India-EU Water PartnershipTechnical Exchange
Development of Integrates Water Resources Management Plans in IndiaHyderabad, India, 13-14 February 2017
Conflict and cooperation in Spanish water governance: Some lessons learned
Nuria Hernández-MoraSenior water governance expert
Spain
Outline
1. Characterization of water governance in Spain
2. Water allocation mechanisms
3. Institutions for cooperation
I. Basic characterization of water governance in Spain
Spain – Indian basins basic comparison
Surface area
(km²)
Population (million)
Total managed
water (Mm3)
Number of states in the basin/
Country
Spain 504.645 46 55.00015 autonomous regions14 river basin districts8 shared river basins
Godavari 312,812 61 8 states
Krishna 258,948 70 3 states
Mahanadi 141,600 41 2 states
Spanish river basins and autonomous regions
Irrigation18,461 Mm3/yr
(82%)
Industrial uses407 Mm3/yr
(2%)
Services784 Mm3/yr
(4%)
Domesticwater supply2574 Mm3/yr
(12%)
< 400 mm400-800 mm800-1200 mm> 1600 mm
Precipitation
Climatic variability and main water users
Main consumptive water uses
Hydroelectricity: 22,000 Mm3 stored capacity (40% of all
stored water)
A hydraulically mature society
INTERBASIN WATER TRANSFERS DAM CONSTRUCTION
Water resources under pressure:Status of surface water in Spain
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Miño-Sil Duero Tajo Guadiana Guadalquivir Ceuta Melilla Segura Júcar Ebro
PORC
ENTA
JE D
E M
ASAS
DE A
GUA
Main pressures:
• Agricultural diffuse pollution
• Insufficient urban and industrial wastewater treatment
• Hydromorphologicalalterations
• Over-allocation of water rights
Jurisdiction for water legislation, policy
making and watershed management in Spain
• Treaties, Regulations, Directives, Case law (European Court of Justice)
• Environmental quality, agriculture, nature protection, water quality
European Union
Spanish constitution, laws, regulations & decreesWater planning and management of inter-regional river
basins
Central government
Agricultural policy, land use policy, environmental policyWater legislation, planning and management in intra-
regional river basins
Autonomous regions
• Urban supply and sanitation• Urban land use planning & waste managementMunicipalities
II. Four interrelated water allocation mechanisms:
water rights, water planning,
interbasin water transferswater markets
Administrative mechanisms for water allocationSpatial scale Characterization Legal instrument Year
approved Allocation criteria
Interna-tional
Spain-Portugal
shared riversAlbufeira Convention 1998
Hydroelectricity, water supply, flood protection
and environmental flows.
CountryAllocation
among river basin districts
National Hydrologic Plan 2001
“National hydrological balance” for economic
and territorial strategies
River Basin District
Allocation to different
users
River Basin Management Plans
1998
2009-20152015-2021
(1) Economic & regional development.
(2)+(3) Environmental and socioeconomic considerations
UserHolder of water use
rights
Water use concessions, permits
and private groundwater rights
187919852003
Existing rightsOrder of priority
allocation
Improved governance, water markets and interbasin water transfers are alternative measures to deal with water scarcity.Governance is a pre-condition to all.
Drought hazard in Europe
Baseline (1961-90)
2050s (2041-2070)
Source: Floerke at all (2011)
Drought hazard in Europe
Managing droughty Risk management versus emergency responses
y Drought management plans on a river basin scale y Integrated with River basin management plans
y Drought indicators and monthly drought maps
y Four risk & management levels: normal, pre-alert, alert and emergency levels
y Each level triggers different management measures
y Drought Management Commissions
y Emergency drought decrees
2004-2008 drought in the Ebro Basin
Interbasin water transfers in Spain
POLITICAL & SOCIAL
CONFLICT
In Spain, on average 500 Mm3
are transferred annually (1% of total volumes abstracted/used)
The Tajo-Segura transfer
1 457 Mm³/year
764 Mm³/year348 Mm³/year
0 Mm³/year
500 Mm³/year
1000 Mm³/year
1500 Mm³/year
2000 Mm³/year
2500 Mm³/year
1958
-195
919
60-1
961
1962
-196
319
64-1
965
1966
-196
719
68-1
969
1970
-197
119
72-1
973
1974
-197
519
76-1
977
1978
-197
919
80-1
981
1982
-198
319
84-1
985
1986
-198
719
88-1
989
1990
-199
119
92-1
993
1994
-199
519
96-1
997
1998
-199
920
00-2
001
2002
-200
320
04-2
005
2006
-200
720
08-2
009
2010
-201
120
12-2
013
Stream flow entriesVolume transferred
47%
The need to deal with uncertainty and climatic variability
The need for a basin perspective:The collapse of the Mar Menor lagoon
Lessons learned on interbasin water transfers• “Small is beautiful”:
• Small regional transfers can effectively help solve regional water scarcity problems and help guarantee urban water supply
• As the geographical scale increases, so do the social, environmental and political implications AND conflicts
• Conflict increases when administrative-political boundaries are crossed• Economic and environmental considerations: Who pays? Who benefits?• Risks of overestimating available resources, uncertainties associate with
climate change processes (Colorado River basin allocation, Tajo-Segura transfer, etc.)
• Interbasin water transfers often only transfer scarcity problems (and associated sociopolitical conflicts) from one basin to another
• The existence of transfer infrastructures can heavily condition present and future water management decisions in both linked river basins
• Highly regulating water trading mechanisms introduced in Spain in 1999
• The most significant volumes of formal water trading use interbasin transfer infrastructures in times of drought to avoid legal limits (and political outfall) of transfer decisions.
• Informal water trading continues in many water-stressed regions and serves to resolve local problems of scarcity. However, the lack of administrative supervision fails to defend the public interest.
Water markets
Some pre-conditions for the introduction of water markets• Clearly defined, solid and stable institutional context
• Clear goals (environmental improvements, reduced social conflict, prevent drought-related losses, reduce water scarcity...)
• Transparency with regard to market characteristics and operation (contracts, actors involved, characteristics of the permits traded, volumes traded, price, location, temporal scale, etc.)
• Clearly delineated "boundaries” for the market: clear water rights, existing permitted uses, volumes effectively used, geographic scale, etc.
• Incorporated into broader basin management plans.
• Constant evaluation of socioeconomic, environmental, territorial impacts, BUT not aggregated, instead geographically distributed
• Public scrutiny of its selection, design, implementation and evaluation.
III. Institutions for interagency, interstate and international cooperation
MINISTRY OF FOOD, AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Water supply and sanitation
RIVER BASINS
MUNICIPALITIES
RIVER BASIN AUTHORITIES
AUTONOMOUS REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS
Water planning and management in intraregional basins
Agricultural policy
Land use policy
Natural resources and environmental policy
Water planning and management in interregional basins
SPANISH GOVERNMENT
WATER USER ASSOCIATIONS
EUROPEAN UNION
NATIONAL WATER
COUNCIL
INTERREGIONAL SECTORAL CONFERENCES
(environment, agriculture, health, education, etc.)
INTRAREGIONALSECTORAL
CONFERENCESBASIN WATER
COUNCIL
PARTICIPATED BOARDS
CIVIL SOCIETYIrrigation water management
River Basin planning and management institutionsy Dam release commissions & Water management boards (part of RBAs)
y Made up of water users and RBA’s staffy Mission: Allocate water within the basin among permitted usersy Effective cooperation mechanisms for everyday management
y Basin Water Councilsy Made up of representatives of: water users (±33%), central government
(±25%), autonomous regions (±30%), local governments (±4%), social and economic interests (±2%),
y Mission: Discuss and approve river basin management plansy End of the process – all the work done beforehand
y Drought management boardsy Ad-hoc multi-stakeholder commissionsy Mission: management of scarcity during droughts to minimize impactsy Very effective facilitating cooperation and consensus
Interregional and inter-sectoral coordinating institutions
y National Water Council (established by 1985 Water Act)
y Similar composition to the Basin Water council but on a national scale & broader social-technical-expert participation
y Approves basin plans and any water related rules and regulations
y Documents negotiated beforehand. Opportunity to express dissent.
y Competent Authorities Committee (established in WFD context)
y Aims to facilitate the effective coordination between different administrations for the achievement of WFD-related river basin management plans
y Ineffective design resulted in failure to achieve goals
y General frustration and lack of cooperation at a political level
y National Sectoral Conferences
y Various topics, among them Environment (including water) and Agriculture & Rural Development
y Made up of the national Minister and the corresponding regional ministers
y Information exchange, debate on national & international sectoral legislation & policies, budgetary distribution
y Meets 1-2 times per year.
y Regional sectoral conferencesy Same as above but organized in the scale of the autonomous region
Interregional and inter-sectoral coordinating institutions
Lessons learnedy Multiple institutions, but cooperation and coordination still inadequate
y Change in water policy goals (from water resources development and quantity allocation to ecological restoration and ecosystem goals) has brought more players (and opportunities and challenges) to the table
y Technical cooperation often effective and increasing
y “Void” between technical work & collaboration and final political decision-making: “political meteorites”
y Need to improve effectiveness of mechanisms for political cooperation:
y Strengthen and institutionalize interagency technical cooperation
y Make management plans a co-responsibility of different competent authorities (not only water-related, but also agriculture, rural development, coastal management, land use planning, etc.)
Some additional referencesVarela, C. y N. Hernández-Mora. (2010) Institutions and institutional reform in the Spanish water sector: A historical perspective. En: Water Policy in Spain. Garrido, A. and M.R. Llamas (eds). CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, The Netherlands.
De Stefano, L. y N. Hernández-Mora (2012) Water planning and management after the EU Water Framework Directive. En: Water, agriculture and the environment in Spain: Can we square the circle?, L. De Stefano y R. Llamas (eds.) CRC Press / Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, pp: 35-44.
Hernández-Mora, N. and L. Del Moral. (2015) Developing markets for water reallocation: Revisiting the experience of Spanish water mercantilización. Geoforum62: 143-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.04.011
Hernández-Mora, N., L. del Moral, F. La Roca, A. La Calle, y G. Schmidt (2014) Interbasin water transfers in Spain. Interregional conflicts and governance responses. En: Globalized water: A question of governance, G. Schneider-Madanes (ed). Dordrecht, Springer. Pp: 175-194.
Thank you for your attentionNuria Hernández- Mora
Senior Water Policy Expert
[email protected]@fnca.eu