**1. Introduction**

Water is anything, but trivial. That observation is easily demonstrated by the intricate, often contested, nature of water use and conservation in Europe, which normally encapsulates operational challenges, intersector disputes and multi-level political expectations. If the traditional forms of water use were typically based on cooperation and mutual understanding (vis-à-vis subsistence irrigation and community water supply), the recent history of water development is more closely associated with large-scale interventions and growing rates of water demand. Mounting environmental pressures make the reconciliation of antagonistic interests even more difficult, especially in areas with relatively low stocks of water and an inadequate institutional organisation. Throughout the 20th century, both the Keynesian and the post-Keynesian phases of water management have tried to develop rational approaches to restore and maintain the integrity of freshwater systems.1 If the Keynesian period was marked by large infrastructure projects and centralised planning, the post-Keynesian blueprint is now characterised by non-structural and more flexible responses. In that context, a succession of plans and regulatory efforts launched by the European Union in the last two decades have attempted to improve the institutional mechanisms for dealing with old and new water management problems. To a great extent, the end result of that salient water policy has been an 'organised anarchy' characterised by problematic preferences, unclear technology and fluid participation, whilst the overall trend of resource overuse and the uneven sharing of the environmental impacts remained mostly unchanged (Richardson, 1994). That is why the approval of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in 2000 – currently in its first cycle of implementation – has been perceived as a promising opportunity to enhance the regulatory capacity of national governments and public agencies, as well as a central tool in the reform of the collective basis of social learning and bring water management in Europe to the 21st century (see Hedelin & Lindh, 2008).

<sup>1</sup> The post-Keynesian phase of water management began with the United Nations Mar del Plata conference in 1977 and, not by chance, coincided with the aftermath of the crash of the Bretton Woods monetary order, the oil crisis, and the declining role of the state. The connection between water management reforms and the larger politico-economic reorganisation has had major consequences for the assessment of problems and formulation of solutions, as discussed below.

Bringing Water Regulation into the 21st Century:

Fig. 1. The Douro Catchment in the Iberian Peninsula

The Implementation of the Water Framework Directive in the Iberian Peninsula 181

km of the river meanders through an open valley over soft tertiary sediments. The mean water temperature ranges from 11.2 °C in the headwaters to 14.0°C in the lower reaches. Mean precipitation in the Portuguese section is 1,016 mm/year and in the Spanish section is 625 mm/year (Maia, 2000, quoted in Dominguez et al., 2004). The catchment has a strong relationship between rainfall and river flow, with the maximal discharges occurring in the spring and minimum in the summer. High discharge periods are usually correlated with

Water use in the catchment is dominated by agriculture and, secondly, by hydroelectricity (one quarter of Spanish and more than half of Portuguese generation are located in the Douro), although industries, cities, navigation and mines are also important user sectors. Total water usage is between 26-31% of the natural mean flow and the storage capacity corresponds to 8.8% of the natural mean flow (7.7% in Spain and 1.1% in Portugal), according to Maia (2000, in Dominguez et al., 2004). In terms of the ratio between abstraction and availability, the level of water stress the Douro is not much different than the River Guadiana in the south of the Peninsula and with much lower rates of rainfall (European Commission, 2007). There exist more than 50 large dams built for hydropower and irrigation, with a particular concentration in the last 350 km of the river channel (Bordalo et al., 2006; Sabater et al., 2009), which has caused the extinction of ¾ of the local fish species (Azevedo, 1998). Because of untreated effluents coming from Spain, at the point of entry of the Douro in Portugal the level of pollution is considerably high (particularly in term of nitrate). Around 50% of the water bodies in the river basin in Portugal have chemical and biological standards at levels that are below the legal requirements (National Water Institute

peaks in suspended solids. The mean flow at the river mouth is 903 m3/s.

The broad range of activities related to the implementation of the new Directive represents a very special episode in the history of environmental regulation in Europe. Likewise, the introduction of the WFD constitutes an important element of an affirmation of the political legitimacy and administrative authority of the evolving European Union statehood system. Because of its large-scale consequences, the complex reorganisation that follows the WFD epitomises a distinctive case in the sociology of water management, what van der Brugge & Rotmans (2007) describe as a transition from the previous focus on hydraulic infra-structure works to a new phase based on the adaptive, co-evolutionary coordination of improved responses. The new Directive is not only associated with technical and administrative expedients, but also relies on the affirmation of 'protonorms', such as watershed democracy, water marketisation, international river diplomacy and the notion of integrated management, that all compete to normalise the contemporary forms of water governance (Conca, 2006). The multiple components of the new European regulation related to the implementation of the new water directive certainly constitute one of the most comprehensive examples of a programme of environmental conservation around the world. Notwithstanding the ambitious nature of the WFD regime, the bulk of the official measures seem yet to be too centred on technical and bureaucratic procedures with limited consideration of the also important political and ideological dimensions of water management. That can represent a major implementation problem, because at the same time that the Directive encourages a more efficient allocation and use of scarce water resources, the success of the WFD also depends on dealing with some thorny social issues that influence the allocation and management of water, such as stakeholder inequality and environmental injustices (Surridge & Harris, 2007).

Our aim in this chapter is to investigate the introduction of new water management institutions and how it has influenced intersector and interspatial relations, particularly in terms of public water and sanitation services. More than a decade after the approval of WFD, it is the appropriate time now to discuss achievements and constraints of specific catchments and countries in order to assess the overall European progress. It needs to be examined whether the WFD agenda – essentially, the range of public and private activities related to implementation of institutional reforms around the allocation, use and conservation of water that have followed the approval of the new European Directive – provides a coherent set of guidelines to revert structural shortcomings and pave the road for more sustainable forms of water management. We will consider here some of the key dilemmas involved in the management of water in the Douro catchment (called Duero in Spain) with an emphasis on the Portuguese context (which is unusual, as most analysis of the catchment focus on the Spanish side). The study was initially inspired by the observation of Dominguez et al. (2004) that conflicts and problems in the Douro have been many times hidden from the public debate and, therefore, deserve to be properly examined. The empirical results show the socionatural complexity of the catchment and a situation of growing problems and evident regulatory shortcomings. In effect, because of its size and geographical complexity, the Douro represents one of the most challenging areas for the achievement of WFD objectives in southern Europe.

The Douro (Figure 1) is the largest Iberian river basin (97,290 km2) with 78,954 km2 in Spain and 18,336 km2 in Portugal (respectively 15.6% and 19.8% of each national territory), which corresponds to 17% of the peninsular area. According to Sabater et al. (2009), the main river channel is 572 km long. The first 72 km flows through steep valleys and the remaining 500

The broad range of activities related to the implementation of the new Directive represents a very special episode in the history of environmental regulation in Europe. Likewise, the introduction of the WFD constitutes an important element of an affirmation of the political legitimacy and administrative authority of the evolving European Union statehood system. Because of its large-scale consequences, the complex reorganisation that follows the WFD epitomises a distinctive case in the sociology of water management, what van der Brugge & Rotmans (2007) describe as a transition from the previous focus on hydraulic infra-structure works to a new phase based on the adaptive, co-evolutionary coordination of improved responses. The new Directive is not only associated with technical and administrative expedients, but also relies on the affirmation of 'protonorms', such as watershed democracy, water marketisation, international river diplomacy and the notion of integrated management, that all compete to normalise the contemporary forms of water governance (Conca, 2006). The multiple components of the new European regulation related to the implementation of the new water directive certainly constitute one of the most comprehensive examples of a programme of environmental conservation around the world. Notwithstanding the ambitious nature of the WFD regime, the bulk of the official measures seem yet to be too centred on technical and bureaucratic procedures with limited consideration of the also important political and ideological dimensions of water management. That can represent a major implementation problem, because at the same time that the Directive encourages a more efficient allocation and use of scarce water resources, the success of the WFD also depends on dealing with some thorny social issues that influence the allocation and management of water, such as stakeholder inequality and

Our aim in this chapter is to investigate the introduction of new water management institutions and how it has influenced intersector and interspatial relations, particularly in terms of public water and sanitation services. More than a decade after the approval of WFD, it is the appropriate time now to discuss achievements and constraints of specific catchments and countries in order to assess the overall European progress. It needs to be examined whether the WFD agenda – essentially, the range of public and private activities related to implementation of institutional reforms around the allocation, use and conservation of water that have followed the approval of the new European Directive – provides a coherent set of guidelines to revert structural shortcomings and pave the road for more sustainable forms of water management. We will consider here some of the key dilemmas involved in the management of water in the Douro catchment (called Duero in Spain) with an emphasis on the Portuguese context (which is unusual, as most analysis of the catchment focus on the Spanish side). The study was initially inspired by the observation of Dominguez et al. (2004) that conflicts and problems in the Douro have been many times hidden from the public debate and, therefore, deserve to be properly examined. The empirical results show the socionatural complexity of the catchment and a situation of growing problems and evident regulatory shortcomings. In effect, because of its size and geographical complexity, the Douro represents one of the most challenging areas for the

The Douro (Figure 1) is the largest Iberian river basin (97,290 km2) with 78,954 km2 in Spain and 18,336 km2 in Portugal (respectively 15.6% and 19.8% of each national territory), which corresponds to 17% of the peninsular area. According to Sabater et al. (2009), the main river channel is 572 km long. The first 72 km flows through steep valleys and the remaining 500

environmental injustices (Surridge & Harris, 2007).

achievement of WFD objectives in southern Europe.

km of the river meanders through an open valley over soft tertiary sediments. The mean water temperature ranges from 11.2 °C in the headwaters to 14.0°C in the lower reaches. Mean precipitation in the Portuguese section is 1,016 mm/year and in the Spanish section is 625 mm/year (Maia, 2000, quoted in Dominguez et al., 2004). The catchment has a strong relationship between rainfall and river flow, with the maximal discharges occurring in the spring and minimum in the summer. High discharge periods are usually correlated with peaks in suspended solids. The mean flow at the river mouth is 903 m3/s.

Fig. 1. The Douro Catchment in the Iberian Peninsula

Water use in the catchment is dominated by agriculture and, secondly, by hydroelectricity (one quarter of Spanish and more than half of Portuguese generation are located in the Douro), although industries, cities, navigation and mines are also important user sectors. Total water usage is between 26-31% of the natural mean flow and the storage capacity corresponds to 8.8% of the natural mean flow (7.7% in Spain and 1.1% in Portugal), according to Maia (2000, in Dominguez et al., 2004). In terms of the ratio between abstraction and availability, the level of water stress the Douro is not much different than the River Guadiana in the south of the Peninsula and with much lower rates of rainfall (European Commission, 2007). There exist more than 50 large dams built for hydropower and irrigation, with a particular concentration in the last 350 km of the river channel (Bordalo et al., 2006; Sabater et al., 2009), which has caused the extinction of ¾ of the local fish species (Azevedo, 1998). Because of untreated effluents coming from Spain, at the point of entry of the Douro in Portugal the level of pollution is considerably high (particularly in term of nitrate). Around 50% of the water bodies in the river basin in Portugal have chemical and biological standards at levels that are below the legal requirements (National Water Institute

Bringing Water Regulation into the 21st Century:

attended during the period of work in Portugal and Spain.

wine production).

The Implementation of the Water Framework Directive in the Iberian Peninsula 183

necessary to consider the repercussion of official policies on different water users and the interchanges between the lower Douro (around the city of Porto) and what we generically define here as the upper Douro (the area around and upstream the demarcated area of port

The empirical part of the study consisted of two research fieldtrips to the Douro in the year 2008 (March-April and October-November) as visiting researcher at the University of Porto. The overall research strategy was the 'embedded case study', as described by Yin (1994), which starts with the consideration of embedded sub-units of social action and then scaled them up to identify common patterns at higher scales. The study explored interests and behavioural patterns of various geographical locations and stakeholder sectors, as well as about the institutional framework in which they operate. The research effort initially consisted of contacts with key informants, academics and policy-makers. Based on this preliminary information, we developed a database of public and non-governmental sectors that guided further interviews, the analysis of documentation and the collection of background information. By mapping the various organisations, their discourse and stated aims, it was possible to compare intra- and inter-group differences and the range of alliances or disputes. A total of 43 in-depth interviews were conducted with water users, regulators, and NGO and campaign activists. Interview respondents were identified from an array of organisations that represented multiple interests in the water management sector. Additional information was obtained in the libraries of the universities of Porto, Coimbra, Lisbon, Valladolid and Salamanca, in libraries of Vila Real, Miranda do Douro and Peso da Régua, and at the information centre of the National Water Institute (INAG) in Lisbon. Also public events sponsored by both governmental and non-governmental entities were also

The chapter is organised as follows: the next section presents the institutional evolution of water management and regulation in Portugal and in the Douro, which will serve to inform the assessment of the implementation of WFD. The subsequence section deals with the achievements and constraints of the WFD regime, exploring evidences of innovation and continuity. The final parts summarise the analysis and offer some general conclusions.

The attempts to reform the management of water in the Douro embody some of the most emblematic difficulties to translate the WFD regulation into practical improvement measures. The debate about the decentralization of water management – one of the tenets of the WFD regulatory regime – happens in tandem with a growing discussion about the transference of state duties to the regional spheres of public administration, as well as with broader claims for local autonomy, social inclusion and even economic development (vis-àvis, for example, the series of conferences organised by the City Council of Porto in 2008). First of all, it is important to recognise that the use of water in the catchment had and still continues to play a strategic role in terms of regional development. The upper reaches have been the electric powerhouse of Portugal, due to the construction of large hydropower schemes since the 1950s, whilst the lower section of the catchment became associated with light-industrial production and the export of port wine. Until the early 20th century, wine was transported to the city of Porto in small boats (called 'rabelo'), but fluvial navigation started to decline with the inauguration of a railway line in 1887 and, more importantly,

**2. Economic and institutional evolution: Portugal and the Douro** 

[INAG], 2001), whilst the majority of the river stretches in Portugal and Spain present a less than good ecological condition due to irrigation abstraction, urban effluents, impoundments and riparian deforestation (Commission for the Coordination and Regional Development of the North [CCDR-N], 2000).

Following the holistic goals of new water regulation, both Portugal and Spain are now required to improve the scope of the responses and broaden the agenda of water management more in line with the expectations of those social groups not previously involved in the decision-making process. That should occur not only within national borders, but also between the two neighbouring countries. Nonetheless, if the two nations are profoundly connected by many cultural, economic and social ties – to a large extent, these are associated with the common dependence upon the main rivers –, there also exists a permanent dialectic of integration and repulsion, sometimes reaching a level of dispute that prevents genuine collaboration. Portugal is not only physically located in the downstream section of the Douro catchment, but the history shows the reluctance of Spain to consider the full extent of the Portuguese demands. In 1927 both countries signed an agreement to discipline hydroelectric developments in the international section of the Douro (later ratified by other treaties in 1964 and 1998), which split the river into segments instead of allowing a joint construction of hydropower dams. It was not by chance that the treaty coincided with the initial stage of the highly centralized dictatorship in Portugal (since the 1926 coup), which in the subsequent decades led the country to an isolationist, authoritarian model of economic development.2 With the joint entry into the European Union in 1986, bi-lateral negotiations led to the signature of the Albufeira Convention in 1998, which determined that Spain had to guarantee a minimal annual volume of water at several points along the river. However, Spain has breached the Convention in several occasions, such as during the droughts of 2001-2002 and 2004-2005 when the thresholds were not respected. Further discussions produced an amendment of the Albufeira Convention in 2008, which has now quarterly and weekly flow thresholds, but still not put to the test.

Despite institutional developments at the national, Iberian and European levels (directly or indirectly related to the new Directive), the crux of the matter, not often grasped by the majority of existing assessments and discussion papers, is the myriad of political clashes and regulatory shortfalls that hinder the adoption of more effective and fairer management of water in the Douro. To overcome those limitations and fully understand the complexity of WFD, it is necessary to employ a multispatial and multisector analysis that articulates the higher (i.e. European) and lower (i.e. locality level) geographical scales, as well as situates the discussion beyond the technocratic parlance that still permeates most official documents and academic assessments. The following pages will offer a critical reflection about changes related to WFD by primarily focusing on the Portuguese section with some insights into the Spanish side of the catchment. That aims to provide a representative example of the controversies that characterise the current implementation of the new Directive. It will be

<sup>2</sup> Also in 1927, the river basin authority was created in Spain, which is called Duero Hydrographical Confederation (CHD) with responsibilities for water planning, water quality, flood prevention, and environmental protection. An advisory board (the River Basin Council) was established in Portugal in 1994, but it was only in 2007, with the creation of the Northern Hydrographical Region Administration (ARH-N), that an executive authority equivalent to CHD was formed in the downstream country.

[INAG], 2001), whilst the majority of the river stretches in Portugal and Spain present a less than good ecological condition due to irrigation abstraction, urban effluents, impoundments and riparian deforestation (Commission for the Coordination and Regional Development of

Following the holistic goals of new water regulation, both Portugal and Spain are now required to improve the scope of the responses and broaden the agenda of water management more in line with the expectations of those social groups not previously involved in the decision-making process. That should occur not only within national borders, but also between the two neighbouring countries. Nonetheless, if the two nations are profoundly connected by many cultural, economic and social ties – to a large extent, these are associated with the common dependence upon the main rivers –, there also exists a permanent dialectic of integration and repulsion, sometimes reaching a level of dispute that prevents genuine collaboration. Portugal is not only physically located in the downstream section of the Douro catchment, but the history shows the reluctance of Spain to consider the full extent of the Portuguese demands. In 1927 both countries signed an agreement to discipline hydroelectric developments in the international section of the Douro (later ratified by other treaties in 1964 and 1998), which split the river into segments instead of allowing a joint construction of hydropower dams. It was not by chance that the treaty coincided with the initial stage of the highly centralized dictatorship in Portugal (since the 1926 coup), which in the subsequent decades led the country to an isolationist, authoritarian model of economic development.2 With the joint entry into the European Union in 1986, bi-lateral negotiations led to the signature of the Albufeira Convention in 1998, which determined that Spain had to guarantee a minimal annual volume of water at several points along the river. However, Spain has breached the Convention in several occasions, such as during the droughts of 2001-2002 and 2004-2005 when the thresholds were not respected. Further discussions produced an amendment of the Albufeira Convention in 2008, which has now

Despite institutional developments at the national, Iberian and European levels (directly or indirectly related to the new Directive), the crux of the matter, not often grasped by the majority of existing assessments and discussion papers, is the myriad of political clashes and regulatory shortfalls that hinder the adoption of more effective and fairer management of water in the Douro. To overcome those limitations and fully understand the complexity of WFD, it is necessary to employ a multispatial and multisector analysis that articulates the higher (i.e. European) and lower (i.e. locality level) geographical scales, as well as situates the discussion beyond the technocratic parlance that still permeates most official documents and academic assessments. The following pages will offer a critical reflection about changes related to WFD by primarily focusing on the Portuguese section with some insights into the Spanish side of the catchment. That aims to provide a representative example of the controversies that characterise the current implementation of the new Directive. It will be

2 Also in 1927, the river basin authority was created in Spain, which is called Duero Hydrographical Confederation (CHD) with responsibilities for water planning, water quality, flood prevention, and environmental protection. An advisory board (the River Basin Council) was established in Portugal in 1994, but it was only in 2007, with the creation of the Northern Hydrographical Region Administration (ARH-N), that an executive authority equivalent to CHD was formed in the downstream country.

quarterly and weekly flow thresholds, but still not put to the test.

the North [CCDR-N], 2000).

necessary to consider the repercussion of official policies on different water users and the interchanges between the lower Douro (around the city of Porto) and what we generically define here as the upper Douro (the area around and upstream the demarcated area of port wine production).

The empirical part of the study consisted of two research fieldtrips to the Douro in the year 2008 (March-April and October-November) as visiting researcher at the University of Porto. The overall research strategy was the 'embedded case study', as described by Yin (1994), which starts with the consideration of embedded sub-units of social action and then scaled them up to identify common patterns at higher scales. The study explored interests and behavioural patterns of various geographical locations and stakeholder sectors, as well as about the institutional framework in which they operate. The research effort initially consisted of contacts with key informants, academics and policy-makers. Based on this preliminary information, we developed a database of public and non-governmental sectors that guided further interviews, the analysis of documentation and the collection of background information. By mapping the various organisations, their discourse and stated aims, it was possible to compare intra- and inter-group differences and the range of alliances or disputes. A total of 43 in-depth interviews were conducted with water users, regulators, and NGO and campaign activists. Interview respondents were identified from an array of organisations that represented multiple interests in the water management sector. Additional information was obtained in the libraries of the universities of Porto, Coimbra, Lisbon, Valladolid and Salamanca, in libraries of Vila Real, Miranda do Douro and Peso da Régua, and at the information centre of the National Water Institute (INAG) in Lisbon. Also public events sponsored by both governmental and non-governmental entities were also attended during the period of work in Portugal and Spain.

The chapter is organised as follows: the next section presents the institutional evolution of water management and regulation in Portugal and in the Douro, which will serve to inform the assessment of the implementation of WFD. The subsequence section deals with the achievements and constraints of the WFD regime, exploring evidences of innovation and continuity. The final parts summarise the analysis and offer some general conclusions.
