B - Key specific obligations on Member States: Characterisation, register of protected area, programmes and pricing of water
1 - Characterisation and observation of water bodies
According to the WFD, Member States must design and implement the measures necessary to achieve the general objectives and comply with the obligation of prevention of deterioration and the obligation of enhancement of the quality of bodies of water. Three key specific obligations are interest in this part B. In addition to water pricing, which is one of the novelties of the WFD (4), the Member States must characterise their river basins (1), adopt management plans and programmes of measures (2) and establish a register of protected areas (3).
1 - Characterisation and observation of water bodies
An initial appraisal of the situation of each river basin district, identified by Member States, must be made in order to allow the efficient implementation of substantive actions: analysis of the characteristics of the river basins and of the impact of human activity, inventory of emissions, releases and losses of polluting substances, the reduction or suppression of which from surface waters is a priority and which are the subject-matter of quality standards as well as their concentration in the sediments or in the biota, as the case may be (Article 5).
Annex II provided that following initial characterisation of water bodies, further characterisation is needed for water bodies which have been identified as being as risk of failing to reach the objectives, in order to establish a more precise assessment of the significance of such risk and the identification of measures required under article 11. In case C-559/19, the Commission claims that the Kingdom of Spain did not establish such further characterisation in the Guadalquivir basin hydrological plan (2009-2015) and that this characterisation was incomplete in the Guadalquivir basin hydrological plan (2015-2021). As underlined by the Court, “the characterisation of groundwater bodies must be drawn up before the management plan is produced” (1). Considering all the documents submitted to the Court, the Court concluded that “it was common ground” that the risk of the groundwater bodies concerned being of poor quantitative status “existed and that it could not be ruled out”
. Therefore, the Court declared that “the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under article 5 of Directive 2000/60 by failing to identify, in the Guadalquivir basin hydrological plan (2009-2015) the risk that the Almonte-Marismas aquifer might not achieve the objectives laid down by that directive (…) and consequently by failing to carry out further characterisation under point 2.2 of Annex II”
. Similarly, the Court noted that the Guadalquivir basin hydrological plan (2009-2015) did not take into consideration the pressures resulting from illegal water abstraction and from abstraction for urban supply. This plan also did not mention that “illegal water abstraction has been taken into account in determining the pressures resulting from irrigated areas”
. Or, without such more precise assessment of the status of groundwater body, “it is difficult to determine whether the measures established to achieve good quantitative status of groundwater concerned, in particular the measures to combat illegal water abstraction, are adequate”
. The Court therefore declared that the Kingdom of Spain had failed to fulfil its obligations under article 5.
An economic analysis of water services must be also conducted with respect to those associated with damage or negative impacts on the aquatic environment (Recital No. 38), taking into account long-term forecasts of supply and demand for water within the river basin district and, where appropriate, an estimation of the volume, price and costs associated with surfaces linked to water use, as well as of relevant investment (Annex III). All those analysis and reviews shall be reviewed and if necessary updated at the latest 13 years after the entry into force of the WFD, and every 6 years thereafter (article 5 (2)).
The changes in the status of any given water body must thereafter be monitored in a systematic and comparable way (Recital No. 36). Member States must ensure that programmes are established for the monitoring of water status within each river basin district and in a way appropriate for the several categories of water bodies (Articles 7(1) and 8(1)).