de Granada

Related KTM: KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households

Location:

Addressed water body: ES050MSPF011009057-Acequia de Barro



Addressed pressures: Chemical status. Pressure 2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural

List of expected outcomes: O10 Reduced water abstraction or flow diversion for agriculture, public water supply, industry, cooling water, hydropower, fish farms or others O12 Increase in the number of rivers meeting environmental flows O13 Improved groundwater levels O2 Reduction of nitrogen O3 Reduction of phosphorus O5 Reduced concentration of pesticides in water


Brief description of the measure: Modernization of irrigation scheme: "Vega de Granada".

Other relevant information: WBhas other planned actions against Point Urban Pollution (pressure through which may have risk of failing environmental objectives, but not leading to exemption) . Other 4 WBs are affected by the measure with risk of failing environmental objectives, but not leading to exemption


08.02. Modernización de regadíos. Riegos Subterráneos UH 0532 en el Alto Genil


Location:

Addressed water body: ES050MSBT000053202-Vega de Granada






Brief description of the measure: Modernization of irrigation scheme from GWB 0532 in Alto Genil.

Other relevant information:


08.03. Modernización de regadíos. Riegos No Regulados del Alto Genil


Location:

Addressed water body: ES050MSPF011009057-Acequia de Barro



Addressed pressures:



Brief description of the measure: Modernization of irrigation scheme. Non-regulated areas in Alto Genil.



08.04. Modernización de regadíos. Riegos Subterráneos en el Sistema 1


Location:

Addressed water body: ES050MSBT000055101-Almonte ES050MSBT000055102-Marismas ES050MSBT000055105-La Rocina






Brief description of the measure: Modernization of irrigation scheme from GWB in System 1.



08.05. Modernización de regadíos. Riegos Subterráneos UH 0551 en el Sistema 1


Location:

Addressed water body: ES050MSBT000055101-Almonte ES050MSBT000055105-La Rocina






Brief description of the measure: Modernization of irrigation scheme from GWB 0551 in System 1.



99.01. Recuperación de los niveles piezométricos de los acuíferos de Doñana. Adquisición de los derechos para la eliminación de captaciones.

Related KTM: KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM

Location:

Addressed water body: ES050MSBT000055105-La Rocina



Addressed pressures: Quantitative status. Pressure 3.1 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Agriculture



Brief description of the measure: Recovery of the piezometric levels of the Doñana aquifers. Acquisition of water abstraction rights.

Other relevant information: WBhas other planned actions which do not have been considered relevant against abstraction for agriculture


99.02. Infraestructura básica para la aportación de recursos externos al entorno del Espacio Natural de Doñana

Related KTM: KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM

Location:

Addressed water body: ES050MSBT000055101-Almonte ES050MSBT000055102-Marismas ES050MSBT000055105-La Rocina



Addressed pressures: Quantitative status. Pressure 3.1 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Agriculture



Brief description of the measure: Basic infrastructure for the conveyance of external resources to the surroundings of the Doñana Natural Area.

Other relevant information: WBs has other planned actions acting against agricultural diffuse pollution (PLTE chemical in Almonte y Marismas). Some of the measures against quantitative exemption are also considered against chemical exemption (Agricultural diffuse)

4 The measures included in the HI level of effort

Identification of water bodies susceptible to need more ambitious measures

The HI level of effort assumes the full implementation of all measures necessary to achieve the objectives of the WFD by 2027, assuming there are no constrains on the available funding. To follow this rationale, the Guadalquivir RBMP was screened to identify where exemprtions based on disproportionate costs are applied, either under article 4(4) and 4(5):

• 4(4) water bodies where the achievement of objectives in 2027 is not possible, meaning that completing the improvements within the timescale would be disproportionately expensive

• 4(5) water bodies where less stringent objectives are applied, meaning that the environmental and socioeconomic needs adressesd by the human activity that is affecting them cannot be met by other means with less environmental impact.

It must be noted that there are two possible reasons to justify the application of disproportionate costs’ exemptions:

• Lack of funding.

• Negative impacts outweighing benefits.

In principle, Task A3 should focus should be on those water bodies where the non-achievement is due to lack of funding, thus where the application of any exemption would not be needed if more ambitious measures are budgeted. The following table summarizes the waterbodies where exemptions are justified based on costs being disproportionate, together with an indication of pressures and quality elements leading to failure and a short justification taken from the fiches included in the RBMP to justify exemptions. More information on the justifications for the exemptions is given below:

Table 3 Water bodies where exemptions because of disproportionate costs beyond 2027 are applied

Code - Name Category Pressure leading to

exemption Quality element failing Justification (short)

ES050MSPF011002005 - Arroyo Almonazar RW Natural 2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural

QE3-1-6-1 - Nitrogen conditions No justification fiche provided

ES050MSPF011002007 - Arroyos Miraflores y Espartales

RW Natural 2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural

QE1-3 - Benthic invertebrates QE1-2-4 - Phytobenthos QE3-1-6-2 - Phosphorus Conditions QE3-1-6-1 - Nitrogen conditions QE3-1-3 - Oxygenation conditions

Abandonement of agriculture + afforestation in 100% of the agricultural surface upstream

ES050MSPF011002009 - Arroyo Azanaque RW Natural 2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural

QE3-1-6-1 - Nitrogen conditions Abandonment of agriculture + afforestation in 100% of the agricultural surface upstream

ES050MSPF011002010 - Arroyo Guadalora y afluentes


QE3-1-6-1 - Nitrogen conditions No justification fiche provided

ES050MSPF011002011 - Río Guadaíra aguas arriba de su encauzamiento hasta el Arroyo del Salado


QE1-3 - Benthic invertebrates QE1-2-4 - Phytobenthos QE3-1-6-2 - Phosphorus Conditions QE3-1-6-1 - Nitrogen conditions

No justification fiche provided

ES050MSPF011002020 - Arroyos de Lebrija y de las Pajaras


QE1-3 - Benthic invertebrates QE1-2-4 - Phytobenthos QE3-1-6-1 - Nitrogen conditions

Abandonment of agriculture + afforestation in 68% of the agricultural surface upstream

ES050MSPF011002021 - Arroyo del Saladillo


QE1-3 - Benthic invertebrates QE3-1-6-1 - Nitrogen conditions

Comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of the measures + incidence of natural conditions

ES050MSPF011002024 - Arroyo de Santiago

RW Natural 1.1 - Point - Urban waste water


Comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of the measures + incidence of natural conditions

Code - Name Category Pressure leading to

exemption Quality element failing Justification (short)

ES050MSPF011002026 - Arroyo Montero RW Natural 2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural

QE3-1-6-1 - Nitrogen conditions Comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of the measures + incidence of natural conditions

ES050MSPF011007022 - Río Guadalbullón desde las Infantas hasta el embalse de Mengíbar


QE1-3 - Benthic invertebrates QE3-1-6-1 - Nitrogen conditions

No justification fiche provided

ES050MSPF011009023 - Arroyo del Salado RW Natural 2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural

QE1-2-4 - Phytobenthos QE3-1-6-1 - Nitrogen conditions


ES050MSPF011009028 - Río Torres RW Natural 1.1 - Point - Urban waste water

QE1-3 - Benthic invertebrates QE1-2-4 - Phytobenthos QE3-1-3 - Oxygenation conditions

Comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of the measures. Lack of flow to dilute pollution from Huescar WWTP

ES050MSPF011012047 - Río Huéscar RW Natural 1.1 - Point - Urban waste water

QE1-2-4 - Phytobenthos QE3-1-3 - Oxygenation conditions

Comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of the measures. Lack of flow to dilute pollution from Huescar WWTP

ES050MSPF011100088 - Arroyo Salado de Morón aguas abajo de la presa Torre del Águila

RW Heavily Modif.

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural



There are some other waterbodies where 4(4) exemptions -extension of deadline- is applied because of disproportionate costs. After analysing these measures some general conclusions can be drawn:

• In general, when defining less stringent objectives, it is verified that the environmental or socioeconomic needs addressed by the activity cannot be met by other means that are a significantly better environmental option and do not involve disproportionate costs. This is assessed by analysing the socioeconomic needs addressed by the activity, the possible alternatives and the socioeconomic and environmental consequences that would occur in case of implementing the alternative. Comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of all the possible measures, taking into account the role of natural conditions in some specific cases, has been made before suggesting the less stringent objectives.

• Diffuse agriculture is the main driver-pressure generating exemptions leading to less stringent objectives because of costs. Nitrates and, consequently, other biological indicators are the quality elements failing. Justification is based on the fact that reaching the good status would imply to abandon a substantial part (from 40 to 100%) of the agricultural activity that is affecting the water body. These costs are considered disproportionate in terms of economic and employment losses in rural areas, where alternative activities to be carried out at the required scale are difficult to put in place. Thus, the justification of these exemptions is based on the negative socio-economic impacts, not on budgetary constraints. However, the need of investment in the afforestation of the areas that should be abandoned and eventual compensatory payments to farmers are also mentioned as part of the negative elements to be considered.

• Urban wastewater is also identified as the pressure leading to non-achievement of objectives in some water bodies, even after ensuring that all the measures needed to complete or upgrade the UWWTPs are taken. The flow -even assuming that environmental flows are implemented- is considered insufficient to dilute the wastewater discharges, which is mainly due to water abstraction for irrigation use upstream. Thus, the abandonment of agricultural activity that would be required to reduce these pressures, and the related socio-economic impacts, not the investment needs, are again the reason behind costs disproportion.

In principle, the more straightforward measure that could be proposed to increase the level of ambition of the RBMP would be the revocation of irrigation permits. The maintenance of irrigation is generally considered crucial to preserve rural activity in many areas of the basin. Therefore, the exemptions are based on the argument that negative impacts outweigh environmental benefits and not that funding being insufficient. This fact, together with the lack of enough evidence to support a critical analysis of such a delicate issue, has made advisable not to consider measures of this type.

Analysis of additional measures for the High WFD implementation

After the in-depth review of the Guadalquivir RBMP and PoM, followed by the identification of measures to be included in the BAU level of effort and the analysis of potential measures to include in the HI level of effort,

some additional measures were proposed and discussed with representatives of the RBA and the Spanish Ministry of Environment. In principle, general measures were considered:

• Increases in the environmental flow regimes. The implementation of environmental flow regimes is already envisaged in the RBMP and their effects considered when evaluating the improvement of water status. However, raising the magnitude of eflows could support further improvement in the biological parameters beyond current expectations. Nevertheless, even a general assessment of the improvement in terms of outcomes is rather difficult. Moreover, the evaluation of the impacts on water uses would require complex modelling.

• Measures against invasive species. Although this pressure has not been identified as leading to non-achievement of objectives, it is widely present in the basin (12 fish species, zebra mussel, Asian clam, 3 crab species, common reed, water fern and elodea) and has been reported to create risks of failure in up to 110 water bodies. Only general measures are provided, so that, again, an assessment in terms of outputs would involve great levels of uncertainty.

• Extension of codes of good practices for the fertilisation of crops. Diffuse pollution is a major pressure in the RBD. In 2015, 74 small water bodies (SWBs) were not achieving good ecological status and 23 ground water bodies (GWBs) were not achieving good chemical status because of this pressure. In the PoM, a comprehensive set of measures to be developed by the regional Agriculture Department is envisaged, mainly focusing on vulnerable zones, together with other measures linked to the CAP and its conditionality, specific programmes in GWBs at risk and advisory services.

This third option can be consistently analysed in the framework pf the HI level of effort. The effect of these measures has been analysed at GWB scale with the help of the model PATRICAL6, which estimates future concentrations of nitrates in groundwater bodies through the simulation of three scenarios, with different doses of application of fertilizers, whose characteristics are: 1) Trend scenario, the excess of Nitrogen corresponds to the average value of the years 2008-2011; 2) Optimal scenario, the fertilizer dose corresponds to the optimal value for each type of crop; 3) Trend Reversion and Improvement (TR&I) scenario, which corresponds to the implementation of 50% of the

effectiveness of the optimal scenario measures. In those watersheds in which the application of the current doses of fertilization generates the non-fulfilment of objectives, three options are possible:

• If the application of the TR&I scenario is enough to achieve objectives in 2021 or 2027, this is the assumption of the RBMP.

• If not, the Optimal scenario is applied with two possible results:

o Objectives can be achieved

o Objectives cannot be achieved, meaning that an exemption is needed

Following this analysis, PoMs must include set of measures aligned with the assumptions taken for each WB. In any case, the possibility of going further in optimizing fertilization across the whole RBD can be consistently assessed with the help of the results of PATRICAL.

Evaluation of the effects of optimal fertilization in the RBD

PATRICAL mode7l simulates the hydrological cycle in regimes altered by human activities. The results of river flows and water storages have been calibrated with the observed data of circulating flows in rivers and groundwater levels in the GWBs during the period from October 1971 to September 2006. The nitrate transport

6 Evaluación de los objetivos de concentración de nitrato en las masas de agua subterráneas de España (2015 2021 y 2027) con el modelo de simulación Patrical (UNIVERSITAT POLITÉCNICA DE VALENCIA - INSTITUTO DE INGENIERÍA DEL AGUA Y MEDIO AMBIENTE. 2015). https://www.chj.es/Descargas/ProyectosOPH/Consulta%20publica/PHC-2015-2021/ReferenciasBibliograficas/AguasSubterraneas/MAGRAMA,2015.Informe_Final_Nitratos.pdf 7 Definition of environmental objectives in relation with nitrate pollution in the aquifers of Spain. Simulation model and scenarios used. (Pérez Martín et al., 2012).

http://iemss.logismi.co/xmlui/bitstream/handle/iemss/12317/0382paper_long.pdf?sequence=2

https://www.chj.es/Descargas/ProyectosOPH/Consulta%20publica/PHC-2015-2021/ReferenciasBibliograficas/AguasSubterraneas/MAGRAMA,2015.Informe_Final_Nitratos.pdf

https://www.chj.es/Descargas/ProyectosOPH/Consulta%20publica/PHC-2015-2021/ReferenciasBibliograficas/AguasSubterraneas/MAGRAMA,2015.Informe_Final_Nitratos.pdf

http://iemss.logismi.co/xmlui/bitstream/handle/iemss/12317/0382paper_long.pdf?sequence=2

simulation has been calibrated at the same period, fitting the results of nitrate concentration in rivers and aquifers to observed data.

National results are presented in the table below. Mean pressure varies between 22.3 kg N/ha of crops in the baseline scenario to 14.9 kg N/ha of crops in the optimal scenario, placing the inversion scenario in an intermediate case with 18.8 kg N/ha of crop. The optimal scenario corresponds to a 19% reduction in the inputs, which produces 33% of reduction in the nitrogen surplus, while the TR&I scenario represents an inputs reduction of 7%, which produces a 16% of reduction in nitrogen surplus. Table 4 Summary characteristics of the scenarios considered (2012)

Scenario Baseline Optimal TR&I

Nitrogen inputs (tN) (a) 2.305.500 1.873.200 2.142.000

Nitrogen outputs (tN) 1.461.800 1.310.200 1.431.300

Nitrogen surplus (tN) (b) 843.600 563.000 710.700

Relative surplus (b/a) 37% 30% 33%

Local nitrogen pressure (kgN/ha of crops and pastures)

22,3 14,9 18,8

General nitrogen pressure (kgN/ha) 16,5 11,0 13,9

The reduction of the nitrogen surplus at GWB level can be determined from the results obtained in the modelling exercise that was completed in 2014 to support the establishment of environmental objectives and exemptions. These results are summarized in the table below. Table 5 Estimation of the reduction of excess Nitrogen lixiviated to GWBs – Guadalquivir

Code name

Expected achievement

date Scenario

assumption

RBMP Optimal Difference8

Excess of N (kg/ha)

Excess of N (kg/ha)

Excess of N (kg/ha) Tn N9

51001 Sierra de Cazorla 2015 Trend 1.83 1.86 -0.03 -5.45

51002 Quesada-Castril 2015 Trend 4.67 3.07 1.60 222.56

51003 Duda-La Sagra 2027 Optimal 14.50 14.50 0.00 0.00

51004 Huéscar-Puebla de D. Fadrique 2027 Trend 16.46 9.16 7.30 308.79

51005 La Zarza 2015 Trend 6.35 5.02 1.33 11.70

51006 Orce-Mar-A-Cullar 2015 Trend 7.95 4.02 3.93 217.72

51007 Ahillo-Caracolera 2015 Trend 3.15 3.17 -0.02 -0.11

51008 Sierra de Las Estancias 2015 Trend 6.88 3.17 3.71 71.23

8 Negative values would mean that current fertilization is below optimal. 9 Estimated considering the total recharge surface of the GWB.

Code name


date Scenario

assumption


Excess of N (kg/ha)

Excess of N (kg/ha)


51009 Baza-Caniles 2027 Optimal 7.19 7.19 0.00 0.00

51010 Jabalcón 2015 Trend 4.58 2.44 2.14 7.28

51011 Sierra de Baza 2015 Trend 6.85 3.22 3.63 278.42

51012 Guadix-Marquesado 2015 Trend 10.57 5.59 4.98 307.76

51013 El Mencal 2015 Trend 3.57 1.48 2.09 79.21

51014 Bedmar-Jódar 2015 Trend 3.31 2.17 1.14 6.27

51015 Torres-Jimena 2015 Trend 11.73 5.40 6.33 39.25

51016 Jabalcuz 2015 Trend 1.57 2.37 -0.80 -7.60

51017 Jaén 2015 Trend 2.58 2.41 0.17 0.66

51018 San Cristobal 2015 Trend 8.07 4.13 3.94 14.97

51019 Mancha Real-Pegalajar 2015 Trend 5.19 2.82 2.37 17.78

51020 Almadén 2015 Trend 3.88 2.19 1.69 10.14

51021 Sierra Mágina 2015 Trend 3.09 1.73 1.36 24.07

51022 Mentidero-Montesinos 2015 Trend 1.77 2.95 -1.18 -7.91

51023 Úbeda 2015 Trend 7.25 5.15 2.10 246.75

51024 Bailén-Guarromán-Linares 2015 Trend 8.45 6.47 1.98 116.82

51025 Rumblar 2015 Trend 4.92 3.19 1.73 26.30

51026 Aluvial Guadalquivir (Córdoba-Jaén) 2015 Trend 11.05 6.25 4.80 457.44

51027 Porcuna 2015 Trend 2.66 3.57 -0.91 -19.84

51028 Montes Orientales. Sector Norte 2015 Trend 8.48 5.82 2.66 204.55

51029 Sierra de Colomera 2015 Trend 4.87 1.54 3.33 110.22

51030 Sierra Arana 2015 Trend 6.51 3.83 2.68 99.70

51031 La Peza 2015 Trend 9.66 5.12 4.54 139.83

51032 Depresión de Granada 2015 Trend 14.19 7.81 6.38 861.30

51033 Sierra Elvira 2015 Trend 12.12 6.83 5.29 14.81

51034 Madrid-Parapanda 2015 Trend 10.82 5.18 5.64 207.55

51035 Cabra-Gaena 2015 Trend 3.37 5.52 -2.15 -84.28

51036 Rute-Horconera 2015 Trend 1.78 3.03 -1.25 -35.13

51037 Albayate-Chanzas 2015 Trend 8.14 4.06 4.08 127.70

51038 El Pedroso-Arcas 2015 Trend 5.84 4.85 0.99 24.55

51039 Hacho de Loja 2015 Trend 24.80 17.03 7.77 29.53

51040 Sierra Gorda-Zafarraya 2015 Trend 18.83 12.26 6.57 227.32

51041 Guadahortuna-Larva 2015 Trend 3.09 1.68 1.41 91.93

51042 Tejeda-Almijara-Las Guajaras 2015 Trend 12.59 5.22 7.37 248.37

51043 Sierra y Mioceno de Estepa Exemption Optimal 32.12 32.12 0.00 0.00

51044 Altiplanos de Écija 2027 Trend 34.31 28.92 5.39 1,065.60

51045 Sierra Morena 2015 Trend 14.60 11.53 3.07 1,376.28

51046 Aluvial del Guadalquivir Curso Medio 2021 Trend 43.94 28.22 15.71 2,815.76

51047 Sevilla-Carmona Exemption Optimal 38.06 38.06 0.00 0.00

51048 Arahal-Coronil-Morón-Puebla Cazalla 2015 Trend 8.36 13.37 -5.01 -523.04

51049 Niebla-Posadas 2027 Optimal 25.38 25.38 0.00 0.00

51050 Aljarafe Exemption Optimal 31.24 31.24 0.00 0.00

51051 Almonte-Marismas del Guadalquivir 2027 Trend 15.15 11.43 3.72 892.43

51052 Lebrija 2015 Trend 21.08 17.76 3.32 78.02

51065 Sierra de Padul 2015 Trend 12.81 6.05 6.76 104.10

51066 Grajales-Pandera-Carchel 2015 Trend 2.54 2.43 0.11 1.96

Code name


date Scenario

assumption


Excess of N (kg/ha)

Excess of N (kg/ha)


51068 Puente Genil-La Rambla-Montilla 2021 Trend 13.87 10.59 3.28 335.87

51069 Osuna-La Lentejuela 2021 Trend 12.56 13.31 -0.75 -68.78

51070 Gracia-Ventisquero 2015 Trend 1.87 3.08 -1.21 -14.88

51071 Campos de Montiel 2015 Trend 3.47 2.35 1.12 12.32

51072 Sierra de Cañete 2021 Trend 21.01 15.97 5.04 54.43

DH Jucar 11.08 13.76 2.67 9,615.05

Table 6 Measures in the HI level of effort

Code Name of the Individual basic measure Location Does the measure target a river, a lake or groundwater?

02.01 Application of Codes of Good Practice to the entire RBD RBD Mainly groundwater


02.01. Application of Codes of Good Practice to the entire RBD

Related KTM: KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture

Location: RBD

Addressed water body: All WBS affected by diffuse pollution from agriculture

Main objectives: see brief description

Overall budget (€): 11,901,178.49 yearly


List of expected outcomes: O2 Reduction of nitrogen O3 Reduction of phosphorus

Expected life time: Permanent

Brief description of the measure:

Application of optimum nitrogen fertilization (limits according to the Codes of Good Practice) over non-mandatory areas, thus out of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones

Other relevant information: Based on the estimation of the reduction of nitrogen surplus by the model PATRICAL

5 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort

The costs of the measures -both investment and operation and maintenance- have been directly taken from the Guadalquivir RBMP. The distribution of the budgets among different financing agents has been made based on the information reported by the River Basin Authority to the Spanish Ministry of Environment.


01.01. Saneamiento y depuración del núcleo urbano OLIVARES

Capital Costs (thousand €): 5,422

Operation and Management Costs (thousand € / year):

705


01.02. Agrupación de vertidos y construcción de EDAR VILLAVERDE DEL RIO



294


01.03. Agrupación de vertidos y construcción de EDAR CONSTANTINA. Eliminación de N y P



350


01.04. Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR VILLAVICIOSA DE CORDOBA



185


01.05. Explotación y mantenimiento de EDAR de VILLANUEVA DE CORDOBA



491


01.06. Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR BRAZATORTAS



47


01.07. Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR de VILLANUEVA DE SAN CARLOS

Capital Costs (thousand €): 502


28


01.08. Tratamiento más riguroso. Eliminación de N y P PUERTOLLANO GUADALQUIVIR



761


01.09. Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR de PUERTOLLANO



2,781


01.10. Adecuación y mejora EDAR de MONTEMAYOR



174


01.11. Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR de FERNAN NUÑEZ



437


01.12. Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR de CASTRO DEL RIO



551


01.13. Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR de BAENA



841


01.14. Explotación y mantenimiento EDAR de COPERO



21,643


01.15. Adaptación EDAR Copero 2ª Tratamiento más riguroso. Eliminación de N y P



223


01.16. Colector de trasvase Tablada - Copero



215


01.17. Colector de trasvase Tablada - Copero. Tamices



15


08.01. Modernización de regadíos. Regadíos Vega de Granada



475


08.02. Modernización de regadíos. Riegos Subterráneos UH 0532 en el Alto Genil



1,151


08.03. Modernización de regadíos. Riegos No Regulados del Alto Genil



1,308


08.04. Modernización de regadíos. Riegos Subterráneos en el Sistema 1



179


08.05. Modernización de regadíos. Riegos Subterráneos UH 0551 en el Sistema 1



188


99.01. Recuperación de los niveles piezométricos de los acuíferos de Doñana. Adquisición de los derechos para la eliminación de captaciones.



3,500


99.02. Infraestructura básica para la aportación de recursos externos al entorno del Espacio Natural de Doñana



600

Table 7 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort – total funding

Code of the measure

Capital Costs in year 0 (thousand €)

CCs in following years (in actual prices) (thousand €)

Year in which the CCs take place (thousand €)

Total CCs (in actual prices) (thousand €)

CCs per year (in actual prices) (thousand €)

Operation & Management Costs per year (thousand €)

Total OMCs (in actual prices) (thousand €)

Total costs per year (in actual prices) (thousand €)

01.01 5,422.00 0.00 5,422.00 271.10 704.75 518.34 789.44

01.02 10,049.05 0.00 10,049.05 502.45 294.07 216.29 718.74

01.03 6,460.91 0.00 6,460.91 323.05 350.28 257.63 580.68

01.04 4,305.77 0.00 4,305.77 215.29 184.62 135.79 351.08

01.05 10,227.73 0.00 10,227.73 511.39 490.71 360.91 872.30

01.06 1,160.55 0.00 1,160.55 58.03 46.71 34.36 92.39

01.07 501.96 0.00 501.96 25.10 28.26 20.79 45.88

01.08 12,147.27 0.00 12,147.27 607.36 760.50 559.34 1,166.71

01.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,781.24 2,045.58 2,045.58

01.10 3,002.65 0.00 3,002.65 150.13 173.54 127.64 277.77

01.11 7,663.84 0.00 7,663.84 383.19 437.24 321.58 704.78

01.12 23,592.41 0.00 23,592.41 1,179.62 551.07 405.31 1,584.93

01.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 840.68 618.31 618.31

01.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21,643.26 15,918.44 15,918.44

01.15 41,768.80 0.00 41,768.80 2,088.44 222.91 163.95 2,252.39

01.16 8,959.37 0.00 8,959.37 223.98 215.02 121.48 345.47

01.17 612.45 0.00 612.45 15.31 14.70 8.30 23.62

08.01 19,713.30 0.00 19,713.30 985.67 474.98 349.35 1,335.01

08.02 1,021.54 0.00 1,021.54 51.08 1,150.58 846.24 897.32

08.03 14,536.88 0.00 14,536.88 726.84 1,308.32 962.26 1,689.10

08.04 1,022.78 0.00 1,022.78 51.14 179.24 131.83 182.97

08.05 26,191.45 0.00 26,191.45 1,309.57 188.30 138.49 1,448.06

99.01 50,000.00 0.00 50,000.00 1,250.00 3,500.00 1,977.37 3,227.37

99.02 50,000.00 0.00 50,000.00 1,250.00 600.00 338.98 1,588.98

TOTAL 298,360.70 0.00 298,360.70 12,178.74 37,140.99 26,578.55 38,757.29

6 Costs of the measures included in the HI level of effort

The cost of the measures has been estimated at 27.74 €/ha obtained from the Andalusia Rural Development Plan. This ratio is applied to the surface (ha) where the reduction is needed. The implementation of optimum fertilization patterns would require measures to be taken under article 14 (Knowledge transfer and information actions) and 15 (Advisory services, farm management and farm relief services) of the EARFD Regulation. Moreover, the proposed action can be assimilated to the priority 4 (restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry), sub-priority b (improving water management, including fertiliser and pesticide management).


02.01. Application of Codes of Good Practice to the entire RBD

Capital Costs (thousand €):


11,901.178

Table 8 Costs of the measures included in the HI level of effort – total funding

Code of the measure

Capital Costs in year 0

CCs in following years (in actual prices)

Year in which the CCs take place

All CCs (in actual prices)

CCs per year (in actual prices)

Operation & Management Costs per year

Total OMCs (in actual prices)

Total costs per year (in actual prices)

02.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,901.18 10,939.27 10,939.27

TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,901.18 10,939.27 10,939.27

7 Outcomes of the measures included in the BAU and HI level of effort

The results of the assessment of outcomes is presented in the attached excel file, following the common structure defined under the general methodology of Task A3. The information has been mainly extracted from the documents of the RBMP. In this regard, it should be noted that the level of definition of the measures is quite limited, namely budgets, pressures addressed, and WBs affected. Assumptions have been made depending on the availability of basic data. Sometimes, additional sources have been used (including internet consultations) to resolve doubts or expand information on certain measures. The main criteria and assumptions taken for the elaboration of the outputs estimates per KTM are summarized below. KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants The outcomes estimated, according to the Task A3 general classification, are:

O1-Reduction of BOD

O2- Reduction Nitrogen

O3- Reduction Phosphorus

O17-Reduction microbial contamination For this, the measures have been classified depending on the level of treatment and the population equivalents in the following types:

01.02 Wetlands or Stabilization Ponds [p.e. ≤ 2,000]

01.03 Secondary Treatment (mechanical biological) [p.e. > 2,000]

01.04 Advanced Treatment with N & P removal [p.e. > 2,000]

01.05 N & P removal

Each one of them has an effect in terms of the reduction of pollutant load in the effluent10:

Initial loads (per p.e.) % reduction

BOD5 (mg/l)

N (mg/l) P (mg/l) E coli

(UFC / 100 ml)

BOD5 N P E coli

01.02 250 58 14 5.500.000 80,0% 57,5% 40,0% 99,0%

01.03 250 58 14 5.500.000 90,0% 30,0% 25,0% 98,0%

01.04 250 58 14 5.500.000 94,0% 84,0% 87,5% 99,0%

01.05 25 41 11 110.000 40,0% 77,1% 83,3% 50,0%

For the calculation of inlet, the following rates11 have been used Population (inhab.) Inlet WWTP (l/inh)

up to 1.000 72,50

1.000-6.000 108,75

6.000-12.000 145,00

12.000-50.000 181,25

50.000-250.000 217,50

More than 250.000 290,00

10 Own ellaboration from different sources. 11 MANUAL DE DEPURACIÓN DE AGUAS RESIDUALES URBANAS (CENTA, 2008). http://alianzaporelagua.org/documentos/MONOGRAFICO3.pdf

http://alianzaporelagua.org/documentos/MONOGRAFICO3.pdf

The pollution load has been calculated before and after the implementation of the measure. In Jucar variation of pollutant load has been estimated in ton/year; the assessment of the pollution in terms of concentration has not been possible because of lack of data on actual flows. KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households Measures to improve and modernize irrigation have been considered in this section. The territorial reference for irrigation in the Spanish RBMPs is the Agricultural Demand Unit of (ADU) which are basically areas with a certain agricultural homogeneity (crops) and sharing the source(s) of water. The information provided in the RBMP refers to these units, so it is important to establish the relationship between the measures, the ADUs and the WBs supplying the resources, as well as those receiving the returns drains. In Guadalquivir RB, in addition to the information collected in the RBMP documents, a database with detailed information on crops and water use (consumption and efficiencies) has been provided by the RBA, making possible the linkage of ADUs and WBs, although some lack of uncertainty remains since often the measures are vaguely defined and it is not clear where the affected WBs are. For the adjustment of the Doñana environment irrigation measures, additional information has been used, such as the "Report on the Status of aquifers in the Doñana Area" (Guadalquivir Hydrographic Confederation, 2017)12 and “Special plan for the management of irrigated areas located north of the forest crown of Doñana”13 (Junta de Andalucía, 2014). The discussions with the RBA have confirmed the importance of modernization of irrigated areas as part of the strategy to control diffuse pollution from agriculture. Therefore, the outcomes estimated are:

O2- Reduction of nitrogen

O3- Reduction of phosphorus

O5- Reduced concentration of pesticides in water14

O10-Reduced water abstraction or flow diversion

O13-Improved groundwater levels

In the case of Guadalquivir, the starting point has been the ADUs water balance provided by the RBMP that reflects a decrease of abstractions because of reductions in the irrigated area or decrease of the irrigation endowment, which can be deducted because of improvement and modernization actions.

Fertilizer load has been estimated by using the crops distribution in the RBA database and the nitrogen and phosphorus excess average for each crop in the regional balances prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture15. To calculate the current load that reaches the aquifers, an average leaching coefficient of 25% has been applied; however, it must be noted that this coefficient can vary widely depending on the composition of the soil, the characteristics of the aquifer and other factors, so that this assessment can be considered a first approach. After that, the load has been divided by the recharge to obtain the contribution of nitrogen in mg/l per year. It has been necessary to calculate the variation of the irrigation returns because of changes in the application efficiency, adjusting the new efficiencies to the reductions in the water endowments shown in the balance of the ADUs.

Phosphorus loads have been calculated considering a 1/5 use ratio in relation to nitrogen, which is the average ratio according to the regional balances prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture16.

12 https://www.chguadalquivir.es/documents/10182/290783/INFORME_ESTADO_ACUIFEROS_DO%C3%91ANA_2015_16/f420f5f8-9217-82b0-b9a7-e22caff74f19 13 http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/medioambiente/site/portalweb/menuitem.7e1cf46ddf59bb227a9ebe205510e1ca/?vgnextoid=3da7f29b39738310VgnVCM2000000624e50aRCRD&vgnextchannel=5e5d1b84c9d28310VgnVCM1000001325e50aRCRD 14 No information for estimating this outcome has been found. 15 https://preservicio.magrama.gob.es/es/agricultura/temas/medios-de-produccion/productos-fertilizantes/balances-nutrientes-agricultura-espanola/ 16 https://preservicio.magrama.gob.es/es/agricultura/temas/medios-de-produccion/productos-fertilizantes/balances-nutrientes-agricultura-espanola/

https://www.chguadalquivir.es/documents/10182/290783/INFORME_ESTADO_ACUIFEROS_DO%C3%91ANA_2015_16/f420f5f8-9217-82b0-b9a7-e22caff74f19

https://www.chguadalquivir.es/documents/10182/290783/INFORME_ESTADO_ACUIFEROS_DO%C3%91ANA_2015_16/f420f5f8-9217-82b0-b9a7-e22caff74f19

http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/medioambiente/site/portalweb/menuitem.7e1cf46ddf59bb227a9ebe205510e1ca/?vgnextoid=3da7f29b39738310VgnVCM2000000624e50aRCRD&vgnextchannel=5e5d1b84c9d28310VgnVCM1000001325e50aRCRD



https://preservicio.magrama.gob.es/es/agricultura/temas/medios-de-produccion/productos-fertilizantes/balances-nutrientes-agricultura-espanola/




Finally, the improved groundwater levels have been calculated for each measure, assessing its contribution to the reversion of the current aquifer unbalance (i.e. abstraction being higher than recharge). KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM Several measures may act on the same ADU; in these cases, when it has not been possible to segregate the effects of each action, a distribution has been made proportionally to the annual equivalent cost of each measure. This applies to those affecting Doñana where two KTM-99 type measures have been analysed to globally explain the evolution of water supply from GWBs in this area. The first one is the purchase of water rights, which directly implies a reduction of irrigation and, therefore, the elimination of water abstractions and the associated fertilizer load; the second is the conveyance of external resources, that would imply a reduction of the abstractions but not of the fertilizer load. The outcomes estimated are:

O2- Reduction of nitrogen (only for purchasing water rights)

O3- Reduction of phosphorus (only for purchasing water rights)

O5- Reduced concentration of pesticides in water (only for purchasing water rights)17

O10-Reduced water abstraction or flow diversion

O13-Improved groundwater levels Finally, it should be noted that in one of the cases a small improvement in the efficiency in the use of irrigated water is expected, which has been translated into a reduction in abstraction (in addition to the substitution of groundwater resources for regenerated). However, this improvement does not occur in the in-plot water application systems, thus having no effect in terms of reduction in diffuse pollution reaching the aquifer. Results in terms of percentage of reduction / improvement of the indicator are presented below.

O1. Reduction of BOD (mg/l)

BAU Level of Effort: 92%

HI Level of Effort: --

O2. Reduction of nitrogen (mg/l)


HI Level of Effort: 20%

O3. Reduction of phosphorus KTM01 and KTM99 (tn/y)



O3. Reduction of phosphorus KTM08 (mg/l)



O10. Reduced water abstraction or flow diversion for agriculture, public water supply, industry, cooling water, hydropower, fish farms or others (m3)



O13. Improved groundwater levels (% of the number of GW water bodies where abstraction does not exceed recharge)

17 No information for estimating this outcome has been found.



O17. Reduced microbial contamination of surface and GWs (E coli (UFC / 100 ml))



8 Benefits of the measures included in the BAU and HI level of effort

It must be noted that, for the moment, no structured information on benefits is provided by the River Basin Authority. For this reason, some of the benefits that are relevant to the measures included in this analysis are not assessed here, due to the reluctance of the team to provide expert judgement, due to the considerable uncertainties that characterise the assessment of the outputs and all the assumptions and extrapolations that would have been needed to assess a wide range of benefits. Three benefits have been assessed for Task A3, based on the methodology proposed in a specific cost benefit analysis for the modernization of irrigation systems in the Guadalquivir RBD, which has been drafted by WEARE and is provided as an Annex to this Pilot Case. A brief description of the methodology and sources is presented below. B11. Improved water availability for water users The improved water availability results from outcome O10 and is assessed in terms of cubic meters available because of the reduction of abstraction due to the modernization of irrigation systems, the replacement of water resources from overexploited water bodies and the use of regenerated wastewater. B13. Reduced expenditures due to fertilisers The reduced expenditures on nitrogen and phosphorus fertilisers was assessed by multiplying the cost of fertilisers by the reduction in their use, estimated as described in the section on outcomes. This reduction is due to the modernization of irrigation systems, which reduces the amount of fertilizers that leak into water. B18. Diffuse water pollution decrease The reduction of diffuse pollution (fertilizers that leak into the aquifer) is evaluated in monetary terms, using the costs of nitrogen and phosphorus removal18.

B11. Improved water availability for water users, e.g. navigation, power sector, water utilities, bottled water sector, agriculture (m3)

BAU Level of Effort: 73,178,000.00

HI Level of Effort: 0.00

B13. Reduced expenditures due to fertilisers and/or pesticides (Thousand €)

BAU Level of Effort: 205.86

HI Level of Effort: 3,354.90

B18. Diffuse water pollution decrease (Thousand €)

BAU Level of Effort: 2,804.00

HI Level of Effort: 562.76

18 See the Annex to Guadalquivir Pilot Case “A method for Cost benefit analysis (CBA) of irrigation water saving investment and an application to the Guadalquivir River Basin (Southern Spain)”

9 Biodiversity improvements of the measures included in the BAU and HI level of effort (a quarter of a page per measure)

It has not been possible to establish a direct link between the status improvement and the outputs (reduction of pressures) resulting from selected measures because these linkages are not univocal. Even if the RBMP assumes a positive change in the classification of status, measures different from the selected ones might be contributing to the expected improvement. To properly approach the differential contribution of each measure, it would have been needed to implement integrated modelling of the RBD or any alternative assessment method, what remains outside the possibilities of this work. The expected evolution of WB status is summarized in the table below.

Cycle Number of

SWB

Surface water bodies in good status (accumulated)

SWB with LSO 2015 2021 2027 or beyond

Number % Number % Number % Number %

SWB - Guadalquivir RBD

1st 443 299 67.5 391 88.3 434 98.0 9 2.0

2nd 446 281 63.0 388 87.0 423 94.8 23 5.2

GWB - Guadalquivir RBD

1st 60 35 58.3 48 80.0 60 100.0 0 0.0

2nd 86 55 64.0 60 69.8 86 100.0 0 0.0

10 Comparison of the costs and benefits in the two levels of effort

The detailed analysis of cost described in Section 6 shows that cost distribution of a total amount of AEC of 35.16 million Euro/year by order of magnitude in the BAU scenario, with the following budgetary breakdown:

KTM 01 (investment in WWT): 73%

KTM 08 (efficiency of irrigation networks): 14%

KTM 99 (other measures – GW management): 13%

Additionally, the HI scenario implies increased AEC by 11.90 million Euro/year. These scenarios imply the improvement of some indicators of status according the common methodology and the valuation of the change in outcomes according the best available valuation and focused exclusively in "B11 Improved water availability m3", "B13 Fertiliser saving,” and "B18 Removal of N and P” in 17,27 million EUR for BAU scenario and 4,23 million EUR for HLE., this is a 0,49 and 0,42 Cost-benefit ratio considering exclusively the valuation of the three mentioned Benefits. Moreover, for a better interpretation of the comparison of both scenarios, the following considerations must be accounted for:

• It is difficult to establish absolute comparison of BAU and HI, since the type of measures, the objectives and the spatial scope in both scenarios are not the same. BAU points at the reduction of pressures and improvement of the status of specific WBs while HI aims at a reduction of agricultural diffuse pollution in the whole RBD, assuming that a general improvement of water status will be achieved.

• In principle, the intervention through the enforcement of codes of good practices has a low cost -although considerable dissemination and advisory effort is required- while the reduction of nutrients into freshwater because of the modernization of irrigation areas is less cost-efficient. However, the optimization of irrigation schemes has many other economic, social and environmental benefits.

Table 9 Summary of the costs in the two levels of effort


Capital Costs in following years (in actual prices) (thousand €)

All CCs (in actual prices) (thousand €)




Total costs per year (in actual prices) (thousand €)

BAU LEVEL OF EFFORT

298,360.70 0.00 298,360.70 12,178.74 37,140.99 26,578.55 38,757.29

HI LEVEL OF EFFORT

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,901.18 10,939.27 10,939.27

DIFFERENCE -298,360.70 0.00 -298,360.70 -12,178.74 -25,239.81 -15,639.28 -27,818.02

Table 10 Summary of the outcomes in the two levels of effort

Indicator Unit of measurement

Actual situation

Expected value BAU level of effort

Improvement BAU level of effort (%)

Expected value HI level of effort

Improvement HI level of effort (%)

Difference in the improvement between BAU and HI level of effort

Related measures

O1 Reduction of BOD mg/l 19.05 1.44 92.44% Yes

O2 Reduction of nitrogen

mg/l 4.54 1.55 65.74% Yes

O3 Reduction of phosphorus

mg/l 3.24 2.55 21.28% 2.04 20.27% -1.01% Yes

O4 Decrease in the urban areas with sewage overflows

ha 1.20 0.40 66.48% Yes

O5 Reduced concentration of pesticides in water

mg/l 0.25 0.20 22.43% Yes

O6

Reduced concentration of priority substances (PS) or river basin specific pollutants (RBSP) (of most problematic substances)

mg/l

O7 Reduced contaminated sites

number


Actual situation






Related measures

or abandoned industrial sites affecting the achievement of objectives

O8

Reduced number of dams, barriers and locks for hydropower purposes, flood protection, drinking water, irrigation, recreation, industry, navigation and other purposes not compatible with achievement of GES or GEP

Number

O9

Reduced water bodies affected by alterations for flood protection, agriculture, navigation and other purposes

Number


Actual situation






Related measures

O10

Reduced water abstraction or flow diversion for agriculture, public water supply, industry, cooling water, hydropower, fish farms or others

m3

O11 Reduced hydropeaking

Number of occurrences per year

O12

Increase in the number of rivers meeting environmental flows

% of total river length

149,900,000.00 76,722,000.00 48.82% Yes

O13 Improved groundwater levels

% of the number of GW water bodies where abstraction does not exceed recharge

O14 Reduced concentrations of

mg/l


Actual situation






Related measures

substances controlled by GWD

O15 Reduction of sediments

Kg/m3 16.00 14.00 12.50% Yes

O16

Reduced water bodies where the exploitation/removal of plants/animals is preventing the achievement of GES and GEP

number

O17 Reduced microbial contamination of surface and GWs

mg/l

O18 Reduced acidity of surface waters (pH)

pH

O19 Reduced area subject to flooding

ha 11,448.50 157.60 98.62% Yes

Table 11 Summary of the benefits in the two levels of effort

N. Indicator

Category of related ecosystem services

Methodology

Unit of measurement

Actual situation

Expected value - BAU level of effort

Improvement - BAU level of effort (%)




Related outcomes (codes)

B1

Reduced need for drinking water treatment

Regulating

Avoided costs

Thousand €

B2 Reduced need for waste water treatment

Regulating

Avoided costs

Thousand €

B3

Reduced health risks from exposure to microbial contaminants, nitrates, pesticides, and other contaminants including priority

Regulating

Number of people that may experience health problems related to contaminated water

Number of people

N. Indicator


Methodology

Unit of measurement

Actual situation







hazardous substances

B4

Improved availability of fish in rivers/lakes for professional fishers

Provisioning

Increased added value or turnover of the fishery/aquaculture sector

Thousand €

B5

Improved availability of fish in rivers/lakes for recreational fishers

Cultural

Increased expenditures related to recreational activities (e.g. hotels,

Thousand €

N. Indicator


Methodology

Unit of measurement

Actual situation







restaurants, tourist operators, lettings)

Cultural

Improvement in recreational experience

Qualitative scoring (scale: 0-5)

B6

Improved recreational experience (not fishers)

Cultural

Increased expenditures related to recreational activities (e.g. hotels, restaurants, tourist

Thousand €

N. Indicator


Methodology

Unit of measurement

Actual situation







operators, lettings)

Cultural

Improvement in recreational experience

Qualitative scoring (scale: 0-5)

B7 Protection against floods

Regulating

Avoided costs and/or change in the property value

Thousand €

B8 Increased navigation opportunities

Multiple

Added value of the navigation sector

Thousand €

N. Indicator


Methodology

Unit of measurement

Actual situation







B9

Reduced need for dredging and maintenance works to improve bank stability

Regulating

Avoided costs

Thousand €

B10

Improved hydropower generation

Provisioning

Increase in the generated electricity

MW

B11

Improved water availability for water users, e.g. navigation, power sector, water utilities, bottled water sector, agriculture

Multiple

Reduced water abstraction

m3 149,900,0

00 76,722,0

00 48.82% 0 0.00% -48.82%

149,900,000

B12

Reduced expenditures

Multiple Avoided costs

Thousand €

N. Indicator


Methodology

Unit of measurement

Actual situation







due to water use for industry, water utilities/domestic users, agriculture

B13

Reduced expenditures due to fertilisers and/or pesticides

Provisioning

Avoided costs

Thousand €

2,085 1,879 9.87% 1,498 20.27% 10.40% 2,085

B14

Increased yields Provisioning

Annual increase in revenue

%

B18

Diffuse water pollution decrease

Removal of nitrogen and phosphorus to WB

Thousand €

7,085 4,281 39.58% 3,413 20.27% -19.31% 7,085

11 Challenges and recommendations to improve the methodology

The methodology is based in the identification of Measures, Cost, Outcomes and Benefits for two scenarios and we have found the following difficulties:

• There are some other waterbodies where 4(4) exemptions -extension of deadline- is applied because of

disproportionate costs. However, after analysing these measures, it has been established that the more

straightforward measure that could be proposed to increase the level of ambition of the RBMP would

be the revocation of irrigation permits. The maintenance of irrigation is generally considered crucial to

preserve rural activity in many areas of the basin. Therefore, the exemptions are based on the argument

that negative impacts outweigh environmental benefits and not that funding being insufficient. This

fact, together with the lack of enough evidence to support a critical analysis of such a delicate issue,

has made advisable not to consider measures of this type.

• Moreover, RBMPs use modelling tools and or elaborated analysis to make their assessment on the

impacts of the measures and to make their prognosis of the evolution of water status. In the framework

of this activity, it has not been possible to establish comparably robust analysis that could have

revealed the needs for higher levels of effort.

• The fact that the relationships between measures, their outcomes and the affected water bodies is not

univocal -e.g., many measures might be contributing to the improvement of status of a water body, one

measure might have positive impacts in all the water bodies downstream- introduces complexity to

calculate the outcomes and establishing a direct linkage between expected improvement and specific

measures.

• Obtaining the adequate data to cope with some specific requirements of the methodology has proven to

be very difficult. For instance, the information of the current status in terms of concentration of

pollutants or nutrients is uncomplete and turning the expected reduction of pressures into status

parameters can be made only with significant degree of uncertainty.

• Difficult conversion from outcome that is measured in a technical parameter (m3, mg/l) to benefits

(valued in EUR). In Spain the benefits approach has received limited attention so far, at least in the

framework of RBMP, so that little base information or adequate expertise has been found for assessing

specific benefits.

Regarding recommendations:

• To properly solve the data gaps, specific additional works would be needed, including access to the

details of RBMP modelling tools and/or better knowledge of their analytical frameworks beyond of the

reported information. This would require more involvement of the technical teams of the RBA, in

addition to the discussions of criteria and provision of already available data.

• The casual relationship between measures, reduction of pressures and consequent outcomes (mitigation

of impacts, improvement of the status) should be further clarified and (if possible) quantified in the

reporting.

• If this methodological approach is intended to be extended in the future, more effort in the analysis of

costs and benefits of measures from national and river basin authorities would be needed.

12 References

Arguelles A., Berbel J. & Gutiérrez-Martín, C., 2012. La evolución de la Cuenca del Guadalquivir (España). Revista de Obras Públicas nº 3.537. Berbel J., Gutiérrez-Martín C., 2017. ‘Efectos de la modernización de regadíos en España’, Cajamar Caja Rural, Spain. Centa, 2008. ‘Manual de depuración de aguas residuales urbanas’. Alianza por el Agua. Ideasamares. Instituto de Ingeniería del Agua y Medio Ambiente, 2015., ‘Evaluación de los objetivos de concentración de nitrato en las masas de agua subterráneas de España (2015, 2021 y 2027) con el modelo de simulación Patrical’. Universitat Politécnica de Valencia. Valencia. Cifuentes VJ, 2017,’ Informe del estado de los acuíferos del entorno de Doñana’. Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadalquivir. Sevilla. Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadalquivir, 2015. ‘Guadalquivir River Basin Management Plan (2016-2021): Synthesis Memory, Annex 2 General Description of River Basin, Annex 3 Description of uses, demands and pressures, Annex 6 Environmental objectives and exemptions, Annex 10 Program of Measures’. Spain. Pérez Martin MA et al., 2012. ‘Definition of environmental objectives in relation with nitrate pollution in the aquifers of Spain. Simulation model and scenarios used’. 2012 International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software Managing Resources of a Limited Planet, Sixth Biennial Meeting, Leipzig, Germany. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Environment, 2014. ‘Economic valuation of the ecosystem services provided by the ecosystems of Spain (EMEC)’. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Spain. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Environment, 2016. ‘Phosphorus and nitrogen balances of Spanish agriculture’. Spain. Weare, 2018. ‘A method for Cost benefit analysis (CBA) of irrigation water saving investment and an application to the Guadalquivir River Basin (Southern Spain)’

13 Annex. Detailed information on costs

Table 12 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort – public funding

Code of the measure








Total costs per year (in actual prices (thousand €)

01.01 5,422.0

0 5,422.0

0 271.10 0.00 0.00 271.10

01.02 10,049.

05 10,049.

05 502.45 0.00 0.00 502.45

08.01 6,460.9

1 6,460.9

1 323.05 0.00 0.00 323.05

08.02 2,152.8

9 2,152.8

9 107.64 0.00 0.00 107.64

08.03 5,113.8

6 5,113.8

6 255.69 0.00 0.00 255.69

08.04 1,160.5

5 1,160.5

5 58.03 0.00 0.00 58.03

08.05 501.96 501.96 25.10 0.00 0.00 25.10

08.06 12,147.

27 12,147.

27 607.36 0.00 0.00 607.36

05.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

06.01 1,501.3

3 1,501.3

3 75.07 0.00 0.00 75.07

07.01 3,831.9

2 3,831.9

2 191.60 0.00 0.00 191.60

99.01 11,796.

21 11,796.

21 589.81 0.00 0.00 589.81

99.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

99.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

99.04 20,884.

40 20,884.

40 1,044.2

2 0.00 0.00 1,044.2

2

99.05 4,479.6

9 4,479.6

9 111.99 0.00 0.00 111.99

99.06 306.23 306.23 7.66 0.00 0.00 7.66

99.07 11,827.

98 11,827.

98 591.40 0.00 0.00 591.40

99.08 612.92 612.92 30.65 0.00 0.00 30.65

68

99.09 8,722.1

3 8,722.1

3 436.11 0.00 0.00 436.11

99.12 613.67 613.67 30.68 0.00 0.00 30.68

TOTAL

223,299.82

0.00 0.00 223,299.82

8,545.34

4,100.00 2,316.35

10,861.69

69

Table 13 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort – private funding

Code of the measure









01.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 352.37 259.17 259.17

01.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 147.04 108.14 108.14

08.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.14 128.81 128.81

08.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 92.31 67.89 67.89

08.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 245.35 180.46 180.46

08.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.36 17.18 17.18

08.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.13 10.39 10.39

08.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 380.25 279.67 279.67

05.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,390.62 1,022.79

1,022.79

06.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 86.77 63.82 63.82

07.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 218.62 160.79 160.79

99.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 275.54 202.65 202.65

99.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 420.34 309.16 309.16

99.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,821.63 7,959.22

7,959.22

99.04 20,884.40

20,884.40

1,044.22

111.46 81.98 1,126.20

99.05 4,479.69

4,479.69

111.99 107.51 60.74 172.73

99.06 306.23 306.23 7.66 7.35 4.15 11.81

99.07 7,885.32

7,885.32

394.27 474.98 349.35 743.61

99.08 408.62 408.62 20.43 1,150.58 846.24 866.68

99.09 5,814.75

5,814.75

290.74 1,308.32 962.26 1,253.00

99.12 409.11 409.11 20.46 179.24 131.83 152.28

TOTAL 50,664.

69 0.00 0.00 50,664.

69 2,413.5

9 18,171.21 13,345.

19 15,758.

77

70

Table 14 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort – other funding

Code of the measure









01.01 0 0.00 0.00 352.37 259.17 259.17

01.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 147.04 108.14 108.14

08.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.14 128.81 128.81

08.02 2,152.89

2,152.89

107.64 92.31 67.89 175.54

08.03 5,113.86

5,113.86

255.69 245.35 180.46 436.15

08.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.36 17.18 17.18

08.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.13 10.39 10.39

08.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 380.25 279.67 279.67

05.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,390.62 1,022.79

1,022.79

06.01 1,501.33

1,501.33

75.07 86.77 63.82 138.89

07.01 3,831.92

3,831.92

191.60 218.62 160.79 352.39

99.01 11,796.21

11,796.21

589.81 275.54 202.65 792.46

99.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 420.34 309.16 309.16

99.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,821.63 7,959.22

7,959.22

99.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 111.46 81.98 81.98

99.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 107.51 60.74 60.74

99.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.35 4.15 4.15

99.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

99.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

99.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 24,396.

20 0.00 0.00 24,396.

20 1,219.8

1 14,869.79 10,917.

02 12,136.

83

12th July 2018 - Europa

Documents

Transcript of 12th July 2018 - Europa