Case Study 1: Matarraña River Basin - Euwareness
Case Study 1: Matarraña River Basin - Euwareness
Case Study 1: Matarraña River Basin - Euwareness
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
euwareness spain<br />
<strong>Case</strong> <strong>Study</strong> 1: <strong>Matarraña</strong> <strong>River</strong> <strong>Basin</strong><br />
Joan Subirats, Nuria Font and Meritxell Costejà
<strong>Case</strong> <strong>Study</strong> 1: <strong>Matarraña</strong> <strong>River</strong> <strong>Basin</strong><br />
Joan Subirats<br />
Nuria Font<br />
Meritxell Costejà<br />
April 2002<br />
Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (UAB)<br />
Departament de Ciencia Politica i de Dret Public<br />
Campus Universitari – Edifici B<br />
08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona)<br />
Spain<br />
Tel: +34.3.58.11767<br />
Fax: +34.3.58.12439<br />
Website: www.uab.es<br />
Email: joan.subirats@uab.es; meritxell.costeja@uab.es; nuria.font@uab.es<br />
EUWARENESS is a research project on European Water Regimes and the Notion of a Sustainable Status. Research<br />
institutes from six European countries (Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland) have been cooperating<br />
in this two year project (2000-2002). More information is available on www.euwareness.nl. The project is supported by<br />
the European Commission under the 5 th Framework Programme, and co-ordinated by the University of Twente in the<br />
Netherlands.<br />
1
Index<br />
Introduction<br />
1. <strong>Case</strong> demarcation<br />
2. Water uses and demands<br />
3. Regulative system and de facto use rights<br />
4. The actors<br />
5. National and river basin regimes: main developments<br />
6. The process: phases and transition towards integration<br />
7. Dimensions of integration and regime change<br />
8. Some interpretative lines<br />
2
Introduction<br />
The <strong>Matarraña</strong> river case constitutes one of the two cases studies conducted by the<br />
Spanish team in the EUWARENESS project framework. In general terms, the case<br />
satisfies the main selection criteria agreed upon:<br />
Main selection criteria<br />
Rivalry between heterogeneous /<br />
homogeneous uses / users<br />
Preference for cases where not<br />
only public ownership but also<br />
privative ownership of water<br />
resources could be found.<br />
Presence of transitions towards<br />
integration during the last two<br />
decades (integration to be<br />
considered as a case of success)<br />
The demarcation of a case<br />
should follow the hydrological<br />
and geographical boundaries of<br />
a water basin at a regional scale<br />
or with a tributary character<br />
The <strong>Matarraña</strong> case study<br />
√ The case presents high levels of<br />
rivalry between heterogeneous and<br />
homogeneous users of water. Rivalries<br />
can be interpreted in territorial terms.<br />
√ Surface waters are considered as<br />
public domain, but can be object of<br />
privative uses: irrigation, population<br />
supply and cattle.<br />
√ There are some signals of a transition<br />
towards integration (it crystallises in an<br />
agreement reached in April 2000):<br />
Integration of the problem perception<br />
and objectives and integration of the<br />
actors in the policy network<br />
√ The <strong>Matarraña</strong> river is a tributary to<br />
the Ebro river and has an extension of 97<br />
Km.<br />
The following sections will analyse the extent to which there are signals of transition<br />
towards an integrated regime. As a general point of departure, and considering the<br />
case study framework analysis, integration mostly relates to the governance rather<br />
than the regulative system and mainly takes into account:<br />
The problem perception and objectives<br />
(“development of a water vision for a river basin”)<br />
The actors in the policy network<br />
(“involvement of all actors having an interest in water services”)<br />
3
1. <strong>Case</strong> demarcation<br />
The <strong>Matarraña</strong> river is tributary of the Ebro river in its right side. It is located in the<br />
northern east of Spain and flows through the Teruel and Zaragoza provinces (Aragón<br />
Autonomous Community), Tarragona (Catalonia) and Castellón (Valencian Country).<br />
The <strong>Matarraña</strong> basin has a total of 1,727 Km2 flowing through 97 km starting from its<br />
head (in Puertos de Beceite) and ending in the Ebro river. The <strong>Matarraña</strong> hidrographic<br />
net includes: the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river, the Pena river, the Ulldemó river, the Tastavins river<br />
and the Algás river (the latter is the main tributary and empties its waters into the point<br />
where the <strong>Matarraña</strong> flows into the Ebro river).<br />
There are two factors exogenous—both to the regulative system and the policy<br />
process—that are crucial in order to understand the developments at the <strong>Matarraña</strong><br />
river basin: the climate patterns and the intra-basin diversity.<br />
Climate conditions<br />
Climate patterns considered both inter-annually and intra-annually are crucial in order<br />
to understand what is going on in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin. Regarding interannual<br />
patterns, some raining cycles can be observed: five to ten year periods of scarce<br />
raining and draught are commonly followed by five to ten years periods of abundant<br />
raining. According to some data, the main climatic periods related to the <strong>Matarraña</strong><br />
river along the last years, which are coincident with those at the national level, are the<br />
following ones:<br />
Climate periods<br />
1977 – 1987 dry period<br />
1987/88 – 1992/93 wet period<br />
1993/94 – 1999/2000 dry period<br />
2000 wet period<br />
4
Regarding intra-annual climate patterns, the <strong>Matarraña</strong> basin follows the typical<br />
Mediterranean regime, which is characterised by severe low water periods occurring<br />
from June to September. This may cause the breaking of the river continuity (the mean<br />
flow in July and August decreases 40% of the total flow), and there are two rainfall<br />
peaks in spring and autumn depending on the raining conditions. However, intraannual<br />
raining irregularity may dramatically vary the mean river flow from one year to<br />
the next. In addition, there are important variations in the raining patterns within the<br />
river basin: the average raining on the head of the river basin is 600 mm per year, while<br />
it is lower than 300 mm at the end. Apart from that, dry conditions during the summer<br />
season become more intense in dry years due to the increasing demand of water for<br />
agriculture and population supply (Sostoa, 1996).<br />
Intra-basin diversity<br />
The <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin includes twelve municipalities that make a population of<br />
10,613 inhabitants. Beceite is the municipality located at the head of the river and La<br />
Portellada is the one located at its end, just before the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river tributes to the<br />
Ebro river. The distribution of population among the twelve municipalities is<br />
summarised in the following table:<br />
Population in the municipalities of the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin (1996)<br />
Population<br />
Beceite 654<br />
Valderrobres 1,914<br />
La Fresnada 435<br />
Torre del Compte 189<br />
Mazaleón 608<br />
Maella 2,079<br />
Fabara 1,261<br />
Nonaspe 1,100<br />
Fayón 392<br />
Calaceite 1.238<br />
Cretas 638<br />
La Portellada 342<br />
Total 10,613<br />
Source: www.chebro.es<br />
5
Even though the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin is neither too long nor too populated, the<br />
climatic, geographical, social and economic characteristics in different parts of the river<br />
basin are very different. And so the water uses and demands are. In general terms,<br />
three different areas can be distinguished along the river basin: the higher, the middle<br />
and the lower basin. The main municipalities located in the three areas are included in<br />
the following table:<br />
Higher basin<br />
Beceite<br />
Valderrobres<br />
The higher river basin<br />
Middle basin<br />
Mazaleón<br />
Maella<br />
Lower basin<br />
Fabara<br />
Nonaspe<br />
The <strong>Matarraña</strong> river is characterised by being narrow at its head and resembles a<br />
torrent or a stream. This area has lower needs of water than the rest of the river basin,<br />
both because users located at the higher river basin have traditionally had the right to<br />
use relatively more water than the rest of the river basin users, and because the<br />
extension of irrigated lands are much lower in the higher than in the middle and lower<br />
basins.<br />
In the mid sixties, peach crop —which requests high quantities of water— was timidly<br />
introduced in the higher basin, but in the seventies most crop lands were reconverted<br />
into cattle farms (and then water demands decreased). Along the nineties, rural tourism<br />
has become an important source of income in this area, but this does not seem to put<br />
too much pressure on the water issue. To sum up, the higher river basin does not have<br />
severe problems of water scarcity. However, it has been the destination of several<br />
regulation works that have been promoted by the Ebro river basin administration —the<br />
Confederación Hidrográfica del Ebro (CHE)— in order to secure water for the middle<br />
and lower river basins: the Pena water dam, that was constructed in 1930; the<br />
diversion tunnels, that were built in 1978; and the pumping project, that was installed in<br />
1998. However, given the perceived lack of efficiency of these works, as well as their<br />
cost for the higher river basin (in terms of environmental impact, expropriations,<br />
economic cost, etc), actors located at the higher basin have increasingly rejected<br />
projects promoted by the CHE.<br />
6
The middle river basin<br />
The <strong>Matarraña</strong> middle river basin has more water demands than the higher one. This is<br />
so because of two reasons. On the one hand, the two main villages in the middle river<br />
basin, that is Maella and Mazaleón, concentrate at about 47% of the irrigated land in<br />
the whole river basin. This is an important percentage, especially if we consider that<br />
irrigation consumes 90% of the total water needed in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin. On the<br />
other hand, along the seventies and mid eighties, peach crop, which needs high<br />
quantities of water, was introduced in the middle river basin and familiar production<br />
became industrialised. Nowadays, most peach crops are concentrated in the middle<br />
river basin. For instance, the municipality of Maella produces around 5.5 million Kg.<br />
fruit every year, out of a total of 12 million in the whole river basin.<br />
The extension of fruit crop along the middle river basin has increased water demands<br />
in this area over the last years and, consequently, the area has become more<br />
vulnerable to scarcity problems, especially in dry years. The concentration of most<br />
irrigation lands in the middle river basin has had the effect of making users from the<br />
middle river basin being dominant in the institutions representing users in the river<br />
basin, namely the Central Union of Irrigation Communities in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river. As<br />
they have a dominant position in the river basin, they have a higher influence in the<br />
decisions taken by the Central Union in order to face scarcity problems. This has<br />
provoked conflicts with the higher and the lower river basin. With the former, the middle<br />
basin has traditionally been in favour of regulating the river by means of hydraulic<br />
works that had to be located in the head of the river. With the later, the middle basin<br />
has been accused by users in the lower basin to prioritise the irrigation of lands located<br />
in the middle basin.<br />
The lower river basin<br />
The <strong>Matarraña</strong> river in its lower basin is wider than it is in its head, but often suffers the<br />
consequences of severe scarcity problems. As farmers in the higher and middle river<br />
basin, some farmers in the lower basin rooted the traditional dry crops out —mainly<br />
olive and vineyards— and started planting peaches in small areas of land in the late<br />
sixties and along the seventies. These plantations were enlarged along the seventies<br />
and early eighties, but a severe draught in 1986 left Nonaspe lands with no water<br />
during seven months. Since then, problems of water scarcity have been constant.<br />
7
Nowadays, due to the problems of water scarcity, many crops have been abandoned<br />
or rooted out. It is estimated that in Nonaspe around 60-70% of the land is now<br />
uncultivated. In addition, the ageing of population constitutes an additional limit to<br />
continue cultivating lands.<br />
To sum up, two main factors condition the use of water in the higher, middle and lower<br />
river basin: the severity of water scarcity problems and the level of influence in the river<br />
basin decision making processes. These factors are crucial in order to understand the<br />
balances and unbalances between actors and uses at the river basin. The following<br />
table summarises the intensity of both of them in the three areas.<br />
Water scarcity and level of influence of the higher, middle and lower river basin<br />
Severity of water<br />
scarcity problems<br />
Level of influence<br />
The higher basin<br />
low<br />
low<br />
The middle basin<br />
middle - high<br />
high<br />
The lower basin<br />
high<br />
low<br />
8
2. Water uses and demands<br />
According to official data, the total net water needed in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin is<br />
calculated as being 17.029 Hm3 per year: 90.4% goes to irrigation; 9.58% is needed<br />
for population supply; and 0.01% is consumed by cattle. The main uses of water at the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin include irrigation, population supply and cattle. Among these,<br />
irrigation is clearly dominant, as it absorbs 90.4% of the total net water needs.<br />
Irrigation<br />
2,166 Ha.<br />
12.094 Hm3<br />
90.4%<br />
Source: www.chebro.es<br />
Total net water needs per year, Hm3<br />
(from Valderrobles to Fayón)<br />
Population supply<br />
10,613 inhab.<br />
1.284 Hm3<br />
9.58%<br />
Cattle<br />
631,228 heads<br />
0.245 Hm3<br />
0.01%<br />
Total<br />
17.029 Hm3<br />
100%<br />
Water used in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin can be taken directly from the river or from the<br />
Pena dam, which is located in Valderrobres. In dry periods, and especially in spring<br />
and summer, the river may have low water flows (in the lower basin, the flow of the<br />
river may even disappear in extremely dry conditions). As the following table shows<br />
(recent data are not available), the annual flows of water at the head of the <strong>Matarraña</strong><br />
river may vary considerably.<br />
Annual flows in the head of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river<br />
(1985-1994)<br />
1985 23.22 Hm3<br />
1986 28.68 Hm3<br />
1987 63.25 Hm3<br />
1988 79.53 Hm3<br />
1989 71.38 Hm3<br />
1990 119.91 Hm3<br />
1991 66.59 Hm3<br />
1992 58.18 Hm3<br />
1993 25.05 Hm3<br />
1994 31.65 Hm3<br />
1995 ?<br />
1996 ?<br />
1998 ?<br />
1999 ?<br />
2000 ?<br />
Source: www.chebro.es<br />
9
In cases of water scarcity, and considering the need to respect the ecological flow (325<br />
l/sec), which represents about the 30% of the average river flow, the river has no water<br />
enough to satisfy irrigation, population supply and cattle needs. The <strong>Matarraña</strong> river, in<br />
the gauging station located in its head (municipality of Beceite), reduces 40% of its<br />
average flow in July and August, and in 20% in June and September. In the gauging<br />
station located in Nonaspe, at the lower river basin, it may reduce 70% of its average<br />
flow from June to September.<br />
Most of the water used in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin is taken from the Pena dam. The<br />
Pena dam was built in 1930 and has a total capacity of 17.88 Hm3. However, two<br />
considerations must be taken into account when considering this data. On the one<br />
hand, the Pena dam, due to geological factors, may filter up to 3.75 Hm3/year at least<br />
and, as some studies point out, it can only regulate 8.5 Hm3 per year. On the other<br />
hand, the quantity of water stocked in the Pena dam depends on climatic conditions.<br />
While the rains in 1988 allowed for the filling up of almost an 80% of the dam, in<br />
summer 1994 the dam was filled up with 42% of its capacity, and one year later just<br />
with 26% (Moragrega, 2000). In September 1998, one of the driest periods in recent<br />
years, the Pena dam contained about 13% of its total capacity. Then it released 0.9<br />
Hm3 water for irrigation, and left the 1.5 Hm3 minimum reserved for population supply.<br />
The following table shows the mentioned evolution of the quantity of water stored in the<br />
Pena dam for a ten years period starting in 1988.<br />
Water stored in the Pena Dam (1988 – 1998)*<br />
Year Hm3 %<br />
1988 15 78<br />
1989 17 89<br />
1990 14 73<br />
1991 16 84<br />
1992 18 95<br />
1993 15 79<br />
1994 8 42<br />
1995 5 26<br />
1996 5 26<br />
1997 9 47<br />
1998 4 21<br />
*From data collected in July<br />
Source: Heraldo de Aragon (26 th July, 1998)<br />
10
Agriculture<br />
As it was pointed out before, irrigation consumes 90.4% of the total water needed in<br />
the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin. Water demands for irrigation along the river basin present<br />
territorial variations.<br />
Extension of irrigation lands (Has, 1995)<br />
Vegetables<br />
Woody trees<br />
(fruits, vineyards, olive)<br />
Total<br />
Valderrobres 96 130 226<br />
Fresneda 21 25 43<br />
Torre del Compte 16 84 100<br />
Valdeltorno 20 37 57<br />
Mazaleón 35 183 218<br />
Maella 296 505 801<br />
Fabara 198 204 402<br />
Nonaspe 111 164 275<br />
Fayón 30 11 41<br />
Total<br />
Source: Gracia, 1999<br />
823 1,343 2,166<br />
From Valderrobres to<br />
Mazaleón<br />
(high – middle basin)<br />
From Maella to Fayón<br />
(middle – low basin)<br />
Total<br />
Source: Gracia, 1999<br />
Annual net irrigation needs (1995)<br />
Vegetables<br />
0.484 Hm3<br />
1.954 Hm3<br />
2.438 Hm3<br />
Woody trees<br />
(fruits, vineyards,<br />
olive)<br />
3.324 Hm3<br />
6.332 Hm3<br />
9.657 Hm3<br />
Total<br />
3.808 Hm3<br />
8.286 Hm3<br />
12.094 Hm3<br />
Peach production, which is more profitable than other type of crops, started in the fifties<br />
thanks to the regulation of water stocked in the Pena water dam. One of the<br />
characteristics of fruit production is that it requires higher amounts of water, and<br />
demands are higher in the dry seasons of the year (from May to September), which is<br />
the period of the year in which the river has the lowest water flows.<br />
11
The production of peaches has considerably increased after the seventies and this has<br />
caused an increasing demand of water. This increasing demand, which has also been<br />
constant in dry periods, has generated problems of securing water supply. From 1977<br />
to 1987, which is a dry period, problems of water scarcity to irrigate lands lead to<br />
increasing social demands of water regulation. While the 1988-93 wet period softened<br />
these problems, the dry period starting in 1994 reopened the scarcity problem. In this<br />
sense, while the Pena water dam used to have water up to the 80% of its water<br />
capacity in 1993, the percentage decrease to 42% in 1994. At the same time, water<br />
consume increased up to 14,6 hm3 that year (Moragrega, 2000).<br />
12
Population supply<br />
The <strong>Matarraña</strong> river permanently supplies water to a population of approximately<br />
10,600 inhabitants which turn to be around 20.000 in summer time. This represents a<br />
demand for population supply of about 1.284 Hm3, representing less than 10% of total<br />
water needs in the river basin. The municipalities of Maella and Valderrobres are those<br />
demanding more water for population supply. Water for population supply comes from<br />
the river or from the Pena dam and is stoked in depots located in each municipality.<br />
Cattle raising<br />
Annual needs for population supply (1995)<br />
Municipality (population) m3<br />
Valderrobres 1,935 234,058<br />
La Fresneda 435 52,618<br />
Torre Compte 189 22,861<br />
Valdeltormo 396 47,900<br />
Mazaleón 608 73,544<br />
Maella 2,079 251,476<br />
Fabara 1,261 152,531<br />
Nonaspe 1,100 133,056<br />
Fayón 392 47,416<br />
Calaceite 1,238 149,748<br />
Cretas 638 77,172<br />
La Portellada 342 41,368<br />
Total 1,283,748<br />
Source: Gracia, 1999<br />
Actually, the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river covers water demands for cattle raising, which represents<br />
around 650.000 cattle heads (including porcine, ovine sheep, rabbit and chicken<br />
breeding). Cattle is mostly concentrated in Valderrobres and Nonaspe, in both cases<br />
representing about 60% of the total income. Cattle needs small quantities of water: just<br />
0.245 Hm3 per year, representing 0.01% of total water demands in the river basin.<br />
13
Industry<br />
Annual net needs for cattle (1995)<br />
Municipality m3<br />
Valderrobres 52.921<br />
La Fresneda 18,917<br />
Torre Compte 943<br />
Valdeltormo 7,547<br />
Mazaleón 9,245<br />
Maella 13,423<br />
Fabara 57,832<br />
Nonaspe 14,750<br />
Fayón 9,940<br />
Calaceite 22,859<br />
Cretas 15,684<br />
La Portellada 27,122<br />
Total 245,181<br />
Due to the geographical characteristics of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river, industrial development<br />
used to be more intense in the head of the river, mainly because of water force and the<br />
strong slope of the river in the high part of the basin. Three hydroelectric plants were<br />
built in the XXth century, but they are actually not operating. Currently, there are at<br />
least 30 food and agricultural industries in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin specialised in oil<br />
mills, winery, sausages, feed industry and slaughterhouses (Moragrega, 2000).<br />
Tourism<br />
The good quality of water and the attractive landscape and cultural heritage in the<br />
villages by the river basin make this area an attractive rural tourism destination: the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river is one of the best conserved in the Mediterranean basin and is suitable<br />
for bathing; it has a diverse landscape in just 100 Km of its length; and it holds<br />
attractive historical heritage, including Iberian villages, Romanic churches, medieval<br />
bridges and towers, to mention just a few of the tourism spots. In addition to that, rural<br />
areas keeping a traditional flavour are becoming an increasing destination spot in<br />
recent years.<br />
Since the early nineties, rural tourism is a flourishing source of economic development<br />
in the high river basin. Until the end of the eighties rural tourism in this area did exist,<br />
14
ut was marginal. At the beginning of the nineties, the European Union gave incentives<br />
to the arrangement of rural houses in order to avoid their abandonment as well as to<br />
stop rural exodus, by trying to make tourism an alternative to social and economic<br />
development in the area. In that period, some social and private initiatives promoting<br />
rural tourism were launched. Some of the initiatives promoted include the conversion of<br />
old places —for instance a medieval tower, a mill, an old train station, an old factory or<br />
a monastery— in rural hotels or restaurants. In recent years, local governments in the<br />
higher river basin are having some initiatives to promote tourism.<br />
Tourism is higher in the summer time (July and August) and leads to an increase of<br />
water demands. For instance, in Valderrobres, which is the municipality where tourism<br />
is most developed in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin, water demands for population supply<br />
are estimated to increase about 50%.<br />
Living environment<br />
The <strong>Matarraña</strong> river is considered to be one of the Mediterranean rivers with one of the<br />
most salient biodiversity and is probably one of the best conserved in the Iberian<br />
Peninsula. There are 312 species of algae, 202 species of aquatic invertebrates and<br />
186 species of vertebrates (Sostoa, 1996). Some parts of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river receive a<br />
special protection by virtue of the 78/659 Directive on the diversity of fish species, and<br />
some of them are protected by the Habitats directive (92/43). In the framework of the<br />
latter, most part of the river has been proposed as a place of Community interest (LIC)<br />
by the Aragon regional government to the State government, which in turn will make<br />
the national proposal to the European Commission.<br />
The <strong>Matarraña</strong> river is the living environment of some Mediterranean species in danger<br />
of extinction: the river crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes), which is considered a<br />
species of community interest; the ‘monk’ fish (Blennius fluviatilis), which is considered<br />
a species in danger of extinction by the Bern Convention; the ‘bagre’ cephalopods<br />
(Leuciscus cephalus), the European galapagus (Emys orbicularis), and the otter (Lutra<br />
lutra), are considered as “vulnerable” (Sostoa, 1996).<br />
Territorial conflict between the high basin territories (the region of Valderrobres), where<br />
the river constitutes a key element of the natural heritage —which is the basis of rural<br />
tourism in the area—, and the middle-low basin (the region of Maella), the main<br />
15
problem of which is water supply guaranteeing during dry periods due to its<br />
specialisation in some crops of relatively high quality and profitability (peaches and<br />
vegetables).<br />
Apart from that, the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river, as it was pointed out before, is considered to be<br />
one of the best conserved in the Mediterranean river basin. While there are not enough<br />
available data on quality indicators of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river, the following data show the<br />
low concentrations of certain polluters in the river at Valderrobres, Maella and<br />
Nonaspe. It must be taken into account, however, that the concentration of pollutants in<br />
water is higher in dry periods due to the low water level.<br />
Evolution of the average quality of surface waters in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river (1996-1999)<br />
1996 1997 1998 1999<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> in<br />
Valderrobres<br />
A2 A2 A2 A2<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> in<br />
Maella<br />
A2
Quality indicators of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river in Valderrobles<br />
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000<br />
Nitrites<br />
mg./L No2<br />
- 0.012 0.022 0.019 0.037 0.044 0.024 0.032<br />
Phosphore<br />
mg./L P<br />
0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 nd 0.11
3. Regulative system and de facto use rights<br />
The regulative system is provided mainly by the Royal Decree Legislative 1/2001. This<br />
rule is a codifying legislation of the different modifications (above all the 46/99 Water<br />
Act) upon the 29/1985 Water Act, which has been formally abolished. There is also the<br />
Reglament of Public Hydraulic Domain adopted in 1986, that develops and concretises<br />
the Water Act prescriptions, the Ebro Hydrological Plan (Royal Decree 1664/1998, 24 th<br />
July), and finally, the National Hydrological Plan (NHP Act 10/2001, 5 July). The<br />
principal aim of this plan, in practice, is the regulation of the basin Ebro water diversion<br />
to the Júcar (CA Valence), Segura (CA Valence and Murcia) and internal Catalonia<br />
basins. Otherwise, the part of the Ebro basin affected by this Act is placed in the south<br />
of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> basin, so, it doesn’t directly affect to this area.<br />
Apart from this regulation, no regional legislation on water regime in the Autonomous<br />
Community of Aragon is operating although it has to be said that in 1992 the<br />
Parliament of Aragon adopted a political agreement upon water, that contained the<br />
main criteria for a water policy in the area, and that later has been included in the Ebro<br />
basin Hydrological Plan.<br />
Other than that, sectoral legislation completes the water regime system: the RD<br />
11/1995 incorporating the 91/271 Directive on urban waters, the 41/1997 incorporating<br />
the 43/92 Habitats Directive, the RD 2419/1979 on the assemblies and governing<br />
boards of hidrographical confederations, and the 2000/60 EU framework directive on<br />
water. The main aspects of water regime are included in the following tables.<br />
Common uses<br />
Special common<br />
uses<br />
Privative uses<br />
Uses<br />
Drinking, bathing, domestic uses and cattle feed<br />
No administrative authorisation is required<br />
Navigation and flotation, establishment of passing ships and<br />
embankments, other uses that do not exclude the use of water by third<br />
parties<br />
Administrative authorisation is required<br />
Uses that exclude the use of water by third parties<br />
They are acquired through legal disposition or administrative concession<br />
18
Privative uses by<br />
legal disposition<br />
Privative uses by<br />
administrative<br />
authorisation<br />
No administrative authorisation nor concession is required<br />
Land owners can use rain waters<br />
and stagnant waters flowing<br />
through their lands.<br />
They can use waters coming from<br />
springs located in their lands and<br />
use ground waters not exceeding<br />
7,000 m3 per year (unless the<br />
aquifer has been declared as<br />
overexploited, then an<br />
authorisation is required)<br />
If the annual volume of ground<br />
waters uses is superior than 7,000<br />
m3, the land owner will apply for a<br />
concession<br />
Regulative system of privative uses<br />
Regulative system<br />
The river basin agency defines the<br />
exploitation regime<br />
The ecological flow does not have<br />
the nature of water use but is a<br />
restriction imposed to the<br />
exploitation systems (except for<br />
population supply) (46/1999 Act)<br />
The assignation of resources<br />
established in the river basin plan<br />
determines the flows assigned to<br />
present and futures uses<br />
User communities, public<br />
organisations and private users will<br />
apply for the concession or<br />
reserved waters to the river basin<br />
agency<br />
Once the concession has been<br />
conceded, it will be registered in<br />
the Water Register<br />
No one can derive water from one<br />
aqueduct, nor using it, nor using its<br />
strength without administrative<br />
tittle<br />
Any concession must be given<br />
according to the prevision of the<br />
hydrological plans and have a<br />
19<br />
Springs are rare<br />
The aquifer is not declared as<br />
overexploited<br />
Current practice<br />
The CHE elaborated the Ebro<br />
Hydrological Plan in 1998<br />
The minimal flow is 325 m3/sec<br />
This flow is not always guaranteed<br />
Around 30% of the extension in the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin uses water<br />
without having a concession<br />
Illegal users and many legal users<br />
are not registered<br />
Illegal users derive water from<br />
irrigation channels<br />
Water concessions for irrigation and<br />
population supply are considered by<br />
users as being in perpetuity
Concessions can<br />
be:<br />
Central users<br />
communities<br />
temporary nature: 75 years<br />
maximum<br />
Water concessions for population<br />
supply are given to Local<br />
governments, Mancommunity of<br />
municipalities or private<br />
enterprises (the latter have the<br />
concession of public service of<br />
water supply)<br />
Water concessions for irrigation<br />
can be given in terms of public<br />
service to enterprises or private<br />
persons even though they have<br />
not the land owner tittle (if land<br />
owners agree)<br />
Each concession must fix its end,<br />
the terms, the maximum flow<br />
whose use is conceded, the<br />
average continuing flow, and the<br />
municipalities and provinces<br />
Renewed, revised, expired or<br />
extinguished<br />
Irrigation channels / communities<br />
must form a central user<br />
community (29/1985 Water Act)<br />
20<br />
Water concessions for population<br />
supply are mainly given to<br />
municipalities<br />
Water concessions for irrigation are<br />
given to irrigation communities and,<br />
in a few cases, to private persons<br />
Concessions fix and end, but<br />
sometimes water is used for different<br />
ends (i.e. water concessions for<br />
irrigation may be used for cattle)<br />
Concessions for population supply<br />
and irrigation are perceived to be in<br />
perpetuity<br />
In March 2000, 12 irrigation channels<br />
in Beceite for the Water Users Board<br />
The main novelty introduced by the 29/1985 Water Act (nowadays the RDL 1/2001) is<br />
the consideration of all surface continental waters, which include surface and<br />
renewable underground waters, as hydraulic public domain. While this situation<br />
changes the nature of the ownership, the act has a limited impact on the current uses<br />
and practices at the <strong>Matarraña</strong> level. This is so in a number of ways, including<br />
concessions, illegal uses, the water register and the functions of the CHE and the<br />
irrigation communities.<br />
Regarding concessions, before the coming into effect of the 29/1985 Water Act,<br />
concessions given for irrigation to individuals or to irrigation communities were given in<br />
perpetuity. The 1985 Water Act establishes that concessions have a maximum term of<br />
75 years. However, the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin irrigation communities, most of which<br />
were given their concessions much before the Water Act was adopted, perceive
nowadays that concessions are in perpetuity. Regarding population supply,<br />
concessions were originally given for a period of 99 years. The 1953 Local Regime Act<br />
reduced these terms to 50 years, even though the State administration continued to<br />
give 99 years concessions along the fifties. Currently, those having a concession for<br />
water supply in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin perceive they have them in perpetuity. It has<br />
to be taken into account that concessions at least date back from 1901 and that after<br />
the coming into effect of the 29/1985 Water Act the maximum term is 75 years starting<br />
from the date the concession is registered. So being registered would theoretically<br />
have the incentive of granting for a new 75 period concession (but may be losing the<br />
expectation of perpetuity). Apart from that, one must take into account that about 30%<br />
water uses in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin are illegal.<br />
The 29/1985 Water Act establishes that all concessions must be registered in the<br />
Water Register, that was created by virtue of this regulation. However, this is far from<br />
being implemented. Prior to that, from the sixties on, there were some uses books<br />
including some data on uses, and back to the XIXth century, some provinces used to<br />
fill inscriptions books. The information registered, however, was uncompleted and<br />
scarcely precise. Official data refer about 58 concessions included in the old inscription<br />
books from 1901 to 1985. Among them, a few have been extinguished and most of<br />
them are still operating. Among the latter, those having had any change (for instance,<br />
change of the name of the concessionaire) after 1985, have been registered in the<br />
Water Register. So have the new concessions given after 1985. However, the old<br />
concessions not having had any change have not been registered. In total, only 12<br />
concessions, which represent a minimal amount of the total water used in the river<br />
basin, are currently registered. Clearly, the 1985 Water Act does not serve to<br />
substantially modify this situation. The following table includes all concessions<br />
registered by the CHE since 1985.<br />
Water concessions registered by the CHE since 1985<br />
Municipality Use Year Term Flow<br />
(litres / sec)<br />
Beceite<br />
Valderrobres<br />
Water force<br />
Population supply<br />
Irrigation (8 Ha)<br />
Population supply<br />
1993<br />
1997<br />
1989<br />
1992<br />
75 years<br />
75 years<br />
75 years<br />
75 years<br />
375 l/s<br />
1.21 l/s<br />
0.34 l/s<br />
13.89 l/s<br />
21
Mazaleón<br />
Maella<br />
Fabara<br />
Nonaspe<br />
Arid grain plant<br />
Industry<br />
Cattle<br />
Water supply<br />
Irrigation (6.5 Ha)<br />
Irrigation (4.238 Ha)<br />
and cattle<br />
Cattle<br />
Irrigation (4.075 Ha)<br />
Source: CHE, unpublished data (2001)<br />
CHE<br />
Central Users<br />
Communities<br />
1999<br />
1999<br />
1999<br />
1997<br />
1991<br />
1991<br />
1990<br />
1991<br />
?<br />
?<br />
?<br />
75 years<br />
75 years<br />
75 years<br />
75 years<br />
75 years<br />
12 l/s<br />
1.39 l/s<br />
0.016 l/s<br />
0.06 l/s<br />
4.7 l/s<br />
2.107 l/s<br />
0.44 l/s<br />
Distribution of functions between the CHE and the Irrigation Communities<br />
Formal functions<br />
Administration of the river basin:<br />
Elaborates the Ebro river basin plan<br />
Regulates the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river<br />
Grants for concessions and registers<br />
them<br />
Collects the tax paid to by users in<br />
order to finance works<br />
Administration of irrigation channels:<br />
They have their own statutes and<br />
regulate their internal regime and<br />
the activities of their members users.<br />
They are also in charge of the<br />
resolution of problems among users<br />
within the users community, fixing<br />
indenizations for damages caused to<br />
the Community or to users, and<br />
determining obligations derived from<br />
infractions of the statutes<br />
Real functions<br />
2.5 l/s<br />
√ Elaborates the Ebro river basin<br />
plan<br />
√ Regulates the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river<br />
Does not intervene in the<br />
administration and distribution of<br />
waters between users<br />
Legal users pay for the tax<br />
√<br />
√<br />
Denounces of infractions are rarely<br />
sent to the CHE<br />
22
They may constitute in a Central<br />
Users Junta<br />
Collects the tax from users to be<br />
paid to the CHE<br />
23<br />
Central Union for the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river<br />
basin<br />
High level of influence regarding<br />
decisions on the watering out of the<br />
Pena dam and the distribution of<br />
water<br />
A few irrigation communities do not<br />
pay for the tax and the remaining<br />
communities pay for it<br />
Regarding the CHE and the Central Unions’s functions, there are also some<br />
disadjustments between legal aspects and real practices. The CHE has been assigned<br />
with certain functions, including the elaboration of the Ebro river basin plan, and<br />
regulates the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin: it promotes regulation works, it collects the<br />
infrastructure tax (through the Central Union), it grants for concessions, and it registers<br />
them in the Water Register. It also plays a more ‘policy’ role by negotiating with the<br />
Central Union and the irrigation communities. However, the CHE is perceived in the<br />
territory as being a bureaucracy that ignores the real problems of the river basin and<br />
any decision it takes is perceived by many river basin actors as an undesirable<br />
inference. To certain extent, the CHE seems to accept playing an ‘outsider’ role and<br />
seems to prefer leaving the river basin to self-regulate. As a matter of fact, the CHE<br />
has been passive in relation to illegal users and to the registration of concessions in the<br />
Water Register. In addition, there is a common perception that the Central Union —and<br />
not the CHE— is the most influential actor in the regulation of the river basin.<br />
Finally, regarding users communities, in the municipality of Beceite, irrigation uses in<br />
this municipality date back to the Middle Ages. There is a dozen irrigation channels in<br />
Beceite but only three of them had regularised their concessions until fairly recently. In<br />
February 2000, the CHE threatened these irrigation channels to create a Users Union<br />
(as provided by the 29/1985 Water Act) otherwise they could lose their water<br />
concessions. In March 2000 the irrigation communities in Beceite created the Water<br />
Users Board of Beceite in order to keep their concessions. However, they are not<br />
required to be members of the Central Union as they do not take water from the Pena<br />
dam but from the <strong>Matarraña</strong> and the Ulldemó rivers.
Use rights and practices<br />
Some uses of water in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin date from centuries and they are<br />
mostly related to irrigation. Most of the irrigation channels still working today were built<br />
by the Arabic population who settled down in the Peninsula, and the most antique<br />
irrigation communities existing today date back to the early XIXth century. Nowadays,<br />
there are 39 irrigation communities located in 10 municipalities along the <strong>Matarraña</strong><br />
river basin, each of them having their own irrigation channels and their own water<br />
concessions. Concessions for using water were given along the XIXth and XXth<br />
century, and users understand they have them in perpetuity. Plots (peace of land) are<br />
ascribed to irrigation channels and by this they have their use rights to irrigate.<br />
Irrigation communities have their own statutes and rules of functioning, and it is them<br />
those deciding how to distribute water taken directly from the river. The 39 irrigation<br />
communities are represented at the Central Union, which is the institution deciding on<br />
how to distribute water coming from the Pena dam along the river basin.<br />
As it has already been mentioned, nowadays water for irrigation in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river<br />
basin can be taken either from the river or from the Pena dam. Water can be taken<br />
from any of the two sources in order to cover different type of uses.<br />
Regarding population supply, water is taken both from the river and from the Pena<br />
dam. In Valderrobres, it is also taken from a well opened recently, and in the lower<br />
basin (Fabara and Nonaspe), water for population supply is also taken from the<br />
Ribarroja dam in the Ebro river in cases of extreme scarcity. Each municipality has a<br />
concession of water for population supply in perpetuity (although some animal farms in<br />
some municipalities are also connected to the municipal water network). The prize of<br />
water is fixed by each municipality. Given the water scarcity problems, a rivalry<br />
between use of water for population supply and agriculture often emerges. To this<br />
respect, the Central Union considers that municipalities consume too much water and<br />
has asked the CHE to fix gauging stations in the municipalities in order to know the<br />
amount of water consumed in each of them.<br />
Regarding irrigation, water is also taken both directly from the river and from the Pena<br />
dam. In case it is taken directly from the river, the concessions given to the irrigation<br />
communities by the CHE have a maximum quantity of water (litres/second/Ha), as far<br />
as the river has water enough to cover needs in all the river basin). It is irrigation<br />
communities those deciding how to distribute water among users. It must be taken into<br />
24
account, however, that the river normally has low quantities of water flowing and<br />
therefore the amount of water going into their irrigation channels is lower than the<br />
maximum quantity allowed to be used. In fact, the natural river flow of the river does<br />
not guarantee having water in the middle and lower basin all along the year. As a<br />
matter of fact, in drought periods, the river is dry during the spring and summer<br />
seasons from Mazaleón or Maella. This makes the Pena dam the main source of water<br />
to all the users in the river basin, but specially to the middle and lower basin.<br />
In dry seasons (from March to October), most irrigation water is taken from the Pena<br />
dam. From the late fifties, irrigation communities have perceived that the amount of<br />
water provided by the Pena dam is insufficient to cover water demands in all the river<br />
basin. Taking into account this perception, the decisions on when and how the water<br />
from the dam is released become crucial. To this respect, it is the CHE the institution<br />
giving the order of watering the dam out both in relation to the quantity of water and to<br />
the rhythm of the process. However, this decision is taken in accordance to the Central<br />
Union, which is considered to be the most influential actor in the decision of how to<br />
administer water from the Pena dam.<br />
Water released from the Pena dam does not go to the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river but goes directly<br />
to the irrigation channels. Almost all irrigation channels in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin are<br />
connected along 200 Km, starting from those located at the higher basin up to those<br />
located at the lower basin (some of them were built by the Arabic people centuries<br />
ago). It is the Central Union, as agreed by its members, the institution deciding how<br />
water will be distributed between the irrigation communities. For instance, it can decide<br />
that certain types of crops, typically fruits, have a priority of irrigation to other type of<br />
crops. Or, as it did in summer 1998, it may prohibit irrigation to fruit crops that had<br />
already been harvested in order to keep water for fruit still to be picked up.<br />
As the example shows, water does not always cover the existing demands at all the<br />
parts of the river basin. It must be taken into account that the Central Union, as a<br />
representative body of the irrigation communities, is mostly dominated by those actors<br />
having interests in the middle basin, mainly in the municipality of Maella. Maella has<br />
the largest extensions of lands to be irrigated in the river basin and consequently the<br />
actors of the middle river basin become dominant in the Central Union: they hold the<br />
majority in the directive board, the president is a person from Maella, and the Central<br />
Union is located in Maella. In addition, Maella has extended the peach crop along the<br />
last two decades, and thus water demands in this area are increasingly high. In this<br />
25
circumstance, the irrigation communities in the lower basin often complain that water<br />
does not always arrive to the lower irrigation channels, which pay water at the same<br />
price as the other users, even though this has been agreed upon by the members of<br />
the Central Union. Conflicts between the middle and the lower river basin reappear<br />
every year.<br />
Regarding the higher basin, Valderrobres has had a use right since the Central Union<br />
was created in 1950. According to the interviewed, an agreement among the members<br />
of the Central Union consisting of reserving 10% of the Pena water dam capacity to<br />
Valderobles was reached at that time. In dry years, however, the 10% privilege is<br />
suspended and the Central Union decides to irrigate all the river basin in an agreed<br />
date. Irrigation communities located in the middle and lower river basin dislike the 10%<br />
use right favouring Valderrobles for considering it too high. However, they all respect it.<br />
In any case, given that during the last years Valderrobres has reconverted many<br />
agriculture lands into animal farms (which by far consume lower quantities of water),<br />
conflicts between the higher and the middle-lower areas of the river basin have been<br />
attenuated. Apart from that, the 10% agreement is accepted by the CHE as this is a<br />
use right agreed by all users in the river basin and has no interest in changing it.<br />
There are some users that have de facto use rights in relation to irrigation. For<br />
instance, those lands that were irrigated some centuries ago taking water from the<br />
Acequia Mayor, in the municipality of Valderobres, do not pay for the tax to the CHE<br />
nor for the expenses of the irrigation communities. This does not mean that the CHE<br />
does not receive the corresponding amount of the tax in all the river basin, but it is paid<br />
by the other irrigation communities. They all agree that the traditional use must prevail<br />
and accept paying for the tax that would correspond to the most antique irrigation<br />
communities.<br />
The illegal users<br />
Water is not only used by those having a concession but also by illegal users. Some<br />
plots and animal farms use water “illegally”, which means that they do not have an<br />
administrative concession granted by the CHE. Nowadays, around 650 taps<br />
representing at least 30% of the lands in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin are said to use<br />
water illegally: around 1,000 Has out of a total of estimated 2,300 - 3,300 Has of the<br />
total extension irrigated in the river basin, most of which are located in the middle<br />
26
asin. This situation seems to result mainly from two types of situations.<br />
On the one hand, some small vegetable crops, mainly located in the higher river basin,<br />
were progressively reconverted into animal farms a couple of decades ago. Nowadays,<br />
around 60% of the total income in the higher basin come from cattle. Cattle demands<br />
much lower quantities of water and is economically more profitable than traditional<br />
agriculture. Some of these users say they applied for a concession to the CHE around<br />
15 years ago, but the CHE is said to have rejected these applications by saying that<br />
water uses have changed. However, the CHE seems to informally accept these uses.<br />
On the other hand, along the seventies the extension of cultivated lands in the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin increased in about 1,000 Has more, partly because the CHE had<br />
built a tunnel to divert water and because of the profits of peach crops (some users had<br />
a concession and some others did not). In spite of that, the CHE did not give<br />
concessions for the irrigation to the whole of the new 1,000 Has, as either the Pena<br />
water dam and the tunnel supposedly covered most of the existing irrigation<br />
necessities. To this respect, the Central Union gave a kind of “permit” to use water to<br />
the irrigation communities with plots having no concession, that is, to illegal users.<br />
According to this, all irrigation communities that have applied for the use of water for<br />
irrigation and cattle but having no concession can take the remaining waters from the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river from October to March as far as this does not cause trouble to the<br />
irrigation communities having a concession. While the CHE is most likely to be aware<br />
of the existence of illegal users, it leaves water distribution and organisation in the<br />
hands of the Central Union.<br />
In both types of situation, water is used illegally as these users do not have legal<br />
concessions. Illegal uses of water include abusing uses, for instance, the storage of<br />
water in illegal pools, the starting of illegal engines to water lands at night, and so on.<br />
However, beyond those ‘hidden’ uses, users with no concessions are tolerated by their<br />
corresponding irrigation communities as far as they do not damage their interests. This<br />
is shown by the fact that illegal users pay for the use of water to their corresponding<br />
irrigation communities. This is a kind of trade-off for illegal users for being allowed to<br />
irrigate, even though they do so in worse conditions than the users holding a<br />
concession. This means that illegal users have a kind of de facto use right in practice<br />
that to some extent is accepted by all irrigation communities (all irrigation communities<br />
are said to have illegal users).<br />
27
Both the dominance of the middle basin actors in the decisions regarding the<br />
distribution of water coming from the Pena dam, and the existence of illegal users all<br />
around the river basin, but especially in the middle basin, are a source of continuous<br />
conflict among users and among municipalities. Conflict is specially intense during<br />
spring and summer seasons because of water scarcity (this is the period in which<br />
illegal users are not allowed to take water from the river but in which they need it in<br />
more quantities). The lower basin irrigation communities often feel damaged by the<br />
decisions taken by the Central Union, as they consider that the latter mostly satisfies<br />
the interests of the middle basin. In addition, illegal users, even though they pay for the<br />
use of water, have less use rights than the legal ones, but may benefit from the fact of<br />
being located in upper parts of the basin by means of, for instance, taking water at<br />
night or using water when the lower basin irrigation communities have a preference<br />
because of being legal.<br />
Conflict resolution<br />
According to the regulative system, conflicts emerging in users communities are to be<br />
solved: the general community when conflict confronts communities integrated in it; by<br />
the Central Union when conflict confronts some of its members; by the General<br />
Direction of Hydraulic works when communities belong to different river basins; and by<br />
the river basin agency in other cases. In practice, most conflicts emerge and are solved<br />
by users communities or by the Central Union, and very rarely denounces are sent to<br />
the CHE.<br />
Until the mid nineties, the Central Union has traditionally had an Irrigation Tribunal that<br />
was created when the Central Union was set up. This tribunal had the objective of<br />
quickly solving conflicts between users in relation to the use of water coming from the<br />
Pena dam, in those cases in which conflict has not been solved in the irrigation<br />
communities (they used to have their own tribunals too). The tribunal was formed by<br />
five members of the river basin and one president, and was aimed to be representative<br />
of the whole river basin. When it received denounces, it called the accused user and<br />
could sanction him and also could sanction the irrigation community to which the user<br />
belonged to. In some cases, the tribunal could also sent the denounce to the CHE.<br />
Nowadays, the tribunal does not exist any more as the Central Union’ Statutes are in<br />
process of revision and do not contemplate this figure. Conflict resolution normally has<br />
an informal nature and are solved within the irrigation community or within the Central<br />
Union. Solutions commonly are reached regardless the legal channels (the later are<br />
28
expensive and unfruitful), and very rarely they are sent to the CHE. According to some<br />
of the interviewed actors, one of the ideas that in principle have been considered by the<br />
CHE and the Central Union regarding the illegal users consist of legalising all of them.<br />
Irrigation practices<br />
In most of the cropped lands, the irrigation system consists of the flooding of lands (a<br />
little hatch locking the irrigation channels is opened and water is released). This system<br />
is opposed to the so-called “dropping” system, which channels smaller quantities of<br />
waters directly to the roots of every tree. The “flooding” system uses water in a much<br />
less efficient way than the dropping one, which saves high quantities of water because<br />
it brings the necessary water just to the root of the tree, and not to the all area of the<br />
irrigated land. A report elaborated by experts estimate that the level of irrigation<br />
efficiency ranges from 65 to 70% (COAGRET, 1997). It is interesting to note that given<br />
that illegal users have more restrictions in the use of water than the legal ones, many of<br />
them irrigate through the “dropping” system instead of the “flooding” system. In this<br />
sense, and by reason of restrictions, illegal users have a more sustainable use of water<br />
than the legal ones.<br />
While in general terms it is accepted that the dropping irrigation system is more<br />
efficient and saves water in a river basin that often has problems of scarcity, farmers<br />
have almost no economic incentives to change the irrigation systems. While the cost of<br />
investment would be high, there would be almost no economic benefits. This is so<br />
because of the low cost of water. The only cost of water paid by irrigation users<br />
includes: a tax which they pay to the CHE in order to cover the cost of regulation of the<br />
river (that is, for using water from the Pena water dam), which is paid through their<br />
corresponding irrigation communities; and the fees for the maintenance of these<br />
communities (in order to finance the office, the works, and so on). Both payments are<br />
calculated according to the area irrigated, and not to the water consumed. This system<br />
was adopted in the early fifties, once the Central Union was created and channelled<br />
payments (before that date, payments were fixed according to the quantity of litres<br />
consumed.) So, nowadays users pay the same regardless the quantity of water they<br />
use (high in the cases of fruit crops, and low in the cases of olive crops, for instance).<br />
Apart from that, the cost of water as such, strictu sensu, is zero. All this means that<br />
there is no incentive to save water and, even more, there are incentives to change<br />
crops to a more profitable ones, such as peaches, which require high quantities of<br />
29
water.<br />
Some measures have been taken by the CHE as a timid attempt to incentivate water<br />
saving. In the mid nineties, the CHE installed 4 gauging stations (in the <strong>Matarraña</strong>,<br />
Tastavins, Pena and Nonaspe) in order to measure the flow of the river in those four<br />
points. The CHE has also installed counters in each irrigation community in order to<br />
measure the quantity of water passing through each of the irrigation channels. These<br />
counters, which work with a solar panel, are expected to computerise the water flow in<br />
each of the main irrigation channels and sends this information to the CHE, and later is<br />
reversed to the irrigation communities. The stations register information on the quantity<br />
of water flowing in each of the 39 main irrigation channels, which does not mean that<br />
this amount of water is totally consumed (it is not in the seasons in which there is no<br />
irrigation, in which extra water goes to the river). However, according to some opinions,<br />
these stations are not used in practice.<br />
4. The actors<br />
In the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river case, there is a constellation of actors operating at different<br />
territorial / political levels of governance. These actors include: the European Union<br />
(which is not an actor itself but a regulative arena generating constraints and<br />
opportunities); the national administration and, depending on it, the Ebro river basin<br />
administration (Confederación Hidrográfica del Ebro, CHE); the regional government of<br />
Aragon (Diputación General de Aragón, DGA); local governments; the Central Union of<br />
Irrigation Communities in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin; the irrigation communities; the<br />
Association for the Defense of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> (PLADEMA); the association of the<br />
affected by expropriations for the pumping project; and experts. These actors have<br />
different objectives and resources, and operate at the regulative system, at the policy<br />
system, or at both of them at the same time.<br />
The European Union<br />
The EU is not an actor as such in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> case but it rather constitutes a<br />
regulative arena that both generates certain constraints to actors willing to promote<br />
regulation infrastructures in the river basin, as well provides resources to actors willing<br />
to promote the conservation of the river. There are two EU directives that provide such<br />
framework of constraints and opportunities: the 78/659 Directive on fish species and<br />
30
the 92/43 directive on Habitats. By virtue of the former, in 1990 the former ICONA,<br />
which used to be the national agency for the conservation of nature (now suppressed),<br />
elaborated an inventory of important waters in perpetuity of fishes which included the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river between Valderrobres and Torre del Compte (5-10 Km long). When the<br />
CHE promoted the construction of the pumping project from the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river to the<br />
Pena dam in Beceite, SEO-Bird Life presented a complaint to the European<br />
Commission.<br />
Nowadays, the project of building the Torre del Compte dam has also brought the EU<br />
arena in. The DGA has recently proposed all the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin from the head<br />
to Valderrobles, and from Torre del Compte to the end, with the exception of the<br />
intermediate track, as a LIC area (place of community interest) to be integrated in the<br />
2000 Natura Net. The reduced area excluded from the LIC proposal corresponds to the<br />
place where the Torre del Compte water dam is proposed to be located, which shows<br />
that the DGA has prioritised the construction of the infrastructure to the conservation of<br />
the river. Actors opposed to the Torre del Compte dam consider that this infrastructure<br />
would flood most of the part included in the inventory made by the ICONA in 1990 and<br />
intend to present a complaint to the Commission for infringement of the fish directive.<br />
Apart from that, in 1993 the EU started incentivating rural tourism by giving funds to<br />
avoid the abandoning of rural houses mostly in the higher river basin.<br />
Nowadays, and in a national level, the EU Commission has asked the Central<br />
Government for the viability from the point of view of sustainability of the National<br />
Hydrological Plan, without still rejecting it.<br />
The State administration<br />
The State administration is responsible for the adoption of general legislation and<br />
planning on water. According to its powers, in 1985 it adopted the 29/1985 Water Act,<br />
and in 1986 it adopted the Regulation to develop it. The 1985 Water Act includes the<br />
adoption of a National Hydrological Plan. After some failed attempts to adopt such plan<br />
conducted by the socialist government in 1993 and 1994, the current People Party (PP)<br />
government has proposed a National Hydrological Plan that has been firmly opposed<br />
by the government of Aragon and by many social movements. Although this opposition,<br />
finally the NHP has been passed (NHP 10/2001 Act, 5 th July). Nowadays, and thanks<br />
to the pressure of those social movements, the discussion is among the EU Commision<br />
31
and the Central Government.<br />
Apart from that, in 1995 the Central Government adopted a decree approving urgent<br />
measures against draught. The decree included the construction of a hydraulic system<br />
pumping project water from the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river to the Pena dam.<br />
The Ministry of Environment, created in 1996, is the department holding responsibilities<br />
on water policy. The inter-regional river basin administrations —in this case the Ebro<br />
Hydrographic Confederation— depend on it.<br />
The Confederación Hidrográfica del Ebro (CHE)<br />
The CHE is the Ebro river basin agency. It was created in 1926 and currently depends<br />
on the Ministry of Environment. It is the main actor in the regulative system of the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin. Its functions include: the adoption of the Ebro river hydrological<br />
plan (the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river is tributary to the Ebro river), done in 1998; the promotion of<br />
regulation projects (for instance, the system pumping project water from the <strong>Matarraña</strong><br />
to the Pena dam in Beceite); the ordering of the watering out of the Pena dam; the<br />
fixation of the ecological flow (now it is 325 l/second); the granting for the concessions<br />
for irrigation and other water uses; the granting for waste disposal authorisations; and<br />
the control of activities in the river basin through the so-called water commissaries<br />
(Comisarios de aguas).<br />
While the CHE plays a key position in the regulation system: it has many political and<br />
legal resources available and has adopted a hierarchical and marked top-down<br />
approach to regulation. It has traditionally has promoted regulation projects based on<br />
the construction of large infrastructures that have proved be technically inefficient: the<br />
Pena water dam (1930), the tube for deviating water (1970s), the pumping project<br />
(1995-98) and the failed wells project at the head of the river basin (1998). In most<br />
cases (except for the latter), the implementation of these projects have raised intense<br />
conflict among the different interests of the river basin level. These regulation<br />
infrastructures have traditionally generated opposition by the municipalities located at<br />
the head of the river basin (mainly Beceite and Valderrobres), but have had adepts at<br />
the middle and lower river basin (Maella, Fabara and Nonaspe). In addition, by the<br />
creation of infrastructures, the CHE has given new water concessions, partly as a<br />
means to finance the works, and has contributed to create increasing water demands.<br />
32
Partly because of the inefficient outcome of these infrastructure projects, and partly<br />
because of the new values on conservation hold by actors in the high river basin area,<br />
the projects proposed by the CHE in the nineties have found firm opposition. While the<br />
pumping project was finally installed —the CHE asked for the presence of the Guardia<br />
Civil in order to secure the works—, the project of installing wells at the head of the<br />
river basin to take water out of the aquifers (2000) found firm opposition by actors<br />
defending the conservation of the river (Pladema, city councils, experts) and was finally<br />
removed. This marks a turning point in the process, as the “conservation coalition” is<br />
for the first time able of undermining the traditional dominance of the CHE in the policy<br />
/ regulation processes. To this respect, the Central Union lack of support to the CHE<br />
proposal is central to understand this move.<br />
Apart from the traditional dominant role regarding the design of the regulative system,<br />
the CHE hardly takes part in the practical day-to-day administration of use rights in<br />
practice in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin, being the Central Union the most influential actor.<br />
33
The regional government of Aragon (Diputación General de Aragon, DGA)<br />
The DGA is the regional government of Aragon. It does not play a central role neither<br />
the regulation nor in policy processes in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin, as it is the CHE the<br />
one holding responsibilities. The DGA intervention in the river basin is marginal. For<br />
instance, after the recent floods suffered in the river basin in October 2000, the DGA<br />
has financed the replacement of the damaged old irrigation channels by tubes along<br />
the river basin.<br />
In addition, as it was pointed out before, the DGA is responsible for environmental<br />
policy at the regional level: it has elaborated a proposal to consider most parts of the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin as a LIC, by virtue of the Habitats directive, but has excluded a<br />
part of the river basin which is coincident with the place where the Torre del Compte<br />
dam is projected. Apart from the formal competences assigned to the DGA, this<br />
institution has traditionally supported the regulation projects proposed by the CHE, for<br />
instance, the pumping project (1995-98), for considering that it was the less damaging<br />
option for the regulation of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river. These and other infrastructure projects<br />
were included in the so-called Water Agreement that was signed by all political groups<br />
in the Aragon Parliament in 1992. The agreement includes the construction of hydraulic<br />
works along the Ebro river basin.<br />
Local governments<br />
There are 12 local governments belonging to the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin. Local<br />
governments clearly defend the interests of the irrigation communities, farmers,<br />
industries and population in their corresponding municipality.<br />
The objectives and resources of the 12 municipalities belonging to the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river<br />
basin are unequal. Those located at the higher river basin, mainly Beceite and<br />
Valderrobres, are firmly opposed to large regulation works, as they are commonly<br />
located at the higher river basin but benefit the middle and lower municipalities, which<br />
have higher water demands and suffer from scarcity. Higher river basin municipalities<br />
have low influence in the Central Union and the CHE, but have a high capacity to<br />
mobilise the population and attract actors operating at a supra-basin territorial level (i.e.<br />
experts from universities, environmental groups, etc.). In addition, they hardly have<br />
34
water scarcity problems and are developing alternative sources of social and economic<br />
development, mainly rural tourism. In front of that, middle basin municipalities, mainly<br />
Maella, have a strong influence in the Central Union and, ultimately, in the CHE. As<br />
water demands are very high in this part of the river basin, mainly due to the extension<br />
of peach crop, municipalities of the middle river basin main objective has traditionally<br />
been the construction of regulation infrastructures securing water needs. Finally,<br />
municipalities at the lower river basin, mainly Nonaspe and Fabara, have scarcity<br />
problems and a low influence capacity in the decision-making processes.<br />
Nineteen local governments around the <strong>Matarraña</strong> area also form the Mancommunity<br />
of municipalities, which is an indirectly elected body. The mancommunity does not play<br />
a central role in the regulation and policy processes, but is just an arena that reflects<br />
the different objectives and resources of the municipalities of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin.<br />
As a matter of fact, in 1997 the president of the mancommunity resigned given the<br />
difficulties to build consensus between the member municipalities regarding the<br />
pumping project proposed by the CHE.<br />
In the next future, the DGA will create counties in the region of Aragon. One of these<br />
counties will be the <strong>Matarraña</strong> county. However, its geographical limits will not only<br />
correspond to those municipalities of the river basin, but others.<br />
The Central Union of Irrigation Communities in the <strong>Matarraña</strong><br />
The Central Union of Irrigation Communities in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin is a central<br />
actor in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin. It was created in 1950 and nowadays it is integrated<br />
by 39 irrigation communities belonging to ten municipalities located along the river<br />
basin (Valderrobres, La Fresneda, Torre del Compte, Valdetormo, Calaceite,<br />
Mazaleón, Maella, Fabara, Nonaspe and Fayón). The Central Union is the<br />
representative body of the irrigating communities at the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin and is<br />
the voice before the CHE. Its statutes regulate the election of both the president and<br />
the directive board, and the general rules of functioning. The main task of the Central<br />
Union is taking decisions on when and how to distribute irrigation water coming from<br />
the Pena dam, collecting the tax from the irrigation communities to be paid to the CHE,<br />
solving conflicts related to irrigation practices and channelling denounces to the CHE<br />
(this is infrequent). It plays an important role in the regulative system, as the orders on<br />
watering out the Pena dam by the CHE are taken in accordance to the Central Union.<br />
35
Within the Central Union, the irrigation communities belonging to the middle river basin<br />
(mainly in Maella) are the largest ones and, therefore, they are dominant. As a matter<br />
of fact, the Central Union is located in Maella, the president is currently a person from<br />
this municipality, and the Maella irrigation communities dominate the directive board.<br />
This situation is perceived by the irrigation communities and municipalities of both the<br />
higher and lower river basin as a factor biasing the Central Union decision in favour of<br />
the interests of the middle and lower river basin. This situation was evident after the<br />
CHE, once the central government adopted the Decree on urgent measures against<br />
draught in 1995, fostered the construction of a water pumping project from the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> to the Pena dam 2 . While this decision provoked the rejection of the<br />
municipalities of Beceite and Valderobres for considering that it would cause a severe<br />
damage to the river, the Central Union was firmly in favour.<br />
Irrigation communities<br />
There are 39 irrigation communities along the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin. Irrigation<br />
communities have their own statutes and regulate the rules of the game to distribute<br />
water for irrigation which is taken directly from the river. They all have their own<br />
irrigation channels, many of which were built centuries ago. These channelling<br />
infrastructures need urgent modernisation. On the one hand, irrigation channels are<br />
obsolete and lose water that is filtered into the soil. To this respect, the Aragon regional<br />
government has partly financed the replacement of Arabic channels by tubes in some<br />
parts of the river basin (especially after the floods in October 23 rd seriously damaged<br />
the old channels). On the other hand, the flooding system of irrigation should be<br />
replaced by the dropping system, as the latter has a 90-95% efficiency.<br />
Depending on the quantity amount of water available, the irrigation communities decide<br />
how and when to distribute water between irrigation users. There are two main forms of<br />
distributing water adopted by the irrigation communities: by turns or by times. If<br />
irrigation is organised by turns, each plot is assigned a day of the week or the month to<br />
irrigate. According to tradition, some irrigation communities establish that water can be<br />
used by the assigned users until dawn the day after. When there is water scarcity,<br />
irrigation is normally organised by times, which means that each plot can be irrigated<br />
during certain hours previously agreed upon.<br />
36
The Association for the Defense of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> (PLADEMA)<br />
Pladema was created in 1998 and aggregates actors who opposed to the pumping<br />
project (1995-1998) and who reject the installation of large regulative works, for<br />
instance, the wells taking water from the aquifer and the Torre del Compte dam. It<br />
reunites environmental groups, local governments and neighbours mainly from the<br />
higher river basin, and experts. Pladema promotes the conservation of the river as a<br />
whole and is flatly opposed to the policies and regulation projects launched by the<br />
CHE. In addition, they accuse the CHE of being an immobile and hierarchical<br />
administration, and of carrying out regulation works without conducting technical<br />
studies of their social, economic and environmental impact. Pladema has little<br />
economic or political resources available, but it has developed the ability to mobilise<br />
actors operating at different territorial levels, including a number of experts, to meet<br />
with representatives of institutions, to carry out demonstrations and other actions<br />
calling for media attention and to create certain climate of opinion in favour of the<br />
conservation of the river basin as a unitary system<br />
The association of the affected by expropriations for the pumping works<br />
This association was integrated by the affected people (around 70) by the<br />
expropriations of the land for the construction of the pumping project in the municipality<br />
of Beceite. In 1996, when the CHE had already started the works, the association<br />
asked the Beceite local government to halt the works arguing errors in the process of<br />
expropriation and initiation of works. The latter ordered the suspension of the works.<br />
While this association was created to defend specific interests of the affected people,<br />
the association has progressively modified its discourse and promoted a the<br />
conservation of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin. The association, in fact, is a kind of embryo<br />
of Pladema and its leader plays an active role in the process of promoting the<br />
conservation of the river.<br />
2 RDL 4/1995 including urgent measures against draught, 12.5.1995.<br />
37
Experts<br />
Independent experts, mostly university professors, some of which belong to COAGRET<br />
(Co-ordinator of the Affected by Great Water Dams), have played an important role in<br />
the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin case. Along the last years, an increasing number of<br />
independent experts have leaded campaigns in favour of the protection of the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin: they have prepared a number of technical reports alerting of the<br />
damages that the construction of regulation infrastructures could damage the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river, on the economic costs of the regulation projects proposed by the CHE,<br />
and on the need to modernise irrigation and replace flooding by dropping irrigation<br />
system; they have organised workshops and conferences; and they have conducted<br />
demonstrations to denounce these works.<br />
The following table summarises the main roles played by actors in both the regulative<br />
system and the policy arena.<br />
38
European<br />
Union<br />
State<br />
administration<br />
MIMAM<br />
----------------------<br />
CHE<br />
(State<br />
administration)<br />
Aragon<br />
regional<br />
government<br />
(DGA)<br />
Actors in the regulative system and in the policy arena<br />
Regulative system<br />
National government:<br />
Adopts the 1995 Decree on urgent<br />
measures for draught (including the<br />
pumping project)<br />
Promotes and finances regulation<br />
hydraulic works<br />
------------------------------------------------<br />
Fixes the <strong>Matarraña</strong> regulative<br />
system:<br />
Adopts the river basin plan (Ebro) in<br />
1998<br />
Promotes regulation projects<br />
Orders the watering out of the Pena<br />
dam<br />
Fixes the ecological flow<br />
Grants for concessions<br />
Grants for waste disposals<br />
authorisations<br />
Exerts control<br />
Policy arena<br />
EU regulation as a resource:<br />
78/659 Directive (fish species)<br />
92/43 Directive (habitats)<br />
EU incentives rural tourism<br />
39<br />
Elaborates and approves the National<br />
Hydrological Plan<br />
Promotes environmental policy<br />
----------------------------------------------------<br />
Negotiates with users communities and<br />
other actors<br />
Defends the “Water Agreement”<br />
Used to support regulation projects<br />
proposed by the CHE (pumping project)<br />
Promote the replacement of obsolete<br />
irrigation channels by tubes<br />
Promotes environmental protection<br />
policies (mainly Habitats directive)<br />
Nowadays opposes the National<br />
Hydrological Plan proposed approved<br />
by the State government
Local<br />
governments<br />
Central Union<br />
Irrigation<br />
Communities<br />
Pladema<br />
Association of<br />
the affected by<br />
expropriations<br />
in Beceite<br />
Experts<br />
Own concessions for population<br />
supply<br />
Regulates the distribution of water<br />
along the irrigation communities of<br />
the river basin<br />
Preserves traditional use rights<br />
Collects the tax for the CHE and the<br />
fees for the Central Union<br />
Solves conflicts<br />
Own concessions for irrigation<br />
Distribute water between irrigation<br />
users<br />
Solve conflict between users<br />
40<br />
Defend the interest of the irrigation<br />
communities and the population of the<br />
municipalities<br />
Form the Mancommunities of<br />
municipalities of the <strong>Matarraña</strong><br />
Constitutes an arena of negotiation<br />
Try to influence the Central Union to<br />
receive water<br />
Aggregates and mobilises actors<br />
opposing the pumping project and to<br />
the installation of wells (environmental<br />
groups, local governments at the higher<br />
river basin, experts)<br />
Promotes the conservation of the river<br />
as a whole<br />
Initially opposes the pumping project for<br />
specific reasons<br />
Lately defends the conservation of the<br />
river as a whole<br />
Contribute to create certain climate of<br />
opinion against the regulation projects<br />
proposed by the CHE<br />
Support / lead the coalition against<br />
regulation projects<br />
Provide with technical expertise
5. National and river basin regimes: main developments<br />
Once the impact of national regulation on the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin practices has been<br />
analysed, and once actors operating at several levels of governance have been<br />
characterised, the following section presents a table in which the national and river<br />
basin developments are chronologically summarised. The aim of this table is briefly<br />
showing the extent to which both the national and river basin regime evolve towards<br />
integrated regimes, and what the main connections in both processes are. This<br />
summarising table will allow for the understanding of the following section, in which the<br />
phases towards integration in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river case will be analysed in detail.<br />
First Water Act<br />
Civil Code<br />
National developments<br />
The Plan for Hydraulic Works is adopted<br />
The CHE is created<br />
The Franco regime suppresses the<br />
representation of users in the<br />
Hydrographical Confederations<br />
The Spanish Constitution is adopted<br />
The government adopts a Decree<br />
recovering the participatory nature of<br />
Hydrographical Confederations (with<br />
representation of administrations,<br />
irrigation communities, hydroelectric<br />
companies and industrial users)<br />
Date<br />
1886/<br />
1879<br />
1889<br />
1902<br />
1906<br />
1926<br />
1930<br />
1942<br />
1950<br />
1955<br />
1970s<br />
1978<br />
1978<br />
1979<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin developments<br />
The plan includes the regulation of the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin<br />
The Pena water dam is authorised<br />
The Pena water dam is finished<br />
The Central Union is created<br />
The Central Union alerts of the<br />
insufficient water provided by the Pena<br />
dam<br />
Expansion of peach crops<br />
The CHE builds a diversion tunnel<br />
41
Aug - Adoption of the 29/85 Water Act:<br />
hydraulic public domain (continental,<br />
natural flows lakes and ground waters)<br />
Extremely dry year<br />
Apr – Reglament of Hydraulic Public<br />
Domain<br />
The ICONA (national administration)<br />
elaborates an inventory for important<br />
waters by virtue of 78/659 Directive<br />
The Aragon Parliament adopts the “Water<br />
Agreement”, including the Torre del<br />
Compte dam (29 hm3)<br />
Starts an extremely dry period<br />
The national government (PSOE)<br />
proposes a National Hydrological Plan. It<br />
is firmly contested and fails.<br />
May - The national government (PP)<br />
adopts a Decree approving urgent<br />
measures against draught, including the<br />
pumping project in the river basin<br />
Dry year<br />
regulation change<br />
The CHE elaborates the Ebro river basin<br />
plan<br />
The 46/1999 Water Act partially reforms<br />
the 29/1985 Water Act: ecological flow is<br />
not considered as use of water but as a<br />
restriction imposed to exploitation<br />
systems; water markets are recognised<br />
1985<br />
1986<br />
1990<br />
1992<br />
1993<br />
1995<br />
1996<br />
1997<br />
1998<br />
1999<br />
Extreme draught at the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river<br />
basin<br />
The inventory includes the <strong>Matarraña</strong><br />
river<br />
Starts an extremely dry period<br />
Jul - The CHE initiates the works of<br />
pumping project<br />
transition<br />
Intense mobilisations against leaded by<br />
the Association of Expropriated in<br />
Beceite. Slogan: “Living <strong>Matarraña</strong><br />
Alive”<br />
The works of the pumping project start<br />
and shortly after are paralysed.<br />
Oct – The works of the pumping project<br />
start again<br />
42<br />
Oct - SEO-Bird Life presents a complaint<br />
to the European Commission<br />
Extreme draught at the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river<br />
basin<br />
Pladema is legally constituted<br />
Mar - The pumping project is finished<br />
Feb – The CHE announces the<br />
construction of wells to take<br />
underground water
Feb - The national government (PP)<br />
proposes a National Hydrological Plan<br />
Feb – Mar – Intense mobilisations against<br />
the NHP claiming for a new culture of<br />
water<br />
Jul.- The NHP is adopted (NHP 10/2001<br />
Act).<br />
The 29/1985 Water Act and the 46/199<br />
Act are formally abolished by the Royal<br />
Decree Legislative 1/2001, which is a<br />
codyfing legislation.<br />
Sept – The Ministry of the Environment<br />
includes the construction of the two lateral<br />
pools in the NHP and approves the<br />
budget of the project<br />
2000<br />
2001<br />
6. The process: phases and transition towards integration<br />
43<br />
Apr – Local governments, irrigation<br />
communities, neighbours and<br />
environmental groups at the <strong>Matarraña</strong><br />
river basin turning adopt an point<br />
agreement rejecting<br />
the wells and in favour of the<br />
construction of two lateral pools<br />
Oct - Severe floods in the <strong>Matarraña</strong><br />
river basin<br />
When analysing the evolution of water regime in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin along the<br />
XXth century, two major periods can be identified. The first one corresponds to the<br />
historical background of the case, dating from the beginning of the century to the mid<br />
eighties. This period is also fragmented in four subphases marked by the changes<br />
introduced in water regime by major developments. The second period starts in the mid<br />
eighties and is still operating. This period, which can also be fragmented in three<br />
subphases, in which some signals of transition from a complex to an integrated regime<br />
can be identified. The two following tables summarise the main phases identified in the<br />
case.
Subphase 1: 1902 – 1930<br />
First regulation of the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin<br />
Subphase 2: 1931 – 1950<br />
Construction of the Pena<br />
dam: adaptation of water<br />
uses and demands<br />
Subphase 3: 1951 – 1977<br />
First period: 1902 – mid eighties<br />
Traditional perspective: regulation through large hydraulic infrastructures<br />
Change in water resource<br />
administration<br />
Subphase 4: 1978 – mid 80s<br />
New regulation and severe<br />
draught<br />
Phase 1: mid 80s – 1994<br />
Dominica of the traditional<br />
problem definition and actors<br />
Phase 2: 1995 – 1999<br />
Collision between the<br />
traditional and a new resource<br />
conservation problem<br />
definitions and actors<br />
Phase 3: 2000 <br />
Agreement:<br />
Integration of the traditional<br />
and the conservation problem<br />
definitions and actors<br />
- 1902 (First) National Hydraulic Plan include the regulation of the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin<br />
- Construction of the Pena Dam (unique regulation infrastructure within<br />
the basin)<br />
44<br />
- Water management is adapted to the new available resources<br />
- Redistribution of water uses and demands<br />
- Creation of the Central Union of Irrigation Communities of the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin:<br />
- Centralisation of decisions on water resources stored in the Pena Dam<br />
- Representation of irrigation farmers interests<br />
- Increase of water demands<br />
- Severe drought period resulting in the first social conflicts<br />
- Construction of the diversion tunnel<br />
Second period: Mid eighties – 2000 onwards<br />
Signals of transition from a traditional towards an integrated regime<br />
- 1985 Water Act<br />
- Drought period (1992-1995)<br />
- Intensification of social demands for water regulation projects<br />
- Proposal of pumping water from the <strong>Matarraña</strong> to the Pena Dam<br />
- Pumping project included in State regulation as an urgent measure<br />
to palliate drought effects<br />
- Social and territorial conflict between the high and middle-low basin:<br />
nature conservation versus regulation demands<br />
- Negotiation among the basin actors: first attempts to reach an<br />
agreement<br />
- Agreement among the basin actors: integration of water problem<br />
definition and actors
6.1. First period: 1902 – mid eighties<br />
Dominance of the “traditional” perspective<br />
This long period includes four different subphases (1902-1930, 1930-1950, 1950-1977<br />
and 1978 mid eighties) and represents a period of time characterised by the<br />
dominance of a traditional water policy and management. In the early decades of this<br />
period, this perspective reflects the dominance of the Regeneracionism intellectual<br />
movement: a national wide movement based on the State initiative and financing of<br />
large hydraulic works in order to promote the creation of large extensions of irrigated<br />
lands and the production of hydroelectric energy for industrial uses. The main objective<br />
of such strategy is to establish the economic and social basis for the modernisation of<br />
Spain. At the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin, this perspective results in the construction of the<br />
Pena dam, the first (and unique) regulative infrastructure within the river basin.<br />
The Pena dam project was included in the National Plan of Hydraulic Works adopted in<br />
1902. It was authorised in 1907 but not finished until 1930, 27 years later. The Pena<br />
dam is located at the municipality of Valderrobres (high basin), has a regulation<br />
capacity of 18.5 hm 3 and floods an extension of 129 ha. Its height above sea level is<br />
633 metres so it represents a regulation in the headwaters of the Pena river.<br />
As some reports point out, the Pena dam presents several technical problems in order<br />
to guarantee its optimal functioning. On the one hand, due to its calcareous and<br />
conglomerate nature, the base of the dam contains highly permeable materials. A<br />
recent study carried out by the Autonomous Government of Aragón (DGA) and the<br />
CHE recognises that the Pena dam has a 3.75 hm 3 filtration per year. As the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river is located in an inferior level than the Pena dam there is underground<br />
drainage from the dam to the river. On the other hand, the Pena dam is located in a<br />
section of the river where the basin has not resources enough to feed it. Despite its<br />
18.5 hm 3 capacity, t only regulates 8.5 hm 3 per year (Nadal, 1984). Other resources<br />
like spring waters are added resulting in a total reserve of 12 hm 3 capacity available for<br />
the irrigation season (CHE, 1996).<br />
Along the Franco dictatorship, water policy represents the continuation of the previous<br />
productivist and offer-based hydraulic policy perspective. New regulation projects<br />
45
continue to be constructed all over the country in order to increase the quantity of water<br />
available to expand and promote the creation of irrigation land. This tendency is also<br />
reproduced at the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin water regime: the construction and functioning<br />
of the Pena dam brought the resources required to promote agriculture in several parts<br />
of the territory. However, the creation of the Central Union of Irrigation Communities of<br />
the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin in 1950 changes water regulation and management. The<br />
Central Union is the body representing all the irrigation communities of the basin and it<br />
has the functions of veiling for their interests and taking decisions on the distribution of<br />
water resources stored in the Pena Dam. Due to its centralisation of powers, the<br />
Central Union represents a crucial actor in determining the evolution of the basin water<br />
regime.<br />
As it was pointed out before, in the sixties and seventies new fruit crops —mainly<br />
peaches— were planted along the river basin and subsequently increased water<br />
demands exceeding the regulation capacity of the Pena dam and the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river<br />
flows. In addition, in 1977 started a severe drought period which lasted until 1987. The<br />
combination of an increase of water needs and a draught period led to the increase of<br />
social demands of regulation projects within the basin in order to increase the quantity<br />
of water stored in the Pena dam. As a response, the CHE built a tunnel diverting water<br />
from the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river to the Pena dam in 1978.<br />
As some experts point out, the tunnel presents some technical problems in order to<br />
secure water divertion from the river to the dam. One the one hand, even before the<br />
construction of the tunnel, the <strong>Matarraña</strong> flow in the extracting point is considerably<br />
inferior to the one for which it was designed. This is so because along its superior<br />
section the river has almost no contribution from groundwaters. The river is more like a<br />
stream in this section and only a few days after a storm has considerable flows. On the<br />
other hand, the tunnel lead to an important social controversy as there was not enough<br />
water left downstream to cover irrigation demands. Besides, in the mid seventies, the<br />
river started to suffer from serious low water periods which limited the survival of fishes<br />
(Arrojo et al., 1997). Nowadays it is not possible to know exactly what the contribution<br />
of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river to the Pena dam by the tunnel has been because until 1997<br />
there is not a gauging station to measure the running flow.<br />
46
6.2. Second period: mid eighties - 2000<br />
Signals of transition from a traditional towards an integrated regime<br />
The second broad period in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river case story starts in the mid eighties<br />
and reaches the present days. In this period there are some signals of transition from a<br />
traditional approach to water regime towards a more integrated one. In order to analyse<br />
it, three phases will be identified.<br />
6.2.1. Phase 1: mid eighties - 1994<br />
Dominance of the traditional perspective<br />
The inertia and deep-rooting of the “traditional” perspective that dominated the Spanish<br />
water policy is so strong that it still prevails along this period and determines the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin regime development. The 1985 Water Act hardly introduces any<br />
change at the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin regime and approach to drought problems. The<br />
dominating paradigm continues to focus on the construction of large hydraulic<br />
infrastructures. Apart from that, climatic conditions become a determining factor of the<br />
evolution of the basin regime along this phase and the following ones. As farm<br />
production depends on irrigation and water availability, regulation projects become<br />
central in the policy agenda once the draught period starts in 1992. However, this view<br />
will be flatly threatened when claims for conservation emerge in the mid nineties.<br />
6.2.2. Phase 2: 1995-1999<br />
Collision between the traditional and the conservationist perspective<br />
In the second half of the nineties, the traditional paradigm colludes with a new<br />
paradigm based on the conservation of the rational use of the resource. This collision,<br />
however, does not take place in the same terms in different levels of governance. At<br />
the national level, this period still represents the continuation of the traditional<br />
perspective of the hydraulic policy (in 1993 the national government presented the first<br />
National Hydrologic Plan, which constituted a proposal totally based on the<br />
construction of several large water diversion projects among different river basins and<br />
on the construction of a series of new dams). At the regional level this phase<br />
47
epresents the emergence of a social movement claiming for a new water policy<br />
paradigm based on water demand strategies that promote resource savings and<br />
efficiency in their use and on the conservation of the resource, both in its quality and<br />
quantity. At the basin level, the second half of the nineties represents the first breaking<br />
with the traditional perspective. A social opposition movement supported by<br />
environmental groups and experts criticises the unsustainable economic and technical<br />
rationality; denounce the environmental negative effects of the regulation projects<br />
constructed within the basin; and claim for the valuation and conservation of the fluvial<br />
ecosystem of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river in response to the hydraulic policy promoted by the<br />
State administration. The construction of the pumping project will mark the breaking<br />
point for this rupture. It will constitute the main argument of the social claims and will<br />
result in a territorial conflict among the water uses within the basin.<br />
The pumping project<br />
After the construction of the tunnel in 1978 there was a large drought period which<br />
lasted to 1987 and led to a new wave of social demands for regulation projects in order<br />
to guarantee farm production. Several dam projects were proposed during the<br />
seventies and eighties: El Pontet, Torre del Compte and Molí de les Roques, among<br />
others. The wet period that followed, which started with the 1988 floods, relaxed the<br />
irrigation farmers and administration claims for regulation until the beginning of the<br />
nineties. In 1993 a new drought period started and the controversy reappeared. In this<br />
context, in I994 the Central Union studied the possibility of pumping water up from a<br />
lower point in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river to the Pena dam. Finally, the Central Union rejected<br />
the project for considering it as having a too high economic cost. It was the national<br />
government the one approving new regulation in response to the drought period from<br />
1992 to 1995: it provided the legal framework and financial resources to carry out the<br />
pumping project 3 . The mentioned regulation declared several projects, included the<br />
pumping one in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river, of general interest of the State and were<br />
considered as urgent measures in order to palliate the drought effects. By this, these<br />
projects were approved avoiding the parliamentary debate which had to carry out a<br />
deep reflection on the future water policy and planning criteria (the National<br />
3 Real Decreto-Ley 4/1995 por el que se adoptan medidas urgentes para reparar los efectos<br />
producidos por la sequía, y Real Decreto-Ley 6/1995 por el que se adoptan medidas<br />
48
Hydrological Plan). The pumping project was declared of general interest by the 1995<br />
State regulation but it was neither included in the Hydrological Plan of the Ebro basin<br />
nor in the 1992 Aragón Water Agreement, which are the two planning instruments that<br />
should include the hydraulic projects affecting the river basin.<br />
The pumping project included 5 water pumps of about 500 CV each one pumping out<br />
a maximum of 0.75 m 3 /s 140 meters high and along a pipe of 5 km long. The Regional<br />
government of Aragón, in accordance with some biologists of the University of<br />
Barcelona, the establishment of an ecological flow of 0.325 m 3 /s, which represents the<br />
30 per cent of the basic flow of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river. The main condition imposed to the<br />
project was that water could only be pumped up from November to February/March<br />
during 16 or 24 hours a day.<br />
The social controversy : a conservacionist claim<br />
The announcement of the initiation of the pumping system works in July 1995 provoked<br />
intense mobilisations in the high basin. The first actors to react against the project are<br />
the neighbours of the Municipality of Beceite (high basin), where the pumping project is<br />
planned to be constructed. They formed a commission and launched an information<br />
campaign in order to inform the whole basin about the details of the project and its<br />
possible negative impacts. In February 1996 the construction works begun but the<br />
municipal government, in response to the social pressure, succeed in stopping the<br />
works. However, in March the central government revoked the city council order. The<br />
neighbours keep under protest in two different ways. On the one hand, they organised<br />
a series of pacific demonstrations in front of the construction works and, on the other<br />
hand, they planned other legal actions in order to stop the project. The pressure they<br />
exerted was so intense that the administration decided to send a group of police agents<br />
(Guardia Civil) to guarantee the execution of the works.<br />
In 1997 the conflict moved to the middle and low parts of the basin. No agreement was<br />
reached in the meetings that hold between the affected neighbours, the Central Union<br />
and actors operating at lower basin, as their interests are strongly divided. In October<br />
the CHE reinitiated the works and the neighbours from Beceite formed the Association<br />
extraordinarias, excepcionales y urgentes en materia de abastecimientos hidráulicos como<br />
consecuencia de la persitencia de la sequía.<br />
49
of the affected by the expropriations for the pumping project. The association also<br />
looked for additional support among other municipalities within the basin and the<br />
Mancommunity of Municipalities of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin. It also asked the Superior<br />
Court of Aragon to block of the project.<br />
The conflict by this time showed a confrontation between two coalitions of actors: those<br />
located at the higher basin and those located at the middle-lower basin. Whereas the<br />
irrigation communities and municipalities at the lower basin insisted in the need for<br />
water in order to save their crops, irrigation communities, neighbours and<br />
environmental groups at the higher basin were opposed to the projects for its<br />
environmental negative impacts and its inefficiency in covering the water demands.<br />
Actors located at the higher river basin managed to mobilise actors against the project<br />
and issued several reports against it. Some studies reveal several technical problems<br />
associated to the pumping project. Firstly, the limitations upon the quantity of water<br />
which could be pumped out —the maximum pumping flow (0.75 m 3 /s), the real flow of<br />
the river and the ecological flow— led to the practical impossibility of pumping the 2<br />
hm 3 per year flow that was planned. The reason for that is that when the Pena river —<br />
which feeds the Pena dam— has no water, neither has the <strong>Matarraña</strong>. As a result,<br />
during the last 3 irrigation seasons, even without respecting the established pumping<br />
period (from November to March), only 0.90 hm 3 have been pumped up to the Pena<br />
dam. Secondly, the Major Irrigation Ditch of the municipality of Valderrobres has a<br />
water concession of 0,624 m 3 /s between the pumps and the Pena mouth. This<br />
concession, which is destined to irrigation, population supply and industrial uses from<br />
1953, cannot be granted if the ecological flow is to be respected. In this sense the<br />
pumping conditions represent an important restriction in the flow conceded to this<br />
historic use right, which could only use 0.29 m 3 /s downstream. Thirdly, a study<br />
published in 1997 estimates a final pumping efficiency of 32%. Such estimation<br />
considers a 20% loss due to evaporation and filtration phenomena, a 20% loss in water<br />
transport from the Pena dam to the irrigation systems and also takes into account an<br />
efficiency of 80% of the pumping system and the 70% efficiency of the irrigation<br />
systems. And inally, the pumping project presents a negative cost-benefit analysis. The<br />
same study calculates that benefits in agriculture produced by each m 3 are about 5<br />
pesetas whereas the cost of the infrastructures and the costs of its functioning where<br />
about 38 pesetas per m 3 . In addition to that, as some reports point out, the main<br />
environmental impacts of the project include (Sostoa, 1996):<br />
50
- Modification of the dynamic of the river<br />
- Barrier effect for fish fauna<br />
- Alteration of the physiological and reproductive behaviour of wild fauna<br />
- Risks to the ecological flows of being insufficient for the maintaining of the<br />
ecosystem<br />
- Alteration of water quality: increase in the concentration of pollutants derived<br />
from cattle raising<br />
- Alteration of protected zones: some sections of the river are protected by the<br />
EU Directive 78/659/CEE due tot its diversity of fish species; some species are<br />
protected by the Habitats Directive; some protected species included in the<br />
National and Regional Catalogue of Species Threatened with extinction; the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river as a zone of ictiologic interest and an areas for the protection of<br />
the otter by the Ebro river basin plan; and it has been proposed as a Place of<br />
Community Interest by the Regional government<br />
As Sostoa (1996) points out “the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river presents an unusual biologic richness<br />
that makes the river particularly significant. At present, it is impossible to find another<br />
Mediterranean river in the Spanish peninsula with such a degree of biodiversity...Its<br />
richness and importance is not only related to the fauna but to the density and biomass<br />
values of the aquatic organisms which are specially high and not common in our<br />
country”. The Official College of Biologists, on its part, state that “the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river<br />
constitutes nowadays one of the fluvial ecosystems best conserved in Europe” (press<br />
release, 1996).<br />
While the two coalitions kept polarised positions, both coalitions agreed that the<br />
pumping project was not a definite and efficient measure and that would only serve to<br />
give some more time to find a better solution. In this context, the search for alternative<br />
solutions continued all along 1997. The municipalities of the middle and lower basin<br />
lead a movement claiming for the construction of the Torre del Compte dam (29 hm 3 of<br />
capacity) as a solution to guarantee water demands in the whole basin. In response to<br />
that claim, the CHE announced that the administration would study three alternatives of<br />
regulation for the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin: the Torre del Compte dam (capacity of<br />
29hm3), the Pontet dam (capacity of 7hm3) and an elevation of water from the Ebro<br />
river to the <strong>Matarraña</strong>.<br />
51
Meanwhile, meetings held between the Administration and the users from the high and<br />
the middle and lower basin could not reach any agreement. As a matter of fact, each<br />
part looked for support to their claims in different arenas. Actors at higher basin could<br />
mobilise the support of the some experts of the University of Aragón, important regional<br />
environmental organisations (Fundación Ecología y Desarrollo and COAGRET) and of<br />
some municipalities of the Aragon Pyreness and others from the regions of Catalonia<br />
and Valencia. The Central Union, which mostly represents the interests of the middle<br />
and lower basin, looked for the support of the regional government and started an<br />
information campaign in the rest of the municipalities of the river basin in order to<br />
explain their scarcity problems and their reasons to support the pumping project.<br />
Neighbours of the high basin kept organising several demonstrations and some of<br />
them started a hunger strike. Besides, in December 1997 they organised the first<br />
Seminar on the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin: 15 university professors (from the University of<br />
Zaragoza and Barcelona) took part in the event and concluded that the construction of<br />
the Torre del Compte dam was not viable and that the modernisation of the irrigation<br />
system in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin was required in order to rationalise water demands.<br />
Before the ending of the year, a slight dialogue channel between actors located at the<br />
higher and the middle-lower basin, without the participation of the Administration or<br />
other intermediaries, seemed to be opened. Although both coalitions had some points<br />
in common —they all agree in accusing the central administration and the CHE of<br />
having been unable to find an efficient solution to the scarcity problems of the basin—,<br />
an agreement on a suitable solution was still not reached.<br />
In 1998 a serious drought period would not only modify the definition of the water<br />
problem but also the position of some of the actors in the policy network, resulting in a<br />
new and more favourable context for negotiation. Along this year the territorial conflict<br />
within the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin was coincident with a national environmental and<br />
social movement against the construction of more dams and diversion projects<br />
promoted by the central administration. At the beginning of 1998 PALDEMA was<br />
created. It took the decision of having no more demonstrations for the moment.<br />
Meanwhile, the claim for a large regulation project in the middle and lower basin<br />
strengthened: several representatives of water uses of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin<br />
(irrigation farmers, representatives of farm organisations and some municipalities)<br />
showed their support to the construction of the Torre del Compte dam, as they<br />
considered it as being the best solution for granting water supply for all uses. Such<br />
52
point of view contrasted with the one defended by PLADEMA, that considered that this<br />
project would have too high economic and environmental costs.<br />
The beginning of the summertime in 1998 put the low basin in a critical drought<br />
situation. The <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin suffered from one of the most severe drought<br />
periods in recent yeas. Some municipalities, like Maella, suffered from drinking water<br />
restrictions and the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river had no running water from the municipality of<br />
Mazaleón (middle basin) to its mouth in Fayón. The only infrastructure for water<br />
regulation, the Pena dam, stored less than 7 hm3 4 and the pumping project could not<br />
be used because the river ha not extra flow. In response to this situation, the Cental<br />
Union decided that only those fruit trees that had not been harvested would be irrigated<br />
and that illegal water uses would not be authorised. In addition, the CHE authorised a<br />
first use of the reservoir stocks of the Pena dam. Due to the persistence of drought, a<br />
second use of 0.9 hm3 was authorised, only remaining 1.5 hm3 reserved for<br />
population supply. At this moment, an scission between the middle and lower basins<br />
was produced. The municipalities of the lower basin, given the fact that they were the<br />
last users in receiving water from the dam and that they had not been able to irrigate<br />
their crops yet, said they disagreed with the criteria adopted by the Central Union,<br />
broke the support previously given to the Torre del Compte project and bet on the<br />
project of elevating water from the river Ebro.<br />
In the regional context the pressure of drought also brought about forceful reactions to<br />
the scarcity problem. The regional government, irrigation farmers, farm organisations<br />
and the CHE decided to co-operate in supporting the construction of dams and other<br />
regulation infrastructures in order to satisfy irrigation demands. On the other hand, the<br />
Ministry of Environment promoted the study of the Torre del Compte dam project as<br />
well as the study of several regulation alternatives in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river. The following<br />
table summarises the characteristics of the main projects.<br />
4<br />
The SCR estimates that aproximately 6hm3 are needed to cover the irrigation demands of one<br />
season.<br />
53
Torre del Compte<br />
Dam<br />
Location High basin<br />
Capacity<br />
Water origin<br />
Total cost<br />
Environmental impact<br />
Timing<br />
Alternatives for the regulation of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin<br />
54<br />
El Pontet Dam Pumping from<br />
the Ebro<br />
Lateral pools<br />
Middle Low basin Middle-Low basin<br />
23.5 hm3 7hm3 Not precise 2.2 + 1hm3<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river,<br />
rainfalls and<br />
springs<br />
5,017 million<br />
pesetas<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river,<br />
rainfalls and<br />
springs<br />
Ebro river Ebro and<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> rivers<br />
Not Known 3,000 million Less than 2,000<br />
pesetas<br />
million pesetas<br />
High Middle low low<br />
large Middle low low<br />
Along 1999 the social conflict is still prevailing but first signs of reaching consensus<br />
appeared giving hope to the possibility of reaching an agreement on a unique solution<br />
for the whole basin. In February, the higher basin decided to give support to the project<br />
of pumping water form the Ebro river proposed by the municipalities of the lower basin<br />
(Fabara and Nonaspe) . Along this period, Maella (middle basin) also decided to<br />
support this project as an urgent measure to solve water scarcity problems. However<br />
this did not represent a complete agreement among the three parts of the basin. City<br />
councils and representatives of the irrigation communities were reluctant because they<br />
thought its total cost would be excessive. The higher basin kept proposing other<br />
regulating alternatives such as the Pontet dam or the construction of lateral pools.<br />
Nevertheless, the higher basin agreed on the creation of a commission for the study of<br />
different regulation projects in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin with representatives of the<br />
three parts of the basin.<br />
As the spring and summer time was about to come water scarcity appeared again as a<br />
major problem. The Pena dam capacity was only the 7% and the water stored had to<br />
cover water demands of the 2,400 ha. of irrigated lands, the cattle raising, drinking<br />
water and other illegal wires. The critical scarcity situation provoked internal conflict<br />
between the middle and the lower basin in relation to the pumping project of Ebro<br />
waters. There also were conflicting positions among the basin actors and the<br />
representatives of the regional policy parties. The solutions proposed by the regional<br />
government and the local actors were clearly different.
However, the severe drought kept the dialogue via opened among the basin actors.<br />
Farmers and city councils of the whole basin maintained the commission, which was<br />
broadened as the Municipality of Valderrobres (high basin) and a representative of<br />
Torre del Compte irrigation community joined it. In July, as the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river was dry<br />
in its middle and lower sections and the Pena Dam only stored 2 hm3, the farm<br />
production of the middle and lower basin became under threat again. Maella, which<br />
was the municipality that suffered more from drought effects had to impose daily<br />
restrictions in drinking water in order to save as much fruit crops as possible. There<br />
were only 800,000 m3 of water available to irrigation. Given that situation, the<br />
commission decided to meet again in order to study three possible emergency<br />
regulation projects (its costs, profitability and environmental impact) and to meet again<br />
when such projects were finished in order to make a decision about the best solution.<br />
Those projects included the lateral pools, the pumping from the Ebro and the<br />
groundwater extraction. In August, the rest of the water stored in the Pena Dam was<br />
released in a last attempt to save the fruit trees.<br />
The persistence of the critical drought situation and their harmful effects pushed the<br />
basin actors represented at the commission to meet again in November and decided<br />
about one of the regulation projects studied. Their main objective was to reach an<br />
agreement between as much relevant actors as possible in order to avoid a similar<br />
situation the next spring-summer. The Commission was now constituted by<br />
representatives of the regional government, PLADEMA, the majority of the<br />
Municipalities of the basin, the Central Union and a national environmental<br />
organisation. The assistants to the meeting finally reached a consensus and chose the<br />
option of two lateral pools as the best solution.<br />
6.2.3. Phase 3: 2000 <br />
Integration of problem definitions and actors in the policy network<br />
At the basin level, however, the pressure of water scarcity problems and the need for<br />
finding a solution to cover water demands turned the initial territorial conflict to an<br />
agreement finally reached trough dialogue and intense negotiation among the<br />
conflicting interests.<br />
55
While the CHE still waited for a response of the ministry of the Environment to the<br />
financing of the lateral pools, the situations in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin was critical<br />
again due to a new period of water scarcity (the Pena dam has 5% of its capacity). As<br />
demands risked again of not being covered the conflict between the higher and the<br />
lower basin reappears. As a urgent response to the problem, the Ministry of the<br />
Environment announced it would finance some wells in the headwaters of the Ulldemó<br />
and he <strong>Matarraña</strong> rivers in order to use groundwater. The municipalities of the higher<br />
basin soon announced their opposition to the project and so did the Mancommunity of<br />
Municipalities of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin. The main reasons of their opposition were<br />
that the project was planned to be placed in an area (“El Parrissal”) that constitutes one<br />
of the most attractive nature areas of the basin and that it would also have negative<br />
effects on surface waters. Finally, the CHE renounced to the project not only because<br />
the high basin municipalities opposed to it but because also did others from the<br />
provinces of Tarragona (Catalonia), Castelló (Valencia) and even the regional<br />
government.<br />
Finally, by the end of April, the whole basin signs an agreement. Nine of the 12<br />
municipalities in the basin (representing the neighbours), the Central Union<br />
(representing the irrigation unions), PLADEMA and the Fundacion Ecología y<br />
Desarrollo (representing the environmental and conservacionist interests) reached an<br />
agreement that was also supported by the regional government and the CHE. In this<br />
document the different actors agreed to promote the construction of two lateral pools<br />
as an urgent solution to the water scarcity situation. These two pools were to be<br />
located in the middle basin between the municipalities of Mazaleón, Calaceite and<br />
Maella. The first pool, of 1hm3 of capacity, would be fed by waters pumped up from he<br />
Ebro river and waters diverted form the <strong>Matarraña</strong>. The second one, also of 1 hm3<br />
capacity, would be only fed by water coming from the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river. The basin actors<br />
also undertook to take into account the study of the regional government about he<br />
environmental restrictions imposed by the General Direction for the Environment to the<br />
construction of the pools. They also agreed on rejecting the construction of wells in<br />
order to use groundwaters of the higher basin. However, the agreement did not<br />
represent the abandoning of the idea of constructing larger regulative infrastructures in<br />
the future (as the Pontet or Torre del Compte dams). The following table summarises<br />
the main contents of the Agreement:<br />
56
Alternative chosen<br />
Environmental<br />
impacts<br />
Conditions of<br />
acceptance<br />
Water agreement in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin (April 25th 2000)<br />
Construction of two lateral pools of 1 hm3 that will be fed with water<br />
diverted from the <strong>Matarraña</strong> and the Ebro river<br />
Compromise in taking into account the proposals and restrictions<br />
imposed by the Regional government.<br />
All parts reject the construction of wells in the higher basin (and<br />
anywhere else where there is no social agreement about them)<br />
The possibility of a definite solution for water regulation within the basin<br />
is still open<br />
A few months after the Water agreement was signed, in June, some storms palliated<br />
the negative effects of a foreseen new drought period in summer and also relaxed the<br />
level of conflict reached along the previous two years. In September, the Ministry of the<br />
Environment authorised the project of the two lateral pools and the environmental<br />
considerations proposed by the Regional government of Aragon.<br />
In October a climatic event, completely unthinkable given the last severe dry years,<br />
changed all the precautions against possible restrictions of water supply. A violent<br />
downpour of 300 litres per m 2 that lasted three days caused serious floods in the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin. The Pena Dam which only stored 0.5 hm 3 before the storm (5%<br />
of capacity) reached the level of 17 hm 3 (70% of its capacity) in only 5 days, which<br />
assures water supply for all uses for three years. The <strong>Matarraña</strong> river and some of its<br />
tributaries (the Ulldemó, the Algàs and the Tastavins) largely rose their water level<br />
bursting its banks and causing several floods. 250 people form the other basin<br />
(Valderrobres and Beceite) had to be moved out of their houses, several municipalities<br />
of the basin remained without electric supply and some roads had to be closed. In<br />
Maella, the flood also broke the drinking water supply network. Besides, in the middle<br />
and lower basin crops were seriously affected by the flood: 25% of the total peach crop<br />
was lost. Total loses are valued in 6,000 million pesetas for the whole basin and the<br />
Mancommunity of municipalities of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin decided to ask the<br />
Regional Government for some economic helps and claims for the declaration of<br />
catastrophic area for the whole basin.<br />
57
Claims for water supply for irrigation and for the regulation of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river are<br />
heard no more within the basin from October 2000 but at the regional and national level<br />
continues the social protest and debate over the national water policy. In September<br />
2000 the National Hydrological Preliminary Plan was presented and started being<br />
debated in he social and expert arenas until its adoption in July 2001. On the other<br />
hand, in Aragón there is a massive protest against the national hydraulic policy and for<br />
a new water policy and culture. At the basin level, the conservation movement leaded<br />
by PLADEMA continue their activity and in December 2 nd Seminar on the <strong>Matarraña</strong><br />
are held.<br />
More recently, the approval of the National Hydrological Plan provided the legal basis<br />
and the economic resources for the materialisation of the 2000 Water Agreement of the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin. In September 2001 the Ministry of the Environment includes the<br />
construction of the two lateral pools in the National Hydrological Plan and assumes the<br />
financing of the works which will soon start. 2,102 hectares located in the municipalities<br />
of Maella, Nonaspe and Fabara (all included in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin) will be<br />
irrigated with the newly available water resources from the pools.<br />
Nowadays, the relevance of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin case seem to have gone<br />
beyond the river basin level. Taking it as a referee, some attempts are now being made<br />
at the regional level in order to reproduce the dynamic of dialogue and consensus that<br />
at the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin level led to the 2000 Water Agreement. In October 2001,<br />
an important agreement was reached between a regional environmental association<br />
(Fundación Ecología y Desarrollo), which had promoted and supported the 2000 Water<br />
Agreement in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin, and the regional association of farmers<br />
(UAGA-COAG). This two organisations have created a forum, based on a shared<br />
problem perception of the needs of the region (nature protection, territorial structuring<br />
and promotion of social development in rural areas) where farmers, rural population<br />
and experts can discuss about water management strategies and design the future of<br />
rural areas in the region.<br />
7. Dimensions of integration and regime change<br />
The 2000 Water Agreement may be interpreted as a signal of transition from a complex<br />
and desegregated water regime, towards a more integrated one. Integration, in this<br />
case, relates to the governance system rather than to the regulative system and is<br />
58
mostly presented as regards the problem perception and definition as well as to the<br />
actors in the policy network. Regarding the problem definition, the Water Agreement<br />
reflects the integration of previously conflicting views on the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin. The<br />
traditional view highlights the need to build large regulation infrastructures in order to<br />
satisfy water demands along the river basin. The conservationist view opposes the<br />
traditional one and proposes the modernisation of irrigation systems and the<br />
rationalisation of water uses and demands. The integration of views is clearly<br />
connected to the integration of actors in the policy network carrying this common<br />
problem definitions. The territorial conflict that has traditionally confronted actors in the<br />
higher, middle and lower basin has led way to a common view in which risk perception<br />
becomes a central issue in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin. In this sense, there are some<br />
signals of move from a dispersed and unstable issue network towards a more coherent<br />
and compact policy community. The following table summarises the main dimensions<br />
of integrated regime in relation to the governance system.<br />
59
Dimensions of integrated<br />
governance<br />
Levels and scales of<br />
governance<br />
Actors in the policy network<br />
Problem perception and<br />
objectives<br />
Strategy and instruments<br />
Responsibilities and resources<br />
for implementation<br />
Dimensions of integrated regime at the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin<br />
The <strong>Matarraña</strong> river case<br />
Medium - There are some signals of interaction of several<br />
levels and scales of governance with regards legislation, policy<br />
design and implementation. However, multilevel interaction<br />
does not necessary lead to multilevel integration<br />
EU – environmental regulation, regulative resource and<br />
financial aids<br />
National level – national water and environmental regulation,<br />
social movements<br />
Ebro river basin level (national level) – river basin<br />
administration<br />
Regional level – environmental policy and modernisation of<br />
irrigation channels; social movements<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin level (Central Union) – river basin<br />
administration<br />
Local governments<br />
High - The 2000 Water Agreement is signed by most actors<br />
operating at the river basin level: local governments, the<br />
Central Union and environmental groups, and has the support<br />
of the regional government and the CHE<br />
High - Actors signing the 2000 Water Agreement express a<br />
shared problem perception and definition for the first time: the<br />
river is the axis of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin and its<br />
preservation is a condition to guarantee social and economic<br />
development<br />
Low<br />
60<br />
Medium – low<br />
Some institutional arrangements regarding responsibilities and<br />
resources for implementation may show timid signals of<br />
integration —more administrations involved in the policy design<br />
and implementation and wider distribution of resources—,<br />
while this does not mean wider integration
Apart from that, there is a medium level of integration between scales of governance,<br />
even though interaction —not necessarily integration— between regulation adopted at<br />
different levels of government and actors operating at different territorial scale is<br />
increasing. Instead, the level of integration as it regards the strategy and instruments<br />
and the responsibilities and resources for implementation are low. The administrations<br />
responsible for the implementation have not co-ordinated their policies and resources<br />
for implementation are disperse. In addition, the river basin administration, while<br />
constituting the natural and hydrological unit, does not seem to have the technical,<br />
cognitive and strategic resources to design integrated and cohesive policies estimating<br />
the impact of human activity on the river basin, the real water needs, the forms of<br />
satisfying these needs in an efficient manner, and the environmental consequences of<br />
its proposals.<br />
8. Some interpretative lines<br />
Once the story lines of the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river case have been described, this section<br />
attempts to give some interpretative lines regarding the two central questions to the<br />
EUWARENESS research project, that is to say:<br />
What and how changes towards a more integrated regime have been produced?:<br />
Regime change (independent variable ) integration (dependent variable)<br />
And does integration lead to more sustainable use of the resource?:<br />
Integration (independent variable) sustainability (dependent variable)<br />
8.1. Explaining changes<br />
The <strong>Matarraña</strong> river case shows certain signals of regime change. In this case regime<br />
change occurred relatively independent of changes of national determinant and is more<br />
prominent as regards the governance system rather than the regulative system.<br />
61
Regarding the regulative system, both water and sectoral legislation introduce marginal<br />
changes in the de facto use rights and protection system at the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin.<br />
The 29/1985 Water Act introduces the concept of hydraulic public domain for surface<br />
and ground waters, which means that private ownership is almost suppressed (there<br />
are still temporary basis which recognise water private property according to the<br />
previous legislation). The Act regulates privative uses of water and requests an<br />
authorisation or a concession to allow them. It also regulates the need to register water<br />
concessions in the Water register. In practice, at the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin level this<br />
regulative framework has been marginally implemented: most concessions are not<br />
registered in the Water Register, about 30% of the extension of the river basin uses<br />
water illegally, and tradition allows for the existence of de facto use rights beyond the<br />
regulative system. Maybe the creation of Users Communities in locations where users<br />
were not organised has been one of the most noticeable impacts of the 1985 Water<br />
Act. Apart from that, the 29/1985 Water Act also establishes the elaboration of river<br />
basin plans. In the case of the Ebro river, the CHE elaborated its river basin plan in<br />
1998, establishing water needs and uses as well as the ecological flow. This flow may<br />
or may not be respected, and water sometimes is consumed for uses other than those<br />
established by the plan. Apart from that, sectoral legislation, mainly the one regulating<br />
environmental protection (mostly with an EU origin) has generated certain constraints<br />
and opportunities in the regulation system. For instance, legislation on habitats or fish<br />
species. However, this legislation may be easily bypassed.<br />
The most salient changes of the regime concern the policy system. As it was pointed<br />
out previously, changes can be detected as regards the multilevel dimension of<br />
governance, the problem perception and the actors in the policy network. To sum up,<br />
conflict traditionally has confronted actors located at the higher, middle and lower river<br />
basin and has been more intense in periods of water scarcity. The increasing multilevel<br />
nature of governance means that legislation, arenas, actors and resources at different<br />
scales of governance play a role in the governance system. In the late nineties,<br />
territorial rivalries intensify both because of the ability of ‘conservationist’ actors of<br />
mobilising resources and actors located at different levels of governance and because<br />
of the increasing perception of risk caused by an extreme situation of drought. Conflict<br />
is relaxed and a new perception viewing water in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin as a<br />
resource to be preserved becomes dominant.<br />
In order to explain regime change, two sets of variables can be identified: those<br />
62
external and those internal to the regime. Regarding the former, one of the external<br />
factors which appears to be crucial in the case has to do with climate conditions. In<br />
periods of severe draught —as it was the case of 1998—, draught periods, insofar as<br />
they threaten crops survival and population supply, intensify conflict between actors<br />
claiming for the construction of regulation infrastructures and those reacting against it<br />
and in favour of preserving the resource. Climate conditions, then, precipitate conflict<br />
but do not explain change —given that draught periods have been recurrent all the time<br />
and are a salient characteristic of the Mediterranean climate. However, it can be<br />
considered as an intermediate variable in two senses: on the one hand, it exacerbates<br />
conflict among actors operating at different areas of the river basin; on the other hand,<br />
in the conditions given in the late nineties, it allows for a change of the problem<br />
perception. But, what are these conditions?<br />
Among these interrelated conditions we can include a change of values, a change of<br />
the type of policy network, and the provision of new scientific knowledge about water in<br />
the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin. To begin with, a change of values against the traditional<br />
policy approach and in favour of the conservation of the resource emerge in the higher<br />
river basin. These emerging values initially could be interpreted in territorial terms, as<br />
are mostly carried by the expropriated by the works of the pumping system. So, to<br />
some extent, it can be interpreted that these interests have nothing to do with the<br />
conservation of the resource. However, as opposition to the pumping system<br />
increases, a conservationist coalition becomes stronger, attracts and gets support from<br />
other actors operating at different levels of governance: university experts, regional and<br />
national environmental groups. As we explained in the second phase of the evolution of<br />
the regime, there was also a social opposing movement against the traditional water<br />
policy perspective and for a new water culture emerging at a regional level. Later on,<br />
when the CHE proposes the opening of wells to take water from the aquifer in the<br />
higher basin, a line of dialogue between actors located along the river basin is opened.<br />
The initial common denominator to all these actors is their perception of the oldfashioned,<br />
static, slow, hierarchical and outsider nature of the CHE. New scientific<br />
knowledge about the reiterative technical problems of the regulation works promoted<br />
by the CHE reinforce this view. Later on, and being coincident with the scarcity problem<br />
pressure, the common denominator turns to be the preservation of the river as the<br />
unique axis of social and economic development of the area. So a change of values<br />
and interests initially located at the higher river basin extends along the whole river<br />
basin.<br />
63
8.2. Towards sustainability?<br />
The extent to which the signals of regime change observed in the <strong>Matarraña</strong> river basin<br />
can lead to sustainability is something difficult to assess. Now it is too early to evaluate<br />
whether the spirit and consensus inherent in the 2000 agreement will be maintained<br />
along time or instead it is fragile and reversible. Even more difficult is the assessment<br />
of whether this development, which seems to open the doors for some kind of<br />
integration, may lead to more sustainability. While we just can launch some hypothesis<br />
on that, we could argue that if the integrated approach is maintained and reinforced,<br />
new values of preserving the resource as a means to preserve social and economic<br />
development and avoid rural exodus might lead to more sustainability. No further<br />
speculations can be done so far.<br />
Conclusions<br />
In the Matarranya process, there are clear signals of regime change, both regarding<br />
extension and coherence of the water regime.<br />
The extension of the water uses increases as it includes irrigation, population supply,<br />
cattle rising, nature protection and tourism. Rivalries between users can be interpreted<br />
in territorial terms (intra-basin driven rivalries).<br />
There is also an increase of public governance coherence, as it regards levels and<br />
scales, multilevel interaction and networks. The most relevant event proving the<br />
increase of governance coherence is the Water Agreement reached by the main actors<br />
operating at the river basin level. This agreement is the outcome of a process in which<br />
a wide range of actors operating at different scales of governance interact: the regional<br />
government promoters environmental initiatives; local actors appeal to EU regulation<br />
as a legal resource by local actors; the Central Union of Irrigation Communities is<br />
created as a body representing all irrigation communities at the basin; PLADEMA —an<br />
ad hoc local association— aggregates and mobilises actors against the construction of<br />
hydraulic works; the Ebro river basin administration negotiates with the local irrigation<br />
communities; and the Ministry of Environment finances the construction of lateral pools.<br />
These actors, specially those located at the river basin, share a perception of risk<br />
64
caused by an extreme situation of drought among the basin actors and progressively<br />
adopt a new water culture.<br />
Regarding the internal coherence of property rights, some improvements can be<br />
identified: the Ebro river basin Plan establishes water needs and uses as well as a<br />
minimal ecological flow; some disadjustments between legal aspects and real practices<br />
of the CHE and the Central Users Community increases its level of influence regarding<br />
decisions on the watering out of the Pena dam and the distribution of water; traditional<br />
use rights of some users are respected; and a kind of de facto use rights are given to<br />
illegal users of water by the Irrigation Communities of the basin.<br />
After the signature of the Water Agreement, the external coherence between public<br />
governance and property rights improves to a certain extent. All the main water users<br />
have proved to be able to negotiate and reach an agreement based on a common<br />
perception of the river as a key element for the future development of the basin.<br />
Regime changes have some positive impacts on sustainability. The rejection of<br />
constructing large hydraulic infrastructures and the consideration of alternative options<br />
with minor environmental, economic and social impacts represent an important “bet” for<br />
the sustainability of the basin. These impacts relate to three dimensions of<br />
sustainability: natural resources and environment (there is a compromise to take<br />
environmental protection into account); economic development (low economic cost of<br />
the lateral pools project and promotion of tourism) and social consequences (resolution<br />
of territorial conflicts within the basin). In general terms, the positive impacts on<br />
sustainability seem to be more related to the increase of internal and external<br />
coherence rather than to the increase of extent.<br />
When trying to explain changes, three change agents and conditions must be taken<br />
into account: an increased problem pressure, which leads to joint problem awareness<br />
—river as a vertebrating element of the territory—; the income of cognitive resources<br />
by external actors; and, to a less extent, the institutional interfaces constituting the<br />
basis for the final agreement. There is no tradition of thinking in terms of integration<br />
and there is a traditional low level of trust among river basin actors.<br />
65
REFERENCES<br />
ARROJO, P.; GRACIA, J.J.; MARTINEZ GIL, F,J.; RUBIO DEL VAL, C. (1997) El<br />
bombeo del <strong>Matarraña</strong> en Beceite: de la ineficiencia al autoritarismo hidrológico.<br />
Nueva Cultura del Agua. Serie Informes. Bakeaz, Bilbao.<br />
ARROJO, P. (1998), Puntos básicos para que los pueblos de la cuenca alta del<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong>presten su apoyo para conseguir soluciones de futuro a la problemática de<br />
los regadíos de la cuenca baja. Universidad de Zaragoza.(Unpublished paper).<br />
Confederación Hidrográfica del Ebro (CHE), 1995. Plan Hidrológico del Ebro.<br />
Confederación Hidrográfica del Ebro (CHE), 1996. Aporte de recursosal embalse de<br />
Pena. Caudales medios disponibles aguas debajo de la confluencia de los ríos<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> y Ulldemó.<br />
GRACIA, J.J. (1999), Estudio de aportaciones y necesidades de la cuenca del río<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong>. COAGRET. (Unpublisehd).<br />
MORAGREGA, A. (2000), La vegetación en el <strong>Matarraña</strong>. (Unpublished paper).<br />
NADAL, E (1984), “Aprovechamiento actual y proyectos futuros en las subcuencas<br />
hidrográficas aragonesas”. Seminario del agua en Aragón. Universidad de Zaragoza,<br />
Zaragoza.<br />
PLADEMA (1999-2000). Hoja informativa para socios y simpatizantes. num. 1-9.<br />
RUIZ-OLMO, J.; LÓPEZ-MARTÍN, J. (2000), “La nutria en la cuenca del río<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong>”. Revista QUERCUS, núm 167. Enero.<br />
SANZ, M.A.; CELMA, F.J. (1998), Memoria, identidad y conflicto: El agua en<br />
Valderrobes. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales. Universidad de Zaragoza.<br />
(Unpublished)<br />
SOSTOA, A. (1996), Breve informe sobre las características e importancia biológicas<br />
del río <strong>Matarraña</strong>. Facultad de Biología. Universidad de Barcelona. (Unpublished).<br />
Websites: www.mma.es<br />
www.chebro.es<br />
www.aragob.es<br />
66
List of interviews<br />
Name<br />
Charge and date of the interview<br />
Iñaki Belanche Member of PLADEMA (January 2001; March 2001)<br />
Francisco Celma Former President of an irrigation community in Valderobles<br />
(March 2001)<br />
Francisco Domenech Mayor of Fabara (March 2001)<br />
José Javier Gracia<br />
Santos<br />
Engineer and member of COAGRET (January 2001)<br />
Juan José Latorre Farmer in Beceite (January 2001)<br />
Esteban Latorre Member of PLADEMA (January 2001)<br />
José María Puyol President of the Central Union of Irrigation Communities of the<br />
<strong>Matarraña</strong> and its tributaries (March 2001)<br />
Alberto Moragrega Member of PLADEMA (March 2001)<br />
Mª Teresa Santos Head of the Area of Users Regime at the CHE (March 2001, phone)<br />
Adolfo Sostoa Biologist (Universitat de Barcelona) (January 2001, phone)<br />
Pere Sunyer Secretariat of the Irrigation Channels in Nonaspe (March 2001)<br />
67
EUWARENESS is a research project on European Water Regimes and the<br />
Notion of a Sustainable Status. Research institutes from six European countries<br />
(Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland) have been cooperating in<br />
this two year project (2000-2002). The project is supported by the European<br />
Commission under the 5th Framework Programme, and co-ordinated by the<br />
University of Twente in the Netherlands.<br />
The EUWARENESS-project has focused on sustainable use of water resources by<br />
means of integrated water management. It aims to contribute to the implementation<br />
of the EU Water Framework Directive. A better understanding is needed of<br />
the dynamic relationships between various conflicting uses of water resources, the<br />
regimes under which these uses of water resources are managed, and conditions<br />
generating regime shifts towards sustainability. The EUWARENESS-project studied<br />
the long term evolution of 6 national regimes, and also - more in depth - the<br />
specific regime transitions of 12 water basins across Europe during the last<br />
decades. Important issues are the participation of users, redistribution of property<br />
rights among users, the coherence between water rights and water policies.<br />
More information: www.euwareness.nl<br />
The EUWARENESS project is joined by:<br />
University of Twente (project co-ordinator) - The Netherlands<br />
Université Catholique de Louvain - Belgium<br />
Université Francois Rabelais de Tours - France<br />
Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona - Spain<br />
Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale - Italy<br />
Institut de Hautes Études en Administration Publique - Switzerland