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

nuriahernandezmora@gmail.comnhernandezmora@fnca.eu