Geneva, October, 16 -17 2017€¦ · The 1927 Convention on the Douro . Another Convention was signed in 1968 with the scope of sharing the hydraulic potential, and no longer the

Water allocation in transboundary basins

Status and good practices

Integrating flexibility and hydrological changing

conditions into an agreement:

The case of Albufeira Convention

(Spain-Portugal)

Pedro Serra

Geneva, October, 16th-17th 2017

Introduction

Portugal is an independent Nation since 1147, at a time when in the Iberian

Peninsula coexisted many kingdoms that afterwards would give place to the

Kingdom of Spain.

The borders between the two countries were defined in 1298 and they are

the oldest in Europe, eventually in the whole World.

Pluviometria and geography are

advantageous to Portugal.

The Northern part of the

Peninsula is humid, whilst the

Southern part is dry, specially in

Spain.

Introduction

Tajo’s river basin makes the transition

from the humid Iberia to the dry one,

in Spain as well as in Portugal.

Transboundary cooperation really started in 1927, when a Convention on the

sharing of the hydropower potential of the border stretch of this river was signed

and a Portuguese-Spanish Commission in charge of management was set up.

This convention was updated in 1964.

The 1927 Convention on the Douro

Another Convention was

signed in 1968 with the

scope of sharing the

hydraulic potential, and no

longer the hydropower

potential, of the border

stretches of the other

transboundary rivers.

Spain wanted to build the

Tajo-Segura Aqueduct, to

bring water to the Southern

part of the territory, and

Portugal wanted to build

the Alqueva Dam, for

irrigation purposes in the

Alentejo.

The 1968 Convention on the Minho, Lima, Tajo and Guadiana rivers

Aqueduct Tajo-Segura

Up to 1000 million m3 may be transfered each year (30 m3/sec) to be used in the Segura river basin.


Alentejo’s Irrigation Plan

In Portugal the irrigation of 200.000 ha in Alentejo, in the Tajo, Guadiana and Sado river basins, was foreseen.


By the end of the 1980ies the situation in the main transboundary rivers

presented itself as follows:

Dozens of dams had been built, both in Spain and Portugal;

Because of agricultural and industrial development, waters were highly

polluted almost everywhere;

Water abstraction for irrigation severely reduced the flows arriving to the

border and flow regime was highly irregular.

Hydrogramme at the border of the Guadiana river obtained by simulation for pristine conditions (blue) and with the uses as set up in 1990 (red).

Dam builders

Dam builders – Douro river basin

B.Pereira B.Tuela

B.Cuerda del Pozo

[229]

B.los Rabanos[6]

B.Linares del Arroyo[58]

B.Veladro

[350]

B.las Venencias

[5]

B.Burgomillodo

[15]

B.Lastras

[97]

B.Voltoya

B.Torreiglesias

[96]

B.Torrecaballeros

B.Cogotas

[59]

B.Seropes

B.Arlazon

[20]

B.Uzquiza

[73]

B.Arlanza

[140]

rio Arlazon

B.de Aguilar del Campo

[247]

B.Requejada

[65]

B.Compuerto

[95]

B.Camporredondo

[70]

B.Vidrieros

B.Cervera

B.S.Jose

[6]

B.Roman

rio Valderaduey

rio Guareña

rio Pisuerga

rio Carrion

rio Riaza

rio Duraton

rio Eresma

rio Adaja

B.Ricobayo[1148]

[664]

B.Villalcampo

[66]

B.Castro

[27]

B.Picote

B.Miranda

B.Bemposta

B.El Milagro

B.S.Teresa

[496]

B.Aravale El Duque

B.Iruena[210]

B.Villagonzalo

B.Almendra

[2649]

[6]

[2]B.Águeda

[22]

rio Águeda

B.Saucelle

[169]

B.Aldeadavila

[115]

rio Tormes

[2][2]

[10]

LEGENDA

B.RiañoB.Porma

[317]

B.Casares[37]B.Duerna

[32]

B.Eria[62]

B.N.S.Argavalanza[49]

B.Valparaíso[169]

B.Cernadilla

[255]

rio Esla

rio Ricobayo

rio Porma

B.Barrios de Luna

[308]

(28)

(63)

Foz Coa(702)

Pero Martins

(380)

Sra. Monforte

(263)

Atalaia(460)

Sabugal(114)

Pocinho(83)

Feiticeiro(32)

Quinta das Laranjeiras(966)

Sampaio

(800)

Azibo

(35)

SaborTua

VinhaisAltoRabaçal

Mente(296)

Rebordelo(312)

FozTua(340)

Vilar(100)

Valeira(99)

Régua

(95)

Varosa(15)

Carrapatelo(148)

Castelo

(44)Paiva

Alvarenga

(842)

Castro Daire

(65)

Portela(151)

Torrão(115)

Fridão(210)

Alvão(71)

Vidago

(134)

Daivões(66)

Padroselo(68)

Alto Rabagão(569)

Tâmega

Cávado

Paiva

Crestuma(110)

Távora

Coa

(129)

Tâmega

PORTUGAL ESPANHA

APROVEITAMENTOS HIDRÁULICOS EXISTENTES E EM PROJECTO NA BACIA DO DOURO

Castillejos

[140]

Fuenteguinaldo[175]

[2]

[6]

[1.5]

[86]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+++++++

++

++++++++

+++

++++

++++

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ESPANHA

Barragem construída

Barragem em projecto

Barragem construída

Hidroeléctrica

Hidroagricola

Barragem em projecto

PORTUGAL

Fronteira +++++++

Dam builders – Douro river basin

Dam builders – Tajo river basin

Dam builders – Tajo river basin

Dam builders – Guadiana river basin

Peñarroya

(47)

Vallehermoso

(7)

Gasset

(42)

Marisanchez

(41)

Vega del

Jabalon (33)

El Vicario

(52)

Los

Reznos(32)

Piedrala

(15)

Torre de Abraham(78, 190)

Alcobilla(42)

El Canal

(25)

Tirteafuera(74)

Cijara(1416)

Garcia de

Sola(427) Orellana

(478)

Zujar

(301)

La Serena

(2828)

Alcolorin

(51)

Burdalo(68)

Cornalbo

(10)

Canchales

(40)

Boqueron

(6)

Hornotejero

(24)

Villar del Rey

(123)

Piedra

Aguda

(16) Nogales

(15)

Villalba de

los Barros

(80)

Cancho del

Fresno(15)

Sierrra

Brava(232)

Gargaligas(21) Cubillar

(10)

Transvase do

Segura La Garita

(91)

Bejida(15)

Montijo(11)

Las Cruces

(33)

Golodron

(93) Alange

(845)

Molino

(34)

Llerena

(7)

R. Gévora

R. Olivenza

R. Guadiana

R. Burdalo

R. Ruecas

R. Zucar

R. Bullaque

R. Bañuelos R. Ciguela

R. Jabalon

Puertos

Guarranque

(58)

Riscos

Higuelas (21)

R. Zápaton

R. Matachel

R. Guadiana

Ruecas (44)

A. Ruecas (0)

Cerros

Verdes(20)

Aljucen

(102)

Piedraescrita

(81)

Proserpina

(11)

Lucefécit

(10)

R. Lucefécit

Caia

(203)

R. Caia

Abrilongo

(21)

Barragem em exploração em Espanha

(25) Capacidade útil

Barragem em projecto ou construção

(25) - Capacidade útil

Canal de rega

Legenda

Barragem em exploração em Portugal

(25) Capacidade útil

DAMS AND WATER TRANSFERS IN THE GUADIANA RIVER BASIN

R. Alcarrache Aguijon(11)

R. Degebe

Alqueva

(3150)

R. Enxoé Enxoé

(10)

R.Oeiras Oeiras

(12)

Alcoutim

Foupana

(130)

Odeleite

(130)

R.Odeleite

Beliche

(48) R. Beliche

Açude

Guadiana

Pedrogão

(60)

Vigia

(17)

Monte

Novo

(15)

Pardiela

R Chança

Chança

(386)

Andevalo

(1025) S.Lucar

(94)

Canal

Chança-Piedras

Brovales

(7)

Valuengo

(10) Tentudia

(5)

R. Ardila

Ardila

(100)

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Dam builders – Guadiana river basin

Tajo river basin – Installed flow regulation capacity

The 1993 crisis

In 1993 a draft National

Water Plan was submitted

to public consultation in

Spain that was badly

received by the

Portuguese public.

A second water transfer in

direction of the Southern

river basins, again in the

order of 1.000 hm3, was

considered, now having as

origin the Douro basin.

The two governments

decided to start

negotiating a new water

Convention.

A crisis in the relations between the two States arose in 1993

The Water Directors;

Diplomats;

Jurists;

Experts on hydrology and hydraulics;

On the Spanish side, representatives of the hydraulic

administration of the regions concerned;

The Working Group met al least every 6 months

alternatively in Spain and Portugal.

The negotiations of the new Convention

The negotiations for the new Convention started in 1994 and by the end of that year the

Ministers of the Environment met in order to establish the working programme and

agreed on the principles that should be considered (the so called Oporto

Declaration). The number of delegates in each side was limited and consisted of:

Besides that the Ministers and the Water Directors met

regularly in Brussels at the Environment Councils and

also at the Spanish-Portuguese yearly Summits

chaired by the Heads of Government of both States.

The progresses registered were then evaluated and

disputes settled by political arbitration.

Negotiations took advantage from the fact that:

Relations between the two Governments were very good and a Treaty on Friendship

and Cooperation had just been signed;

The two States were by that time members of the EU and had both to abide to very

stringent water directives, namely in what concerns the prevention of water pollution

and the protection of the environment;

The two States had already subscribed the UNECE conventions (Helsinki,

Aarhus, Espoo);

There was a long-lasting and solid tradition of fruitful cooperation between the

authorities of the two States on transboundary water issues; the Commission that

had been created for the management of the Conventions in place was meeting from

time to time and people knew each other. Confidence had been created.

For Portugal, it was very important to arrive to a satisfactory result as for the flows

issue, for Spain it was more the definition of a framework for further water uses that

was at stake. It was Portugal’s responsibility to take the lead and present proposals

(the petitioner).


Cooperation

Coordination

Environment protection

Sustainable development

Exchange of information

Consultation

Impacts mitigation– no harm

principle

Flows Guaranties – Principle

of equitable and reasonable

use

Development of the Law

Kew words of the new Convention

For all issues, with the exception of the flows regime issue, there were

already formulae that had been accepted by the two Parties (in the EU

water directives, the UNECE conventions, the 1966 Helsinki rules, the New

York Convention). But these formulae had to be adapted:

To the specificities of the shared rivers;

To the previous water agreements (the 1964 and 1968 Water

Conventions, which stayed in place);

To the de facto situations (the already built dams, the water transfers,

the irrigation perimeters);

To the specificities of the State organisation and administration of the

two States.

All this had to be studied and considered by the two Parties and very

thorough and extensive exchange of information followed.

But in what concerns the flows regime, even if some precedents

existed, it was clear from the first minute that we had to innovate.


Escoamento total

Gerado em Espanha

Gerado em Portugal

14980 65 %

35 %

23130 hm³/ano

8150

340560

185

340

560185

1120

8602530

2870 540 1420

1305

50

990

6301475

990

630

1475

13900

10850

3050

3000

1540

1540

13601360

2650

5300

5300 2650

23130

Studies made by the Portuguese Party and presented to the Spanish Party

Study of the flows regime in pristine conditions

Douro

Escoamentos gerados em cada zona

Escoamentos entre zonas

Fornecimentos para rega

Fornecimentos urbanos e industriais

Retornos de rega

Retornos urbanos e industriais

Evaporação em albufeiras

97 150 ha

770160

111 600 ha

1000200

1330

290 000 ha

121 800 ha

8060130100

640130

60 80

60

1360

180

60

147 000 ha

990200

60

1540

3000

170

45

30

55

40

50

182 400 ha

129 600 ha

380

10080

300

160

150

150780

3701840

26505300

1360

770

1540

680

19303630

50

2260

7010

9270

3095

2125

4605

285

1420

1085

930 5050

16000

155

(Transferência para o Sil)

Douro


Study of water uses and flows regime in modified conditions

Study of hydrologic series at the entrance of Portugal and other relevant sections

Douro


Studies on the correlation between rainfall and runoff


The Portuguese Party presented proposals for minimum annual flows at

the relevant sections:

At the entrance sections of the border stretches of the rivers and the

sections where the rivers enter into Portugal, thus creating an obligation to

the Spanish Party.

At the entrance of the estuaries, thus creating an obligation to the

Portuguese Party;

For the Minho, Douro and Tajo rivers, exceptions were considered whenever the

pluviometria is below some reference values (by the end of the rainy season) as

measured in pluviometric posts that have been agreed as representative.

For the Guadiana river, where the installed regulating capacity in Spain doubles

the mean annual flow at the entrance into Portugal, minimum flows that

depend not only on rainfall but also on the volumes of water stored in

Spain were agreed.

That is to say that Spain agreed to allocate some of its regulation capacity

installed upstream of the border for the service of Portuguese needs.


The specific elements that were decisive for reaching the agreement

were:

Only sound proposals were presented by any of the parties at the

table of negotiations, not abstractions with no justification;

All proposals had to be balanced and achievable without imposing

unbearable burden upon the other party;

Portugal being the downstream country and therefore the main

beneficiary of the agreed flow regime, it was to him to prove that in

each and every case there was a benefit for Spain on what was

being proposed;

The views of the two parties were reconciled by including in the

agreement flow obligation at the entrance of the estuaries, to be

guaranteed by Portugal;

It was also important to accept that in case of droughts, as defined in

the convention, the parties are exempted from compliance of the

agreed flow regime


The benefits for the two Parties are the following:

In defining and regulating the flows that Spain has to guarantee at the

entrance of the Portuguese territory the convention offers

guarantees of water resources to Portugal that allow the

development of hydraulic projects on a more solid basis;

In defining and regulating flows at the entrance of the Portuguese

territory the convention defines limits to the use of the water

resources by Spain in its territory in a double way:

Limits the expansion of consumptive uses (irrigation, water

transfers);

At the same time, allows for the expansion of consumptive

uses up to this top, which Portugal will not contest;

In defining and regulating flows at the entrance of the estuaries the

convention defines limits to the use of the water resources by

Portugal in its territory;


DOURO

Proof that the proposed regime would not constitute any severe harm to

Spanish interests had to be presented.


TAJO


The same with Portuguese interests.

3.700 hm3

5.000 hm3

4.000 hm3

3.500 hm3

3.800 hm3

2.700 hm3

600 hm3

500 hm3

400 hm3

2 m3/s

2 m3/s

Flow regime of the Albufeira Convention, 1998

For the Guadiana river the flow regime is more complex, but the principle is

the same: there is exception whenever the rainfall accumulated since

the beginning of the hydrologic year and the volumes of water stored in

the reference reservoirs are bellow certain levels. The installed regulation

capacity in Spain upstream the border is in the order of 8.000 hm3.

Flow regime of the Albufeira Convention for the Guadiana

(hm3)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

1946

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

Caudais

anuais

(hm

3)

Com Convenção Sem Convenção

Hydrogramme of river flows at the border, with the Convention and

without the Convention, obtained by simulation


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

300 600 900 1200 1500 2000 3000 5000 More

Classes (Caudais em hm3)

Fre

quencia

rela

tiva (

%)

Histogram of annual flows at the

border without the Convention

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

300 600 900 1200 1500 2000 3000 5000 More

Classes (Caudais em hm3)

Fre

quencia

rela

tiva (

%)


Histogram of annual flows at the

border with the Convention

Flow regime of the 2008 Protocol to the Albufeira Convention

In 2008 the flow regime was detailed by

means of

The definition of minimum quarterly

flows;

The definition of minimum weekly

flows;

Douro river at the border Annual

Quarter

Weekly

The success of the Albufeira Convention is the result of a stubborn

and very serious work that went on for 5 years.

The fact that the Parties had a common legal framework, the EU water

and environment directives and the UNECE conventions, was very

important for the successful conclusion of the Convention.

The technical study of the solutions took some time but proved to be

crucial for the success of the negotiations. The Portuguese Party, as the

downstream country, had the initiative most of the time.

The seriousness of the negotiations consisted in not presenting biased

proposals, proposals that could not be complied with by the other

Party without severely affecting its sovereignty in what concerns water

resources management. We both tried to systematically understand the

other Party’s positions and its reasons and point of view.

The presence of Diplomats at the negotiating table was very important.

Lessons learned

Afterword

In the year 2000 a new National Hydrologic Plan was developed in Spain that

again considered the transfer of water from the Douro river to the South (1.000

hm3). Having simulated the transfer the Spanish authorities arrived to the

conclusion that it was not feasible if the agreed flow regime was to be

respected and the project was abandoned.

Many thanks for your attention

[email protected]

Documents

Geneva, October, 16 -17 2017€¦ · The 1927 Convention on the Douro . Another Convention was signed in 1968 with the scope of sharing the hydraulic potential, and no longer the