euwareness spain
Case Study 1: Matarraña River Basin
Joan Subirats, Nuria Font and Meritxell Costejà 1
Case Study 1: Matarraña River Basin
Joan Subirats Nuria Font Meritxell Costejà
April 2002
Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (UAB) Departament de Ciencia Politica i de Dret Public Campus Universitari – Edifici B 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona) Spain
Tel: +34.3.58.11767 Fax: +34.3.58.12439 Website: www.uab.es Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
EUWARENESS is a research project on European Water Regimes and the Notion of a Sustainable Status. Research institutes from six European countries (Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland) have been cooperating in this two year project (2000-2002). More information is available on www.euwareness.nl. The project is supported by the European Commission under the 5th Framework Programme, and co-ordinated by the University of Twente in the Netherlands.
2
Index
Introduction
1. Case demarcation
2. Water uses and demands
3. Regulative system and de facto use rights
4. The actors
5. National and river basin regimes: main developments
6. The process: phases and transition towards integration
7. Dimensions of integration and regime change
8. Some interpretative lines
3
Introduction
The Matarraña river case constitutes one of the two cases studies conducted by the Spanish team in the EUWARENESS project framework. In general terms, the case satisfies the main selection criteria agreed upon:
Main selection criteria The Matarraña case study
Rivalry between heterogeneous / √ The case presents high levels of homogeneous uses / users rivalry between heterogeneous and homogeneous users of water. Rivalries can be interpreted in territorial terms.
Preference for cases where not √ Surface waters are considered as only public ownership but also public domain, but can be object of privative ownership of water privative uses: irrigation, population resources could be found. supply and cattle.
Presence of transitions towards √ There are some signals of a transition integration during the last two towards integration (it crystallises in an decades (integration to be agreement reached in April 2000): considered as a case of success) Integration of the problem perception and objectives and integration of the actors in the policy network
The demarcation of a case √ The Matarraña river is a tributary to should follow the hydrological the Ebro river and has an extension of 97 and geographical boundaries of Km. a water basin at a regional scale or with a tributary character
The following sections will analyse the extent to which there are signals of transition towards an integrated regime. As a general point of departure, and considering the case study framework analysis, integration mostly relates to the governance rather than the regulative system and mainly takes into account:
The problem perception and objectives (“development of a water vision for a river basin”)
The actors in the policy network (“involvement of all actors having an interest in water services”) 4
1. Case demarcation
The Matarraña river is tributary of the Ebro river in its right side. It is located in the northern east of Spain and flows through the Teruel and Zaragoza provinces (Aragón Autonomous Community), Tarragona (Catalonia) and Castellón (Valencian Country). The Matarraña basin has a total of 1,727 Km2 flowing through 97 km starting from its head (in Puertos de Beceite) and ending in the Ebro river. The Matarraña hidrographic net includes: the Matarraña river, the Pena river, the Ulldemó river, the Tastavins river and the Algás river (the latter is the main tributary and empties its waters into the point where the Matarraña flows into the Ebro river).
There are two factors exogenous—both to the regulative system and the policy process—that are crucial in order to understand the developments at the Matarraña river basin: the climate patterns and the intra-basin diversity.
Climate conditions
Climate patterns considered both inter-annually and intra-annually are crucial in order to understand what is going on in the Matarraña river basin. Regarding interannual patterns, some raining cycles can be observed: five to ten year periods of scarce raining and draught are commonly followed by five to ten years periods of abundant raining. According to some data, the main climatic periods related to the Matarraña river along the last years, which are coincident with those at the national level, are the following ones:
Climate periods 1977 – 1987 dry period 1987/88 – 1992/93 wet period 1993/94 – 1999/2000 dry period 2000 Æ wet period
5
Regarding intra-annual climate patterns, the Matarraña basin follows the typical Mediterranean regime, which is characterised by severe low water periods occurring from June to September. This may cause the breaking of the river continuity (the mean flow in July and August decreases 40% of the total flow), and there are two rainfall peaks in spring and autumn depending on the raining conditions. However, intra- annual raining irregularity may dramatically vary the mean river flow from one year to the next. In addition, there are important variations in the raining patterns within the river basin: the average raining on the head of the river basin is 600 mm per year, while it is lower than 300 mm at the end. Apart from that, dry conditions during the summer season become more intense in dry years due to the increasing demand of water for agriculture and population supply (Sostoa, 1996).
Intra-basin diversity
The Matarraña river basin includes twelve municipalities that make a population of 10,613 inhabitants. Beceite is the municipality located at the head of the river and La Portellada is the one located at its end, just before the Matarraña river tributes to the Ebro river. The distribution of population among the twelve municipalities is summarised in the following table:
Population in the municipalities of the Matarraña river basin (1996) Population Beceite 654 Valderrobres 1,914 La Fresnada 435 Torre del Compte 189 Mazaleón 608 Maella 2,079 Fabara 1,261 Nonaspe 1,100 Fayón 392 Calaceite 1.238 Cretas 638 La Portellada 342 Total 10,613 Source: www.chebro.es
6
Even though the Matarraña river basin is neither too long nor too populated, the climatic, geographical, social and economic characteristics in different parts of the river basin are very different. And so the water uses and demands are. In general terms, three different areas can be distinguished along the river basin: the higher, the middle and the lower basin. The main municipalities located in the three areas are included in the following table:
Higher basin Middle basin Lower basin
Beceite Mazaleón Fabara Valderrobres Maella Nonaspe
The higher river basin
The Matarraña river is characterised by being narrow at its head and resembles a torrent or a stream. This area has lower needs of water than the rest of the river basin, both because users located at the higher river basin have traditionally had the right to use relatively more water than the rest of the river basin users, and because the extension of irrigated lands are much lower in the higher than in the middle and lower basins.
In the mid sixties, peach crop —which requests high quantities of water— was timidly introduced in the higher basin, but in the seventies most crop lands were reconverted into cattle farms (and then water demands decreased). Along the nineties, rural tourism has become an important source of income in this area, but this does not seem to put too much pressure on the water issue. To sum up, the higher river basin does not have severe problems of water scarcity. However, it has been the destination of several regulation works that have been promoted by the Ebro river basin administration —the Confederación Hidrográfica del Ebro (CHE)— in order to secure water for the middle and lower river basins: the Pena water dam, that was constructed in 1930; the diversion tunnels, that were built in 1978; and the pumping project, that was installed in 1998. However, given the perceived lack of efficiency of these works, as well as their cost for the higher river basin (in terms of environmental impact, expropriations, economic cost, etc), actors located at the higher basin have increasingly rejected projects promoted by the CHE. 7
The middle river basin
The Matarraña middle river basin has more water demands than the higher one. This is so because of two reasons. On the one hand, the two main villages in the middle river basin, that is Maella and Mazaleón, concentrate at about 47% of the irrigated land in the whole river basin. This is an important percentage, especially if we consider that irrigation consumes 90% of the total water needed in the Matarraña river basin. On the other hand, along the seventies and mid eighties, peach crop, which needs high quantities of water, was introduced in the middle river basin and familiar production became industrialised. Nowadays, most peach crops are concentrated in the middle river basin. For instance, the municipality of Maella produces around 5.5 million Kg. fruit every year, out of a total of 12 million in the whole river basin.
The extension of fruit crop along the middle river basin has increased water demands in this area over the last years and, consequently, the area has become more vulnerable to scarcity problems, especially in dry years. The concentration of most irrigation lands in the middle river basin has had the effect of making users from the middle river basin being dominant in the institutions representing users in the river basin, namely the Central Union of Irrigation Communities in the Matarraña river. As they have a dominant position in the river basin, they have a higher influence in the decisions taken by the Central Union in order to face scarcity problems. This has provoked conflicts with the higher and the lower river basin. With the former, the middle basin has traditionally been in favour of regulating the river by means of hydraulic works that had to be located in the head of the river. With the later, the middle basin has been accused by users in the lower basin to prioritise the irrigation of lands located in the middle basin.
The lower river basin
The Matarraña river in its lower basin is wider than it is in its head, but often suffers the consequences of severe scarcity problems. As farmers in the higher and middle river basin, some farmers in the lower basin rooted the traditional dry crops out —mainly olive and vineyards— and started planting peaches in small areas of land in the late sixties and along the seventies. These plantations were enlarged along the seventies and early eighties, but a severe draught in 1986 left Nonaspe lands with no water during seven months. Since then, problems of water scarcity have been constant. 8
Nowadays, due to the problems of water scarcity, many crops have been abandoned or rooted out. It is estimated that in Nonaspe around 60-70% of the land is now uncultivated. In addition, the ageing of population constitutes an additional limit to continue cultivating lands.
To sum up, two main factors condition the use of water in the higher, middle and lower river basin: the severity of water scarcity problems and the level of influence in the river basin decision making processes. These factors are crucial in order to understand the balances and unbalances between actors and uses at the river basin. The following table summarises the intensity of both of them in the three areas.
Water scarcity and level of influence of the higher, middle and lower river basin
The higher basin The middle basin The lower basin
Severity of water low middle - high high scarcity problems
Level of influence low high low
9
2. Water uses and demands
According to official data, the total net water needed in the Matarraña river basin is calculated as being 17.029 Hm3 per year: 90.4% goes to irrigation; 9.58% is needed for population supply; and 0.01% is consumed by cattle. The main uses of water at the Matarraña river basin include irrigation, population supply and cattle. Among these, irrigation is clearly dominant, as it absorbs 90.4% of the total net water needs.
Total net water needs per year, Hm3 (from Valderrobles to Fayón)
Irrigation Population supply Cattle Total 2,166 Ha. 10,613 inhab. 631,228 heads
12.094 Hm3 1.284 Hm3 0.245 Hm3 17.029 Hm3
90.4% 9.58% 0.01% 100%
Source: www.chebro.es
Water used in the Matarraña river basin can be taken directly from the river or from the Pena dam, which is located in Valderrobres. In dry periods, and especially in spring and summer, the river may have low water flows (in the lower basin, the flow of the river may even disappear in extremely dry conditions). As the following table shows (recent data are not available), the annual flows of water at the head of the Matarraña river may vary considerably.
Annual flows in the head of the Matarraña river (1985-1994) 1985 23.22 Hm3 1986 28.68 Hm3 1987 63.25 Hm3 1988 79.53 Hm3 1989 71.38 Hm3 1990 119.91 Hm3 1991 66.59 Hm3 1992 58.18 Hm3 1993 25.05 Hm3 1994 31.65 Hm3 1995 ? 1996 ? 1998 ? 1999 ? 2000 ? Source: www.chebro.es 10
In cases of water scarcity, and considering the need to respect the ecological flow (325 l/sec), which represents about the 30% of the average river flow, the river has no water enough to satisfy irrigation, population supply and cattle needs. The Matarraña river, in the gauging station located in its head (municipality of Beceite), reduces 40% of its average flow in July and August, and in 20% in June and September. In the gauging station located in Nonaspe, at the lower river basin, it may reduce 70% of its average flow from June to September.
Most of the water used in the Matarraña river basin is taken from the Pena dam. The Pena dam was built in 1930 and has a total capacity of 17.88 Hm3. However, two considerations must be taken into account when considering this data. On the one hand, the Pena dam, due to geological factors, may filter up to 3.75 Hm3/year at least and, as some studies point out, it can only regulate 8.5 Hm3 per year. On the other hand, the quantity of water stocked in the Pena dam depends on climatic conditions. While the rains in 1988 allowed for the filling up of almost an 80% of the dam, in summer 1994 the dam was filled up with 42% of its capacity, and one year later just with 26% (Moragrega, 2000). In September 1998, one of the driest periods in recent years, the Pena dam contained about 13% of its total capacity. Then it released 0.9 Hm3 water for irrigation, and left the 1.5 Hm3 minimum reserved for population supply. The following table shows the mentioned evolution of the quantity of water stored in the Pena dam for a ten years period starting in 1988.
Water stored in the Pena Dam (1988 – 1998)* Year Hm3 % 1988 15 78 1989 17 89 1990 14 73 1991 16 84 1992 18 95 1993 15 79 1994 8 42 1995 5 26 1996 5 26 1997 9 47 1998 4 21 *From data collected in July
Source: Heraldo de Aragon (26th July, 1998)
11
Agriculture
As it was pointed out before, irrigation consumes 90.4% of the total water needed in the Matarraña river basin. Water demands for irrigation along the river basin present territorial variations.
Extension of irrigation lands (Has, 1995)
Woody trees Vegetables (fruits, vineyards, olive) Total Valderrobres 96 130 226 Fresneda 21 25 43 Torre del Compte 16 84 100 Valdeltorno 20 37 57 Mazaleón 35 183 218 Maella 296 505 801 Fabara 198 204 402 Nonaspe 111 164 275 Fayón 30 11 41 Total 823 1,343 2,166 Source: Gracia, 1999
Annual net irrigation needs (1995)
Vegetables Woody trees Total (fruits, vineyards, olive)
From Valderrobres to 0.484 Hm3 3.324 Hm3 3.808 Hm3 Mazaleón (high – middle basin)
From Maella to Fayón 1.954 Hm3 6.332 Hm3 8.286 Hm3 (middle – low basin)
Total 2.438 Hm3 9.657 Hm3 12.094 Hm3
Source: Gracia, 1999
Peach production, which is more profitable than other type of crops, started in the fifties thanks to the regulation of water stocked in the Pena water dam. One of the characteristics of fruit production is that it requires higher amounts of water, and demands are higher in the dry seasons of the year (from May to September), which is the period of the year in which the river has the lowest water flows. 12
The production of peaches has considerably increased after the seventies and this has caused an increasing demand of water. This increasing demand, which has also been constant in dry periods, has generated problems of securing water supply. From 1977 to 1987, which is a dry period, problems of water scarcity to irrigate lands lead to increasing social demands of water regulation. While the 1988-93 wet period softened these problems, the dry period starting in 1994 reopened the scarcity problem. In this sense, while the Pena water dam used to have water up to the 80% of its water capacity in 1993, the percentage decrease to 42% in 1994. At the same time, water consume increased up to 14,6 hm3 that year (Moragrega, 2000).
13
Population supply
The Matarraña river permanently supplies water to a population of approximately 10,600 inhabitants which turn to be around 20.000 in summer time. This represents a demand for population supply of about 1.284 Hm3, representing less than 10% of total water needs in the river basin. The municipalities of Maella and Valderrobres are those demanding more water for population supply. Water for population supply comes from the river or from the Pena dam and is stoked in depots located in each municipality.
Annual needs for population supply (1995)
Municipality (population) m3 Valderrobres 1,935 234,058 La Fresneda 435 52,618 Torre Compte 189 22,861 Valdeltormo 396 47,900 Mazaleón 608 73,544 Maella 2,079 251,476 Fabara 1,261 152,531 Nonaspe 1,100 133,056 Fayón 392 47,416 Calaceite 1,238 149,748 Cretas 638 77,172 La Portellada 342 41,368 Total 1,283,748 Source: Gracia, 1999
Cattle raising
Actually, the Matarraña river covers water demands for cattle raising, which represents around 650.000 cattle heads (including porcine, ovine sheep, rabbit and chicken breeding). Cattle is mostly concentrated in Valderrobres and Nonaspe, in both cases representing about 60% of the total income. Cattle needs small quantities of water: just 0.245 Hm3 per year, representing 0.01% of total water demands in the river basin. 14
Annual net needs for cattle (1995)
Municipality m3 Valderrobres 52.921 La Fresneda 18,917 Torre Compte 943 Valdeltormo 7,547 Mazaleón 9,245 Maella 13,423 Fabara 57,832 Nonaspe 14,750 Fayón 9,940 Calaceite 22,859 Cretas 15,684 La Portellada 27,122 Total 245,181
Industry
Due to the geographical characteristics of the Matarraña river, industrial development used to be more intense in the head of the river, mainly because of water force and the strong slope of the river in the high part of the basin. Three hydroelectric plants were built in the XXth century, but they are actually not operating. Currently, there are at least 30 food and agricultural industries in the Matarraña river basin specialised in oil mills, winery, sausages, feed industry and slaughterhouses (Moragrega, 2000).
Tourism
The good quality of water and the attractive landscape and cultural heritage in the villages by the river basin make this area an attractive rural tourism destination: the Matarraña river is one of the best conserved in the Mediterranean basin and is suitable for bathing; it has a diverse landscape in just 100 Km of its length; and it holds attractive historical heritage, including Iberian villages, Romanic churches, medieval bridges and towers, to mention just a few of the tourism spots. In addition to that, rural areas keeping a traditional flavour are becoming an increasing destination spot in recent years.
Since the early nineties, rural tourism is a flourishing source of economic development in the high river basin. Until the end of the eighties rural tourism in this area did exist, 15 but was marginal. At the beginning of the nineties, the European Union gave incentives to the arrangement of rural houses in order to avoid their abandonment as well as to stop rural exodus, by trying to make tourism an alternative to social and economic development in the area. In that period, some social and private initiatives promoting rural tourism were launched. Some of the initiatives promoted include the conversion of old places —for instance a medieval tower, a mill, an old train station, an old factory or a monastery— in rural hotels or restaurants. In recent years, local governments in the higher river basin are having some initiatives to promote tourism.
Tourism is higher in the summer time (July and August) and leads to an increase of water demands. For instance, in Valderrobres, which is the municipality where tourism is most developed in the Matarraña river basin, water demands for population supply are estimated to increase about 50%.
Living environment
The Matarraña river is considered to be one of the Mediterranean rivers with one of the most salient biodiversity and is probably one of the best conserved in the Iberian Peninsula. There are 312 species of algae, 202 species of aquatic invertebrates and 186 species of vertebrates (Sostoa, 1996). Some parts of the Matarraña river receive a special protection by virtue of the 78/659 Directive on the diversity of fish species, and some of them are protected by the Habitats directive (92/43). In the framework of the latter, most part of the river has been proposed as a place of Community interest (LIC) by the Aragon regional government to the State government, which in turn will make the national proposal to the European Commission.
The Matarraña river is the living environment of some Mediterranean species in danger of extinction: the river crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes), which is considered a species of community interest; the ‘monk’ fish (Blennius fluviatilis), which is considered a species in danger of extinction by the Bern Convention; the ‘bagre’ cephalopods (Leuciscus cephalus), the European galapagus (Emys orbicularis), and the otter (Lutra lutra), are considered as “vulnerable” (Sostoa, 1996).
Territorial conflict between the high basin territories (the region of Valderrobres), where the river constitutes a key element of the natural heritage —which is the basis of rural tourism in the area—, and the middle-low basin (the region of Maella), the main 16 problem of which is water supply guaranteeing during dry periods due to its specialisation in some crops of relatively high quality and profitability (peaches and vegetables).
Apart from that, the Matarraña river, as it was pointed out before, is considered to be one of the best conserved in the Mediterranean river basin. While there are not enough available data on quality indicators of the Matarraña river, the following data show the low concentrations of certain polluters in the river at Valderrobres, Maella and Nonaspe. It must be taken into account, however, that the concentration of pollutants in water is higher in dry periods due to the low water level.
Evolution of the average quality of surface waters in the Matarraña river (1996-1999) 1996 1997 1998 1999 Matarraña in A2 A2 A2 A2 Valderrobres Matarraña in A2 A1 – Needs simple physical treatment and disinfection A2 – Needs normal physical treatment, chemical treatment and disinfection A3 – Needs intense physical and chemical treatment, purifying and disinfecting Source: www.chebro.es 17 Quality indicators of the Matarraña river in Valderrobles 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Nitrites - 0.012 0.022 0.019 0.037 0.044 0.024 0.032 mg./L No2 Phosphore 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 nd 0.11 <0.1 <0.09 mg./L P Resid. <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 nd1 0 0 <0.1 nd chloro mg./L HOCI Cupper 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0 <0.004 0.0009 mg./L Zinc 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.057 0.029 All samples are measured in the month of May. Quality indicators of the Matarraña river in Maella 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Nitrites ------0.010 <0.010 mg./L No2 Phosphor 0.02 - <0.04 0.002 nd <0.09 nd 0.25 mg./L P Resid. - <0.1 <0.1 nd 0 <0.1 nd <0.1 chloro mg./L HOCI Crupper 0 - 0.01 0 0 0 <0.004 0.00011 mg./L Zinc 0.04 - 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.045 0.037 All samples are measured in the month of May. Quality indicators of the Matarraña river in Nonaspe 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Nitrites ------mg./L No2 Phosphor ------mg./L P Resid. ------chloro mg./L HOCI Crupper ------mg./L Zinc 0.04 ------All samples are measured in the month of May. Source: www.chebro.es 1 nd = mean value lower than the detection limit analysed. 18 3. Regulative system and de facto use rights The regulative system is provided mainly by the Royal Decree Legislative 1/2001. This rule is a codifying legislation of the different modifications (above all the 46/99 Water Act) upon the 29/1985 Water Act, which has been formally abolished. There is also the Reglament of Public Hydraulic Domain adopted in 1986, that develops and concretises the Water Act prescriptions, the Ebro Hydrological Plan (Royal Decree 1664/1998, 24th July), and finally, the National Hydrological Plan (NHP Act 10/2001, 5 July). The principal aim of this plan, in practice, is the regulation of the basin Ebro water diversion to the Júcar (CA Valence), Segura (CA Valence and Murcia) and internal Catalonia basins. Otherwise, the part of the Ebro basin affected by this Act is placed in the south of the Matarraña basin, so, it doesn’t directly affect to this area. Apart from this regulation, no regional legislation on water regime in the Autonomous Community of Aragon is operating although it has to be said that in 1992 the Parliament of Aragon adopted a political agreement upon water, that contained the main criteria for a water policy in the area, and that later has been included in the Ebro basin Hydrological Plan. Other than that, sectoral legislation completes the water regime system: the RD 11/1995 incorporating the 91/271 Directive on urban waters, the 41/1997 incorporating the 43/92 Habitats Directive, the RD 2419/1979 on the assemblies and governing boards of hidrographical confederations, and the 2000/60 EU framework directive on water. The main aspects of water regime are included in the following tables. Uses Common uses Drinking, bathing, domestic uses and cattle feed No administrative authorisation is required Special common Navigation and flotation, establishment of passing ships and uses embankments, other uses that do not exclude the use of water by third parties Administrative authorisation is required Privative uses Uses that exclude the use of water by third parties They are acquired through legal disposition or administrative concession 19 No administrative authorisation nor concession is required Privative uses by Land owners can use rain waters legal disposition and stagnant waters flowing through their lands. They can use waters coming from Springs are rare springs located in their lands and The aquifer is not declared as use ground waters not exceeding overexploited 7,000 m3 per year (unless the aquifer has been declared as overexploited, then an authorisation is required) If the annual volume of ground waters uses is superior than 7,000 m3, the land owner will apply for a concession Regulative system of privative uses Regulative system Current practice Privative uses by The river basin agency defines the The CHE elaborated the Ebro administrative exploitation regime Hydrological Plan in 1998 authorisation The ecological flow does not have The minimal flow is 325 m3/sec the nature of water use but is a This flow is not always guaranteed restriction imposed to the exploitation systems (except for population supply) (46/1999 Act) The assignation of resources established in the river basin plan determines the flows assigned to present and futures uses User communities, public Around 30% of the extension in the organisations and private users will Matarraña river basin uses water apply for the concession or without having a concession reserved waters to the river basin agency Once the concession has been Illegal users and many legal users conceded, it will be registered in are not registered the Water Register No one can derive water from one Illegal users derive water from aqueduct, nor using it, nor using its irrigation channels strength without administrative tittle Any concession must be given Water concessions for irrigation and according to the prevision of the population supply are considered by hydrological plans and have a users as being in perpetuity 20 temporary nature: 75 years maximum Water concessions for population Water concessions for population supply are given to Local supply are mainly given to governments, Mancommunity of municipalities municipalities or private enterprises (the latter have the concession of public service of water supply) Water concessions for irrigation Water concessions for irrigation are can be given in terms of public given to irrigation communities and, service to enterprises or private in a few cases, to private persons persons even though they have not the land owner tittle (if land owners agree) Each concession must fix its end, Concessions fix and end, but the terms, the maximum flow sometimes water is used for different whose use is conceded, the ends (i.e. water concessions for average continuing flow, and the irrigation may be used for cattle) municipalities and provinces Concessions can Renewed, revised, expired or Concessions for population supply be: extinguished and irrigation are perceived to be in perpetuity Central users Irrigation channels / communities In March 2000, 12 irrigation channels communities must form a central user in Beceite for the Water Users Board community (29/1985 Water Act) The main novelty introduced by the 29/1985 Water Act (nowadays the RDL 1/2001) is the consideration of all surface continental waters, which include surface and renewable underground waters, as hydraulic public domain. While this situation changes the nature of the ownership, the act has a limited impact on the current uses and practices at the Matarraña level. This is so in a number of ways, including concessions, illegal uses, the water register and the functions of the CHE and the irrigation communities. Regarding concessions, before the coming into effect of the 29/1985 Water Act, concessions given for irrigation to individuals or to irrigation communities were given in perpetuity. The 1985 Water Act establishes that concessions have a maximum term of 75 years. However, the Matarraña river basin irrigation communities, most of which were given their concessions much before the Water Act was adopted, perceive 21 nowadays that concessions are in perpetuity. Regarding population supply, concessions were originally given for a period of 99 years. The 1953 Local Regime Act reduced these terms to 50 years, even though the State administration continued to give 99 years concessions along the fifties. Currently, those having a concession for water supply in the Matarraña river basin perceive they have them in perpetuity. It has to be taken into account that concessions at least date back from 1901 and that after the coming into effect of the 29/1985 Water Act the maximum term is 75 years starting from the date the concession is registered. So being registered would theoretically have the incentive of granting for a new 75 period concession (but may be losing the expectation of perpetuity). Apart from that, one must take into account that about 30% water uses in the Matarraña river basin are illegal. The 29/1985 Water Act establishes that all concessions must be registered in the Water Register, that was created by virtue of this regulation. However, this is far from being implemented. Prior to that, from the sixties on, there were some uses books including some data on uses, and back to the XIXth century, some provinces used to fill inscriptions books. The information registered, however, was uncompleted and scarcely precise. Official data refer about 58 concessions included in the old inscription books from 1901 to 1985. Among them, a few have been extinguished and most of them are still operating. Among the latter, those having had any change (for instance, change of the name of the concessionaire) after 1985, have been registered in the Water Register. So have the new concessions given after 1985. However, the old concessions not having had any change have not been registered. In total, only 12 concessions, which represent a minimal amount of the total water used in the river basin, are currently registered. Clearly, the 1985 Water Act does not serve to substantially modify this situation. The following table includes all concessions registered by the CHE since 1985. Water concessions registered by the CHE since 1985 Municipality Use Year Term Flow (litres / sec) Beceite Water force 1993 75 years 375 l/s Population supply 1997 75 years 1.21 l/s Valderrobres Irrigation (8 Ha) 1989 75 years 0.34 l/s Population supply 1992 75 years 13.89 l/s 22 Arid grain plant 1999 ? 12 l/s Industry 1999 ? 1.39 l/s Cattle 1999 ? 0.016 l/s Mazaleón Water supply 1997 75 years 0.06 l/s Maella Irrigation (6.5 Ha) 1991 75 years 4.7 l/s Fabara Irrigation (4.238 Ha) 1991 75 years 2.107 l/s and cattle 1990 75 years 0.44 l/s Cattle Nonaspe Irrigation (4.075 Ha) 1991 75 years 2.5 l/s Source: CHE, unpublished data (2001) Distribution of functions between the CHE and the Irrigation Communities Formal functions Real functions CHE Administration of the river basin: Elaborates the Ebro river basin plan √ Elaborates the Ebro river basin plan Regulates the Matarraña river √ Regulates the Matarraña river Grants for concessions and registers Does not intervene in the them administration and distribution of waters between users Collects the tax paid to by users in Legal users pay for the tax order to finance works Central Users Administration of irrigation channels: Communities They have their own statutes and regulate their internal regime and √ the activities of their members users. They are also in charge of the √ resolution of problems among users Denounces of infractions are rarely within the users community, fixing sent to the CHE indenizations for damages caused to the Community or to users, and determining obligations derived from infractions of the statutes 23 They may constitute in a Central Central Union for the Matarraña river Users Junta basin High level of influence regarding decisions on the watering out of the Pena dam and the distribution of water Collects the tax from users to be A few irrigation communities do not paid to the CHE pay for the tax and the remaining communities pay for it Regarding the CHE and the Central Unions’s functions, there are also some disadjustments between legal aspects and real practices. The CHE has been assigned with certain functions, including the elaboration of the Ebro river basin plan, and regulates the Matarraña river basin: it promotes regulation works, it collects the infrastructure tax (through the Central Union), it grants for concessions, and it registers them in the Water Register. It also plays a more ‘policy’ role by negotiating with the Central Union and the irrigation communities. However, the CHE is perceived in the territory as being a bureaucracy that ignores the real problems of the river basin and any decision it takes is perceived by many river basin actors as an undesirable inference. To certain extent, the CHE seems to accept playing an ‘outsider’ role and seems to prefer leaving the river basin to self-regulate. As a matter of fact, the CHE has been passive in relation to illegal users and to the registration of concessions in the Water Register. In addition, there is a common perception that the Central Union —and not the CHE— is the most influential actor in the regulation of the river basin. Finally, regarding users communities, in the municipality of Beceite, irrigation uses in this municipality date back to the Middle Ages. There is a dozen irrigation channels in Beceite but only three of them had regularised their concessions until fairly recently. In February 2000, the CHE threatened these irrigation channels to create a Users Union (as provided by the 29/1985 Water Act) otherwise they could lose their water concessions. In March 2000 the irrigation communities in Beceite created the Water Users Board of Beceite in order to keep their concessions. However, they are not required to be members of the Central Union as they do not take water from the Pena dam but from the Matarraña and the Ulldemó rivers. 24 Use rights and practices Some uses of water in the Matarraña river basin date from centuries and they are mostly related to irrigation. Most of the irrigation channels still working today were built by the Arabic population who settled down in the Peninsula, and the most antique irrigation communities existing today date back to the early XIXth century. Nowadays, there are 39 irrigation communities located in 10 municipalities along the Matarraña river basin, each of them having their own irrigation channels and their own water concessions. Concessions for using water were given along the XIXth and XXth century, and users understand they have them in perpetuity. Plots (peace of land) are ascribed to irrigation channels and by this they have their use rights to irrigate. Irrigation communities have their own statutes and rules of functioning, and it is them those deciding how to distribute water taken directly from the river. The 39 irrigation communities are represented at the Central Union, which is the institution deciding on how to distribute water coming from the Pena dam along the river basin. As it has already been mentioned, nowadays water for irrigation in the Matarraña river basin can be taken either from the river or from the Pena dam. Water can be taken from any of the two sources in order to cover different type of uses. Regarding population supply, water is taken both from the river and from the Pena dam. In Valderrobres, it is also taken from a well opened recently, and in the lower basin (Fabara and Nonaspe), water for population supply is also taken from the Ribarroja dam in the Ebro river in cases of extreme scarcity. Each municipality has a concession of water for population supply in perpetuity (although some animal farms in some municipalities are also connected to the municipal water network). The prize of water is fixed by each municipality. Given the water scarcity problems, a rivalry between use of water for population supply and agriculture often emerges. To this respect, the Central Union considers that municipalities consume too much water and has asked the CHE to fix gauging stations in the municipalities in order to know the amount of water consumed in each of them. Regarding irrigation, water is also taken both directly from the river and from the Pena dam. In case it is taken directly from the river, the concessions given to the irrigation communities by the CHE have a maximum quantity of water (litres/second/Ha), as far as the river has water enough to cover needs in all the river basin). It is irrigation communities those deciding how to distribute water among users. It must be taken into 25 account, however, that the river normally has low quantities of water flowing and therefore the amount of water going into their irrigation channels is lower than the maximum quantity allowed to be used. In fact, the natural river flow of the river does not guarantee having water in the middle and lower basin all along the year. As a matter of fact, in drought periods, the river is dry during the spring and summer seasons from Mazaleón or Maella. This makes the Pena dam the main source of water to all the users in the river basin, but specially to the middle and lower basin. In dry seasons (from March to October), most irrigation water is taken from the Pena dam. From the late fifties, irrigation communities have perceived that the amount of water provided by the Pena dam is insufficient to cover water demands in all the river basin. Taking into account this perception, the decisions on when and how the water from the dam is released become crucial. To this respect, it is the CHE the institution giving the order of watering the dam out both in relation to the quantity of water and to the rhythm of the process. However, this decision is taken in accordance to the Central Union, which is considered to be the most influential actor in the decision of how to administer water from the Pena dam. Water released from the Pena dam does not go to the Matarraña river but goes directly to the irrigation channels. Almost all irrigation channels in the Matarraña river basin are connected along 200 Km, starting from those located at the higher basin up to those located at the lower basin (some of them were built by the Arabic people centuries ago). It is the Central Union, as agreed by its members, the institution deciding how water will be distributed between the irrigation communities. For instance, it can decide that certain types of crops, typically fruits, have a priority of irrigation to other type of crops. Or, as it did in summer 1998, it may prohibit irrigation to fruit crops that had already been harvested in order to keep water for fruit still to be picked up. As the example shows, water does not always cover the existing demands at all the parts of the river basin. It must be taken into account that the Central Union, as a representative body of the irrigation communities, is mostly dominated by those actors having interests in the middle basin, mainly in the municipality of Maella. Maella has the largest extensions of lands to be irrigated in the river basin and consequently the actors of the middle river basin become dominant in the Central Union: they hold the majority in the directive board, the president is a person from Maella, and the Central Union is located in Maella. In addition, Maella has extended the peach crop along the last two decades, and thus water demands in this area are increasingly high. In this 26 circumstance, the irrigation communities in the lower basin often complain that water does not always arrive to the lower irrigation channels, which pay water at the same price as the other users, even though this has been agreed upon by the members of the Central Union. Conflicts between the middle and the lower river basin reappear every year. Regarding the higher basin, Valderrobres has had a use right since the Central Union was created in 1950. According to the interviewed, an agreement among the members of the Central Union consisting of reserving 10% of the Pena water dam capacity to Valderobles was reached at that time. In dry years, however, the 10% privilege is suspended and the Central Union decides to irrigate all the river basin in an agreed date. Irrigation communities located in the middle and lower river basin dislike the 10% use right favouring Valderrobles for considering it too high. However, they all respect it. In any case, given that during the last years Valderrobres has reconverted many agriculture lands into animal farms (which by far consume lower quantities of water), conflicts between the higher and the middle-lower areas of the river basin have been attenuated. Apart from that, the 10% agreement is accepted by the CHE as this is a use right agreed by all users in the river basin and has no interest in changing it. There are some users that have de facto use rights in relation to irrigation. For instance, those lands that were irrigated some centuries ago taking water from the Acequia Mayor, in the municipality of Valderobres, do not pay for the tax to the CHE nor for the expenses of the irrigation communities. This does not mean that the CHE does not receive the corresponding amount of the tax in all the river basin, but it is paid by the other irrigation communities. They all agree that the traditional use must prevail and accept paying for the tax that would correspond to the most antique irrigation communities. The illegal users Water is not only used by those having a concession but also by illegal users. Some plots and animal farms use water “illegally”, which means that they do not have an administrative concession granted by the CHE. Nowadays, around 650 taps representing at least 30% of the lands in the Matarraña river basin are said to use water illegally: around 1,000 Has out of a total of estimated 2,300 - 3,300 Has of the total extension irrigated in the river basin, most of which are located in the middle 27 basin. This situation seems to result mainly from two types of situations. On the one hand, some small vegetable crops, mainly located in the higher river basin, were progressively reconverted into animal farms a couple of decades ago. Nowadays, around 60% of the total income in the higher basin come from cattle. Cattle demands much lower quantities of water and is economically more profitable than traditional agriculture. Some of these users say they applied for a concession to the CHE around 15 years ago, but the CHE is said to have rejected these applications by saying that water uses have changed. However, the CHE seems to informally accept these uses. On the other hand, along the seventies the extension of cultivated lands in the Matarraña river basin increased in about 1,000 Has more, partly because the CHE had built a tunnel to divert water and because of the profits of peach crops (some users had a concession and some others did not). In spite of that, the CHE did not give concessions for the irrigation to the whole of the new 1,000 Has, as either the Pena water dam and the tunnel supposedly covered most of the existing irrigation necessities. To this respect, the Central Union gave a kind of “permit” to use water to the irrigation communities with plots having no concession, that is, to illegal users. According to this, all irrigation communities that have applied for the use of water for irrigation and cattle but having no concession can take the remaining waters from the Matarraña river from October to March as far as this does not cause trouble to the irrigation communities having a concession. While the CHE is most likely to be aware of the existence of illegal users, it leaves water distribution and organisation in the hands of the Central Union. In both types of situation, water is used illegally as these users do not have legal concessions. Illegal uses of water include abusing uses, for instance, the storage of water in illegal pools, the starting of illegal engines to water lands at night, and so on. However, beyond those ‘hidden’ uses, users with no concessions are tolerated by their corresponding irrigation communities as far as they do not damage their interests. This is shown by the fact that illegal users pay for the use of water to their corresponding irrigation communities. This is a kind of trade-off for illegal users for being allowed to irrigate, even though they do so in worse conditions than the users holding a concession. This means that illegal users have a kind of de facto use right in practice that to some extent is accepted by all irrigation communities (all irrigation communities are said to have illegal users). 28 Both the dominance of the middle basin actors in the decisions regarding the distribution of water coming from the Pena dam, and the existence of illegal users all around the river basin, but especially in the middle basin, are a source of continuous conflict among users and among municipalities. Conflict is specially intense during spring and summer seasons because of water scarcity (this is the period in which illegal users are not allowed to take water from the river but in which they need it in more quantities). The lower basin irrigation communities often feel damaged by the decisions taken by the Central Union, as they consider that the latter mostly satisfies the interests of the middle basin. In addition, illegal users, even though they pay for the use of water, have less use rights than the legal ones, but may benefit from the fact of being located in upper parts of the basin by means of, for instance, taking water at night or using water when the lower basin irrigation communities have a preference because of being legal. Conflict resolution According to the regulative system, conflicts emerging in users communities are to be solved: the general community when conflict confronts communities integrated in it; by the Central Union when conflict confronts some of its members; by the General Direction of Hydraulic works when communities belong to different river basins; and by the river basin agency in other cases. In practice, most conflicts emerge and are solved by users communities or by the Central Union, and very rarely denounces are sent to the CHE. Until the mid nineties, the Central Union has traditionally had an Irrigation Tribunal that was created when the Central Union was set up. This tribunal had the objective of quickly solving conflicts between users in relation to the use of water coming from the Pena dam, in those cases in which conflict has not been solved in the irrigation communities (they used to have their own tribunals too). The tribunal was formed by five members of the river basin and one president, and was aimed to be representative of the whole river basin. When it received denounces, it called the accused user and could sanction him and also could sanction the irrigation community to which the user belonged to. In some cases, the tribunal could also sent the denounce to the CHE. Nowadays, the tribunal does not exist any more as the Central Union’ Statutes are in process of revision and do not contemplate this figure. Conflict resolution normally has an informal nature and are solved within the irrigation community or within the Central Union. Solutions commonly are reached regardless the legal channels (the later are 29 expensive and unfruitful), and very rarely they are sent to the CHE. According to some of the interviewed actors, one of the ideas that in principle have been considered by the CHE and the Central Union regarding the illegal users consist of legalising all of them. Irrigation practices In most of the cropped lands, the irrigation system consists of the flooding of lands (a little hatch locking the irrigation channels is opened and water is released). This system is opposed to the so-called “dropping” system, which channels smaller quantities of waters directly to the roots of every tree. The “flooding” system uses water in a much less efficient way than the dropping one, which saves high quantities of water because it brings the necessary water just to the root of the tree, and not to the all area of the irrigated land. A report elaborated by experts estimate that the level of irrigation efficiency ranges from 65 to 70% (COAGRET, 1997). It is interesting to note that given that illegal users have more restrictions in the use of water than the legal ones, many of them irrigate through the “dropping” system instead of the “flooding” system. In this sense, and by reason of restrictions, illegal users have a more sustainable use of water than the legal ones. While in general terms it is accepted that the dropping irrigation system is more efficient and saves water in a river basin that often has problems of scarcity, farmers have almost no economic incentives to change the irrigation systems. While the cost of investment would be high, there would be almost no economic benefits. This is so because of the low cost of water. The only cost of water paid by irrigation users includes: a tax which they pay to the CHE in order to cover the cost of regulation of the river (that is, for using water from the Pena water dam), which is paid through their corresponding irrigation communities; and the fees for the maintenance of these communities (in order to finance the office, the works, and so on). Both payments are calculated according to the area irrigated, and not to the water consumed. This system was adopted in the early fifties, once the Central Union was created and channelled payments (before that date, payments were fixed according to the quantity of litres consumed.) So, nowadays users pay the same regardless the quantity of water they use (high in the cases of fruit crops, and low in the cases of olive crops, for instance). Apart from that, the cost of water as such, strictu sensu, is zero. All this means that there is no incentive to save water and, even more, there are incentives to change crops to a more profitable ones, such as peaches, which require high quantities of 30 water. Some measures have been taken by the CHE as a timid attempt to incentivate water saving. In the mid nineties, the CHE installed 4 gauging stations (in the Matarraña, Tastavins, Pena and Nonaspe) in order to measure the flow of the river in those four points. The CHE has also installed counters in each irrigation community in order to measure the quantity of water passing through each of the irrigation channels. These counters, which work with a solar panel, are expected to computerise the water flow in each of the main irrigation channels and sends this information to the CHE, and later is reversed to the irrigation communities. The stations register information on the quantity of water flowing in each of the 39 main irrigation channels, which does not mean that this amount of water is totally consumed (it is not in the seasons in which there is no irrigation, in which extra water goes to the river). However, according to some opinions, these stations are not used in practice. 4. The actors In the Matarraña river case, there is a constellation of actors operating at different territorial / political levels of governance. These actors include: the European Union (which is not an actor itself but a regulative arena generating constraints and opportunities); the national administration and, depending on it, the Ebro river basin administration (Confederación Hidrográfica del Ebro, CHE); the regional government of Aragon (Diputación General de Aragón, DGA); local governments; the Central Union of Irrigation Communities in the Matarraña river basin; the irrigation communities; the Association for the Defense of the Matarraña (PLADEMA); the association of the affected by expropriations for the pumping project; and experts. These actors have different objectives and resources, and operate at the regulative system, at the policy system, or at both of them at the same time. The European Union The EU is not an actor as such in the Matarraña case but it rather constitutes a regulative arena that both generates certain constraints to actors willing to promote regulation infrastructures in the river basin, as well provides resources to actors willing to promote the conservation of the river. There are two EU directives that provide such framework of constraints and opportunities: the 78/659 Directive on fish species and 31 the 92/43 directive on Habitats. By virtue of the former, in 1990 the former ICONA, which used to be the national agency for the conservation of nature (now suppressed), elaborated an inventory of important waters in perpetuity of fishes which included the Matarraña river between Valderrobres and Torre del Compte (5-10 Km long). When the CHE promoted the construction of the pumping project from the Matarraña river to the Pena dam in Beceite, SEO-Bird Life presented a complaint to the European Commission. Nowadays, the project of building the Torre del Compte dam has also brought the EU arena in. The DGA has recently proposed all the Matarraña river basin from the head to Valderrobles, and from Torre del Compte to the end, with the exception of the intermediate track, as a LIC area (place of community interest) to be integrated in the 2000 Natura Net. The reduced area excluded from the LIC proposal corresponds to the place where the Torre del Compte water dam is proposed to be located, which shows that the DGA has prioritised the construction of the infrastructure to the conservation of the river. Actors opposed to the Torre del Compte dam consider that this infrastructure would flood most of the part included in the inventory made by the ICONA in 1990 and intend to present a complaint to the Commission for infringement of the fish directive. Apart from that, in 1993 the EU started incentivating rural tourism by giving funds to avoid the abandoning of rural houses mostly in the higher river basin. Nowadays, and in a national level, the EU Commission has asked the Central Government for the viability from the point of view of sustainability of the National Hydrological Plan, without still rejecting it. The State administration The State administration is responsible for the adoption of general legislation and planning on water. According to its powers, in 1985 it adopted the 29/1985 Water Act, and in 1986 it adopted the Regulation to develop it. The 1985 Water Act includes the adoption of a National Hydrological Plan. After some failed attempts to adopt such plan conducted by the socialist government in 1993 and 1994, the current People Party (PP) government has proposed a National Hydrological Plan that has been firmly opposed by the government of Aragon and by many social movements. Although this opposition, finally the NHP has been passed (NHP 10/2001 Act, 5th July). Nowadays, and thanks to the pressure of those social movements, the discussion is among the EU Commision 32 and the Central Government. Apart from that, in 1995 the Central Government adopted a decree approving urgent measures against draught. The decree included the construction of a hydraulic system pumping project water from the Matarraña river to the Pena dam. The Ministry of Environment, created in 1996, is the department holding responsibilities on water policy. The inter-regional river basin administrations —in this case the Ebro Hydrographic Confederation— depend on it. The Confederación Hidrográfica del Ebro (CHE) The CHE is the Ebro river basin agency. It was created in 1926 and currently depends on the Ministry of Environment. It is the main actor in the regulative system of the Matarraña river basin. Its functions include: the adoption of the Ebro river hydrological plan (the Matarraña river is tributary to the Ebro river), done in 1998; the promotion of regulation projects (for instance, the system pumping project water from the Matarraña to the Pena dam in Beceite); the ordering of the watering out of the Pena dam; the fixation of the ecological flow (now it is 325 l/second); the granting for the concessions for irrigation and other water uses; the granting for waste disposal authorisations; and the control of activities in the river basin through the so-called water commissaries (Comisarios de aguas). While the CHE plays a key position in the regulation system: it has many political and legal resources available and has adopted a hierarchical and marked top-down approach to regulation. It has traditionally has promoted regulation projects based on the construction of large infrastructures that have proved be technically inefficient: the Pena water dam (1930), the tube for deviating water (1970s), the pumping project (1995-98) and the failed wells project at the head of the river basin (1998). In most cases (except for the latter), the implementation of these projects have raised intense conflict among the different interests of the river basin level. These regulation infrastructures have traditionally generated opposition by the municipalities located at the head of the river basin (mainly Beceite and Valderrobres), but have had adepts at the middle and lower river basin (Maella, Fabara and Nonaspe). In addition, by the creation of infrastructures, the CHE has given new water concessions, partly as a means to finance the works, and has contributed to create increasing water demands. 33 Partly because of the inefficient outcome of these infrastructure projects, and partly because of the new values on conservation hold by actors in the high river basin area, the projects proposed by the CHE in the nineties have found firm opposition. While the pumping project was finally installed —the CHE asked for the presence of the Guardia Civil in order to secure the works—, the project of installing wells at the head of the river basin to take water out of the aquifers (2000) found firm opposition by actors defending the conservation of the river (Pladema, city councils, experts) and was finally removed. This marks a turning point in the process, as the “conservation coalition” is for the first time able of undermining the traditional dominance of the CHE in the policy / regulation processes. To this respect, the Central Union lack of support to the CHE proposal is central to understand this move. Apart from the traditional dominant role regarding the design of the regulative system, the CHE hardly takes part in the practical day-to-day administration of use rights in practice in the Matarraña river basin, being the Central Union the most influential actor. 34 The regional government of Aragon (Diputación General de Aragon, DGA) The DGA is the regional government of Aragon. It does not play a central role neither the regulation nor in policy processes in the Matarraña river basin, as it is the CHE the one holding responsibilities. The DGA intervention in the river basin is marginal. For instance, after the recent floods suffered in the river basin in October 2000, the DGA has financed the replacement of the damaged old irrigation channels by tubes along the river basin. In addition, as it was pointed out before, the DGA is responsible for environmental policy at the regional level: it has elaborated a proposal to consider most parts of the Matarraña river basin as a LIC, by virtue of the Habitats directive, but has excluded a part of the river basin which is coincident with the place where the Torre del Compte dam is projected. Apart from the formal competences assigned to the DGA, this institution has traditionally supported the regulation projects proposed by the CHE, for instance, the pumping project (1995-98), for considering that it was the less damaging option for the regulation of the Matarraña river. These and other infrastructure projects were included in the so-called Water Agreement that was signed by all political groups in the Aragon Parliament in 1992. The agreement includes the construction of hydraulic works along the Ebro river basin. Local governments There are 12 local governments belonging to the Matarraña river basin. Local governments clearly defend the interests of the irrigation communities, farmers, industries and population in their corresponding municipality. The objectives and resources of the 12 municipalities belonging to the Matarraña river basin are unequal. Those located at the higher river basin, mainly Beceite and Valderrobres, are firmly opposed to large regulation works, as they are commonly located at the higher river basin but benefit the middle and lower municipalities, which have higher water demands and suffer from scarcity. Higher river basin municipalities have low influence in the Central Union and the CHE, but have a high capacity to mobilise the population and attract actors operating at a supra-basin territorial level (i.e. experts from universities, environmental groups, etc.). In addition, they hardly have 35 water scarcity problems and are developing alternative sources of social and economic development, mainly rural tourism. In front of that, middle basin municipalities, mainly Maella, have a strong influence in the Central Union and, ultimately, in the CHE. As water demands are very high in this part of the river basin, mainly due to the extension of peach crop, municipalities of the middle river basin main objective has traditionally been the construction of regulation infrastructures securing water needs. Finally, municipalities at the lower river basin, mainly Nonaspe and Fabara, have scarcity problems and a low influence capacity in the decision-making processes. Nineteen local governments around the Matarraña area also form the Mancommunity of municipalities, which is an indirectly elected body. The mancommunity does not play a central role in the regulation and policy processes, but is just an arena that reflects the different objectives and resources of the municipalities of the Matarraña river basin. As a matter of fact, in 1997 the president of the mancommunity resigned given the difficulties to build consensus between the member municipalities regarding the pumping project proposed by the CHE. In the next future, the DGA will create counties in the region of Aragon. One of these counties will be the Matarraña county. However, its geographical limits will not only correspond to those municipalities of the river basin, but others. The Central Union of Irrigation Communities in the Matarraña The Central Union of Irrigation Communities in the Matarraña river basin is a central actor in the Matarraña river basin. It was created in 1950 and nowadays it is integrated by 39 irrigation communities belonging to ten municipalities located along the river basin (Valderrobres, La Fresneda, Torre del Compte, Valdetormo, Calaceite, Mazaleón, Maella, Fabara, Nonaspe and Fayón). The Central Union is the representative body of the irrigating communities at the Matarraña river basin and is the voice before the CHE. Its statutes regulate the election of both the president and the directive board, and the general rules of functioning. The main task of the Central Union is taking decisions on when and how to distribute irrigation water coming from the Pena dam, collecting the tax from the irrigation communities to be paid to the CHE, solving conflicts related to irrigation practices and channelling denounces to the CHE (this is infrequent). It plays an important role in the regulative system, as the orders on watering out the Pena dam by the CHE are taken in accordance to the Central Union. 36 Within the Central Union, the irrigation communities belonging to the middle river basin (mainly in Maella) are the largest ones and, therefore, they are dominant. As a matter of fact, the Central Union is located in Maella, the president is currently a person from this municipality, and the Maella irrigation communities dominate the directive board. This situation is perceived by the irrigation communities and municipalities of both the higher and lower river basin as a factor biasing the Central Union decision in favour of the interests of the middle and lower river basin. This situation was evident after the CHE, once the central government adopted the Decree on urgent measures against draught in 1995, fostered the construction of a water pumping project from the Matarraña to the Pena dam2. While this decision provoked the rejection of the municipalities of Beceite and Valderobres for considering that it would cause a severe damage to the river, the Central Union was firmly in favour. Irrigation communities There are 39 irrigation communities along the Matarraña river basin. Irrigation communities have their own statutes and regulate the rules of the game to distribute water for irrigation which is taken directly from the river. They all have their own irrigation channels, many of which were built centuries ago. These channelling infrastructures need urgent modernisation. On the one hand, irrigation channels are obsolete and lose water that is filtered into the soil. To this respect, the Aragon regional government has partly financed the replacement of Arabic channels by tubes in some parts of the river basin (especially after the floods in October 23rd seriously damaged the old channels). On the other hand, the flooding system of irrigation should be replaced by the dropping system, as the latter has a 90-95% efficiency. Depending on the quantity amount of water available, the irrigation communities decide how and when to distribute water between irrigation users. There are two main forms of distributing water adopted by the irrigation communities: by turns or by times. If irrigation is organised by turns, each plot is assigned a day of the week or the month to irrigate. According to tradition, some irrigation communities establish that water can be used by the assigned users until dawn the day after. When there is water scarcity, irrigation is normally organised by times, which means that each plot can be irrigated during certain hours previously agreed upon. 37 The Association for the Defense of the Matarraña (PLADEMA) Pladema was created in 1998 and aggregates actors who opposed to the pumping project (1995-1998) and who reject the installation of large regulative works, for instance, the wells taking water from the aquifer and the Torre del Compte dam. It reunites environmental groups, local governments and neighbours mainly from the higher river basin, and experts. Pladema promotes the conservation of the river as a whole and is flatly opposed to the policies and regulation projects launched by the CHE. In addition, they accuse the CHE of being an immobile and hierarchical administration, and of carrying out regulation works without conducting technical studies of their social, economic and environmental impact. Pladema has little economic or political resources available, but it has developed the ability to mobilise actors operating at different territorial levels, including a number of experts, to meet with representatives of institutions, to carry out demonstrations and other actions calling for media attention and to create certain climate of opinion in favour of the conservation of the river basin as a unitary system The association of the affected by expropriations for the pumping works This association was integrated by the affected people (around 70) by the expropriations of the land for the construction of the pumping project in the municipality of Beceite. In 1996, when the CHE had already started the works, the association asked the Beceite local government to halt the works arguing errors in the process of expropriation and initiation of works. The latter ordered the suspension of the works. While this association was created to defend specific interests of the affected people, the association has progressively modified its discourse and promoted a the conservation of the Matarraña river basin. The association, in fact, is a kind of embryo of Pladema and its leader plays an active role in the process of promoting the conservation of the river. 2 RDL 4/1995 including urgent measures against draught, 12.5.1995. 38 Experts Independent experts, mostly university professors, some of which belong to COAGRET (Co-ordinator of the Affected by Great Water Dams), have played an important role in the Matarraña river basin case. Along the last years, an increasing number of independent experts have leaded campaigns in favour of the protection of the Matarraña river basin: they have prepared a number of technical reports alerting of the damages that the construction of regulation infrastructures could damage the Matarraña river, on the economic costs of the regulation projects proposed by the CHE, and on the need to modernise irrigation and replace flooding by dropping irrigation system; they have organised workshops and conferences; and they have conducted demonstrations to denounce these works. The following table summarises the main roles played by actors in both the regulative system and the policy arena. 39 Actors in the regulative system and in the policy arena Regulative system Policy arena European EU regulation as a resource: Union 78/659 Directive (fish species) 92/43 Directive (habitats) EU incentives rural tourism State National government: Elaborates and approves the National administration Adopts the 1995 Decree on urgent Hydrological Plan measures for draught (including the pumping project) Promotes environmental policy MIMAM Promotes and finances regulation hydraulic works ------ ------Negotiates with users communities and other actors CHE Fixes the Matarraña regulative (State system: administration) Adopts the river basin plan (Ebro) in 1998 Promotes regulation projects Orders the watering out of the Pena dam Fixes the ecological flow Grants for concessions Grants for waste disposals authorisations Exerts control Aragon Defends the “Water Agreement” regional government Used to support regulation projects (DGA) proposed by the CHE (pumping project) Promote the replacement of obsolete irrigation channels by tubes Promotes environmental protection policies (mainly Habitats directive) Nowadays opposes the National Hydrological Plan proposed approved by the State government 40 Local Own concessions for population Defend the interest of the irrigation governments supply communities and the population of the municipalities Form the Mancommunities of municipalities of the Matarraña Central Union Regulates the distribution of water Constitutes an arena of negotiation along the irrigation communities of the river basin Preserves traditional use rights Collects the tax for the CHE and the fees for the Central Union Solves conflicts Irrigation Own concessions for irrigation Try to influence the Central Union to Communities receive water Distribute water between irrigation users Solve conflict between users Pladema Aggregates and mobilises actors opposing the pumping project and to the installation of wells (environmental groups, local governments at the higher river basin, experts) Promotes the conservation of the river as a whole Association of Initially opposes the pumping project for the affected by specific reasons expropriations in Beceite Lately defends the conservation of the river as a whole Experts Contribute to create certain climate of opinion against the regulation projects proposed by the CHE Support / lead the coalition against regulation projects Provide with technical expertise 41 5. National and river basin regimes: main developments Once the impact of national regulation on the Matarraña river basin practices has been analysed, and once actors operating at several levels of governance have been characterised, the following section presents a table in which the national and river basin developments are chronologically summarised. The aim of this table is briefly showing the extent to which both the national and river basin regime evolve towards integrated regimes, and what the main connections in both processes are. This summarising table will allow for the understanding of the following section, in which the phases towards integration in the Matarraña river case will be analysed in detail. National developments Date Matarraña river basin developments First Water Act 1886/ 1879 Civil Code 1889 The Plan for Hydraulic Works is adopted 1902 The plan includes the regulation of the Matarraña river basin 1906 The Pena water dam is authorised The CHE is created 1926 1930 The Pena water dam is finished The Franco regime suppresses the 1942 representation of users in the Hydrographical Confederations 1950 The Central Union is created 1955 The Central Union alerts of the insufficient water provided by the Pena dam 1970s Expansion of peach crops 1978 The CHE builds a diversion tunnel The Spanish Constitution is adopted 1978 The government adopts a Decree 1979 recovering the participatory nature of Hydrographical Confederations (with representation of administrations, irrigation communities, hydroelectric companies and industrial users) 42 regulation change Aug - Adoption of the 29/85 Water Act: 1985 hydraulic public domain (continental, natural flows lakes and ground waters) Extremely dry year 1986 Extreme draught at the Matarraña river basin Apr – Reglament of Hydraulic Public Domain The ICONA (national administration) 1990 The inventory includes the Matarraña elaborates an inventory for important river waters by virtue of 78/659 Directive The Aragon Parliament adopts the “Water 1992 Agreement”, including the Torre del Compte dam (29 hm3) Starts an extremely dry period 1993 Starts an extremely dry period The national government (PSOE) proposes a National Hydrological Plan. It is firmly contested and fails. May - The national government (PP) 1995 Jul - The CHE initiates the works of adopts a Decree approving urgent pumping project measures against draught, including the pumping project in the river basin transition Intense mobilisations against leaded by the Association of Expropriated in Beceite. Slogan: “Living Matarraña Alive” 1996 The works of the pumping project start and shortly after are paralysed. 1997 Oct – The works of the pumping project start again Oct - SEO-Bird Life presents a complaint to the European Commission Dry year 1998 Extreme draught at the Matarraña river basin The CHE elaborates the Ebro river basin Pladema is legally constituted plan Mar - The pumping project is finished The 46/1999 Water Act partially reforms 1999 Feb – The CHE announces the the 29/1985 Water Act: ecological flow is construction of wells to take not considered as use of water but as a underground water restriction imposed to exploitation systems; water markets are recognised 43 2000 Apr – Local governments, irrigation communities, neighbours and environmental groups at the Matarraña river basin turningadopt an point agreement rejecting the wells and in favour of the construction of two lateral pools Oct - Severe floods in the Matarraña river basin Feb - The national government (PP) 2001 proposes a National Hydrological Plan Feb – Mar – Intense mobilisations against the NHP claiming for a new culture of water Jul.- The NHP is adopted (NHP 10/2001 Act). The 29/1985 Water Act and the 46/199 Act are formally abolished by the Royal Decree Legislative 1/2001, which is a codyfing legislation. Sept – The Ministry of the Environment includes the construction of the two lateral pools in the NHP and approves the budget of the project 6. The process: phases and transition towards integration When analysing the evolution of water regime in the Matarraña river basin along the XXth century, two major periods can be identified. The first one corresponds to the historical background of the case, dating from the beginning of the century to the mid eighties. This period is also fragmented in four subphases marked by the changes introduced in water regime by major developments. The second period starts in the mid eighties and is still operating. This period, which can also be fragmented in three subphases, in which some signals of transition from a complex to an integrated regime can be identified. The two following tables summarise the main phases identified in the case. 44 First period: 1902 – mid eighties Traditional perspective: regulation through large hydraulic infrastructures Subphase 1: 1902 – 1930 - 1902 (First) National Hydraulic Plan include the regulation of the First regulation of the Matarraña river basin Matarraña river basin - Construction of the Pena Dam (unique regulation infrastructure within the basin) Subphase 2: 1931 – 1950 - Water management is adapted to the new available resources Construction of the Pena - Redistribution of water uses and demands dam: adaptation of water uses and demands Subphase 3: 1951 – 1977 - Creation of the Central Union of Irrigation Communities of the Matarraña river basin: Change in water resource - Centralisation of decisions on water resources stored in the Pena Dam administration - Representation of irrigation farmers interests - Increase of water demands Subphase 4: 1978 – mid 80s - Severe drought period resulting in the first social conflicts New regulation and severe - Construction of the diversion tunnel draught Second period: Mid eighties – 2000 onwards Signals of transition from a traditional towards an integrated regime Phase 1: mid 80s – 1994 - 1985 Water Act Dominica of the traditional - Drought period (1992-1995) problem definition and actors - Intensification of social demands for water regulation projects - Proposal of pumping water from the Matarraña to the Pena Dam Phase 2: 1995 – 1999 - Pumping project included in State regulation as an urgent measure Collision between the to palliate drought effects traditional and a new resource - Social and territorial conflict between the high and middle-low basin: conservation problem nature conservation versus regulation demands definitions and actors - Negotiation among the basin actors: first attempts to reach an agreement Phase 3: 2000 Æ - Agreement among the basin actors: integration of water problem Agreement: definition and actors Integration of the traditional and the conservation problem definitions and actors 45 6.1. First period: 1902 – mid eighties Dominance of the “traditional” perspective This long period includes four different subphases (1902-1930, 1930-1950, 1950-1977 and 1978 mid eighties) and represents a period of time characterised by the dominance of a traditional water policy and management. In the early decades of this period, this perspective reflects the dominance of the Regeneracionism intellectual movement: a national wide movement based on the State initiative and financing of large hydraulic works in order to promote the creation of large extensions of irrigated lands and the production of hydroelectric energy for industrial uses. The main objective of such strategy is to establish the economic and social basis for the modernisation of Spain. At the Matarraña river basin, this perspective results in the construction of the Pena dam, the first (and unique) regulative infrastructure within the river basin. The Pena dam project was included in the National Plan of Hydraulic Works adopted in 1902. It was authorised in 1907 but not finished until 1930, 27 years later. The Pena dam is located at the municipality of Valderrobres (high basin), has a regulation capacity of 18.5 hm3 and floods an extension of 129 ha. Its height above sea level is 633 metres so it represents a regulation in the headwaters of the Pena river. As some reports point out, the Pena dam presents several technical problems in order to guarantee its optimal functioning. On the one hand, due to its calcareous and conglomerate nature, the base of the dam contains highly permeable materials. A recent study carried out by the Autonomous Government of Aragón (DGA) and the CHE recognises that the Pena dam has a 3.75 hm3 filtration per year. As the Matarraña river is located in an inferior level than the Pena dam there is underground drainage from the dam to the river. On the other hand, the Pena dam is located in a section of the river where the basin has not resources enough to feed it. Despite its 18.5 hm3 capacity, t only regulates 8.5 hm3 per year (Nadal, 1984). Other resources like spring waters are added resulting in a total reserve of 12 hm3 capacity available for the irrigation season (CHE, 1996). Along the Franco dictatorship, water policy represents the continuation of the previous productivist and offer-based hydraulic policy perspective. New regulation projects 46 continue to be constructed all over the country in order to increase the quantity of water available to expand and promote the creation of irrigation land. This tendency is also reproduced at the Matarraña river basin water regime: the construction and functioning of the Pena dam brought the resources required to promote agriculture in several parts of the territory. However, the creation of the Central Union of Irrigation Communities of the Matarraña river basin in 1950 changes water regulation and management. The Central Union is the body representing all the irrigation communities of the basin and it has the functions of veiling for their interests and taking decisions on the distribution of water resources stored in the Pena Dam. Due to its centralisation of powers, the Central Union represents a crucial actor in determining the evolution of the basin water regime. As it was pointed out before, in the sixties and seventies new fruit crops —mainly peaches— were planted along the river basin and subsequently increased water demands exceeding the regulation capacity of the Pena dam and the Matarraña river flows. In addition, in 1977 started a severe drought period which lasted until 1987. The combination of an increase of water needs and a draught period led to the increase of social demands of regulation projects within the basin in order to increase the quantity of water stored in the Pena dam. As a response, the CHE built a tunnel diverting water from the Matarraña river to the Pena dam in 1978. As some experts point out, the tunnel presents some technical problems in order to secure water divertion from the river to the dam. One the one hand, even before the construction of the tunnel, the Matarraña flow in the extracting point is considerably inferior to the one for which it was designed. This is so because along its superior section the river has almost no contribution from groundwaters. The river is more like a stream in this section and only a few days after a storm has considerable flows. On the other hand, the tunnel lead to an important social controversy as there was not enough water left downstream to cover irrigation demands. Besides, in the mid seventies, the river started to suffer from serious low water periods which limited the survival of fishes (Arrojo et al., 1997). Nowadays it is not possible to know exactly what the contribution of the Matarraña river to the Pena dam by the tunnel has been because until 1997 there is not a gauging station to measure the running flow. 47 6.2. Second period: mid eighties - 2000 Signals of transition from a traditional towards an integrated regime The second broad period in the Matarraña river case story starts in the mid eighties and reaches the present days. In this period there are some signals of transition from a traditional approach to water regime towards a more integrated one. In order to analyse it, three phases will be identified. 6.2.1. Phase 1: mid eighties - 1994 Dominance of the traditional perspective The inertia and deep-rooting of the “traditional” perspective that dominated the Spanish water policy is so strong that it still prevails along this period and determines the Matarraña river basin regime development. The 1985 Water Act hardly introduces any change at the Matarraña river basin regime and approach to drought problems. The dominating paradigm continues to focus on the construction of large hydraulic infrastructures. Apart from that, climatic conditions become a determining factor of the evolution of the basin regime along this phase and the following ones. As farm production depends on irrigation and water availability, regulation projects become central in the policy agenda once the draught period starts in 1992. However, this view will be flatly threatened when claims for conservation emerge in the mid nineties. 6.2.2. Phase 2: 1995-1999 Collision between the traditional and the conservationist perspective In the second half of the nineties, the traditional paradigm colludes with a new paradigm based on the conservation of the rational use of the resource. This collision, however, does not take place in the same terms in different levels of governance. At the national level, this period still represents the continuation of the traditional perspective of the hydraulic policy (in 1993 the national government presented the first National Hydrologic Plan, which constituted a proposal totally based on the construction of several large water diversion projects among different river basins and on the construction of a series of new dams). At the regional level this phase 48 represents the emergence of a social movement claiming for a new water policy paradigm based on water demand strategies that promote resource savings and efficiency in their use and on the conservation of the resource, both in its quality and quantity. At the basin level, the second half of the nineties represents the first breaking with the traditional perspective. A social opposition movement supported by environmental groups and experts criticises the unsustainable economic and technical rationality; denounce the environmental negative effects of the regulation projects constructed within the basin; and claim for the valuation and conservation of the fluvial ecosystem of the Matarraña river in response to the hydraulic policy promoted by the State administration. The construction of the pumping project will mark the breaking point for this rupture. It will constitute the main argument of the social claims and will result in a territorial conflict among the water uses within the basin. The pumping project After the construction of the tunnel in 1978 there was a large drought period which lasted to 1987 and led to a new wave of social demands for regulation projects in order to guarantee farm production. Several dam projects were proposed during the seventies and eighties: El Pontet, Torre del Compte and Molí de les Roques, among others. The wet period that followed, which started with the 1988 floods, relaxed the irrigation farmers and administration claims for regulation until the beginning of the nineties. In 1993 a new drought period started and the controversy reappeared. In this context, in I994 the Central Union studied the possibility of pumping water up from a lower point in the Matarraña river to the Pena dam. Finally, the Central Union rejected the project for considering it as having a too high economic cost. It was the national government the one approving new regulation in response to the drought period from 1992 to 1995: it provided the legal framework and financial resources to carry out the pumping project3. The mentioned regulation declared several projects, included the pumping one in the Matarraña river, of general interest of the State and were considered as urgent measures in order to palliate the drought effects. By this, these projects were approved avoiding the parliamentary debate which had to carry out a deep reflection on the future water policy and planning criteria (the National 3 Real Decreto-Ley 4/1995 por el que se adoptan medidas urgentes para reparar los efectos producidos por la sequía, y Real Decreto-Ley 6/1995 por el que se adoptan medidas 49 Hydrological Plan). The pumping project was declared of general interest by the 1995 State regulation but it was neither included in the Hydrological Plan of the Ebro basin nor in the 1992 Aragón Water Agreement, which are the two planning instruments that should include the hydraulic projects affecting the river basin. The pumping project included 5 water pumps of about 500 CV each one pumping out a maximum of 0.75 m3/s 140 meters high and along a pipe of 5 km long. The Regional government of Aragón, in accordance with some biologists of the University of Barcelona, the establishment of an ecological flow of 0.325 m3/s, which represents the 30 per cent of the basic flow of the Matarraña river. The main condition imposed to the project was that water could only be pumped up from November to February/March during 16 or 24 hours a day. The social controversy : a conservacionist claim The announcement of the initiation of the pumping system works in July 1995 provoked intense mobilisations in the high basin. The first actors to react against the project are the neighbours of the Municipality of Beceite (high basin), where the pumping project is planned to be constructed. They formed a commission and launched an information campaign in order to inform the whole basin about the details of the project and its possible negative impacts. In February 1996 the construction works begun but the municipal government, in response to the social pressure, succeed in stopping the works. However, in March the central government revoked the city council order. The neighbours keep under protest in two different ways. On the one hand, they organised a series of pacific demonstrations in front of the construction works and, on the other hand, they planned other legal actions in order to stop the project. The pressure they exerted was so intense that the administration decided to send a group of police agents (Guardia Civil) to guarantee the execution of the works. In 1997 the conflict moved to the middle and low parts of the basin. No agreement was reached in the meetings that hold between the affected neighbours, the Central Union and actors operating at lower basin, as their interests are strongly divided. In October the CHE reinitiated the works and the neighbours from Beceite formed the Association extraordinarias, excepcionales y urgentes en materia de abastecimientos hidráulicos como consecuencia de la persitencia de la sequía. 50 of the affected by the expropriations for the pumping project. The association also looked for additional support among other municipalities within the basin and the Mancommunity of Municipalities of the Matarraña river basin. It also asked the Superior Court of Aragon to block of the project. The conflict by this time showed a confrontation between two coalitions of actors: those located at the higher basin and those located at the middle-lower basin. Whereas the irrigation communities and municipalities at the lower basin insisted in the need for water in order to save their crops, irrigation communities, neighbours and environmental groups at the higher basin were opposed to the projects for its environmental negative impacts and its inefficiency in covering the water demands. Actors located at the higher river basin managed to mobilise actors against the project and issued several reports against it. Some studies reveal several technical problems associated to the pumping project. Firstly, the limitations upon the quantity of water which could be pumped out —the maximum pumping flow (0.75 m3/s), the real flow of the river and the ecological flow— led to the practical impossibility of pumping the 2 hm3 per year flow that was planned. The reason for that is that when the Pena river — which feeds the Pena dam— has no water, neither has the Matarraña. As a result, during the last 3 irrigation seasons, even without respecting the established pumping period (from November to March), only 0.90 hm3 have been pumped up to the Pena dam. Secondly, the Major Irrigation Ditch of the municipality of Valderrobres has a water concession of 0,624 m3/s between the pumps and the Pena mouth. This concession, which is destined to irrigation, population supply and industrial uses from 1953, cannot be granted if the ecological flow is to be respected. In this sense the pumping conditions represent an important restriction in the flow conceded to this historic use right, which could only use 0.29 m3/s downstream. Thirdly, a study published in 1997 estimates a final pumping efficiency of 32%. Such estimation considers a 20% loss due to evaporation and filtration phenomena, a 20% loss in water transport from the Pena dam to the irrigation systems and also takes into account an efficiency of 80% of the pumping system and the 70% efficiency of the irrigation systems. And inally, the pumping project presents a negative cost-benefit analysis. The same study calculates that benefits in agriculture produced by each m3 are about 5 pesetas whereas the cost of the infrastructures and the costs of its functioning where about 38 pesetas per m3. In addition to that, as some reports point out, the main environmental impacts of the project include (Sostoa, 1996): 51 - Modification of the dynamic of the river - Barrier effect for fish fauna - Alteration of the physiological and reproductive behaviour of wild fauna - Risks to the ecological flows of being insufficient for the maintaining of the ecosystem - Alteration of water quality: increase in the concentration of pollutants derived from cattle raising - Alteration of protected zones: some sections of the river are protected by the EU Directive 78/659/CEE due tot its diversity of fish species; some species are protected by the Habitats Directive; some protected species included in the National and Regional Catalogue of Species Threatened with extinction; the Matarraña river as a zone of ictiologic interest and an areas for the protection of the otter by the Ebro river basin plan; and it has been proposed as a Place of Community Interest by the Regional government As Sostoa (1996) points out “the Matarraña river presents an unusual biologic richness that makes the river particularly significant. At present, it is impossible to find another Mediterranean river in the Spanish peninsula with such a degree of biodiversity...Its richness and importance is not only related to the fauna but to the density and biomass values of the aquatic organisms which are specially high and not common in our country”. The Official College of Biologists, on its part, state that “the Matarraña river constitutes nowadays one of the fluvial ecosystems best conserved in Europe” (press release, 1996). While the two coalitions kept polarised positions, both coalitions agreed that the pumping project was not a definite and efficient measure and that would only serve to give some more time to find a better solution. In this context, the search for alternative solutions continued all along 1997. The municipalities of the middle and lower basin lead a movement claiming for the construction of the Torre del Compte dam (29 hm3 of capacity) as a solution to guarantee water demands in the whole basin. In response to that claim, the CHE announced that the administration would study three alternatives of regulation for the Matarraña river basin: the Torre del Compte dam (capacity of 29hm3), the Pontet dam (capacity of 7hm3) and an elevation of water from the Ebro river to the Matarraña. 52 Meanwhile, meetings held between the Administration and the users from the high and the middle and lower basin could not reach any agreement. As a matter of fact, each part looked for support to their claims in different arenas. Actors at higher basin could mobilise the support of the some experts of the University of Aragón, important regional environmental organisations (Fundación Ecología y Desarrollo and COAGRET) and of some municipalities of the Aragon Pyreness and others from the regions of Catalonia and Valencia. The Central Union, which mostly represents the interests of the middle and lower basin, looked for the support of the regional government and started an information campaign in the rest of the municipalities of the river basin in order to explain their scarcity problems and their reasons to support the pumping project. Neighbours of the high basin kept organising several demonstrations and some of them started a hunger strike. Besides, in December 1997 they organised the first Seminar on the Matarraña river basin: 15 university professors (from the University of Zaragoza and Barcelona) took part in the event and concluded that the construction of the Torre del Compte dam was not viable and that the modernisation of the irrigation system in the Matarraña river basin was required in order to rationalise water demands. Before the ending of the year, a slight dialogue channel between actors located at the higher and the middle-lower basin, without the participation of the Administration or other intermediaries, seemed to be opened. Although both coalitions had some points in common —they all agree in accusing the central administration and the CHE of having been unable to find an efficient solution to the scarcity problems of the basin—, an agreement on a suitable solution was still not reached. In 1998 a serious drought period would not only modify the definition of the water problem but also the position of some of the actors in the policy network, resulting in a new and more favourable context for negotiation. Along this year the territorial conflict within the Matarraña river basin was coincident with a national environmental and social movement against the construction of more dams and diversion projects promoted by the central administration. At the beginning of 1998 PALDEMA was created. It took the decision of having no more demonstrations for the moment. Meanwhile, the claim for a large regulation project in the middle and lower basin strengthened: several representatives of water uses of the Matarraña river basin (irrigation farmers, representatives of farm organisations and some municipalities) showed their support to the construction of the Torre del Compte dam, as they considered it as being the best solution for granting water supply for all uses. Such 53 point of view contrasted with the one defended by PLADEMA, that considered that this project would have too high economic and environmental costs. The beginning of the summertime in 1998 put the low basin in a critical drought situation. The Matarraña river basin suffered from one of the most severe drought periods in recent yeas. Some municipalities, like Maella, suffered from drinking water restrictions and the Matarraña river had no running water from the municipality of Mazaleón (middle basin) to its mouth in Fayón. The only infrastructure for water regulation, the Pena dam, stored less than 7 hm34 and the pumping project could not be used because the river ha not extra flow. In response to this situation, the Cental Union decided that only those fruit trees that had not been harvested would be irrigated and that illegal water uses would not be authorised. In addition, the CHE authorised a first use of the reservoir stocks of the Pena dam. Due to the persistence of drought, a second use of 0.9 hm3 was authorised, only remaining 1.5 hm3 reserved for population supply. At this moment, an scission between the middle and lower basins was produced. The municipalities of the lower basin, given the fact that they were the last users in receiving water from the dam and that they had not been able to irrigate their crops yet, said they disagreed with the criteria adopted by the Central Union, broke the support previously given to the Torre del Compte project and bet on the project of elevating water from the river Ebro. In the regional context the pressure of drought also brought about forceful reactions to the scarcity problem. The regional government, irrigation farmers, farm organisations and the CHE decided to co-operate in supporting the construction of dams and other regulation infrastructures in order to satisfy irrigation demands. On the other hand, the Ministry of Environment promoted the study of the Torre del Compte dam project as well as the study of several regulation alternatives in the Matarraña river. The following table summarises the characteristics of the main projects. 4 The SCR estimates that aproximately 6hm3 are needed to cover the irrigation demands of one season. 54 Alternatives for the regulation of the Matarraña river basin Torre del Compte El Pontet Dam Pumping from Lateral pools Dam the Ebro Location High basin Middle Low basin Middle-Low basin Capacity 23.5 hm3 7hm3 Not precise 2.2 + 1hm3 Water origin Matarraña river, Matarraña river, Ebro river Ebro and rainfalls and rainfalls and Matarraña rivers springs springs Total cost 5,017 million Not Known 3,000 million Less than 2,000 pesetas pesetas million pesetas Environmental impact High Middle low low Timing large Middle low low Along 1999 the social conflict is still prevailing but first signs of reaching consensus appeared giving hope to the possibility of reaching an agreement on a unique solution for the whole basin. In February, the higher basin decided to give support to the project of pumping water form the Ebro river proposed by the municipalities of the lower basin (Fabara and Nonaspe) . Along this period, Maella (middle basin) also decided to support this project as an urgent measure to solve water scarcity problems. However this did not represent a complete agreement among the three parts of the basin. City councils and representatives of the irrigation communities were reluctant because they thought its total cost would be excessive. The higher basin kept proposing other regulating alternatives such as the Pontet dam or the construction of lateral pools. Nevertheless, the higher basin agreed on the creation of a commission for the study of different regulation projects in the Matarraña river basin with representatives of the three parts of the basin. As the spring and summer time was about to come water scarcity appeared again as a major problem. The Pena dam capacity was only the 7% and the water stored had to cover water demands of the 2,400 ha. of irrigated lands, the cattle raising, drinking water and other illegal wires. The critical scarcity situation provoked internal conflict between the middle and the lower basin in relation to the pumping project of Ebro waters. There also were conflicting positions among the basin actors and the representatives of the regional policy parties. The solutions proposed by the regional government and the local actors were clearly different. 55 However, the severe drought kept the dialogue via opened among the basin actors. Farmers and city councils of the whole basin maintained the commission, which was broadened as the Municipality of Valderrobres (high basin) and a representative of Torre del Compte irrigation community joined it. In July, as the Matarraña river was dry in its middle and lower sections and the Pena Dam only stored 2 hm3, the farm production of the middle and lower basin became under threat again. Maella, which was the municipality that suffered more from drought effects had to impose daily restrictions in drinking water in order to save as much fruit crops as possible. There were only 800,000 m3 of water available to irrigation. Given that situation, the commission decided to meet again in order to study three possible emergency regulation projects (its costs, profitability and environmental impact) and to meet again when such projects were finished in order to make a decision about the best solution. Those projects included the lateral pools, the pumping from the Ebro and the groundwater extraction. In August, the rest of the water stored in the Pena Dam was released in a last attempt to save the fruit trees. The persistence of the critical drought situation and their harmful effects pushed the basin actors represented at the commission to meet again in November and decided about one of the regulation projects studied. Their main objective was to reach an agreement between as much relevant actors as possible in order to avoid a similar situation the next spring-summer. The Commission was now constituted by representatives of the regional government, PLADEMA, the majority of the Municipalities of the basin, the Central Union and a national environmental organisation. The assistants to the meeting finally reached a consensus and chose the option of two lateral pools as the best solution. 6.2.3. Phase 3: 2000 Æ Integration of problem definitions and actors in the policy network At the basin level, however, the pressure of water scarcity problems and the need for finding a solution to cover water demands turned the initial territorial conflict to an agreement finally reached trough dialogue and intense negotiation among the conflicting interests. 56 While the CHE still waited for a response of the ministry of the Environment to the financing of the lateral pools, the situations in the Matarraña river basin was critical again due to a new period of water scarcity (the Pena dam has 5% of its capacity). As demands risked again of not being covered the conflict between the higher and the lower basin reappears. As a urgent response to the problem, the Ministry of the Environment announced it would finance some wells in the headwaters of the Ulldemó and he Matarraña rivers in order to use groundwater. The municipalities of the higher basin soon announced their opposition to the project and so did the Mancommunity of Municipalities of the Matarraña river basin. The main reasons of their opposition were that the project was planned to be placed in an area (“El Parrissal”) that constitutes one of the most attractive nature areas of the basin and that it would also have negative effects on surface waters. Finally, the CHE renounced to the project not only because the high basin municipalities opposed to it but because also did others from the provinces of Tarragona (Catalonia), Castelló (Valencia) and even the regional government. Finally, by the end of April, the whole basin signs an agreement. Nine of the 12 municipalities in the basin (representing the neighbours), the Central Union (representing the irrigation unions), PLADEMA and the Fundacion Ecología y Desarrollo (representing the environmental and conservacionist interests) reached an agreement that was also supported by the regional government and the CHE. In this document the different actors agreed to promote the construction of two lateral pools as an urgent solution to the water scarcity situation. These two pools were to be located in the middle basin between the municipalities of Mazaleón, Calaceite and Maella. The first pool, of 1hm3 of capacity, would be fed by waters pumped up from he Ebro river and waters diverted form the Matarraña. The second one, also of 1 hm3 capacity, would be only fed by water coming from the Matarraña river. The basin actors also undertook to take into account the study of the regional government about he environmental restrictions imposed by the General Direction for the Environment to the construction of the pools. They also agreed on rejecting the construction of wells in order to use groundwaters of the higher basin. However, the agreement did not represent the abandoning of the idea of constructing larger regulative infrastructures in the future (as the Pontet or Torre del Compte dams). The following table summarises the main contents of the Agreement: 57 Water agreement in the Matarraña river basin (April 25th 2000) Alternative chosen Construction of two lateral pools of 1 hm3 that will be fed with water diverted from the Matarraña and the Ebro river Environmental Compromise in taking into account the proposals and restrictions impacts imposed by the Regional government. Conditions of All parts reject the construction of wells in the higher basin (and acceptance anywhere else where there is no social agreement about them) The possibility of a definite solution for water regulation within the basin is still open A few months after the Water agreement was signed, in June, some storms palliated the negative effects of a foreseen new drought period in summer and also relaxed the level of conflict reached along the previous two years. In September, the Ministry of the Environment authorised the project of the two lateral pools and the environmental considerations proposed by the Regional government of Aragon. In October a climatic event, completely unthinkable given the last severe dry years, changed all the precautions against possible restrictions of water supply. A violent downpour of 300 litres per m2 that lasted three days caused serious floods in the Matarraña river basin. The Pena Dam which only stored 0.5 hm3 before the storm (5% of capacity) reached the level of 17 hm3 (70% of its capacity) in only 5 days, which assures water supply for all uses for three years. The Matarraña river and some of its tributaries (the Ulldemó, the Algàs and the Tastavins) largely rose their water level bursting its banks and causing several floods. 250 people form the other basin (Valderrobres and Beceite) had to be moved out of their houses, several municipalities of the basin remained without electric supply and some roads had to be closed. In Maella, the flood also broke the drinking water supply network. Besides, in the middle and lower basin crops were seriously affected by the flood: 25% of the total peach crop was lost. Total loses are valued in 6,000 million pesetas for the whole basin and the Mancommunity of municipalities of the Matarraña river basin decided to ask the Regional Government for some economic helps and claims for the declaration of catastrophic area for the whole basin. 58 Claims for water supply for irrigation and for the regulation of the Matarraña river are heard no more within the basin from October 2000 but at the regional and national level continues the social protest and debate over the national water policy. In September 2000 the National Hydrological Preliminary Plan was presented and started being debated in he social and expert arenas until its adoption in July 2001. On the other hand, in Aragón there is a massive protest against the national hydraulic policy and for a new water policy and culture. At the basin level, the conservation movement leaded by PLADEMA continue their activity and in December 2nd Seminar on the Matarraña are held. More recently, the approval of the National Hydrological Plan provided the legal basis and the economic resources for the materialisation of the 2000 Water Agreement of the Matarraña river basin. In September 2001 the Ministry of the Environment includes the construction of the two lateral pools in the National Hydrological Plan and assumes the financing of the works which will soon start. 2,102 hectares located in the municipalities of Maella, Nonaspe and Fabara (all included in the Matarraña river basin) will be irrigated with the newly available water resources from the pools. Nowadays, the relevance of the Matarraña river basin case seem to have gone beyond the river basin level. Taking it as a referee, some attempts are now being made at the regional level in order to reproduce the dynamic of dialogue and consensus that at the Matarraña river basin level led to the 2000 Water Agreement. In October 2001, an important agreement was reached between a regional environmental association (Fundación Ecología y Desarrollo), which had promoted and supported the 2000 Water Agreement in the Matarraña river basin, and the regional association of farmers (UAGA-COAG). This two organisations have created a forum, based on a shared problem perception of the needs of the region (nature protection, territorial structuring and promotion of social development in rural areas) where farmers, rural population and experts can discuss about water management strategies and design the future of rural areas in the region. 7. Dimensions of integration and regime change The 2000 Water Agreement may be interpreted as a signal of transition from a complex and desegregated water regime, towards a more integrated one. Integration, in this case, relates to the governance system rather than to the regulative system and is 59 mostly presented as regards the problem perception and definition as well as to the actors in the policy network. Regarding the problem definition, the Water Agreement reflects the integration of previously conflicting views on the Matarraña river basin. The traditional view highlights the need to build large regulation infrastructures in order to satisfy water demands along the river basin. The conservationist view opposes the traditional one and proposes the modernisation of irrigation systems and the rationalisation of water uses and demands. The integration of views is clearly connected to the integration of actors in the policy network carrying this common problem definitions. The territorial conflict that has traditionally confronted actors in the higher, middle and lower basin has led way to a common view in which risk perception becomes a central issue in the Matarraña river basin. In this sense, there are some signals of move from a dispersed and unstable issue network towards a more coherent and compact policy community. The following table summarises the main dimensions of integrated regime in relation to the governance system. 60 Dimensions of integrated regime at the Matarraña river basin Dimensions of integrated The Matarraña river case governance Levels and scales of Medium - There are some signals of interaction of several governance levels and scales of governance with regards legislation, policy design and implementation. However, multilevel interaction does not necessary lead to multilevel integration EU – environmental regulation, regulative resource and financial aids National level – national water and environmental regulation, social movements Ebro river basin level (national level) – river basin administration Regional level – environmental policy and modernisation of irrigation channels; social movements Matarraña river basin level (Central Union) – river basin administration Local governments Actors in the policy network High - The 2000 Water Agreement is signed by most actors operating at the river basin level: local governments, the Central Union and environmental groups, and has the support of the regional government and the CHE Problem perception and High - Actors signing the 2000 Water Agreement express a objectives shared problem perception and definition for the first time: the river is the axis of the Matarraña river basin and its preservation is a condition to guarantee social and economic development Strategy and instruments Low Responsibilities and resources Medium – low for implementation Some institutional arrangements regarding responsibilities and resources for implementation may show timid signals of integration —more administrations involved in the policy design and implementation and wider distribution of resources—, while this does not mean wider integration 61 Apart from that, there is a medium level of integration between scales of governance, even though interaction —not necessarily integration— between regulation adopted at different levels of government and actors operating at different territorial scale is increasing. Instead, the level of integration as it regards the strategy and instruments and the responsibilities and resources for implementation are low. The administrations responsible for the implementation have not co-ordinated their policies and resources for implementation are disperse. In addition, the river basin administration, while constituting the natural and hydrological unit, does not seem to have the technical, cognitive and strategic resources to design integrated and cohesive policies estimating the impact of human activity on the river basin, the real water needs, the forms of satisfying these needs in an efficient manner, and the environmental consequences of its proposals. 8. Some interpretative lines Once the story lines of the Matarraña river case have been described, this section attempts to give some interpretative lines regarding the two central questions to the EUWARENESS research project, that is to say: What and how changes towards a more integrated regime have been produced?: Regime change (independent variable ) Æ integration (dependent variable) And does integration lead to more sustainable use of the resource?: Integration (independent variable) Æ sustainability (dependent variable) 8.1. Explaining changes The Matarraña river case shows certain signals of regime change. In this case regime change occurred relatively independent of changes of national determinant and is more prominent as regards the governance system rather than the regulative system. 62 Regarding the regulative system, both water and sectoral legislation introduce marginal changes in the de facto use rights and protection system at the Matarraña river basin. The 29/1985 Water Act introduces the concept of hydraulic public domain for surface and ground waters, which means that private ownership is almost suppressed (there are still temporary basis which recognise water private property according to the previous legislation). The Act regulates privative uses of water and requests an authorisation or a concession to allow them. It also regulates the need to register water concessions in the Water register. In practice, at the Matarraña river basin level this regulative framework has been marginally implemented: most concessions are not registered in the Water Register, about 30% of the extension of the river basin uses water illegally, and tradition allows for the existence of de facto use rights beyond the regulative system. Maybe the creation of Users Communities in locations where users were not organised has been one of the most noticeable impacts of the 1985 Water Act. Apart from that, the 29/1985 Water Act also establishes the elaboration of river basin plans. In the case of the Ebro river, the CHE elaborated its river basin plan in 1998, establishing water needs and uses as well as the ecological flow. This flow may or may not be respected, and water sometimes is consumed for uses other than those established by the plan. Apart from that, sectoral legislation, mainly the one regulating environmental protection (mostly with an EU origin) has generated certain constraints and opportunities in the regulation system. For instance, legislation on habitats or fish species. However, this legislation may be easily bypassed. The most salient changes of the regime concern the policy system. As it was pointed out previously, changes can be detected as regards the multilevel dimension of governance, the problem perception and the actors in the policy network. To sum up, conflict traditionally has confronted actors located at the higher, middle and lower river basin and has been more intense in periods of water scarcity. The increasing multilevel nature of governance means that legislation, arenas, actors and resources at different scales of governance play a role in the governance system. In the late nineties, territorial rivalries intensify both because of the ability of ‘conservationist’ actors of mobilising resources and actors located at different levels of governance and because of the increasing perception of risk caused by an extreme situation of drought. Conflict is relaxed and a new perception viewing water in the Matarraña river basin as a resource to be preserved becomes dominant. In order to explain regime change, two sets of variables can be identified: those 63 external and those internal to the regime. Regarding the former, one of the external factors which appears to be crucial in the case has to do with climate conditions. In periods of severe draught —as it was the case of 1998—, draught periods, insofar as they threaten crops survival and population supply, intensify conflict between actors claiming for the construction of regulation infrastructures and those reacting against it and in favour of preserving the resource. Climate conditions, then, precipitate conflict but do not explain change —given that draught periods have been recurrent all the time and are a salient characteristic of the Mediterranean climate. However, it can be considered as an intermediate variable in two senses: on the one hand, it exacerbates conflict among actors operating at different areas of the river basin; on the other hand, in the conditions given in the late nineties, it allows for a change of the problem perception. But, what are these conditions? Among these interrelated conditions we can include a change of values, a change of the type of policy network, and the provision of new scientific knowledge about water in the Matarraña river basin. To begin with, a change of values against the traditional policy approach and in favour of the conservation of the resource emerge in the higher river basin. These emerging values initially could be interpreted in territorial terms, as are mostly carried by the expropriated by the works of the pumping system. So, to some extent, it can be interpreted that these interests have nothing to do with the conservation of the resource. However, as opposition to the pumping system increases, a conservationist coalition becomes stronger, attracts and gets support from other actors operating at different levels of governance: university experts, regional and national environmental groups. As we explained in the second phase of the evolution of the regime, there was also a social opposing movement against the traditional water policy perspective and for a new water culture emerging at a regional level. Later on, when the CHE proposes the opening of wells to take water from the aquifer in the higher basin, a line of dialogue between actors located along the river basin is opened. The initial common denominator to all these actors is their perception of the old- fashioned, static, slow, hierarchical and outsider nature of the CHE. New scientific knowledge about the reiterative technical problems of the regulation works promoted by the CHE reinforce this view. Later on, and being coincident with the scarcity problem pressure, the common denominator turns to be the preservation of the river as the unique axis of social and economic development of the area. So a change of values and interests initially located at the higher river basin extends along the whole river basin. 64 8.2. Towards sustainability? The extent to which the signals of regime change observed in the Matarraña river basin can lead to sustainability is something difficult to assess. Now it is too early to evaluate whether the spirit and consensus inherent in the 2000 agreement will be maintained along time or instead it is fragile and reversible. Even more difficult is the assessment of whether this development, which seems to open the doors for some kind of integration, may lead to more sustainability. While we just can launch some hypothesis on that, we could argue that if the integrated approach is maintained and reinforced, new values of preserving the resource as a means to preserve social and economic development and avoid rural exodus might lead to more sustainability. No further speculations can be done so far. Conclusions In the Matarranya process, there are clear signals of regime change, both regarding extension and coherence of the water regime. The extension of the water uses increases as it includes irrigation, population supply, cattle rising, nature protection and tourism. Rivalries between users can be interpreted in territorial terms (intra-basin driven rivalries). There is also an increase of public governance coherence, as it regards levels and scales, multilevel interaction and networks. The most relevant event proving the increase of governance coherence is the Water Agreement reached by the main actors operating at the river basin level. This agreement is the outcome of a process in which a wide range of actors operating at different scales of governance interact: the regional government promoters environmental initiatives; local actors appeal to EU regulation as a legal resource by local actors; the Central Union of Irrigation Communities is created as a body representing all irrigation communities at the basin; PLADEMA —an ad hoc local association— aggregates and mobilises actors against the construction of hydraulic works; the Ebro river basin administration negotiates with the local irrigation communities; and the Ministry of Environment finances the construction of lateral pools. These actors, specially those located at the river basin, share a perception of risk 65 caused by an extreme situation of drought among the basin actors and progressively adopt a new water culture. Regarding the internal coherence of property rights, some improvements can be identified: the Ebro river basin Plan establishes water needs and uses as well as a minimal ecological flow; some disadjustments between legal aspects and real practices of the CHE and the Central Users Community increases its level of influence regarding decisions on the watering out of the Pena dam and the distribution of water; traditional use rights of some users are respected; and a kind of de facto use rights are given to illegal users of water by the Irrigation Communities of the basin. After the signature of the Water Agreement, the external coherence between public governance and property rights improves to a certain extent. All the main water users have proved to be able to negotiate and reach an agreement based on a common perception of the river as a key element for the future development of the basin. Regime changes have some positive impacts on sustainability. The rejection of constructing large hydraulic infrastructures and the consideration of alternative options with minor environmental, economic and social impacts represent an important “bet” for the sustainability of the basin. These impacts relate to three dimensions of sustainability: natural resources and environment (there is a compromise to take environmental protection into account); economic development (low economic cost of the lateral pools project and promotion of tourism) and social consequences (resolution of territorial conflicts within the basin). In general terms, the positive impacts on sustainability seem to be more related to the increase of internal and external coherence rather than to the increase of extent. When trying to explain changes, three change agents and conditions must be taken into account: an increased problem pressure, which leads to joint problem awareness —river as a vertebrating element of the territory—; the income of cognitive resources by external actors; and, to a less extent, the institutional interfaces constituting the basis for the final agreement. There is no tradition of thinking in terms of integration and there is a traditional low level of trust among river basin actors. 66 REFERENCES ARROJO, P.; GRACIA, J.J.; MARTINEZ GIL, F,J.; RUBIO DEL VAL, C. (1997) El bombeo del Matarraña en Beceite: de la ineficiencia al autoritarismo hidrológico. Nueva Cultura del Agua. Serie Informes. Bakeaz, Bilbao. ARROJO, P. (1998), Puntos básicos para que los pueblos de la cuenca alta del Matarrañapresten su apoyo para conseguir soluciones de futuro a la problemática de los regadíos de la cuenca baja. Universidad de Zaragoza.(Unpublished paper). Confederación Hidrográfica del Ebro (CHE), 1995. Plan Hidrológico del Ebro. Confederación Hidrográfica del Ebro (CHE), 1996. Aporte de recursosal embalse de Pena. Caudales medios disponibles aguas debajo de la confluencia de los ríos Matarraña y Ulldemó. GRACIA, J.J. (1999), Estudio de aportaciones y necesidades de la cuenca del río Matarraña. COAGRET. (Unpublisehd). MORAGREGA, A. (2000), La vegetación en el Matarraña. (Unpublished paper). NADAL, E (1984), “Aprovechamiento actual y proyectos futuros en las subcuencas hidrográficas aragonesas”. Seminario del agua en Aragón. Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza. PLADEMA (1999-2000). Hoja informativa para socios y simpatizantes. num. 1-9. RUIZ-OLMO, J.; LÓPEZ-MARTÍN, J. (2000), “La nutria en la cuenca del río Matarraña”. Revista QUERCUS, núm 167. Enero. SANZ, M.A.; CELMA, F.J. (1998), Memoria, identidad y conflicto: El agua en Valderrobes. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales. Universidad de Zaragoza. (Unpublished) SOSTOA, A. (1996), Breve informe sobre las características e importancia biológicas del río Matarraña. Facultad de Biología. Universidad de Barcelona. (Unpublished). Websites: www.mma.es www.chebro.es www.aragob.es 67 List of interviews Name Charge and date of the interview Iñaki Belanche Member of PLADEMA (January 2001; March 2001) Francisco Celma Former President of an irrigation community in Valderobles (March 2001) Francisco Domenech Mayor of Fabara (March 2001) José Javier Gracia Engineer and member of COAGRET (January 2001) Santos Juan José Latorre Farmer in Beceite (January 2001) Esteban Latorre Member of PLADEMA (January 2001) José María Puyol President of the Central Union of Irrigation Communities of the Matarraña and its tributaries (March 2001) Alberto Moragrega Member of PLADEMA (March 2001) Mª Teresa Santos Head of the Area of Users Regime at the CHE (March 2001, phone) Adolfo Sostoa Biologist (Universitat de Barcelona) (January 2001, phone) Pere Sunyer Secretariat of the Irrigation Channels in Nonaspe (March 2001) EUWARENESS is a research project on European Water Regimes and the Notion of a Sustainable Status. Research institutes from six European countries (Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland) have been cooperating in this two year project (2000-2002). The project is supported by the European Commission under the 5th Framework Programme, and co-ordinated by the University of Twente in the Netherlands. The EUWARENESS-project has focused on sustainable use of water resources by means of integrated water management. It aims to contribute to the implemen- tation of the EU Water Framework Directive. A better understanding is needed of the dynamic relationships between various conflicting uses of water resources, the regimes under which these uses of water resources are managed, and conditions generating regime shifts towards sustainability. The EUWARENESS-project studied the long term evolution of 6 national regimes, and also - more in depth - the specific regime transitions of 12 water basins across Europe during the last decades. Important issues are the participation of users, redistribution of property rights among users, the coherence between water rights and water policies. More information: www.euwareness.nl The EUWARENESS project is joined by: University of Twente (project co-ordinator) - The Netherlands Université Catholique de Louvain - Belgium Université Francois Rabelais de Tours - France Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona - Spain Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale - Italy Institut de Hautes Études en Administration Publique - Switzerland