Special Report Combating eutrophication 
in the Baltic Sea: further 
and more effective action 
neededEN 2016  NO 03
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS  
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi  
1615 Luxembourg  
LUXEMBOURG
Tel. +352 4398-1
Email: eca-info@eca.europa.eu  
Internet: http://eca.europa.eu
Twitter: @EUAuditorsECA  
YouTube: EUAuditorsECA
More information on the European Union is available on the internet ( http://europa.eu ).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016
Print ISBN 978-92-872-4384-3 ISSN 1831-0834 doi:10.2865/30254 QJ-AB-16-005-EN-C
PDF ISBN 978-92-872-4406-2 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/098206 QJ-AB-16-005-EN-N
EPUB ISBN 978-92-872-4368-3 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/9931 QJ-AB-16-005-EN-E
© European Union, 2016
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Combating eutrophication 
in the Baltic Sea: further 
and more effective action 
needed
(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)Special ReportEN 2016  NO 03
02
 Audit team
The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its performance and compliance audits of specific budgetary areas or 
management topics. The ECA selects and designs these audit tasks to be of maximum impact by considering the risks 
to performance or compliance, the level of income or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and 
public interest.
This performance audit was produced by Audit Chamber II — headed by ECA Member Henri Grethen — which special -
ises in structural policies, transport and energy spending areas. The audit was led by ECA Member Ville Itälä, supported 
by the Head of his Private Office, Turo Hentilä and Outi Grönlund, Attaché; Alain Vansilliette, Principal Manager; Maria 
del Carmen Jimenez, Head of Task; and Krzysztof Zalega, Nils Odins, Zuzana Gullova, Tomasz Plebanowicz, Jean-François 
Hynderick and Vivi Niemenmaa, auditors. 
From left to right: T. Hentilä, V. Niemenmaa, A. Vansilliette, V. Itälä, M. d. C. Jimenez, T. Plebanowicz,  
K. Zalega and J.-F. Hynderick.

03
 Contents
Paragraph
 Glossary and abbreviations
I – IX Executive summary
1 – 14 Introduction
1 – 5 Baltic Sea and eutrophication
6 – 11 EU legal instruments addressing nutrient pollution of waters
12 – 14 EU budgetary instruments available for addressing nutrient pollution of water
15 – 17 Audit scope and approach
18 – 112 Observations
18 – 41 Member States’ implementation of nutrient input reduction into the Baltic Sea
23 – 25 Limited progress in the reduction of nutrient inputs into the Baltic Sea
26 – 31 Member States’ nutrient reduction plans lack ambition and appropriate indicators
32 – 36 Member States visited only partially take into account Helcom recommendations in their plans or legal 
framework
37 – 41 The reliability of monitoring data on nutrient inputs into the Baltic Sea is not assured
42 – 69 Effectiveness of actions to reduce nutrient pollution from urban waste water
46 – 54 Most Member States are not yet compliant with the urban waste water treatment directive
55 – 57 EU co‑financed waste water treatment plants are effective, but sustainability is not always guaranteed
58 – 64 The Commission’s follow‑up of Member States’ implementation of the directive is not timely
65 – 69 EU support to Russia and Belarus is potentially cost efficient, but is very limited in scope compared to what 
is needed and project implementation takes a long time
04 Contents 
70 – 102 Effectiveness of actions to reduce agricultural nutrient pollution of water
75 – 83 The nitrates directive is not effectively implemented, despite relatively successful follow‑up on the part of 
the Commission
84 – 90 The cross‑compliance mechanism helps to enforce the nitrates directive and other fertilisation 
requirements, but is not fully effective
91 – 102 EU co‑financed rural development measures in the 2007 ‑2013 period have had little effect on reducing 
nutrient pollution in water bodies in the visited Member States
103 – 112 The added value of the EUSBSR as regards the reduction of nutrient inputs into the Baltic Sea
105 A complex governance network and an added value that is difficult to assess
106 – 108 Flagship projects help to disseminate good practices, but their impact on nutrient reduction has not been 
demonstrated
109 – 112 Need for operational programmes to take better account of the EUSBSR
113 – 128 Conclusions and recommendations
 Annex I — Nutrient input reduction targets
 Annex II — Trend in nitrogen and phosphorus inputs into the Baltic Sea by country
 Annex III — Achievement of input ceilings by sub‑basin
 Annex IV —  Nutrient concentration in the effluent of waste water treatment plants in the main 
cities of EU Member States around the Baltic Sea (2013)
 Annex V — Flagship and other projects significant for the implementation of the EUSBSR
 Reply of the Commission
05
 Glossary and  
abbreviations
Body of water : A discrete and significant element of surface water. This includes lakes, reservoirs, streams, rivers, 
canals, transitional bodies of water and stretches of coastal water.
BSAP : Baltic Sea action plan (see paragraph 8).
EUSBSR : EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region (see paragraph 11).
Helcom : Helsinki Commission (see paragraph 8).
Polluter pays principle : A principle set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article 191.2). 
With regard to waste water, this principle dictates that dischargers of waste water should pay for the pollution 
caused (for example, households should pay for waste water treatment services at the waste water price; waste 
water treatment plants pay a pollution charge).
Programme of measures : The part of the river basin management plan which indicates the measures that are 
necessary for water bodies to be restored to a good status, considering the characteristics of the river basin district. 
Similar programmes of measures have to be prepared to restore the quality of marine waters.
River basin : The area of land from which all surface run -off flows through a sequence of streams, rivers and, 
possibly, lakes into the sea at a single river mouth, estuary or delta. The district is the part of the river basin within 
a specific Member State.
Sources of pollution : There are two main types of waterborne pollution source:
Diffuse sources, for which there is no specific point of discharge; the largest contributors are agricultural and 
forestry activities and dwellings not connected to the sewage network.
Point sources, for which there is a specific point of discharge; these are discharges from urban waste water 
treatment plants and from industries and fish farms.
Water status : Is the general expression of the status of a body of inland surface water, as determined by its 
ecological and its chemical status. For marine water, the water status corresponds to the environmental status, 
which is based on other criteria than the status of inland surface water.
06
 Executive  
summary
I
The Baltic Sea is bordered by eight EU Member States (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Poland and Sweden) and Russia. The Baltic Sea is one of the world’s most polluted seas. Combating eutrophica -
tion is seen to pose a significant challenge. The 2008 marine strategy framework directive aims to achieve a good 
environ  mental status of the EU’s marine waters by 2020. Under that directive, Member States have to cooperate 
within regions and sub -regions to achieve the objectives of the directive, using for instance, where practical and 
appropriate, the structures already in place under the regional sea conventions. For the Baltic Sea, the relevant con -
vention is the Helsinki Convention (governed by the Helsinki Commission (Helcom)) and its Baltic Sea action plan, 
which requires the reduction of nutrient loads from the signatory countries.
II
In 2009, the European Council adopted a macro -regional strategy, namely the European Union strategy for the 
 Baltic Sea region, aiming, in particular, to foster environmental protection, including the reduction of nutrient loads, 
by promoting increased cooperation between neighbouring countries and innovative solutions.
III
The main sources of nutrient loads causing eutrophication are agriculture and urban waste water. In the 2007-2013 
period, the EU contribution to waste water collection and treatment projects in the five Member States bordering 
the Baltic Sea benefiting from EU support in this field was 4.6 billion euro. Rural development measures, including 
water protection, to all eight Baltic Sea coastal Member States amounted to 9.9 billion euro.
IV
The Court’s audit answers the question whether the EU actions have been effective in helping Member States to 
reduce nutrient loads into the Baltic Sea. The overall conclusion is that these actions have led to limited progress 
towards nutrient reduction in the Baltic Sea.
V
The Member States’ plans for achieving Helcom nutrient reductions are based on their river basin management 
plans prepared on the basis of the water framework directive. These plans lack ambition as they focus on ‘basic 
measures’ for implementing EU directives in relation to the specific activities causing nutrient pollution, mainly 
urban waste water and agriculture. Less focus is put on measures for the control of diffuse sources of nutrients and 
on ‘supplementary measures’ as set out in the water framework directive. Measures are established on the basis of 
insufficient information. They also lack targets and appropriate indicators for the assessment of achievements made 
in reducing nutrient loads into waters.
Executive summary 07
VI
Actions to reduce nutrient loads from urban agglomerations have led to a reduction of nutrients. Several agglom -
erations treat the urban waste water to higher standards than those laid down in the urban waste water treatment 
directive. However, despite significant EU funding, the implementation of the directive is delayed in the Member 
States which joined the EU in 2004. In addition, not all of the Baltic Sea Member States which were required to com -
ply with the directive by 2012 do so. The Commission’s follow -up of Member State implementation of the directive 
has not been timely. In Russia and Belarus, EU actions regarding urban waste water are potentially cost efficient, but 
are very limited in scope compared to what is needed and projects implementation takes a long time.
VII
The implementation of the nitrates directive by Baltic Sea Member States is not fully effective. Relevant areas are 
not properly defined and the requirements set by Member States in their action programmes are not strict enough. 
Regarding nutrient fertilisation requirements, the deterrent effect of the cross -compliance mechanism is insuf -
ficient, as the level of non -compliance remains high. Even though all river basin mangement plans include supple -
mentary measures intended to tackle nutrient loads from agriculture, they have been insufficiently targeted at areas 
identified as needing them. In addition, no Member State has used the option under EU regulations of making some 
of those measures compulsory for farms located in these areas.
VIII
The European Union strategy for the Baltic Sea region is raising the political importance of the Baltic Sea’s environ -
mental status and of regional cooperation, but, to date, its added value for nutrient input reduction is difficult to 
assess.
IX
We make a number of recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the actions combating eutrophication in 
the Baltic Sea.
08
 Introduction
Baltic Sea and eutrophication
01 
The Baltic Sea is one of the world’s most polluted seas and eutrophication is seen 
as its greatest challenge1. The Baltic Sea is bordered by nine countries: eight EU 
Member States (Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland 
and Sweden) and Russia. Belarus is another large country within the Baltic Sea 
catchment area.
02 
Eutrophication is a process that occurs when excess nutrients generated mostly 
by human activity, mainly nitrogen and phosphorus, enter a body of water. 
High nutrient concentrations lead to intense, potentially toxic, algal blooms (see 
Picture 1 ).1 European Environment 
Agency, ‘Nutrients in 
transitional, coastal and 
marine waters (CSI 021)’. 
Assessment published 
March 2013.
Picture 1 — Eutrophic marine water
Source:  Helcom, photo by Samuli Korpinen.
09 Introduction 
03 
Eutrophication can significantly reduce the utility of the sea by reducing bio -
diversity, spoiling the appearance of the coast and depleting fish stocks. The 
most affected sea sub -basins are the Gulf of Finland, the Gulf of Riga and the 
central deepest zone of the Baltic Sea, called Baltic Proper (see Figure 1 ).Figure 1Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea
Source:  Helcom. ‘What was the eutrophication status of the Baltic Sea in 2003-2007?’ Pyhälä Minna, 
Frias Vega Manuel, Laamanen Maria, Fleming -Lehtinen Vivi, Nausch Günther and Norkko Alt (2010).
Swed enFinland
Russia
Norway
PolandBelarusLatvia
Lithuani a
GermanyEstonia
Denmark
HELCOM 2 010Eutrophication status
GOOD
BADGulf of Finland
Gulf of RigaGulf of Riga
Baltic Proper
10 Introduction 
04 
The main sources of nutrients released to the sea are waterborne loads coming 
from inland via rivers and direct discharges from the coast. Waterborne loads ac -
count for 78 % of the overall nitrogen and 95 % of the overall phosphorus which 
enter the Baltic Sea2. The two most significant sources of waterborne nutrient 
loads are: diffuse sources, mainly agriculture (45 % of overall nitrogen and 45 % 
of overall phosphorus), and point sources, mainly urban waste water (12 % of 
overall nitrogen and 20 % of overall phosphorus)3.
05 
Climate change adds two further challenges. Firstly it is predicted that shorter 
and wetter winters will lead to less snow and ice cover and thus to greater run -off 
from rivers’ catchment areas. This will result in increasingly high nutrient loads 
entering the sea, which will aggravate eutrophication4. Secondly, increased sea 
temperatures will provide better conditions for the growth of algal blooms, as 
well as leading to a prolonged growing period.
EU legal instruments addressing nutrient pollution of 
waters
06 
The quality of EU marine waters is governed by the 2008 marine strategy frame -
work directive5, the objective of which is to ensure that the EU’s marine waters 
reach a good environmental status by 2020. The directive is still in an early stage 
of its implementation: by October 2012, Member States had to report to the Com -
mission on their determination of a good environmental status for marine waters, 
based on the descriptors proposed by the directive (one of them being eutrophi -
cation), an initial assessment of their marine water status and their environmental 
targets and associated indicators.
07 
The implementation of the directive is a responsibility of the Member States. By 
the end of 2015, they had to prepare a programme of measures to achieve the 
good environmental status. These programmes must be sent to the Commission 
by March 2016. As a general principle, Member States should, as far as possible, 
build on the objectives and activities of the existing regional sea conventions.2 Helcom, updated Fifth Baltic 
Sea Pollution Load 
Compilation (PLC-5.5) — 2015 
(2010 data).
3 Helcom, Fifth Baltic Sea 
Pollution Load Compilation 
(PLC-5) — 2011 (2006 data).
4 ‘Second Assessment of 
Climate Change for the Baltic 
Sea Basin’, the BACC II Author 
Team, Regional Climate Studies , 
Springer International 
Publishing, 2015.
5 Directive 2008/56/EC of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council of 17 June 2008 
establishing a framework for 
Community action in the field 
of marine environmental 
policy (OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, 
p. 19).
11 Introduction 
08 
For the Baltic Sea, a regional convention was signed back in 1974: the Helsinki 
Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area. 
The current signatories are Denmark, Estonia, the European Union, Finland, 
Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden. In 2007, the Helsinki Com -
mission (Helcom) governing that convention proposed the Baltic Sea action plan 
(BSAP) to restore the Baltic Sea to a good environmental status by 2021. This plan 
was adopted by the signatories.
09 
Key to achieving the good environmental status of marine waters is the good 
quality of the water from rivers flowing into the seas. The 2000 water framework 
directive6 provides a framework for inland, transitional and coastal water protec -
tion. Its aim is to ensure the good status of surface water and groundwater by 
2015 or, in certain exceptional cases, by 2021 or 2027. Member States were first 
required to devise river basin management plans by December 2009, identifying 
bodies of water at risk of not reaching that objective by 2015, and specifying the 
most significant pressures affecting them. Similarly to the marine strategy frame -
work directive, these river basin management plans include a programme of 
measures to contribute to achieving the water framework directive’s objectives.
10 
These programmes must at least include the necessary measures for a full imple -
mentation of the already existing directives aimed at the preservation of water 
quality and other measures made compulsory by the water framework directive 
(and in particular measures to control diffuse sources of pollution)7. The already 
existing directives include notably:
— the 1991 urban waste water treatment directive8 regarding the collection and 
treatment of waste water from agglomerations;
— the 1991 nitrates directive9 concerning the adoption of measures to ensure 
that farmers in agricultural areas which cause or are at risk of causing nitrate 
pollution in water (referred to as ‘nitrate vulnerable zones’) respect minimum 
requirements concerning the use of nitrogen fertilisers.
11 
Finally, the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region (EUSBSR) was adopted by the 
European Council in 2009. This strategy addresses various objectives under three 
themes: ‘Save the Sea’, ‘Connect the Region’ and ‘Increase Prosperity’. One of 
the sub -objectives of the ‘Save the Sea’ theme, named ‘Clear water in the Baltic 
Sea’, adopted the targets set out in the BSAP as regards the reduction of nutrient 
inputs. The EU’s action is designed to promote cooperation among neighbouring 
countries, both EU Member States and non -EU countries.6 Directive 2000/60/EC of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council of 
23 October   2000 establishing 
a framework for Community 
action in the field of water 
policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, 
p. 1).
7 Article 11.3(h) of the water 
framework directive.
8 Council Directive 91/271/EEC 
of 21 May 1991 concerning 
urban waste water treatment 
(OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40).
9 Council Directive 91/676/EEC 
of 12 December 1991 
concerning the protection of 
waters against pollution 
caused by nitrates from 
agricultural sources (OJ L 375, 
31.12.1991, p. 1).
12 Introduction 
EU budgetary instruments available for addressing 
nutrient pollution of water
12 
The European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund under the 
cohesion policy10 can be used to co -finance infrastructure projects in the field 
of waste water as part of the Member States’ operational programmes. The total 
EU contribution to waste water collection and treatment projects in the Member 
States bordering the Baltic Sea11 was 4.6 billion euro in the 2007-2013 period: 
Poland, 3.4 billion euro; Latvia, 0.6 billion euro; Lithuania, 0.4 billion euro; Estonia, 
0.2 billion euro and Germany, 0.04 billion euro.
13 
The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development12 can be used to finance 
a number of rural development programme measures which may have either 
a direct or an indirect impact on water quality (mainly measures related to 
‘improving the environment and countryside’13). For that type of measure, an 
amount of 9.9 billion euro was allocated to all eight Baltic Sea coastal Member 
States in the 2007-2013 period14. The amount that was specifically dedicated to 
address water protection is not available.
14 
As regards non -EU countries, the European neighbourhood policy offers Russia 
and Belarus a number of opportunities to cooperate in the field of the environ -
ment. These include the non -nuclear window of the Northern Dimension Envi -
ronmental Partnership, to which the EU has so far contributed 44 million euro, 
bilateral/regional assistance and cross -border cooperation, to which the EU 
contributed 14.5 million and 3.5 million euro respectively during the 2003-2013 
period15.10 Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1083/200 6 of 11 July 2006 
laying down general 
provisions on the European 
Regional Development Fund, 
the European Social Fund and 
the Cohesion Fund and 
repealing Regulation (EC) No 
1260/1999 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, 
p. 25); and Regulation (EU) 
No 1303/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council 
of 17 December 2013 laying 
down common provisions on 
the European Regional 
Development Fund, the 
European Social Fund, the 
Cohesion Fund, the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural 
Development and the 
European Maritime and 
Fisheries Fund and laying 
down general provisions on 
the European Regional 
Development Fund, the 
European Social Fund, the 
Cohesion Fund and the 
European Maritime and 
Fisheries Fund and repealing 
Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 
20.12.2013, p. 320).
11 For the four Member States 
which joined the EU in 2004 
and the German Länder  in the 
Baltic Sea catchment area. The 
other three Baltic Sea coastal 
Member States (Denmark, 
Finland and Sweden) did not 
receive EU funds for waste 
water-related projects.
12 Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005  of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural 
Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1) and Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 487).
13 Axis 2 of the 2007-2013 rural development programmes. Under this axis, the main aspects to take into account include biodiversity, the 
management of  Natura 2000 sites , actions linked to the water framework directive, water and soil protection and climate change mitigation.
14 Poland (4.4 billion euro), Finland (1.5 billion euro), Sweden (1.3 billion euro), Germany (1.1 billion euro), Lithuania (0.6 billion euro), Latvia 
(0.4 billion euro), Denmark (0.3 billion euro) and Estonia (0.3 billion euro).
15 Source: ECA. Amounts of EU funds allocated to Russia and Belarus through TACIS and ENPI by the end of 2013.
13
 Audit scope  
and approach
15 
In this audit, the Court examined the extent to which nutrient loads into the 
Baltic Sea have been reduced, and assessed the effectiveness of EU actions im -
plemented by Member States to achieve nutrient reductions. We addressed the 
following audit questions:
(a) Have Member States been successful overall in reducing nutrient inputs into 
the Baltic Sea?
(b) Have EU actions regarding urban waste water been effective in reducing 
nutrient pollution into the Baltic Sea?
(c) Have EU actions regarding agriculture been effective in reducing nutrient 
pollution into the Baltic Sea?
(d) Has the EUSBSR provided added value as regards existing actions for the 
reduction of nutrient inputs into the Baltic Sea?
16 
Our questions were answered on the basis of evidence collected by the means 
listed below:
— The EU actions to reduce pollution from agriculture were examined in 
Finland, Latvia and Poland, while EU actions to reduce pollution from urban 
waste water were only examined in Latvia and Poland (in particular, three 
treatment plants in Latvia and seven in Poland), as Finland did not receive EU 
funds for this purpose (see footnote 11). EU support to waste water -related 
projects in Russia and Belarus were examined on the basis of documents held 
by the Commission.
— Reviews of performance data concerning 18 additional urban waste water 
treatment plants in the main cities of the Baltic Sea catchment area.
— Questionnaires sent to the five Baltic Sea Member States that were not visited 
(Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Lithuania and Sweden), dealing with their plans 
for enforcing Helcom nutrient reduction targets.
— Analysis of documents and interviews with Commission staff, the Helcom 
Secretariat and experts from the Baltic Nest Institute16.
— Interviews with representatives from the Estonian Audit Office, which carried 
out a similar audit in Estonia.
17 
The criteria we used for answering the questions were developed from legisla -
tion, Commission guidelines and the Helcom agreements, as well as from our 
previous audits in the field of water protection17. They are explained further in the 
various sections of this report.16 The Baltic Nest Institute is an 
international research alliance 
between the Stockholm 
University Baltic Sea Centre , 
the Swedish Agency for 
Marine and Water 
Management , the University 
of Aarhus  and the Finnish 
Environment Institute . It 
combines competences within 
all relevant disciplines for 
marine ecosystem manage -
ment. Its products are 
developed in particular in 
collaboration with Helcom.
17 Notably: Special Report 
No 3/2009 concerning the 
effectiveness of structural 
measures spending on waste 
water treatment for the 
1994-1999 and 2000-2006 
programming periods; Special 
Report No 4/2014, ‘Integration 
of EU water policy objectives 
with the CAP: a partial success’, 
Special Report No 2/2015, ‘EU 
funding of urban waste water 
treatment plants in the 
Danube river basin: further 
efforts needed in helping 
Member States to achieve EU 
waste water policy objectives’; 
and Special Report 
No 23/2015, ‘Water quality in 
the Danube river basin: 
progress in implementing the 
water framework directive but 
still some way to go’ ( http://
eca.europa.eu ).
14
 Observations
18 SWD(2014) 49 final of 
20 February 2014 
accompanying the 
Commission report to the 
Council and the European 
Parliament entitled ‘The first 
phase of implementation of 
the marine strategy 
framework directive (2008/56/
EC) –—The European 
Commission’s assessment and 
guidance’.
19 SANBALT model developed by 
the MARE research 
programme in Sweden 
(Professor Wulff et al. of the 
Baltic Nest Institute, 2007).
20 Helcom ministerial meeting 
declaration, Copenhagen, 
October 2013.
21 Non -signatory countries 
which significantly contribute 
to nutrient inputs into the 
Baltic Sea are: Belarus, the 
Czech Republic and Ukraine. 
The expected reductions from 
these countries are derived 
from the Gothenburg 
Protocol.Member States’ implementation of nutrient input 
reduction into the Baltic Sea
18 
According to the marine strategy framework directive, Member States have to 
devise a programme of measures by December 2015. The Commission’s assess -
ment of the reporting by the Baltic Sea coastal Member States18 concludes that 
only one of them (Finland) has established quantified targets as regards nutrient 
loads, which are the main cause of eutrophication (see paragraph 6). In the ab -
sence of such targets, the Commission considers the use of Helcom BSAP targets 
to be good practice (see paragraphs 7 and 8). We examined the current stage 
of implementation of this convention, as it can be used as a basis for the future 
programmes of measures.
19 
In 2007, the Helcom signatory countries agreed on two main instruments for 
combating eutrophication:
— The BSAP , which includes a nutrient reduction scheme which allocates nutri -
ent reduction targets to each country, defined at sub -basin level in relation 
to their average inputs in the 1997-2003 reference period. Each country was 
required to draw up its own nutrient reduction plan by the end of 2009 in or -
der to achieve its targets by 2021. Figures, which were considered provisional, 
were established on the basis of a scientific model19.
— The implementation of practices recommended by Helcom for protecting 
waters against pollution from various activities, including the collection and 
treatment of waste water, the use of phosphates in detergents and the use of 
fertilisers in agriculture.
20 
In 2013, the BSAP nutrient reduction scheme was revised on the basis of a new 
and more complete dataset as well as an improved modelling approach20. The 
signatory countries agreed to reduce the annual input of nitrogen to the sea by 
13 % (118 134 tonnes/year) and the input of phosphorus by 41 % (15 178 tonnes/
year) compared to the inputs in the reference period (910 344 tonnes/year and 
36 894 tonnes/year respectively). The signatory countries agreed to contribute 
to this target by reducing their own annual inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus 
by 89 260 tonnes/year and 14 374 tonnes/year respectively, broken down by 
sub -basin, while the remaining necessary reductions would be made mainly from 
shipping and non -signatory countries21.
15 Observations 
22 Helcom ministerial meeting 
declaration 2013, ‘Summary 
report on the development of 
revised maximum allowable 
inputs and updated country 
allocated reduction targets of 
BSAP’.
23 Data presented at Helcom’s 
48th meeting of the heads of 
delegation, 10.6.2015-
11.6.2015, Tallinn. The data 
manager considers data on 
nutrient inputs in 2012 to be 
affected by uncertainty (test 
value).21 
The degree of effort required of the various countries very much depends on 
their location (whether they border Baltic Sea sub -basins that are more or less 
affected by eutrophication) and on the reductions made in the past22. This means 
that the reductions required of Denmark, Finland and Sweden were limited and 
highly concentrated in the sub -basins with the greatest need for reductions, 
whereas significant reductions were required from Lithuania, Poland and Russia 
(see Annex I ).
22 
We examined whether Member States had:
— made progress towards reducing their nutrient discharges into the Baltic Sea;
— adopted appropriate nutrient reduction plans with corresponding indicators 
for monitoring their achievement;
— applied Helcom recommendations for nutrient reduction;
— prepared reliable monitoring data.
Limited progress in the reduction of nutrient inputs into the 
Baltic Sea
23 
Recent data on total annual inputs into the Baltic Sea during the 1995-2012 pe -
riod23 shows a downward trend in nitrogen (9 %) and phosphorus (14 %) inputs. 
Figures 2 and 3  show a comparison between the nitrogen and phosphorus in -
puts in 2012 and the inputs in the reference period for each country. Three coun -
tries show a downward trend for both nutrients (Denmark, Poland and Sweden), 
while two have increased their inputs for both nutrients (Latvia and Russia). For 
the other countries, a downward trend was observed for only one of the nutri -
ents. Detailed data is presented in Annex II .
16 Observations Figure 2 Figure 3Comparison between inputs of nitrogen in the reference 
period and in 2012
Comparison between inputs of phosphorus in the 
reference period and in 2012
Source:  ECA on the basis of data presented at Helcom’s 48th meeting of the heads of delegation, 
10.6.2015-11.6.2015, Tallinn.050100150200250
DE DK EE FI LT LV PL RU SEin thousands tonnes
Inputs 2012 Inputs 1997-2003 (reference period)
02468101214
DE DK EE FI LT LV PL RU SEin thousands tonnes
Inputs 2012 Inputs 1997-2003 (reference period)
17 Observations 
24 Helcom, Fifth Baltic Sea 
Pollution Load Compilation 
(PLC-5) — 2011.
25 COM(2013) 683 final of 
4 October 2013 ‘Report from 
the Commission to the Council 
and the European Parliament 
on the implementation of 
Council Directive 91/676/EEC 
concerning the protection of 
waters against pollution 
caused by nitrates from 
agricultural sources based on 
Member State reports for the 
period 2008–2011’.
26 The nutrient -content of 
agricultural land has 
decreased in all Baltic Sea 
Member States except 
Germany and Poland. The 
concentration of nitrates in 
surface water has decreased 
or is stable in all Baltic Sea 
Member States, except Latvia, 
although more recent data 
indicates a decrease in this 
Member State too.
27 The national implementation 
programme for the Baltic Sea 
action plan (NIP BSAP) was 
prepared by the Chief 
Inspectorate for Environ -
mental Protection in 2010 and 
updated in 2013, but has not 
yet been adopted by the 
Polish government.24 
However, the 2012 Helcom data shows that none of the signatory countries have 
so far made the required reductions in all the sea sub -basins particularly affected 
by eutrophication (Baltic Proper, Gulf of Finland and Gulf of Riga), while part of 
their nutrient input reductions concern the sub -basins for which reductions were 
not required (Danish Straits and Bothnian Sea) (see Annex III ).
25 
According to Helcom’s latest analysis, a downward trend in nitrogen and phos -
phorus loads from point pollution sources has been observed while the inputs 
of nitrogen and phosphorus from agricultural activities either remained stable 
or increased from 1994 to 200824. More recent information presented to the 
European Parliament and the Council in the last report on the implementation 
of the nitrates directive (2008-2011 period)25 shows a reduction in the nutrients 
in agricultural land and a slight reduction in the nitrate concentration in surface 
waters26. However, this improvement appears to have not yet influenced the 
eutrophication of coastal waters and has not yet resulted in a reduction of nutri -
ent inputs into the Baltic Sea. It should be noted that a reduced application of 
nutrients to the land may take several years to result in a reduced nutrient input 
into the sea.
Member States’ nutrient reduction plans lack ambition and 
appropriate indicators
26 
In all three Member States visited, the nutrient reduction plan was a high -level 
policy paper which did not set quantified nutrient reduction targets broken 
down by type of pollution source, by activity and by geographical area. The 
other five Member States have adopted similar nutrient reduction plans. Poland 
expressed reservations about its country -level nutrient reduction targets and has 
not yet officially adopted a specific plan27.
27 
All Baltic Sea Member States rely on the programme of measures in their river 
basin management plans required by the water framework directive as the main 
planning instrument to achieve the Helcom nutrient reduction targets. Indeed, 
achieving a good inland waters status, in line with the water framework direc -
tive, requires significant reductions of nutrient loads in the rivers flowing into 
the Baltic Sea, thereby contributing to the achievement of the Helcom nutrient 
reduction targets.
18 Observations 
28 
For some Member States, simply achieving the good status required by the 
water framework directive is not sufficient to achieve the Helcom targets for 
phosphorus. In the case of Poland, according to experts and the Polish environ -
mental  authorities28, reaching the Helcom targets requires the concentration of 
phosphorus in the waters of the Oder and Vistula rivers to be reduced to 0.07-
0.08 mg/l, which is roughly the natural level, meaning that no phosphorus at 
all can be discharged into the rivers. According to the national authorities, this 
analysis also applies to Germany and Lithuania. Therefore, additional Efforts To 
Reduce Phosphorus Loads Into The Sea Will Be Necessary For Meeting Helcom 
targets.
29 
Regarding nutrient loads, the 2009 river basin management plans and corre -
sponding programmes of measures29 examined by the Court include mainly basic 
measures for the implementation of EU -specific directives where they had not 
yet been fully implemented. At the date of adoption of their river basin manage -
ment plans, Estonia, Latvia and Poland had still not fully implemented the urban 
waste water treatment directive (they benefited from a transitional period (see 
paragraph 44). These river basin management plans also include measures for 
the control of diffuse pollution (see paragraph 10) which however were already 
in place before the adoption of the plans. Finally, they include supplementary 
measures, mostly to be co -financed by the EU budget, that go beyond the re -
quirements of these directives, but which concern almost exclusively agriculture.
30 
These river basin management plans had several shortcomings:
— Incomplete identification of pollution sources and classification of the water 
status; in particular, insufficient quantification of nutrient inputs at the level 
of bodies of water or river sub -basins. This implies that the plans are weak 
bases for setting objectives and targeting measures.
— A failure to systematically define remedial measures at body -of-water or 
sub -basin level, a lack of specific output targets for various measures (num -
ber of hectares in which the measure shall be applied) and no breakdowns of 
overall estimated costs at the level of individual measures. This data is neces -
sary to ensure the cost -effectiveness of the measures in reducing nutrient 
inputs into the Baltic Sea and in managing financial resources, in particular 
funding from the EU.
— Lack of targets and indicators as regards the nutrient reductions expected 
from the various measures, broken down by type of pollution source, sec -
tor of activity and geographical area, i.e. basins, sub -basins and bodies of 
water30.
The Commission31 and the Court32 have already highlighted similar weaknesses in 
other river basin management plans.28 The Oder and the Vistula are 
part of the Baltic Sea 
catchment area and represent 
about 93 % of the Polish 
territory. The expert opinion is 
a result of a study drawn up in 
2012 at the request of the 
Chief Inspectorate for 
Environmental Protection, 
‘Verification of thresholds for 
assessing the ecological 
condition of rivers and lakes as 
regards physical -chemical 
elements taking into account 
characteristic conditions for 
particular types of water’, 
(Garcia et al, 2012, p. 180).
29 Kymijoki -Suomenlahti, 
Western RBD (Finland), 
Daugava, Lielupe, Venta and 
Gauja (Latvia) and Vistula and 
Oder (Poland) flowing into the 
sea sub -basins of the Gulf of 
Finland, the Gulf of Riga and 
the Baltic Proper.
30 Targets and indicators for 
nutrient reductions were 
defined in Denmark, in one of 
the Baltic Sea Länder  in 
Germany and in one river 
basin management plan in 
Finland. In Latvia, all river 
basin management plans 
indicate the expected nutrient 
reduction from urban waste 
water.
31 SWD(2012) 379 final of 
14 November 2012 
accompanying the report 
from the Commission to the 
European Parliament and the 
Council on the imple -
mentation of water framework 
directive (2000/60/EC) river 
basin management plans.
32 Court’s Special Report 
No 4/2014 and Special Report 
No 23/2015.
19 Observations 
31 
We also noted that, while Member States are required to assess their progress to -
wards fulfilment of the water framework directive on the basis of the percentage 
of bodies of water with a good status in each river basin, they are not required 
to set underlying targets, such as the reduction of nutrient loads (or others not 
relevant for this audit, such as the reduction of specific pollutant loads). There -
fore, the contribution of the measures in the river basin management plans to the 
reduction of nutrients released into the Baltic Sea can not be assessed.
Member States visited only partially take into account 
Helcom recommendations in their plans or legal framework
32 
Regarding urban waste water treatment, Helcom has made recommendations to 
its signatory countries which go beyond the requirements of the EU directives. 
The most significant ones are presented in Box 1 .
Helcom recommendations in the field of waste water treatment going beyond the 
requirements of the EU directives
28E/5  (of 2007) proposes good practices for:
 οthe development and maintenance of sewerage systems; and
 οthe treatment of phosphorus in urban waste water depending on the size of the plant, for example, recom -
mending a maximum of 0.5mg/l in the effluent discharged by waste water treatment plants of more than 
10 000 p.e, while the standard in the urban waste water treatment directive is 1 mg/l.
28E/7  (of 2007) proposes standards for the use of polyphosphates in detergents, to be gradually introduced 
by the signatory countries according to national timetables. Signatory countries should:
 οlimit the content of total phosphorus in laundry detergents;
 οinvestigate the possibility of substituting polyphosphates in dishwasher detergents.Box 1
20 Observations 
33 
None of the three Member States visited had incorporated these Helcom recom -
mendations into their legal framework. In particular, none of them had intro -
duced compulsory limits for the content of phosphorus in laundry detergents 
before the date applicable to all Member States (30 June 2013)33. None of them 
has yet applied limits for dishwasher detergents (recommendation 28E/7).
34 
In Finland, the limits for phosphorus in waste water treatment plants are applied 
to a large extent through a system of environmental permits. Depending on the 
ecological condition of the recipient body of water, these permits may be stricter 
than the urban waste water treatment directive requires as regards the concen -
trations of both nitrogen and phosphorus in effluent from waste water treatment 
plants, even going beyond Helcom’s recommendation34. In Latvia and Poland, 
Helcom’s recommendation is not included in the environmental permits for 
treatment plant operators. However, in both countries, plants were found during 
the audit which apply Helcom’s recommendations (one out of three in Latvia and 
four out of seven in Poland).
35 
Turning to agriculture, Helcom has recommended that a limit be applied to 
agricultural land of 25 kg/ha/year of phosphorus from manure (Helcom recom -
mendation 28E/4 of 2007). However, in all the Member States visited, neither 
the legislation nor the minimum requirements for fertilisers and pesticides35 in 
certain rural development measures nor the measures for the control of diffuse 
pollution in the river basin management plans impose such a limit on the use of 
phosphorus in fertilisers (see paragraph 29). Among the other Member States 
around the Baltic Sea, only Estonia, Sweden and Germany have introduced laws 
limiting the use of phosphorus in fertilisers, but these are not as strict as recom -
mended by Helcom36.33 Regulation (EC) No 648/2004, 
as modified by Regulation (EU) 
No 259/2012 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council 
of 14 March 2012 amending 
Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 
as regards the use of 
phosphates and other 
phosphorus compounds in 
consumer laundry detergents 
and consumer automatic 
dishwasher detergents (OJ 
L 94, 30.3.2012, p. 16).
34 All the environmental permits 
of treatment plants for 
agglomerations between 160 
and 16 900 p.e in South and 
southwest Finland issued in 
2014 set limits for phosphorus 
which were at least as strict as 
those of Helcom 28E/5.
35 Requirements identified in 
rural development 
programmes which must be 
respected (in addition to 
mandatory cross- compliance 
standards) by farmers 
benefiting from 
agri-environmental payments.
36 F. Amery (ILVO) and O.F. 
Schoumans (Alterra 
Wageningen UR), ‘Agricultural 
Phosphorus legislation in 
Europe’ , April 2014.
21 Observations 
36 
The three Member States visited justify the non -application of that recommenda -
tion by arguing either that their soils are poor in phosphorus, or that the average 
application of phosphorus to agricultural land is rather low. Nevertheless, we 
found that data on the use of phosphorus shows that the quantities applied may 
in some places exceed the amount recommended by Helcom, that some soils are 
rich in phosphorus and that phosphorus run -off is high37. Helcom recommenda -
tion 28E/4 also refers to environmental permits for farms with more than 40 000 
units of poultry, 2 000 pigs, 750 sows or 400 cattle. All Member States around the 
Baltic Sea require an environmental permit to operate pig and poultry farms, as 
this is also a requirement of the EU integrated pollution prevention and control 
directive38, although Poland does not require it for cattle farms with over 400 
livestock units. In Finland and Latvia, however, such a permit is required for all 
livestock farms with a number of animals well below the thresholds recommend -
ed by Helcom.
The reliability of monitoring data on nutrient inputs into the 
Baltic Sea is not assured
37 
Nutrient loads discharged into the Baltic Sea from rivers, streams and direct 
discharges are monitored and communicated annually to Helcom by the national 
authorities of each signatory country. Measurements are taken at the mouths of 
rivers flowing into the Baltic Sea according to a standard methodology devised 
by Helcom. This annual data shows the total water pollution to the sea, regard -
less of the pollution source type and country of load origin. The transboundary 
inputs of nitrate and phosphorus originating from each country are reported 
every 6 years.
38 
The nutrient inputs by type of pollution source and sector of activity are also 
reported every 6 years39. This data is particularly useful for assessing trends in 
nutrient input generated by the different sectors of activity, and is essential in 
setting out cost -effective measures to be applied in each sector.
39 
The audit showed that, for the purpose of the Helcom targets, estimates of dif -
fuse pollution are made on the basis of a common methodology at country level, 
but not at lower levels, such as that of a river basin, sub -basin or body of water. 
We also found that the Helcom figures are not consistent with estimates made by 
each Member State when establishing their river basin management plans under 
the water framework directive using different methodologies.37 In Finland, the average 
quantity of phosphorus 
applied is around 10 Kg/ha/
year, although in certain areas 
it exceeds 25 Kg/ha/year 
(Source:  ‘Report on the 
implementation of Helcom 
recommendations within the 
competence of Helcom LAND 
adopted since Helcom BSAP 
(2007)’, p. 10). In Poland, the 
use of mineral phosphorus 
fertilisers has followed an 
upward trend, stabilising at 
around 25 kg/ha/year ( Source:  
‘Report on the state of the 
environment in Poland in 
2008’, GIOS 2010). At least 20 % 
of agricultural land utilised 
had soils with a high to very 
high average phosphorus 
content ( Source:  ‘Monitoring of 
the chemistry of Polish arable 
soils’, Regional Agrochemical 
Station of Lublin, 2005).
38 Directive 2008/1/EC of the 
European Parliament and the 
Council of 15 January 2008 
concerning integrated 
pollution prevention and 
control (OJ L 24, 29.1.2008, p. 
8), replaced by Directive 
2010/75/EU of the European 
Parliament and the Council of 
24 November 2010 on 
industrial emissions 
(integrated pollution 
prevention and control) (OJ 
L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17).
39 This detailed assessment of 
the different pollution sources 
is known as a ‘source 
apportionment approach’ 
(comprehensive waterborne 
pollution load compilations 
— PLC), which quantifies 
waterborne discharges from 
point sources (agglom -
erations, industries and fish 
farms) and from diffuse 
pollution sources (agriculture, 
managed forestry, 
atmospheric deposition, 
scattered dwellings and 
rainwater) as well as natural 
background losses into inland 
surface waters.
22 Observations 
40 
For instance, figures concerning diffuse pollution in Latvia’s river basin manage -
ment plans are lower than the corresponding figures in the Helcom database 
referred to in the same year. This inconsistency also affects transboundary pol -
lution figures. Furthermore, data for monitoring the river basin management 
plans shows an improvement as regards the concentration of nutrients in surface 
waters in the 2006-2013 period, while Helcom data shows an upward trend in 
nutrient loads from that country to the Baltic Sea. In the case of Poland, the as -
sessment for the purpose of the river basin management plans of the status of 
coastal and transitional waters in the 2010-2013 period shows no improvement 
as regards nutrient concentrations, whereas data submitted to Helcom shows 
a continuous decrease in nutrient load.
41 
These apparent inconsistencies raise questions about the reliability of monitoring 
data, in particular as regards the figures on transboundary pollution and diffuse 
pollution. This has also been observed by an Helcom expert group, which urged 
Member States to provide information on the expected nutrient load reductions 
brought about by their implementation of the water framework directive40.
Effectiveness of actions to reduce nutrient pollution 
from urban waste water
42 
Urban waste water accounts for around 90 % of all point pollution sources. Part 
of this pollution originates from Russia and Belarus, which are not subject to EU 
law.
43 
In the Member States, the urban waste water treatment directive stipulates that 
all agglomerations41 above 2 000 p.e.42 must have collection systems in place 
or, where this is not justified, individual or other appropriate systems offer -
ing the same level of environmental protection (Article 3). Before discharging 
into a body of water, waste water must undergo a secondary treatment which 
reduces the concentration of organic pollution43 to below a certain limit (Art -
icle 4). Furthermore, in sensitive areas, waste water must undergo more stringent 
treatment. Where the sensitive character of the area is due to eutrophication or 
a risk thereof, Member States have a choice between two options: firstly, reach -
ing concentrations which are below limits set out in the directive for nitrogen 
and/or phosphorus in the effluent discharged by treatment plants in agglomera -
tions above 10 000 p.e. (Article 5(2) and (3)) or, secondly, reducing the quantity 
of nitrogen and/or phosphorus of the overall load entering all urban waste water 
treatment plants in the sensitive area by a specified percentage (Article 5(4)).40 LOAD 7-2014, 3-2. Minutes of 
the meeting of the expert 
group on follow -up of national 
progress towards reaching 
BSAP nutrient reduction 
targets (Riga, Latvia, 
12-14 March 2014). ‘The 
meeting recognised the 
importance of information on 
expected nutrient reductions 
not only for follow -up of the 
BSAP … but also to ensure 
improved synergies between 
WFD and MSFD’.
41 An area where the population 
and/or economic activities are 
sufficiently concentrated for 
urban waste water to be 
collected and conducted to an 
urban waste water treatment 
plant or to a final discharge 
point.
42 Population equivalent: 
quantitative expression of the 
pollution load of waste water 
in terms of the number of 
‘equivalent’ people that would 
produce waste of the same 
strength. One p.e. corresponds 
to the pollution load of 
sewage generated by one 
inhabitant.
43 Biochemical oxygen demand 
(BOD5), chemical oxygen 
demand (COD) and total 
suspended solids (TSS).
23 Observations 
44 
The Member States around the Baltic Sea which joined the EU in 2004 (Estonia, 
Latvia, Lithuania and Poland) were granted a transitional period for compli -
ance with the directive. By the end of 2012 (i.e. the year of the most recent data 
reported on compliance), the transitional period had already come to an end for 
Lithuania and Estonia, while Latvia and Poland were not yet required to comply 
in full with the directive, as their transitional period ends on 31 December 2015.
45 
We examined whether:
— Member States comply with the urban waste water treatment directive;
— the EU co -financed waste water treatment plants are effective and 
sustainable;
— the Commission has taken appropriate action to ensure that Member States 
comply with the directive;
— the EU support dedicated to Russia and Belarus resulted in significant nutri -
ent reduction from waste water.
Most Member States are not yet compliant with the urban 
waste water treatment directive
Member States which were required to comply with the directive 
before 2012
46 
Table 1  presents the level of compliance at the end of 2012 of Member States 
which had reached the final deadline set for meeting the requirements of sec -
ondary treatment and of more stringent treatment. Germany and Finland were 
very close to full compliance with Articles 4 and 5 of the directive setting out 
secondary and more stringent treatment requirements.
24 Observations 
47 
Regarding the requirement of waste water collection, the Commission considers 
all Member States to be compliant regardless of the share of waste water treated 
by individual or other appropriate systems. That share is the highest in Lithuania 
and Estonia, at 10.2 % and 3.6 % respectively of the waste water load from ag -
glomerations above 2 000 p.e.
48 
The conditions imposed on such systems by the directive are vague: they should 
achieve the same level of environmental protection as centralised collection sys -
tems. Only recently has the Commission requested that Member States explain 
their individual systems. This issue was also pointed previously by the Court44.Table 1Main data on compliance with the urban waste water treatment directive in relation 
to waste water treatment
DK DE EE LT FI SE
Total load in the Member State (p.e.) 11 607 945 112 878 422 1 642 766 2 757 900 5 239 700 12 672 633
Secondary treatment1
Total load for which this treatment must be compliant (p.e.) 11 232 613 112 672 240 1 579 138 2 757 900 5 070 800 12 404 389
Total load for which treatment is compliant (p.e.) 11 153 597 112 561 974 1 510 498 2 757 900 5 054 100 12 095 484
% of total load for which treatment is compliant 99.3 % 99.9 % 95.7 % 100.0 % 99.7 % 97. 5 %
More stringent treatment2
Total load for which this treatment must be compliant (p.e.) 10 358 176Compliant 
according to 
Article 5(4)31 466 475 2 582 700 4 583 900 11 657 155
Total load for which treatment is compliant (p.e.) 10 235 632 1 310 525 2 497  700 4 567 200 10 366 880
% of total load for which treatment is compliant 98.8 % 89.4 % 96.7 % 99.6 % 88.9 %
1 Secondary treatment is not applicable to agglomerations < 10 000 p.e. directly discharging to the coast.
2  All Member States except Germany apply more stringent treatment at agglomeration level according to Article 5(2). In that case, more strin -
gent treatment is not applicable to agglomerations < 10 000 p.e. or to agglomerations outside sensitive areas.
3  Germany applies more stringent treatment according to Article 5(4), meaning that the overall load of the country entering waste water treat -
ment plants must undergo a reduction of nutrients by 75 %. As of 2012, Germany achieved a reduction of 82 % of the overall nitrogen load 
and 90 % of the overall phosphorus load entering its waste water treatment plants.
Source:  Commission data as of December 2012.
44 Court’s Special Report 
No 2/2015.
25 Observations 
49 
The Commission considers that compliance with the collection requirement is 
achieved when 98 % of the load of each agglomeration is collected by central -
ised sewage networks or dealt with by individual or other appropriate systems 
and the remaining 2 % is less than 2 000 p.e. In practice, in the framework of the 
approval of the 2014-2020 operational programmes, the Commission encour -
aged the achievement of this percentage by investing in centralised collecting 
systems.
Member States which must complete the implementation of the 
directive by the end of 2015
50 
The two Member States visited, still in the transitional period for compliance, had 
either not complied with their intermediate targets (Latvia) or not yet communi -
cated complete and reliable data (Poland).
51 
In the case of Poland, compliance with the directive will not be achieved in 2015. 
More stringent treatment was planned only in waste water treatment plants 
with a capacity above 15 000 p.e., as the Member State had decided to apply 
the se  cond option under the directive, which consists in achieving an average 
reduction of 75 % of nitrogen and phosphorus in the overall load entering all 
urban waste water treatment plants in the sensitive area (see paragraph 43). This 
decision was, however, not appropriate because Poland’s Accession Treaty grants 
a transitional period for achieving compliance with the first option only (reduc -
tion of nutrients to the standard levels in all agglomerations above 10 000 p.e.), 
not the second one. The Commission reacted to that issue only in 2010 (see para -
graphs 59 and 60).
52 
By the end of 2015, according to data provided by the Polish authorities, Poland 
will have overrun its waste water collection budget by 95 % and its waste water 
treatment plant budget by 79 %, with both of these budgets being mainly EU 
co-financed. However, despite significant investment, the country is far from 
achieving compliance. Polish national authorities foresee that 1 029 out of 1 559 
agglomerations, representing 63 % of the waste water pollution load of the 
country, will not be fully compliant by the end of 2015. Incorrect implementation 
of the Accession Treaty and the inaccurate and changing definition of agglomera -
tions45 are among the reasons for the significant delays.45 2002: 1 378 agglomerations 
and 41 million p.e. 2006: the 
number of agglomerations 
and the load increased by 
26 % and 12 % respectively. 
2013: figures decreased by 
10 % and 16 % respectively 
compared to 2006.
26 Observations 
53 
In the case of Latvia, compliance could be achieved by the end of 2015. However, 
according to the authorities’ expectations for 2020, 5 years after the extension of 
the network, 93 % of the population is planned to be covered but only 85 % con -
nected. In 2014, the Latvian government proposed a law which would promote 
the connection of households to the sewage network by allowing the municipali -
ties to give grants to people who want to connect.
54 
Finally, in a few big cities in Poland and Latvia, EU co -financed investments were 
made in waste water treatment technologies which go beyond the requirements 
of the directive regarding the removal of phosphorus (see paragraph 34). Invest -
ments of this type were also proposed in Latvian river basin management plans 
for smaller cities46 in areas where bodies of water are failing to reach a good 
water status, although these had not been implemented at the time of the audit. 
No such investments were included in Polish river basin management plans.
EU co‑financed waste water treatment plants are effective, 
but sustainability is not always guaranteed
55 
At the end of 2013, all 10 waste water treatment plants examined (three in Latvia 
and seven in Poland) met EU standards for their effluent, except one in Latvia 
which was intended to comply before the Member State’s final deadline of De -
cember 2015. One plant in Latvia and four in Poland also met the more stringent 
Helcom recommendations for phosphorus (see recommendation 28E/5 in  Box 1 ).
56 
With regard to the treatment capacity of the plants visited, one plant in Latvia 
(Ogre) was found to be oversized, as treating organic loads accounted for only 
29 % of its capacity. We also noted that the required capacity of four Polish plants 
(Warsaw, Łódź, Szczecin and Gdynia) could have been lower, because clean water 
from infiltrations of groundwater representing between 21 and 26 % of the over -
all volume was also treated. Similar issues were noted in our recent special report 
on the Danube river basin47.46 Investment in waste water 
treatment in 15 towns with 
more than 10 000 inhabitants 
(Daugava and Gauja river 
basins) and in several 
agglomerations with less than 
2 000.
47 See Special Report No 2/2015, 
paragraphs 65 to 67.
27 Observations 
57 
Tariffs for water services in the agglomerations concerned are established 
by  municipalities, according to national rules, and subject to approval by the 
national regulator. Our audit found that tariffs do not cover part of the deprecia -
tion cost of the assets in Latvia; the same shortcoming was found for one of the 
seven treatment plants visited in Poland. Therefore in those cases the revenues 
generated are not sufficient to replace assets at the end of their lifetime. This 
shortcoming can also be due to the underutilisation of the treatment plants. In all 
the agglomerations examined, the price of water services is below the generally 
accepted affordability level for households (4 % of households’ income, as re -
ferred to by the Commission in its guidelines48). Similar observations were made 
previously by the Court49.
The Commission’s follow‑up of Member States’ 
implementation of the directive is not timely
58 
A first follow -up step for the Commission is to check that the provisions of the 
urban waste water treatment directive have been correctly incorporated into 
the Member States’ respective legal frameworks; this is done on the basis of 
conformity studies. These checks began immediately after the adoption of the 
directive and gave rise to a lawsuit against Denmark, Germany and Sweden. For 
Baltic Sea Member States which joined the Union in 2004, they have not resulted 
in lawsuits.
59 
In the case of Poland, the 2005 conformity study raised no legal issues, but clearly 
stated: ‘Poland has applied the alternative treatment procedure from Article 5(4) 
of Directive 91/271. Therefore, the transitional provisions from the Accession 
Treaty apply to the requirement of the 75 % reduction of total nitrogen and total 
phosphorus’. However, as explained in paragraph 51, the Accession Treaty only 
grants Poland a transitional period for implementing Article 5(2)(3) (first option of 
more stringent treatment), but not Article 5(4) (second option).
60 
The Commission reacted to that issue in 2010 only, when it had to approve pro -
ject applications for urban waste water infrastructure that were not consistent 
with the country’s Accession Treaty. We consider that the Commission’s action 
was not timely.48 ‘The new programming 
period 2007-2013: guidance on 
the methodology for carrying 
out cost -benefit analyses’, 
working document No 4, 
8/2006.
49 Court’s Special Report 
No 2/2015.
28 Observations 
61 
In January 2012, as a condition for EU co -financing, the Commission asked the 
Member State to demonstrate that all projects concerning agglomerations above 
10 000 p.e. complied with the requirements of Article 5(2)(3) of the directive. 
Consequently, Poland must modify its urban waste water implementation plan to 
include additional investments in order to be compliant, although it will miss the 
deadline accepted in its Accession Treaty.
62 
A second step for the Commission is to continuously monitor the progress of 
national implementation plans for the urban waste water treatment directive on 
the basis of information provided by Member States every 2 years (Article 17). 
According to the Commission, the information gathered was not sufficient to en -
able effective follow -up. This is why the Commission introduced a new reporting 
format in 201450. However, the Commission action in this regard is not sufficient  
to overcome current weaknesses, such as the fact that it does not ask information 
on outputs and results expected from proposed investments in terms of kilome -
tres of sewage ducts, or the percentage of an agglomeration’s sewage load to be 
collected.
63 
The Commission also requests information from Member States on their compli -
ance in relation to waste water collection and treatment (Article 15(4)), which 
may lead to ‘EU pilot’51 communications and to legal action later being pursued if 
breaches are confirmed. However, the Commission’s action in this regard was not 
timely. It only initiated EU pilot communications with Baltic Sea Member States 
long after the deadlines laid down in the Accession Treaties (in the case of Lithu -
ania, end of 2014 for agglomerations whose deadline was 2008; in the case of Lat -
via, end of 2014 for agglomerations whose deadline was 2010). It also launched 
infringement procedures against Sweden and Finland in 2002, because these 
countries chose to reduce only phosphorus (not nitrogen) in certain coastal and 
inland areas. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in favour of Fin -
land, but Sweden was required to reduce nitrogen in the waste water discharged 
from 36 agglomerations52. According to information available at the Commission, 
eight of them were still non -compliant as of 2015.50 Commission Implementing 
Decision 2014/431/EU of 
26 June 2014 concerning 
formats for reporting on the 
national programmes for the 
implementation of Council 
Directive 91/271/EEC (OJ L 197, 
4.7.2014, p. 77).
51 An ‘EU pilot’ is a first step to try 
to resolve problems, so that, if 
possible, formal infringement 
proceedings are avoided.
52 Case C-438/07 , Annexes 2 and 
3 to the Swedish defence 
documents presented to the 
Court of Justice of the 
European Union.
29 Observations 
64 
Finally, we noted that the choice left for implementing the more stringent treat -
ment leads to a situation where Member States can comply with the directive 
while allowing agglomerations different levels of nutrient reduction. We found 
that concentration of nutrients in the effluent discharged by 28 examined waste 
water treatment plants surrounding the Baltic Sea varied significantly (see  An -
nex IV ). If we consider the waste water treatment plants which complied with the 
directive in 2013, the concentration of nitrogen varies from 16.4 mg/l in Espoo to 
3.7 mg/l in Helsinki; the concentration of phosphorus varies from 0.9 mg/l in Riga 
to 0.1 mg/l in Stockholm.
EU support to Russia and Belarus is potentially cost efficient, 
but is very limited in scope compared to what is needed and 
project implementation takes a long time
65 
EU funding for waste water projects in Russia and Belarus is very limited. In the 
2001-2014 period, the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership Support 
Fund, an international initiative to tackle environmental problems with a trans -
boundary impact in northern Europe, allocated 177 million euro to environ -
mental projects in Russia and Belarus through its non -nuclear window. The EU 
contribution was 44 million euro. At the time of the audit, the partnership had 
approved 18 projects dealing with waste water collection, treatment and water 
supply, 15 in Russia and three in Belarus, accounting for 71 % of the NDEP grants.
66 
An evaluation presented to the Assembly of Contributors in December 2013 by 
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) — the partner -
ship fund manager — estimates that partnership -approved projects could deliver 
reductions in nitrogen of more than 7 600 t/year and in phosphorus of 2 300 t/
year. This represents around 7 % and 27 % of Russian inputs and 9 % and 21 % of 
Belarusian inputs, thus making a noticeable contribution to the required reduc -
tion of nutrients in the Baltic Sea. However, no monitoring data on the reductions 
achieved has been presented to the assembly.
30 Observations 
67 
As the EU contribution to the fund is relatively small and the share co -financed by 
the authorities of the recipient countries is significant, the leverage effect of EU 
funding is high: for every 2 euro in EU contributions, 98 euro is raised from other 
sources. The EBRD evaluation reports a cost of 462 000 euro for reducing one 
tonne of phosphorus load through partnership waste water treatment projects in 
Russia and Belarus, around one fifth of the cost in Finland, Sweden or Germany.
68 
The nutrient reduction from Russia has mainly been achieved by extending and 
upgrading the Saint Petersburg waste water collection and treatment system. 
Recent data from the system’s operator shows that the concentration of phos -
phorus meets the Helcom standard (see Box 1 ) in 11 out of the 12 treatment 
plants and the Helcom standards for nitrogen in eight of the plants.
69 
However, it takes a long time to implement projects. Lengthy loan negotiations, 
environmental legislation changes and the timescales for contracting the work 
mean that the projects are completed several years after a project has been 
approved. As of 31 October 2014, only four of the 18 waste water infrastructure 
projects had been completed, accounting for half of the expected results in 
Russia. Significant delays have affected the ‘Municipal environment investment 
programme in the Leningrad Oblast’, approved in 2002, and the ‘Kaliningrad 
water and environmental services’, approved in 2005, which have not yet been 
completed. This latter project is of high importance for the Baltic Sea because the 
load from the city of Kaliningrad is the second largest after Saint Petersburg. No 
projects have yet been completed in Belarus. Therefore, a lot remains to be done 
in order to achieve the necessary nutrient reductions from these countries.
Effectiveness of actions to reduce agricultural nutrient 
pollution of water
70 
Agriculture is the main source of diffuse nutrient pollution of water (see para -
graph 4) and also, currently, of overall nutrient pollution, especially in countries 
where municipal waste water pollution has already been significantly reduced. 
For instance, agriculture accounts for about two thirds of the waterborne nitro -
gen load in Finland, but for one third in Poland.
31 Observations 
71 
The EU adopted the nitrates directive in 1991 with the aim of protecting water 
against pollution caused by nitrates from agriculture in areas draining into waters 
already polluted or at risk of pollution, the so -called ‘nitrate vulnerable zones’ in 
which nitrate action programmes must be implemented. A Member State could 
also apply the directive’s requirements throughout its entire territory if it so 
decided.
72 
A cross -compliance mechanism was introduced in 2005 which links the pay -
ments received by farmers to their compliance with environmental requirements, 
among other things. These cross- compliance requirements are to be checked in 
a systematic manner as laid down in EU regulations.
73 
Under the water framework directive, where the basic measures — implementa -
tion of the nitrates directive and the other measures for the control of diffuse 
pollution (see paragraph 29) — are insufficient to achieve good water status, as 
is the case in the Baltic Sea region, supplementary measures should be imple -
mented in the catchment areas of water bodies which are failing to achieve good 
water status. These supplementary measures must be included in the river basin 
management plans. For the Member States visited, these measures mostly cor -
respond to the measures in rural development programmes co -financed by the 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.
74 
We examined whether:
— the Member States’ implementation of the requirements of the nitrates direc -
tive is effective and the Commission’s follow -up is appropriate;
— the cross -compliance mechanism is effective in relation to water protection;
— the EU -co-financed rural development measures aimed at water protection 
are effective as regards nutrient reduction.
32 Observations 
The nitrates directive is not effectively implemented, despite 
relatively successful follow‑up on the part of the Commission
Shortcomings in the designation of vulnerable zones
75 
Nitrate vulnerable zones should include all areas of land which drain into pol -
luted waters (i.e. eutrophic waters, waters with nitrates concentration of above 
50 mg/l) or which are at risk of pollution, and which contribute to pollution by 
nitrates. Member States then have to implement an action programme in these 
zones. Germany, Denmark, Finland and Lithuania have not designated specific 
zones, as they chose to apply the action programmes across their entire terri -
tories. The other four Member States, particularly Poland, despite almost entirely 
draining into the Baltic Sea, have designated only a small part of their territories 
as nitrate vulnerable zones (Estonia, 7 %; Latvia, 13 %; Poland, 4.5 % and Swe -
den, 22 %). The Commission has questioned the adequacy of the designation of 
vulnerable areas in these countries, even taking Poland to the European Court of 
Justice (see paragraph 82).
76 
Applying an action programme to an entire territory, as done in Finland, facili -
tates acceptance of the rules, as they are the same for all farmers. However, in ex -
tensive farming areas with low application of fertilisers, good status and low risk 
of pollution of receiving bodies of water, certain action programme requirements 
are superfluous but the administrative and inspection costs are increased. In 
intensive farming and animal-rearing areas, on the other hand, the requirements 
may be insufficient to achieve the nutrient reductions necessary for reaching the 
good status of inland and Baltic Sea waters. For instance, after having applied 
the nitrates directive for 20 years, a significant proportion of the water bodies in 
southern Finland are of a poor status. Also, Finland has not recently reduced its 
nitrogen inputs into the Baltic Sea (see Figure 2 ).
77 
There is still a long way to go before reaching the phosphorus input reduction 
targets (see Annex III ). Furthermore, the nitrates directive focuses on nitrates 
and does not impose limits on applications of phosphorus53. Therefore, when 
eutrophication is triggered by phosphorus, applying a nitrate action programme 
will not necessarily solve the problem and Member States may have to take ad -
ditional measures. Requirements limiting the application of phosphorus to land 
had not been set in the Member States visited (see paragraph 35).53 This problem is only indirectly 
addressed by the directive 
under the requirement 
‘limitation to the land 
application of fertilisers’ 
because, in general, nitrates 
and phosphorus are present 
together (with other nutrients) 
in fertilisers. However, that 
requirement does not 
guarantee limitation of 
phosphorus application, as 
the proportion of different 
nutrients varies in commercial 
fertilisers.
33 Observations 
Variations in the content of the nitrate action programmes
78 
The directive includes both compulsory and optional requirements to be com -
plied with by farmers. However, it sets precise limits only for a few of the compul -
sory requirements, which are therefore applied uniformly by all Member States54. 
As regards other compulsory requirements, the precise rules are established 
by the Member States in their nitrate action programmes. In the three Member 
States visited, these rules varied in their rigour and were less strict than those in 
a study conducted on behalf of the Commission, as shown in Table 2 .
79 
The directive imposes a precise limit on the application of nitrogen from ma -
nure, but not on the application of nitrogen from mineral fertilisers, which has 
increased55. It also includes a general requirement for Member States to provide 
limitations on the overall quantity of nitrogen fertilisers to be applied. The ef -
fectiveness of such a requirement is best ensured by having fertilisation plans 
prepared by independent experts and approved by the competent authorities. 
However, under the nitrates directive, fertilisation plans and records are not 
compulsory for farmers. Finland’s action programme does not require farmers 
to apply fertilisation plans and Poland requires fertilisation records while also 
requiring fertilisation plans for farms above 100 ha, i.e. 1 % of the total number of 
farms in Poland. In these two countries, these requirements are not compulsory, 
but they are applied on a voluntary basis by farmers as conditions for receiv -
ing agri -environmental payments56. Latvia requires both fertilisation plans and 
records for farms above 20 ha (or 3 ha in the case of horticultural holdings), which 
account for 85 % of agricultural land in nitrate vulnerable zones.
80 
Furthermore, the implementation of certain requirements, which is difficult to 
check as they involve refraining from fertilisation on certain dates or on certain 
strips of land (see III.1.1, II.A.2 and II.A.4 in Table 2 ), would be better ensured 
if the use of fertilisation records was required. In the absence of such records, 
breaches can hardly be established with certainty (and sanctions applied) unless 
the farmer is caught red -handed.54 Annex III.2, limit of 170 kg/ha/
year on the application of 
nitrogen from manure and 
Annex II.A.3, prohibition on 
applying fertilisers to 
water -saturated, flooded, 
frozen or snow -covered 
ground.
55 According to Eurostat, from 
2004 to 2012, the overall 
application of nitrogen from 
mineral fertilisers has 
increased at an annual 
average of more than 4 % in 
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania 
and less in Poland and 
Sweden. It has decreased at an 
annual average of 1 % in 
Germany, Finland and 
Denmark.
56 In Finland, this represents 
around 90 % of Finnish 
farmers, accounting for 97 % 
of the arable land. In Poland, 
records must also be kept by 
farmers receiving 
agri-environmental payments, 
but fertilisation plans are only 
required of farmers receiving 
payments under ‘organic 
farming’ and ‘sustainable 
farming’ agri -environmental 
schemes, accounting for 12 % 
of the arable land.
34 Observations 
Requirements of the nitrate action programmes in force at the end of 2014
 Reference to 
annexes of the 
nitrates directiveCompulsory requirements
Fertilisers Manure
III.1.1  
Period of banIII.1.3  
Limit on application 
to land (Kg/ha/year)II.A.2  
Steeply sloping 
groundII.A.4  
Distance to water 
coursesIII.1.2  
Capacity of manure 
storage vessels
LATVIA  
(in nitrate 
 vulnerable zones)4.5 months for manure  
5 months for mineral 
fertilisersPotatoes < 150  
Grassland from 50 to 
190 
Spring cereals and 
oilseeds from 110 to 200All fertilisers prohibited 
on 
slopes > 17.6 % (10°)50 m if slope > 10 ° 
10 m from water-
protected areas6 months production of 
solid manure  
7 months production of 
liquid manure
POLAND  
(in nitrate   
 vulnerable zones)From 3.5 to 4.5 months 
solid manure  
6.5 months liquid 
manure and mineral 
fertilisersPotatoes from 100 to 
200 
Grassland and silage 
from 260 to 300  
Spring cereals and oil -
seeds from 100 to 240Some fertilisers 
prohibited  
on slopes > 10 %From 5 to 20 m 6 months production of 
manure
FINLAND  
(whole country)6 monthsPotatoes < 130  
Grassland, silage < 250  
Spring cereals and 
oilseeds < 170Manure prohibited  
on slopes > 10 %5 m 
10 m if slope > 2 %12 months production 
of manure
Study conducted 
on behalf of the 
CommissionFinland 8 months  
Latvia and Poland 7 
months  
(2 months shorter for 
solid manure in the ab -
sence of any particular 
risks)Potatoes < 130 in 
Finland  
< 90 in Latvia and 
Poland
All fertilisers prohibited 
on slopes > 8 % and 
100 m length25 m along water -
courses in areas of 
eutrophic sensitive 
water bodies  
50 m in case of sloping 
land  
3 to 10 m along ditches 
and small streamsFinland 9 months 
production of manure  
Latvia and Poland 8 
monthsGrassland and silage 
maize < 90 and < 210 
in Finland  
< 100 and < 250 in 
Latvia and Poland
Spring cereals and 
oilseeds < 70 in Finland  
< 60-80 in Latvia and 
Poland
Equal or stricter than the standard in the study 
Close to the standard in the study 
Far below the standard in the study 
Significantly far below the standard in the study 
Source:  ECA.
Study conducted on behalf of the Commission, ‘Recommendations for establishing actions programmes under Directive 91/676/EEC concern -
ing the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agriculture sources’, DLO -Alterra Wageningen UR, DLO -Plant research 
International Wageningen UR, NEIKER Tecnalia, Derio, Spain, Institute of Technology and Life Sciences (ITP), Warsaw, Poland, Swedish Institute of 
Agricultural and Environmental Engineering (JTI), Uppsala, December 2011.Table 2 
35 Observations 
The Commission’s follow‑up has been relatively successful but 
time consuming
81 
The Commission should ensure that the nitrates directive is correctly implement -
ed by the Member States57. However, it is up to the Member States to approve the 
designation of nitrate vulnerable zones or the nitrate action programmes. Every 
4  years, Member States must submit a report (‘Article 10 report’) to the Commis -
sion containing a justification of the nitrate vulnerable zones they have designat -
ed, the results of their monitoring of water pollution by nitrates and a summary 
of their action programmes. Where the Commission believes the directive has not 
been implemented correctly, the sole coercive tool at its disposal is legal action.
82 
Since 2010, the Commission has maintained a dialogue with all Baltic Sea Member 
States, which has helped to bring about changes to fertilisation laws in general. 
The latest new action programmes, which make some requirements stricter, were 
introduced in Finland and Latvia at the end of 2014. In 2008, the Commission 
asked Poland to extend its nitrate vulnerable zones and to improve its action 
programmes. Finally, following a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European 
Union (C-356/13) in 2014, Poland has set legislative procedures in motion to 
redesignate its nitrate vulnerable zones and to change its fertilisation laws and 
action programmes for 2016.
83 
The Commission’s follow -up procedure is time consuming, which is partly ex -
plained by the fact that the directive requirements are formulated in a general 
manner and need detailed implementation rules in the Member States. The Com -
mission also needs scientific expertise to assess whether Member States’ rules are 
strict enough to ensure the level of water protection intended by the directive. 
Following the study mentioned in Table 2 , and additional scientific evidence, the 
Commission has intensified its actions, but the recommendations of this study 
are sometimes contested by Member States. At the time of the audit, discussions 
were ongoing with Estonia and Sweden and an infringement case was open in 
relation to Estonia. The Commission agreed that, instead of extending the nitrate 
vulnerable zones, Latvia should impose some rules regarding the use of nitrates 
outside those zones. But these two options may not be equally effective: while 
the requirements applicable in the nitrate vulnerable zones are enforced through 
an EU mechanism, the requirements outside those zones are not all covered by 
similar checks (see paragraph 85).57 Article 258 of the Lisbon Treaty 
requires the Commission is to 
ensure that the provisions of 
the Treaty and the measures 
taken by the institutions 
pursuant thereto are applied.
36 Observations 
58 Cultivation and grazing are 
allowed but with restrictions 
such as limitations with regard 
to fertilisation.
59 Examples of national 
requirements about the use of 
fertilisers outside nitrate 
vulnerable zones are period of 
prohibition on applying 
fertilisers (Poland), the limit of 
170 kg of nitrogen from 
manure per hectare and the 
prohibition on applying 
fertilisers to water-saturated, 
flooded, frozen and 
snow -covered land and on 
applying fertilisers to steeply 
sloping land (Poland and 
Latvia).The cross‑compliance mechanism helps to enforce the 
nitrates directive and other fertilisation requirements, but is 
not fully effective
Not all requirements regarding the use of fertilisers fall within the 
scope of cross‑compliance
84 
The nitrates directive did not include any specific provisions regarding the 
enforcement of its requirements. Since the introduction of the cross- compliance 
system, the requirements applicable to nitrate vulnerable zones must be checked 
under cross- compliance. This means that if the requirements are not complied 
with, the farmer can be penalised. However, while sectorial legislation and its 
enforcement mechanisms apply to all farmers, only recipients of CAP payments 
can be sanctioned under cross -compliance.
85 
In addition, Member States have to set standards, known as GAEC standards, for 
issues defined by EU legislation so that land is maintained in a good agricultural 
and environmental condition. The GAEC of relevance for water quality, where fer -
tilisation requirements have to be specified, is the GAEC ‘establishment of buffer 
strips along water courses’58.
86 
However, not all national requirements concerning the use of fertilisers outside 
nitrate vulnerable zones fall under GAEC and therefore not all are within the 
scope of cross- compliance59. Requirements out of the scope of cross- compliance 
are checked by national environmental protection authorities and can lead to 
sanctions under national law. However, these checks were affected by weak -
nesses in the procedures for determining the control sample (Poland) and by 
the fact that not all applicable requirements were checked (Latvia). In the latter 
country additional checks only covered requirements regarding manure storage 
and management.
87 
In addition, our audit found that the GAEC on buffer strips was rather undemand -
ing (see Box 2 ).
37 Observations 
60 Paragraph 69 of Special 
Report No 8/2008 ‘Is 
cross-compliance an effective 
policy?’ and Special Report 
23/2015, paragraph 136.Cross‑compliance checks show significant rate of non‑compliance 
with requirements for water protection against nutrients
88 
In all three Member States visited, the specific risks relating to nutrient loads 
were not taken into account when selecting the samples (see Table 3 ).Box 2 Table 3Examples of requirements under GAEC establishing buffer strips along 
watercourses
The GAEC, applicable to all farmers since 2013, had to correspond at least to the requirements applicable to 
farmers in nitrate vulnerable zones. Table 2  (requirement II.A.4) already shows the great variety in defining 
the requirements.
In Finland, the GAEC additionally specified that the cultivation is not allowed on the strip up to a width of 
0.60 m from the watercourse border. Latvia and Poland did not use the opportunity of the GAEC to require 
a strip of non -cultivated land.
Nutrient load ‑related factors taken into account when 
selecting the sample for cross‑compliance checks
Farms presenting a higher risk as regards water  
pollution by nutrientsLV PL FI
Located near watercourses NO YES NO
Located on sloping land NO YES NO
Having high livestock density > 1.7 livestock units/ha NO NO NO
Source:  ECA.
89 
The inspection instructions in the Member States are not always detailed enough 
to prevent some key checks being performed incorrectly. For example, the audit 
found that the instructions did not require the reliability of records on fertilisers 
to be confirmed by means of reconciliation against invoices (Poland) and fertiliser 
stocks (Poland and Latvia). The timing of the inspections (mainly from July to 
October) is not appropriate for checking the requirements concerning the winter 
months. This problem has already been pointed out by the Court60.
38 Observations 
61 Special Reports Nos 8/2008, 
4/2014 and 23/2015.
62 Article 36 of Regulation (EC) 
No 1698/2005.
63 River basin management 
plans adopted in 2009 cover 
the period 2010-2015 while 
rural development 
programmes adopted in 2006 
cover the period 2007-2013.
64 River basin management 
plans in Latvia propose two 
measures to be financed with 
national funds, ‘grassland 
buffer zones’ and ‘preparation 
of fertilisation plans’, but these 
were limited in scope or not 
implemented.90 
There is a high rate of non -compliance in the three countries visited as regards 
their application of requirements in the nitrate vulnerable zones, ranging from 
17 % to 32 % of the farmers checked in 2013. Most of the cases of non -compliance 
concerned manure storage facilities which were lacking or unsuitable, and prob -
lems with the analysis of nitrogen content in manure (Finland), non -compliance 
with the limit for manure nitrogen application (Poland) and inadequate fertilisa -
tion plans and lack of records on fertilisers (Latvia). This indicates that the control 
system has a limited deterrent effect, as already pointed out in previous Court 
reports61.
EU co‑financed rural development measures in the 2007 ‑2013 
period have had little effect on reducing nutrient pollution in 
water bodies in the visited Member States
91 
The supplementary measures in the 2009 river basin management plans were 
aimed at reducing nutrient pollution from agriculture and were largely of the 
same nature as the measures set in the 2007-2013 rural development pro -
grammes, i.e. investments in farms related to manure storage and measures for 
improving the environment and the countryside62. However, in the rural develop -
ment programmes, these measures are aimed at achieving multiple environmen -
tal objectives and, in general, all farmers can apply them on a voluntary basis 
regardless of farm location, while in the river basin management plans, they are 
presented as a major tool for improving water status and are to be applied in 
specific areas.
92 
Furthermore, when river basin management plans were adopted63, a significant 
share of the rural development funds had already been committed, in particular 
for agri -environmental schemes, but not necessarily in the areas specified in the 
river basin management plans. In order to implement these schemes in the areas 
specified, better coordination between rural development and water authorities 
and/or additional funds would have been necessary. This was rarely the case64.
39 Observations 
65 In Latvia, the investments in 
manure storage facilities have 
reached 50 % of farms with 
80 % of livestock units in 
nitrate vulnerable zones. The 
support to manure storage 
facilities has had little success 
in Poland.Investments co‑financed by EU funds have helped farmers to 
better manage manure, but have only partially addressed the 
most polluting farms
93 
The lack of appropriate manure storage facilities was acknowledged as a major 
problem concerning almost all farms in nitrate vulnerable zones in Poland. It 
was also considered significant in Latvia. This issue was addressed with varying 
degrees of success by the first Polish and Latvian rural development programmes 
(2004-2006)65. In addition, the 2009 river basin management plans were drawn up 
on the basis that improving manure storage facilities in nitrate vulnerable zones 
and in certain water bodies’ catchment areas was still necessary. River basin man -
agement plans in Finland also include this measure.
94 
Nevertheless, when implementing their 2007-2013 rural development pro -
grammes, none of the three Member States visited prioritised grants for improv -
ing manure storage facilities on farms which are located in nitrate vulnerable 
zones or which represent higher risks to water protection, such as those with 
high livestock density and those located in the basins of water bodies with poor 
water status.
Several factors have limited the effectiveness of rural development 
measures aimed at water protection
95 
In terms of reducing nutrient pollution of water, the most relevant agri -environ -
mental schemes were not geographically targeted at the problematic areas 
identified in the river basin management plans. These are often areas of intensive 
farming and /or nitrate vulnerable zones, as well as areas subject to erosion and 
therefore with significant nutrient run -off into water. Even if a few agri -environ -
mental schemes and afforestation measures were well targeted, they attracted 
little demand from farmers. For instance, in Finland, the schemes’ ‘establishment 
of buffer strips (riparian zones)’ and ‘efficient reduction of nutrient load (phos -
phorus)’ schemes achieved 57 % and 15 % of their respective targets (number of 
hectares). In Latvia, the ‘stubble field in winter period’ scheme achieved close 
to 59 % and in Poland, the ‘afforestation’ measure achieved 50 %. According to 
the national authorities, the low figures were due to the complexity of measures 
and low amounts of subsidy, especially for intensive farms which are, in general, 
located in these areas.
40 Observations 
66 Minimum requirements 
concerning fertilisers and 
pesticides have to be defined 
by Member States and are 
applicable for certain 
measures under the rural 
development programmes. In 
the three Member States 
visited, they do not go beyond 
cross- compliance 
requirements regarding 
fertilisers and do not include 
limits on phosphorus 
application, except in Finland, 
where the limit is however 
rather liberal.96 
As a consequence, the most relevant agri -environmental schemes are insuffi -
ciently applied in areas at risk of nutrient pollution in the audited Member States. 
For instance, in Latvia and Poland, most of the surface concerned by ‘organic 
farming’, ‘protection of soils and water’ and ‘buffer grass zones’ is agricultural 
land situated outside the nitrate vulnerable zones (see Table 4 ).Table 4Implementation of agri‑environmental schemes relevant 
for water protection in nitrate vulnerable zones
% of supported area located in nitrate 
vulnerable zones
Agri-environmental schemes relevant for water 
protectionLV PL
Organic farming 5.2 1.6
Integrated/sustainable farming 28.8 11.6
Protection of soils and water 10.9 7. 5
Buffer grass zones 0.0 2.4
Note:  Finland is not included in the table as the whole country is defined as a nitrate vulnerable 
zone.
Source:  ECA.
97 
Moreover, some agri -environmental scheme requirements were not demanding 
enough, being sometimes only slightly stricter than the baseline requirements, 
i.e. cross- compliance requirements and the minimum requirements for fertil -
isers and pesticides66. For instance, in Poland, the agri -environmental scheme for 
establishing a strip of non -cultivated land containing grasses and native shrubs 
along watercourses requires a strip width of 5 m, while the required minimum 
width is much greater in other Member States, e.g. 15 m. In Finland, the require -
ments concerning fertilisation plans and covering soil with vegetation in the win -
ter could have been included in the baseline requirements. This has been done 
in Latvia (see paragraph 79) for both requirements, and in Poland for the latter 
requirement (see paragraph 86 and footnote 59).
41 Observations 
67 Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 
of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
17 December 2013 on support 
for rural development by the 
European Agricultural Fund 
for Rural Development 
(EAFRD) and repealing Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.
68 For instance, in the Latvian 
rural development 
programme, the Commission 
asked for mitigation measures 
to be imposed for any 
co-financed investment in 
drainage of agricultural and 
forestry land as set out in the 
river basin management 
plans.
69 Farmers entitled to an 
area -based payment are 
required to employ a set of 
‘greening’ practices beneficial 
for the environment and 
climate action on their farms. 
These practices take the form 
of crop diversification, 
maintenance of permanent 
grassland and dedicating 5 % 
of arable land to ecologically 
beneficial elements. 
Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 
of the European Parliament 
and the Council of 
17 December 2013 
establishing rules for direct 
payments to farmers under 
support schemes within the 
framework of the common 
agricultural policy and 
repealing Council Regulation 
(EC) No 637/2008 and Council 
Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 
(OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 608).
70 In the Finnish rural 
development programme, 
geographical targeting has 
been improved by means of 
various mechanisms. In the 
Polish rural development 
programme, the fertilisation 
plan requirement has been 
extended to several 
agri-environmental schemes. 
In the Latvian rural develop -
ment programme, the 
requirements of the ‘stubble 
field’ and ‘integrated 
horticulture’ schemes have 
been made stricter than in the 
previous programme.98 
The audit also showed that none of the Member States bordering the Baltic Sea 
has included the ‘payments linked to the water framework directive’ measure in 
its 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 rural development programmes (except Denmark 
in 2007-2013). This was explained by the fact that this measure can only support 
actions which go beyond the baseline requirements and are compulsory for 
farmers in areas identified in the river basin management plans. Such measures 
were not included in the first basin management plans in most of the Baltic Sea 
Member States.
99 
On the one hand, the most polluting farms do not sufficiently apply agri -environ -
mental schemes because the schemes offer limited compensation payments and, 
on the other hand, the Member States do not impose on these farms the penal -
ties required for the purpose of water protection. Special Report No 23/2015 
(paragraphs 154 to 161) elaborates on the difficulty of applying the ‘polluter pays’ 
principle to agriculture in practice.
In the 2014 ‑2020 programming period, tools are available to 
improve the effectiveness of rural development measures on 
water protection but these have not yet been fully used
100  
Regulation (EU) No 1305/201367 provides for a dedicated water protection priority 
in rural development programmes and lays down ex ante conditionalities to be 
fulfilled regarding the implementation of the water framework directive and the 
environmental legislation applicable to agriculture.
101  
When assessing the 2014-2020 rural development programmes before approving 
them, the Commission insisted that Member States target measures appropri -
ately at the areas most in need. It also requested greater consistency between 
the river basin management plans (drafts ready for approval by the end of 2015) 
and the rural development programmes, particularly as regards geographical 
targeting68. Finally, it requested stricter baseline requirements, as well as more 
demanding requirements specific to agri -environmental schemes, and that any 
overlap between rural development measures and newly introduced greening 
practices be avoided69. In practice, the discussion with the Commission led to 
some improvements in the rural development programmes’ measures aimed at 
protecting water quality70.
42 Observations 
71 A ‘macro -regional strategy’ is 
an integrated framework, 
endorsed by the European 
Council, to address common 
challenges faced by a defined 
geographical area, relating to 
Member States and third 
countries located in the same 
geographical area, which 
thereby benefit from 
strengthened cooperation, 
thus helping to bring about 
economic, social and territorial 
cohesion ( Source:  InfoRegio).
72 SWD(2013) 233 final of 
27 June 2013 accompanying 
the report from Commission 
concerning the added value of 
macro -regional strategies. 
Also COM(2014) 284 final of 
20 June 2014 ’Report from the 
Commission concerning the 
governance of macro -regional 
strategies’.102  
As a result, however, some 2014-2020 rural development programmes were 
partially or conditionally approved because at the time of their approval, Mem -
ber States were still in the process of drafting their 2015 river basin management 
plans, amending legislation concerning their baseline requirements or establish -
ing greening practices. This will mean delays in the implementation of certain 
measures.
The added value of the EUSBSR as regards the 
reduction of nutrient inputs into the Baltic Sea
103  
The EU strategy for the Baltic Sea Region was launched in 2009 as a pioneer 
exercise for putting in place the macro -regional approach71 to regional develop -
ment and creating, among others, links between environmental and agricultural 
authorities. The EUSBSR sub -objective, named ‘Clear water in the Baltic Sea’, 
adopted the Helcom BSAP nutrient input reduction targets. Therefore, its added 
value in this field should be to support and speed up the implementation of the 
Helcom BSAP by means of new governance, bringing together various sector 
policies and resources, involving a wide range of stakeholders (public, private, 
civil society) and strengthening international cooperation72.
104  
We examined whether:
— the EUSBSR has a noticeable impact in the field of nutrient load reduction;
— innovative projects were developed and the resulting best practices were 
disseminated;
— the Commission has acted to ensure that operational programmes and rural 
development programmes are aligned with the EUSBSR nutrient reduction 
objective.
43 Observations 
A complex governance network and an added value that is 
difficult to assess
105  
The EUSBSR is built on the three ‘nos’ principle: no new legislation, no new 
funding and no new institutions. Even if the intention was not to create new 
institutions, in practice the EUSBSR consists of a large web of groups and actors. 
These have been added to the numerous actors already working in the Baltic 
Sea Region. However, in practical terms, it is difficult to assess the added value 
of the EUSBSR to the Member State actions to reduce nutrient inputs as there is 
no monitoring framework in place to distinguish the results of the strategy from 
those of the already existing actions.
Flagship projects help to disseminate good practices, 
but their impact on nutrient reduction has not been 
demonstrated
106  
It was expected that stakeholders, such as Member States’ authorities, business 
partners, universities and NGOs, would develop innovative projects using and 
further developing best practices. The most significant EUSBSR flagship projects, 
their objectives, cost and financing sources are presented in Annex  V.
107  
Flagship projects Baltic Manure and Baltic Deal have helped to disseminate good 
practices in the area of agriculture. However, some flagship projects represent 
very little direct investment in reducing nutrient loads. Other projects which did 
not achieve recognition as flagship projects are equally important in the field of 
nutrient reduction, such as the Baltic Compass and Baltic Compact projects, ad -
dressing agricultural pollution, and PURE, addressing urban waste water phos -
phorus treatment.
108  
The contribution of flagship projects and other projects financed by the Baltic 
Sea region programme to nutrient reduction is difficult to identify. Most of the 
flagship projects do not produce immediately tangible results on their own as 
they often serve as pilot examples for desired broader action in a given field. In 
some cases, they are partly redundant, with results being obtained through other 
EU-funded research projects and assessments already made by the Commission.
44 Observations 
73 See Regulation (EU) No 
1303/2013, Article 15 (content 
of partnership agreement), 
Article 96(3)(d) (requirement 
that operational programmes 
specify the arrangements for 
interregional and trans -
national actions) and 
Article 70(2) (permission of 
co-financing of operations 
located outside the 
programme area).
74 Partnership agreements and 
operational programmes in 
Sweden, Finland, Latvia and 
Poland were examined.
75 This is clearly established in 
the Polish national operational 
programme ‘Infrastructures 
and environment’ and in 
Swedish operational 
programmes, and it is stated 
in general terms in the Finnish 
national operational 
programme.Need for operational programmes to take better account of 
the EUSBSR
109  
One of the three principles of the EUSBSR is no new financing. Rather, both EU co -
hesion funding and national funding are expected to be better targeted to sup -
port the macro -regional objectives and to be used more efficiently. Because the 
EUSBSR was created in 2009, in the middle of the 2007-2013 programming period, 
the scope for the macro -regional strategy to influence the allocation of funds 
between the priorities of operational programmes was limited from the outset.
110  
In the 2014-2020 programming period, the scope for the EUSBSR to influence 
cohesion policy and rural development design has increased73. The audit showed 
that the 2014-2020 programming documents (partnership agreements and 
operational programmes) were assessed in a structured and standard manner by 
the Commission, which paid close attention to links between the EUSBSR and the 
priorities in the programmes, and to the coordination mechanisms between the 
structures for managing EU funds and the EUSBSR.
111 
However, we also found, in relation to the ‘Clear water in the Baltic Sea’ sub - 
objective, that the EUSBSR has had little influence on Member States’ priorities74. 
For instance, Swedish and Finnish operational programmes make hardly any 
reference to that particular EUSBSR sub -objective, and the corresponding Latvian 
and Polish measures concern waste water infrastructures which are required in 
order to comply with the EU directives anyway, regardless of the existence of the 
EUSBSR. There is little scope for Member States to increase the allocation of EU 
funds to water protection in the 2014-2020 programming period because 50 % of 
ERDF funds in convergence regions and 80 % in other regions are earmarked for 
only three thematic objectives. Environmental protection is not one of the three.
112  
Following the Commission’s recommendations, three of the four national opera -
tional programmes examined gave particular priority to projects related to the 
EUSBSR75. However, none of these projects propose targets or indicators for nutri -
ent input reduction, therefore making it difficult to assess their contribution to 
the EUSBSR sub -objective on clear water. All four operational programmes have 
integrated the EUSBSR national structures into their monitoring committees.
45
 Conclusions and 
recommendations
113  
The implementation of EU actions by the Member States has led to limited pro -
gress towards reducing nutrient inputs into the Baltic Sea. Investments in waste 
water infrastructure have been only partly effective, agricultural measures are 
not commensurate with the scale of the pressure and are insufficiently targeted 
and the added value of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea is difficult to assess.
Member States’ plans lack ambition and appropriate 
indicators, and limited progress has been made as 
regards nutrient reduction
114  
As of the end of 2012, limited progress had been made in reducing nutrient 
inputs in order to combat eutrophication in the Baltic Sea. The nutrient load from 
urban agglomerations has decreased while remaining stable or even increasing 
from agriculture (see paragraph 25).
115  
Member States’ nutrient reduction plans for achieving Helcom targets have been 
limited to implementing river basin management plans established under the 
water framework directive. This will not always be sufficient to achieve the neces -
sary nutrient reductions for the Baltic Sea. Furthermore, the river basin manage -
ment plans are insufficient as most of their measures mainly involve implement -
ing specific EU directives (see paragraphs 26 to 30).
116  
The objectives of river basin management plans under the water framework 
direct  ive are expressed by means of an impact indicator, the percentage of 
waters in good status. But this has not been translated into any underlying tar -
gets, such as an annual nutrient load quantity. The same problem was noted in 
the preparatory documents for the programmes of measures under the marine 
strategy framework directive. The Helcom recommendations, which go beyond 
the standards laid down in EU directives for specific activities, are only partially 
applied (see paragraphs 31 to 36).
117  
The reliability of monitoring data on nutrient inputs to the Baltic Sea is not as -
sured. This is particularly true in the case of data on transboundary and diffuse 
pollution, which is crucial for a fair allocation of reduction targets by country and 
for establishing appropriate measures (see paragraphs 37 to 41).
46 Conclusions and recommendations 
Recommendation 1
The Commission should:
(a) require that Member States define programmes of measures which en -
able them to reach measurable targets for reducing nutrient loads in order 
to achieve the objectives of the marine strategy framework and the water 
framework directives;
(b) require that Member States reliably and consistently assess and monitor 
 nutrient loads in their river basins and nutrient inputs into the Baltic Sea.
The Member States should:
(c) collect information on the cost -effectiveness of nutrient load reduction 
measures in order to have a robust analysis for establishing future pro -
grammes of measures.
Actions to reduce nutrient pollution from urban waste 
water are partly effective
118  
Not all of the Baltic Sea Member States which were required to comply with the 
directive by 2012 do so. Only Germany and Finland were very close to full compli -
ance with Articles 4 and 5 of the directive setting out secondary and more strin -
gent treatment requirements. Regarding Member States which must complete 
the implementation of the directive by the end of 2015, despite the significant 
EU co -financed investments, compliance with the directive will not be achieved 
in Poland and the rate of non -connection to collecting systems is still high (see 
paragraphs 46 to 54).
119  
The waste water treatment plants visited are effective and compliant with the 
waste water treatment directive. But only some of them meet the stricter recom -
mendation made by Helcom regarding phosphorus. Their financial sustainability 
is not always guaranteed (see paragraphs 55 to 57).
47 Conclusions and recommendations 
120  
The Commission’s follow -up of the Member States’ compliance with the provi -
sions of their Accession Treaties was not timely. The Commission does not follow 
up closely enough on the implementation of these plans because its work is 
based on inadequate data. The Commission has been slow to take action to 
detect breaches and prosecute cases of non -compliance in Member States (see 
paragraphs 58 to 64).
121  
EU support for waste water collection and treatment infrastructures in Russia and 
Belarus potentially results in cost -efficient nutrient reduction from waste water 
discharges. But implementation takes a long time and is very limited in scope 
compared to what is required. A specific problem lies with pollution from the 
Kaliningrad area in Russia (see paragraphs 65 to 69).
Recommendation 2
The Commission should:
(a) encourage Member States to lay down and enforce legal obligations for 
households to connect to existing sewage networks;
(b) require that Member States implement a sustainable waste water tariff policy 
in order to enable the correct maintenance and renewal of assets. This policy 
should take into account the polluter pays principle and the affordability of 
water services;
(c) decrease the time needed to assess compliance with the urban waste water 
treatment directive;
(d) continue to promote projects aimed at reducing the nutrient loads into the 
Baltic Sea from Russia and Belarus by focusing more closely on key polluters 
identified by Helcom (such as the Kaliningrad area).
The Member States should:
(e) plan and construct their waste water infrastructure as efficiently as possible 
and, if necessary, consider granting financial support to households which 
could not otherwise afford to connect to the sewage network;
(f) set stricter nutrient standards for effluents than those laid down in the urban 
waste water treatment directive for areas that drain into waters failing to 
reach nutrient conditions consistent with water framework directive and 
marine strategy framework directive good status.
48 Conclusions and recommendations 
Reluctance of the Member States to make full use of 
the possible actions in the field of agriculture and lack 
of targeting to the areas in need
122  
Mandatory measures under the nitrates directive are applied to an insufficient 
area in some Member States. The action programmes vary in their rigour and 
are not always as strict as recommended by the Commission. The directive does 
not explicitly require farms to draft fertilisation plans, nor to keep records of the 
fertilisers used. Both tools would help to implement and control several require -
ments of the nitrates directive. The Commission has provided guidance to Mem -
ber States and has undertaken a continuous follow -up of the implementation of 
the nitrates directive. This has led to improvements in the designation of nitrate 
vulnerable zones and action programmes, but the process is time consuming (see 
paragraphs 75 to 83).
123  
The cross- compliance mechanism helps to enforce the requirements regarding 
nitrates and other fertilisation requirements, but is not fully effective because 
some requirements are not very demanding. The cross -compliance system of 
checks and sanctions is affected by weaknesses in sample selection and in -
structions. There is a high rate of non -compliance as regards the application of 
requirements in the nitrate vulnerable zones indicating that control systems have 
currently a limited deterrent effect. There are weaknesses in national checks on 
requirements outside the scope of cross -compliance (see paragraphs 84 to 90).
124  
EU co -financed rural development measures have had little impact on reducing 
nutrient pollution in water bodies. The investments aimed at helping farmers 
to improve manure storage and management have only partially addressed the 
relevant farms. The agri -environmental schemes have not been geographically 
targeted to areas where water bodies are failing to achieve good status. The 
specific measure regarding the implementation of actions linked to the water 
framework directive has rarely been implemented. The polluter pays principle is 
not sufficiently applied to agricultural activity (see paragraphs 91 to 99).
49 Conclusions and recommendations 
125  
The Commission has taken the opportunity provided by new tools applicable 
to the 2014-2020 programming period to require stricter baseline requirements 
and more demanding agri -environmental measures. It has also requested better 
geographical targeting of rural development measures and improved consist -
ency between rural development programmes and river basin management 
plans. Discussions with Member States have led to improvements. However, 
several measures will still have to be redefined once all of the corresponding 
pieces of national legislation and planning are adopted. This will thus delay the 
implementation of certain measures and add to the administrative burden of the 
programmes (see paragraphs 100 to 102).
Recommendation 3
The Commission should:
(a) require that the Member States designate appropriate nitrate vulnerable 
zones. In doing so, Member States should take into account information on 
agricultural nutrients pollution pressures gathered in river basin manage -
ment plans of the water framework directive.
Member States should:
(b) set appropriate limits for the use of phosphorus in agriculture where it puts 
at risk the good water status;
(c) establish their nitrates action programme rules based on the most recent 
scientific evidence;
(d) establish compulsory actions which go beyond the existing requirements for 
polluting farms in catchment areas draining into eutrophic waters;
(e) apply the most relevant agri -environmental schemes in relation to reducing 
nutrient pollution of water and target these schemes and afforestation meas -
ures at the areas where their impact on nutrient load reduction is highest.
50 Conclusions and recommendations 
The macro‑regional EU strategy for the Baltic Sea 
region added value on the reduction of nutrients is 
difficult to asses
126  
The EUSBSR’s governance structure is complex and adds new layers to the exist -
ing regional governance institutions. The EUSBSR’s impact on Member States’ 
actions to reduce nutrient inputs into the Baltic Sea is difficult to assess (see 
paragraph 105).
127  
Flagship projects carried out in cooperation between several EU and non -EU 
countries are aimed at developing best practices to be implemented broadly. 
Sometimes, however, their results do not go beyond what was already available 
and their impact in practical terms has been rather low (see paragraphs 106 and 
108).
128  
In addition, the expected result of aligning the priorities of EU co -financed pro -
grammes with the ‘Clear water in the Baltic Sea’ sub -objective was very modest 
(see paragraphs 109 to 112).
This Report was adopted by Chamber II, headed by Mr Henri GRETHEN, Member of the 
Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 27 January 2016.
 For the Court of Auditors
 Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA
 President
51
 Annexes
Nutrient input reduction targets
CountryAverage 
nitrogen input 
1997-2003Average 
phosphorus 
input 
1997-20032021 reduction 
target for N2021 
reduction 
target for PReduction 
% NReduction 
% P
tonnes/year tonnes/year tonnes/year tonnes/year
Denmark 70 490 1 928 2 890 38 4 2
Estonia 27 684 804 1 800 320 7 40
Finland 88 005 3 609 3 030 356 3 10
Germany 65 672 627 7 670 170 12 27
Latvia 61 164 829 1 670 220 3 27
Lithuania 48 689 2 463 8 970 1 470 18 60
Poland 212 412 11 787 43 610 7 480 21 63
Russia 87 122 7 142 10 380 3 790 12 53
Sweden 130 279 3 639 9 240 530 7 15
Nutrient input originating in Helcom 
countries791  517 32 828 89 260 14 374 11 44
Nutrient input from non -signatory 
countries1 21 421 1 979
Nutrient load into Baltic Sea through 
Helcom countries812  938 34 807
Nutrients from other sources297 405 2 087
Total Baltic Sea 910  343 36 894 118  134 15 178 13 41
1 Transboundary riverine nutrient inputs from the Czech Republic, Ukraine and Belarus.
2 Inputs from shipping and atmospheric pollution originated in all EU countries not included in the Baltic Sea catchment area.
Source:  ECA, based on data from the ‘Summary report on the development of revised maximum allowable inputs (MAI) and updated country 
allocated reduction targets (CART) of the Baltic Sea action plan’, Helcom ministerial meeting, 2013.Annex I
52 Annexes 
Trends in nitrogen and phosphorus inputs into the Baltic Sea by country
(tonnes/year)
DE DK EE FI LT LV PL RU SE
NInputs 1997-2003 65 672 70 490 27 684 88 005 48 689 61 164 212 412 87 122 130 279
Inputs 2012 including uncertainty 
(test value)55 963 52 535 28 378 94 688 55 502 70 388 191 602 91 757 116 723
DE DK EE FI LT LV PL RU SE
PInputs 1997-2003 627 1 928 804 3 609 2 463 829 11 787 7 142 3 639
Inputs 2012 including uncertainty 
(test value)630 1 663 782 3 608 1 929 1 242 9 680 7 230 3 509
Source:  Preliminary assessment for following up on progress towards the country -wise allocated reduction targets on nutrients (CART) adopted 
by the 2013 Copenhagen Helcom Ministerial Declaration.
Svendsen, L. M., Gustafsson, B. and Pyhälä, M., ‘Assessment for fulfilment of nutrient reduction targets of the Helcom nutrient reduction scheme, 
2015 ( http://Helcom.fi/baltic -sea-action -plan/progress- towards- reduction -targets/key -message ).Annex II
53 Annexes 
Achievement of input ceilings by sub‑basin
(tonnes/year)
Bothnian 
BayBothnian 
SeaBaltic 
ProperGulf of 
FinlandGulf of 
RigaDanish 
StraitsKattegat Total
Nitrogen input ceiling taking into 
account the Helcom reduction 
target57 622 79 372 325 000 101 800 88 418 65 998 74 001 792 211
Inputs 2012 including uncertainty 
(test value)60 484 74 794 375 760 119 687 97 106 51 495 65 801 845 127
Extra reduction 4 578 14 503 8 200 27 281
Missing reduction to fulfil 2021 Helcom 
targets2 862 50 760 17 887 8 688 80 197
Phosphorus input ceiling taking 
into account the Helcom reduction 
target2 675 2 773 7 360 3 600 2 020 1 601 1 687 21 716
Inputs 2012 including uncertainty 
(test value)2 787 2 490 15 145 7 536 2 775 1 418 1 591 33 742
Extra reduction 283 183 96 562
Missing reduction to fulfil 2021 Helcom 
target112 7 785 3 936 755 12 588
Source:  Preliminary assessment for following up on progress towards the country-wise allocated reduction targets on nutrients (CART) adopted 
by the 2013 Copenhagen Helcom Ministerial Declaration.
Svendsen, L. M., Gustafsson, B. and Pyhälä, M., ‘Assessment for fulfilment of nutrient reduction targets of the Helcom Nutrient reduction scheme' 
2015 (http://Helcom.fi/baltic-sea-action-plan/progress-towards-reduction-targets/key-message).  Annex III
54 Annexes 
Nutrient concentration in the effluent of waste water treatment plants in the main 
cities of EU Member States around the Baltic Sea (2013)Annex IV
Uppsala
N: 10.52 (mg/l)
P: 0.13 (mg/l)Turku
N: 14.18 (mg/l)
P: 0.15 (mg/l)
Gdańsk
N: 8.30 (mg/l)
P: 0.38 (mg/l)Stockholm
N: 9.47 (mg/l)
P: 0.14 (mg/l)Espoo
N: 16.38 (mg/l)
P: 0.31 (mg/l)
Tallinn
N: 7.52 (mg/l)
P: 0.45 (mg/l)Helsinki
N: 3.69 (mg/l)
P: 0.22 (mg/l)
Gdynia
N: 8.40 (mg/l)
P: 0.64 (mg/l)Copenhagen
N: 543 (mg/l)
P: 1.81 (mg/l)Malmö
N: 9.30 (mg/l)
P: 0.27 (mg/l)
Kiel
N: 5.79 (mg/l)
P: 0.11 (mg/l)
Lübeck
N: 7.38 (mg/l)
P: 0.18 (mg/l)Rostock
N: 11.62 (mg/l)
P: 0.18 (mg/l)
Szczecin
N: 6.64 (mg/l)
P: 0.43 (mg/l)
Poznań
N: 7.92 (mg/l)
P: 0.45 (mg/l)
Wrocław
N: 9.50 (mg/l)
P: 0.50 (mg/l)Warsaw
N: 8.52 (mg/l)
P: 0.52 (mg/l) Łódź
N: 9.72 (mg/l)
P: 0.78 (mg/l)26 262500 0001 000 0001 500 0002 000 0002 666 000
Riga
N: 11.16 (mg/l)
P: 0.88 (mg/l)
Jelgava
N: 6.35 (mg/l)
P: 0.37 (mg/l)Ogre
N: 33.89 (mg/l)
P: 5.91 (mg/l)
Daugavpils
N: 5.55 (mg/l)
P: 0.61 (mg/l)
Vilnius
N: 9.52 (mg/l)
P: 0.66 (mg/l)Klaipėda
N: 9.99 (mg/l)
P: 0.33 (mg/l)
Kaunas
N: 8.50 (mg/l)
P: 0.34 (mg/l)Jūrmala
N: 8.67 (mg/l)
P: 0.27 (mg/l)
Source:  ECA, based on data from the end of 2013 provided by Member States. The values for Copenhagen and Stockholm are derived from the 
averages of two waste water treatment plants in each of these cities.
55 Annexes 
Flagship and other projects significant for the implementation of the EUSBSR
(million euro)
EUSBSR flagship projects dealing with eutrophication
Priority area AGRI Source and amount of financing
Baltic ManureThis project aims to develop expertise in relation to innovative manure 
management solutions, such as the production of renewable energy 
and organic fertilisers.Baltic Sea region (BSR) OP
Total: 3.7
ERDF: 2.8
Recycling phosphorusThis project aims to recover phosphorus from the main sources in the 
Baltic Sea region, such as manure, sewage sludge and carcasses and 
to produce recycled fertilisers. It also aims to develop site -specific 
fertilisation strategies in order to make the Baltic Sea region the first 
self-sustaining region in terms of mineral phosphorus fertiliser input.
Priority area NUTRI Financing
Removing phosphates in 
detergentsThe aim of this project was to support the Baltic Sea states in 
implementing Helcom recommendation 28E/7 (i.e. national legisla -
tive action to limit the use of phosphates in laundry detergents and 
automatic dishwasher detergents) by producing information material 
for policymakers. An EU -wide ban on phosphates in laundry detergents 
was adopted in 2011.The small project budget was funded by 
the Swedish Chemicals Agency.
PRESTOThe project aims to reduce the nutrient load into the Baltic Sea through 
education programmes for operating staff, designers and academic 
trainers involved in waste water treatment, as well as technical studies 
and investments in selected Belarusian waste water treatment plants 
(Baranovichi, Grodno, Molodechno and Vitebsk).BSR OP
Total: 4.6
ERDF: 1.1
ENPI: 2.8
Baltic DealThis project aims to combat farm nutrient run -off and leakage: it was 
initiated by five farmers’ federations on a voluntary basis.BSR OP
Total: 3.8
ERDF: 3.0
Assessment of regional 
nutrient pollution load and 
identification of priority 
projects to reduce nutrient 
inputs from Belarus to the 
Baltic Sea.This project aims to identify priority investments and build local 
capacity to reduce nutrient inputs into the Baltic Sea in the context of 
the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership, with a particular 
focus on agriculture, municipal waste water and industry, including the 
production and use of detergents containing phosphorus.Funded by BSAP Fund, managed by NIB/
NEFCO, Sweden and Finland as investors: 
0.25
Horizontal action ‘Neighbours’
Economically and 
environmentally sustainable 
Lake Peipsi areaThis project aims to improve the environmental situation of the Lake 
Peipsi basin by renovating existing waste water treatment facilities in 
Pskov Oblast and by setting up new infrastructure in small harbours on 
the Estonian side of Lake Peipsi.Estonia–Latvia–Russia OPAnnex V
56 Annexes 
BSR OP projects (other than Flagships) dealing with eutrophication
(million euro)
BSR OP projects (other than Flagships) dealing with eutrophicationSource and amount of 
financing(BSR OP)
Baltic CompassThis project involves working with the agriculture and environment sectors to 
address the need for a transnational approach to reducing eutrophication of the 
Baltic Sea.Total: 6.6
ERDF: 4.6
ENPI: 0.5
Baltic Compact This project deals with agri -environmental actions. Total: 1.9
ERDF: 1.5
BERAS (Baltic Ecological 
Recycling Agriculture and 
Society)This project aims to decrease eutrophication, stop the use of pesticides and 
reduce the food sector’s impact on global warming.Total: 4.4
ERDF: 3.4
ENPI: 0.05
WaterpraxisThis project aims to improve the status of the Baltic Sea by supporting the practi -
cal implementation of river basin management plans in the region.Total: 2.0
ERDF: 1.5
PURE (Project on urban 
reduction of eutrophication)The project aims at preparing and executing investments in municipalities by 
means of transnational cooperation.Total: 3.2
ERDF: 2.0
ENPI: 0.5Annex V
57 Reply of  
the Commission
Executive summary
V
The Commission noted these issues in the assessment of the first RBMPs1 and in the assessment of the first pro -
grammes of measures2 as an important area to improve on and has urged Member States to take action on this in 
the second RBMPs.
VI
The Commission considers that its action has been appropriate. It is clearly set out in the Treaty and in the constant 
jurisprudence of the Court of Justice that the Commission disposes of a large margin of appreciation as to when 
to start and pursue infringements in line with its role as guardian of the Treaties. In some cases alternative tools or 
political dialogue can be a more effective approach than infringement proceedings.
Nonetheless, the Commission has a substantial proven track record in achieving compliance with the urban waste 
water treatment directive by using the infringement tool.
VII
The implementation of the nitrates directive by Member States has encountered a number of challenges in some 
cases, while it has been effective in others. Nonetheless, the overall trend of average nitrate concentrations in the 
EU and in the Baltic has been improving.
The cross -compliance policy is not meant to serve as a measure to enforce implementation of European legislation 
in Member States. For failures of implementation, the infringement procedure is the proven means.
The number of non -compliances and sanctions applied due to the cross -compliance mechanism is rather indica -
tion of its functioning than its insufficience. Cross -compliance applies only to farmers receiving direct payments or 
participating in some of the rural development measures such as the agri -environmental measures.
VIII
The Commission considers that the EUSBSR has successfully contributed to promoting the environmental protection 
of the Baltic Sea. In general, the new macro -regional approach can be seen as a valuable tool for addressingregional 
problems and enhancing cooperation between the countries bordering the Baltic Sea.
1 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water -framework/pdf/3rd_report/CWD-2012-379_EN -Vol2.pdf
2 http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0120&from=EN
Reply of the Commission 58
Introduction
9
Both the water framework directive (WFD) and the marine strategy framework directive (MSFD) programmes of 
measures have been streamlined for common reporting in March 2016. The WFD and MSFD programmes of meas -
ures, reported by Member States, should consider Helcom and integrational agreement obligations.
13
For both the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 programing periods, the EAFRD defines water management as one of the 
main objectives of rural development. These objectives can be achieved through various measures including 
non -area -based measures such as investment and training.
For the 2007-2013 period, information on the financial allocation is available at the level of axes and measures 
only. For the 2014-2020 period, such information is available at the level of measures and focus areas (or priority, as 
in the case of the priority linked to water management) which will allow the receipt of data linked directly to the 
objectives.
Observations
18
The Commission notes that even though the Helcom nutrient reduction targets are considered good practice, Baltic 
Sea Member States could not legally be expected, in their reporting under the MSFD in October 2012, to report their 
Helcom nutrient reduction targets that were adopted in the Helcom ministerial meeting of October 2013. In practice 
,however, the Commission would welcome it if Member States’ programmes of measures under the MSFD, due in 
March 2016, also contributed to the achievement of their Helcom commitments.
28
The WFD and Helcom pursue the same objective — a Baltic Sea that is not eutrophic. Achieving good status under 
the WFD should be sufficient to achieve the Helcom target. Additional measures are needed by Poland — but these 
are needed not just to comply with Helcom targets but also for the achievement of WFD objectives.
For the first RBMPs, Poland did not set sufficiently stringent WFD-compliant phosphate standards that correlate 
with WFD good ecological status (they used pre -existing older standards) and as such it may appear that the Hel -
com targets are more strict. This apparent anomaly should be rectified by Poland setting WFD-compliant phosphate 
standards and using these to define programmes of measures in the second RBMPs that reduce phosphate to both 
inland and marine waters.
31
The Member States’ reporting for the second RBMPs requires a nutrient gap analysis to be done and so the Com -
mission’s tracking of the nutrient reduction achieved by Member States over the next two reporting periods should 
improve.
Member States must report in the second river basin management plans the degree to which the nitrates directive 
implementation is sufficient to address agricultural nutrient pollution and what additional WFD basic and supple -
mentary measures will be programmed to address this. This will help Member States and the Commission under -
stand where further action is necessary.
Reply of the Commission 59
34
The Commission expects that existing urban waste water treatment permits will be reviewed as part of the meas -
ures included in the RBMP and revised where needed to ensure that urban pollution is reduced to a level that allows 
conditions with good status to be reached in all water bodies. In some waters, this may be 1 mg/l of  P or in other 
areas may need to be stricter — for example 0.5 mg/l or below — where there is a high population density, or low 
dilution.
41
The Member States’ plans for achieving nutrient reductions which are based on their river basin management plans 
lack ambition as for the most part they just present the ‘basic measures’ already in place for implementing EU direc -
tives in relation to the specific activities causing nutrient pollution, mainly urban waste water and agriculture, and 
do not set out how these measures are to be strengthened to allow nutrient conditions consistent with good status 
to be achieved. Few new measures to control diffuse sources of pollution pursuant to Article 11(3)(h) of the WFD 
have been included (particularly missing here are controls on diffuse sources of phosphate) and ‘supplementary 
measures’ are vague in their overall expected contribution. The Commission noted this issue in the assessment of 
the first RBMPs3 and in the assessment of the first programmes of measures4 as an important area to improve on 
and has urged Member States to take action on this in the second RBMPs.
See also the Commission’s reply to paragraph 30.
46
The Commission considers Germany and Finland as compliant with the directive in line with the Commission’s 
compliance assessment methodology, since they reach compliance rates of 99 % or above. The four other Baltic Sea 
Member States were required to fully comply with the directive in 2012, and reached high compliance rates of 89 % 
and above.
47
The use of individual or appropriate systems (IAS) is indeed not automatically considered as a breach by the Com -
mission as this possibility is offered by the directive. However, a high rate of IAS may indicate issues with collecting 
systems and the Commission will follow up/investigate those situations (see reply to paragraph 48 for more details).
3 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water -framework/pdf/3rd_report/CWD-2012-379_EN -Vol2.pdf
4 http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0120&from=EN
Reply of the Commission 60
48
The Commission is investigating the use of individual and appropriate systems via the so -called pilot tool (e.g. types 
of IAS in place in the Member States, registration, authorisation and inspections of IAS). The Commission has also 
been looking into IAS for many years, by including IAS in the reporting table under Article 15. In addition, the guid -
ance on ‘Terms and definitions of the urban waste water treatment directive’, which has existed since 2007, includes 
a section on IAS.
49
The Commission decided to accept that 100 % compliance was neither likely nor realistic, and so made the cut off 
to ‘launch infringements’ by introducing the two standards mentioned by the Court. This methodology has been 
accepted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (see Commission v Belgium,  Case C-395/13, paragraphs 33 to 
38).
51
The Commission points out that it was aware of the choice made by Poland before 2010 but was not legally in 
a position to challenge this or to predict the level of non -compliance in Poland before 2010. The directive clearly 
leaves these two options to the Member States and Poland’s choice of using Article 5(4) was one legally open to it, 
even if unrealistic given that this meant that Poland could not benefit from the additional time granted under the 
Accession Treaty by this choice.
52
The Commission has followed the implementation of this directive in Poland with increasing alarm and attention as 
it became clear that there was and still is a fundamental lack of clear planning for its implementation. The choice of 
legal basis is the least of the Commission’s concerns in this matter and not a valid excuse for this lack of coordinated 
action at the national level.
The Commission has regularly pointed out since 2011 that foreseen investments will not lead to a compliance situ -
ation in Poland. In addition, Poland delivered only preliminary investment plans (master plans), and has not worked 
on the relevant KPOSK (2010) so far. Neither the preliminary master plan of February 2014 nor the final version of 
May 2015 have so far been accepted by the Commission.
56
Waste water treatment plants are infrastructures which have a long lifetime and it is difficult to assess an appropri -
ate size for them in the short term only. In general, the size of the plants may be determined by several factors such 
as safety margins, the capacity to cope with seasonal activities/variations such as tourism, heavy rains water inflow 
or provisions for possible future connections due to population growth.
In addition, a minimum rate of clean water is not detrimental as it avoids the waste water becoming septic and 
gener  ating hydrogen sulphide that is dangerous to human health.
Reply of the Commission 61
58
Assessments of the legislation were carried out for the accession countries before accession and deemed to be com -
plete as was required before accession with regard to the existing EU acquis  of which Directive 91/271/EEC.
59
Member States are open to choose between Article 5(2) and Article 5(4) and are not limited in that choice by the 
existence of the provisions of the Accession Treaty.
60
After Poland’s accession, the Commission gradually started to identify problems which Poland had with the imple -
mentation of the urban waste water treatment directive and, since 2007, it has initiated regular extended screen -
ing of the projects’ applications for EU co -financing. As from 2010, when the Commission had collected sufficient 
information indicating that there were serious problems with implementation, official communication on the issue 
started with the Polish authorities. It must be reiterated that the problems which Poland had were much broader 
and more fundamental than the choice between the application of Article 5(2) or 5(4) and related to the incorrect 
delineation of agglomerations, missing or incoherent reporting of compliance data, a lack of clear and coherent 
planning and an arbitrary cut-off of investments focused only on treatment plants treating a load over 15,000 p.e.
61
Despite the Commission’s numerous communications to Poland requesting the submission of coherent data con -
cerning the state of implementation and future planning of implementation of the urban waste water treatment 
directive (including data that would show compliance with either Article 5(2) or 5(4)), Poland failed to provide this. 
The Commission would like to emphasise that, after exchanges of communication with the Commission, Poland 
itself chose to apply Article 5(2). In 2012, during the negotiations for the 2014-2020 programing period, the Commis -
sion requested Poland to prepare a master plan for implementation of the urban waste water treatment directive 
which would be subject to the Commission’s scrutiny in order to ensure that EU co -financing in the 2014-2020 pro -
graming period would be granted to projects which are compliant with the urban waste water treatment directive 
and which contribute the most to closing the implementation gap.
62
The Commission has now reactivated Article 17 reports, with the objective of knowing when a specific agglomera -
tion will become compliant, if this is not yet the case.
With the new Article 17 template, the Commission tried to strike a balance between improving knowledge of the 
Member States’ situation whilst not increasing the administrative burden. Most Member States responded positively 
and reported under the new format. In addition, Member States are free to describe each project in the reporting 
table. Under Article 15, the Commission knows the percentage of the load that is discharged without treatment and 
thus the ‘distance to compliance’. Then it is up to Member States to define an adapted project to comply as soon as 
possible. The Commission does not intend to increase the reporting burden on Member States as there is no need 
to have detailed information concerning km of sewage ducts per agglomeration at EU level.
Reply of the Commission 62
63
The Commission has a considerable margin of discretion in these matters and must choose the most appropriate 
tools. In this case, the Commission chose engagements through meetings with Member States on urban waste 
water treatment and preferred to wait for the launching of more formal cases until a sufficient number of deadlines 
had elapsed for a sufficient number of Member States. Pilots launched on the basis of the initial deadline assessed 
(2004 to end 2006) would only have concerned three Member States, including Poland. For efficiency reasons, it was 
therefore decided to await the results of the next reporting exercise when the exercise would be more substantive 
in terms of Member States and agglomerations covered.
The Commission therefore considers that its action has been appropriate. It is clearly set out in the Treaty and in the 
constant jurisprudence of the Court of Justice that the Commission disposes of a large margin of appreciation as 
to when to start and pursue infringements in line with its role as guardian of the Treaties. In some cases alternative 
tools or political dialogue can be a more effective approach than infringement proceedings.
Finally, the Commission has taken the different implementation periods (14 years for EU-15 Member States vs 3 to 11 
years for the EU-10 Member States that joined in 2004) into account when launching pilot and infringement cases.
Nonetheless, the Commission has a substantial and proven track record in achieving compliance with the urban 
waste water treatment directive by using the infringement tool (e.g. France, Belgium, United Kingdom).
64
The urban waste water treatment directive sets minimum standards to be achieved in Table 2 of its annex, but 
leaves the Member States free to apply stricter standards. Such stricter standards may be legally necessary to ensure 
compliance under the water framework directive.
69
The Commission would like to specify that the Kaliningrad water and environmental services project is expected to 
be fully in operation in the course of 2016 as regards its water components.
76
Waters in extensive farming areas with low application of fertilisers can still be subject to nutrients pollution. Under 
the nitrates directive waters that are at risk of pollution must also be covered by specific measures.
In certain areas, measures under both the nitrates directive and the water framework directive are needed in order 
to achieve the nutrient reductions necessary for reaching good status for waters
79
The application of N from mineral fertilisers cannot by itself be used as an indicator of the lack of impact of the 
requirements and needs to be interpreted cautiously. The total N losses or the total N surplus (from all sources) are 
more suitable indicators.
Reply of the Commission 63
80
The Commission considers that measures such as the ban on application of fertilisers during certain periods of the 
year can be effectively checked as long as inspections are carried out at the right time.
Fertilisation plans or fertiliser records are included in several action programmes under the nitrates directive as 
common practice towards balanced fertilisation and to facilitate controls.
84
The Commission underlines that cross -compliance is not a mechanism to enforce European environmental legisla -
tion but aims inter alia ‘ to make the CAP more compatible with the expectation of society ’ (see recital 54 of Regulation 
(EU) No 1306/2013). Cross -compliance links common agricultural policy (CAP) payments to the respect of certain 
rules while infringing such rules leads to reductions in CAP payments. Cross- compliance should in principle use 
existing control systems. However, it should also ensure a minimum control rate when the control system of the 
sectorial legislation is not sufficiently effective.
86
It is up to Member States to define GAEC standards in such a way as to achieve the goal of the standard. Regarding 
the mentioned GAEC ‘establishment of buffer strips along water courses’, its goal is on establishing buffer strips and 
their management but not, in general, the use of fertilisers on agricultural land. Hence, the scope of the said GAEC is 
limited to buffer strips both inside and outside nitrate vulnerable zones. Furthermore, certain requirements stem -
ming from the nitrates directive are part of the cross -compliance scope via SMR1 former SMR 4.
87
The aforementioned GAEC buffer strips applicable since 1 January 2012 (see Article 149 of Regulation (EC) 
No 73/2009) refer to requirements stemming from the nitrates directive and transpose those requirements to agri -
cultural land situated outside the nitrate vulnerable zones bearing in mind local conditions, as required by Article 94 
of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. Accordingly, the variety in defining the requirements noted by the Court stems 
from the nitrates directive itself and mirrors the variety of local conditions as considered by Member States.
90
The number of non -compliances and sanctions applied due to the cross -compliance mechanism are rather indi -
cation of its functioning than its insufficience. For example, the lack of manure storage is still an issue in nitrate 
vulnerable-zones and this infringement is followed up under cross -compliance, which explains the high rate of 
non -compliance (see also paragraph 93).
Reply of the Commission 64
91
The 2007-2013 rural development programmes were to contribute to the rural development objectives imple -
mented by means of several axes. Some of the implemented measures and operations, including agri -environment, 
could target one main objective but many were established with a view to achieving multiple objectives, which 
does not diminish the effectiveness of such measures and helps to ensure better value for money.
The agri -environmental measures carried out by a large number of farmers over vast areas can also contribute to 
improving water status in all such areas.
During the adoption of the 2014-2020 programmes, the Commission commented on the need for Member States to 
make a greater use of targeting, including on water issues.
92
During the 2007-2013 programming period, the different calendar for the adoption of river basin management plans 
and rural development programmes was one of the reasons why the scope of agri -environment measures did not 
always correspond to the areas concerned by river basin management plans.
Furthermore, it should be recalled that compliance with mandatory requirements to which river basin management 
plans often make reference cannot be ensured through agri -environment, which can only support voluntary actions 
going beyond mandatory requirements.
Moreover, in the course of the programming period, Member States had the possibility to amend their programmes 
with regard to their content and/or the financial allocation. The proposed amendments have to be in accordance 
with the overall objectives and strategy of the programme. Through this mechanism they could have coordinated 
with RBMPs when available. In 2009, as a result of the health check of the CAP and the European economic recovery 
plan, the water management objective was further reinforced as one of the rural development challenges.
93
In 2004-2006 the new Baltic Sea Member States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland) were invited to introduce 
specific support for manure storage facilities to meet water protection standards.
94
The 2007-2013 rural development programmes contained measures on investments in manure storage facilities.
In particular, it was possible for Member States to support investments to improve manure storage on farms only 
when these were aimed at complying with new Community standards stemming from the nitrates directive as 
implemented in the Member States and for a limited grace period of 36 months from the date on which the stand -
ards became mandatory.
Reply of the Commission 65
95
The Commission considers that the diversity of agri -environment measures means that these measures include both 
simple and more complex operations aimed at protecting and improving the environment. This allows beneficiaries 
to apply operations corresponding to their particular needs and environmental pressure.
The level of support is always correlated to the level of commitments and compensates for income loss and addi -
tional costs linked to those commitments.
The low uptake can also be explained by reasons other than the operations’ complexity such as insufficient promo -
tion of the support, insufficient transfer of knowledge or of advisory services use.
The issue of low uptake of agri -environmental measures in the areas of intensive agriculture was one of the reasons 
why the Commission proposed in 2011 to green the first pillar of the CAP , with the aim of reaching those areas with 
simple, generalised, non -contractual measures, the environmental effects of which should be enhanced by more 
targeted agri -environmental measures.
For the 2014-2020 period, the Commission promoted targeting which was implemented in Poland and Finland.
See also Commission reply to paragraph 92.
98
Most Member States opted, in both programming periods, for the use of other measures such as agri -environ -
ment -climate to achieve targets and objectives related to the water management priority. Targets and indicators 
related to water quality and water management in both periods show that even without the implementation of 
the ‘WFD payments’ measure, Member States programme actions which are to contribute to those targets and 
indicators.
Lack of compulsory measures in river basin management plans and problems with defining their measures were 
one of the main obstacles to use of the measure in question in the period 2007-2013.
99
As regards the application of penalties for water protection, it is up to the Member States to apply them (beyond 
the rules of cross -compliance) if need be and in cases where the individual responsibility for pollution can be 
established.
The Commission considers that there is no inherent difficulty in applying the polluter pays principle to agriculture. 
For instance, a fertiliser or manure tax could be levied. Ambitious nitrate action programmes and WFD basic meas -
ures could set clear controls to reduce pollution at source.
Reply of the Commission 66
100
Regulation  (EU) No 1305/2013 provides for ex ante conditionalities specific to rural development. The ex ante condi -
tionalities concerning the water sector (applicable for investments programmed under Priority 5) are linked to the 
existence of a water pricing policy and to an adequate contribution of different water uses to the recovery of the 
costs of water services at a rate determined in the approved river basin management plan for investments sup -
ported by the programmes.
Other rural development-specific  ex ante conditionalities in the environmental field concern good agricultural and 
environmental conditions, minimum requirements for fertilisers and plant protection products use, energy effi -
ciency and renewable energy.
102
When the relevant legal bases are not in place, certain rural development measures cannot be activated. This is the 
case for water framework directive payments measure which can be implemented only when river basin manage -
ment plans and their programmes of measures have been established. However, Member States have the possibility 
to amend their programmes throughout the programming period.
With regard to the amendments to legislation concerning the baseline requirements, when changes to the relevant 
baseline are introduced during the implementation of the measures, Member States have to reflect such changes in 
the measures’ content (e.g. levels of commitments and of premiums if the changes have impacts on these elements).
105
For the EUSBSR, Member States opted for a very ‘light’ governance structure. Work is based on a network of policy 
area and horizontal action coordinators. They seek to ensure consistency between all the priorities of the EUSBSR. 
No new institutions or Council formations were created. The chosen governance structure is not too complex and 
burdensome.
In general, the macro -regional approach can be seen as a valuable tool to address regional problems in a smaller 
geographical area compared to the whole EU level. The Commission considers that the EUSBSR has successfully 
contributed to the promotion of the environmental protection of the Baltic Sea.
107
It lies in the discretion of each project developer to apply for a flagship status. The EUSBSR action plan describes the 
procedure and provides for an application template. It requires a short assessment by the policy area or horizontal 
action coordinator, with the assessment criteria being, among others, the ‘macro -regional impact of the flagship’ 
and the contribution ‘towards the objectives/indicators/targets of the EUSBSR’. The Commission carries out an inter -
nal consultation on each application and finally the group of national coordinators approves the flagship status. 
Policy area and horizontal action coordinators encourage project developers to apply for flagship status.
Reply of the Commission 67
108
The Commission notes a strong interest from project developers in receiving flagship status, presumably as it helps 
projects to mobilise funding for macro -regional projects and increases the visibility of their work.
The Commission considers that the contribution of specific ‘flagships’ to nutrient reduction can be identified. Flag -
ships should serve a wide range of purposes such as creating new networks, exchanging experience, contributing 
to capacity building, facilitating multi -level governance and making pilot investments. Results and impact on the 
policy objectives can indeed be only seen in a long-term perspective. In that sense, even small-scale projects can be 
important drivers in development. As an example, the PRESTO project not only invested in waste water treatment 
techniques but also paid attention to increasing the competence of operating staff of the waste water treatment 
plants, plant designers and university staff who train the future waste water engineers.
Common Commission reply to paragraphs 111 and 112
The Commission would have preferred to see a stronger embedding of the EUSBSR in the ESIF programmes of the 
Baltic Sea region. It takes note that the level of commitment to the strategy varies between the Member States and 
regions concerned, thus reflecting different national and regional priorities.
However, the programmes provide openings for financing the implementation of the EUSBSR. For example, Lithu -
ania is giving some priority in the selection process to projects that contribute to the EUSBSR (emphasis on coopera -
tion aspect/international partnership) and plans to organise specific calls where needed. Sweden is also planning to 
have selection criteria for projects of relevance to the EUSBSR and plans to allocate resources to areas for initiatives 
and/or projects in line with the definition in the Action plan of the strategy. The concrete implementation process 
of the programmes will show to what extent these possibilities will be taken up.
Conclusions and recommendations
115
The WFD and Helcom pursue the same objective — a Baltic Sea that is not eutrophic. Achieving good status under 
the WFD should be sufficient to achieve the Helcom target.
The Member States’ plans for achieving nutrient reductions which are based on their river basin management plans 
lack ambition as for the most part they just present the ‘basic measures’ already in place for implementing EU direc -
tives in relation to the specific activities causing nutrient pollution, mainly urban waste water and agriculture, and 
do not set out how these measures are to be strengthened to allow nutrient conditions consistent with good status 
to be achieved. Few new measures to control diffuse sources of pollution pursuant to Article 11(3)(h) of the WFD 
have been included (particularly missing here are controls on diffuse sources of phosphate) and ‘supplementary 
measures’ are vague in their overall expected contribution. The Commission noted this issue in the assessment of 
the first RBMPs5 and in the assessment of the first programmes of measures6 as an important area for improvement 
and has urged Member States to take action on this in the second RBMPs.
116
In October 2012, Member States reported their environmental targets, under the marine strategy framework direc -
tive, to the Commission. Some Member States were more ambitious than others in setting pressure reduction 
targets in the form of nutrient input load targets (see also paragraph 17).
5 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water -framework/pdf/3rd_report/CWD-2012-379_EN -Vol2.pdf
6 http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0120&from=EN
Reply of the Commission 68
Recommendation 1(a)
The Commission accepts the recommendation and considers that it has already been implemented for the water 
framework directive (WFD) and will be implemented for the marine strategy framework directive (MSFD).
The WFD reporting for the second river basin management plan requires Member States to report on the nutrient 
load reduction necessary to achieve nutrient conditions consistent with WFD good status (this will include the nutri -
ent load necessary to meet the MSFD if the proper approach is taken by the Member State).
For the MSFD, the Commission will take this recommendation into account together with analysis of the current 
cycle of the programmes of measures when defining reporting requirements for the next cycle.
Recommendation 1(b)
The Commission accepts the recommendation and its implementation is ongoing.
For the WFD, the gaps in monitoring and assessment identified in the first RBMPs were followed up by bilateral 
discussions with Member States. Actions were agreed with Member States to improve the situation on monitoring 
and assessment and the Commission will review this as part of the assessment of the second RBMPs which will take 
place during 2017.
Under the MSFD, Member States have established monitoring programmes to assess progress towards good 
environ  mental status and targets. The Commission’s draft assessment of monitoring programmes for the Baltic 
Sea that indicates that most Member States have included nutrient input monitoring (for instance, input levels of 
land -based sources of nutrients, of nutrients from the atmosphere and of fertilisers and other nitrogen- and phos -
phorus-rich substances).
In addition, work that should lead to guidance in 2018 is being done to compare nutrient standards set by Member 
States for the WFD and the MSFD, to ensure that these are consistent with biological standards and to understand 
how Member States use them in designing programmes of measures.
Recommendation 1(c)
The Commission notes that this recommendation is addressed to Member States
118
The Commission considers Germany and Finland as compliant with the directive in line with the Commission’s 
compliance assessment methodology, since they reach compliance rates of 99 % or above. The four other Baltic Sea 
Member States which were required to fully comply with the directive in 2012, reached high compliance rates of 
89 % and above.
Where evidence is available of late implementation or compliance, EU pilots and infringement cases have been 
launched by the Commission and the normal procedures are being followed.
120
The Commission considers that its action has been appropriate. It is clearly set out in the Treaty and in the constant 
jurisprudence of the Court of Justice that the Commission disposes of a large margin of appreciation as to when 
to start and pursue infringements in line with its role as guardian of the Treaties. In some cases alternative tools or 
political dialogue can be a more effective approach than infringement proceedings.
In addition, the Commission also decided to wait until several transitional deadlines had expired before launch -
ing pilots so that, for efficiency reasons, the exercise would be more substantive in terms of Member States and 
agglomerations covered.
Reply of the Commission 69
Finally, the Commission has taken the different implementation periods (14 years for EU-15 Member States vs 3 to 11 
years for the 10 Member States that joined in 2004) into account when launching pilot and infringement cases.
Recommendation 2(a)
The Commission accepts this recommendation and considers it already implemented in agglomerations above 
2 000 p.e. In those agglomerations, the urban waste water treatment directive provides that collecting systems or 
individual or appropriate systems are in place, and the Commission therefore considers that the legal framework  — 
at EU level — is in place. However, the Commission stresses that it cannot force households to connect to sewage 
networks as this falls under the responsibility of Member States and is a national policy decision.
Recommendation 2(b)
The Commission accepts this recommendation as it is based on a reading of Article 9 of the WFD. The Commission 
will assess the implementation of this recommendation in the overall assessment of the second river basin manage -
ment plans, which were due to be adopted by the Member States by 22 December 2015.
Recommendation 2(c)
The Commission accepts the recommendation and is working on improving the reporting process under the urban 
waste water treatment directive, which is the basis for the compliance assessment.
Recommendation 2(d)
The Commission accepts the recommendation.
Recommendation 2(e)
The Commission notes that this recommendation is addressed to Member States.
Recommendation 2(f)
The Commission notes that this recommendation is addressed to Member States
123
The Commission underlines that cross -compliance is not a mechanism to enforce the European environmental 
legislation but aims inter alia ‘ to make the CAP more compatible with the expectation of society ’ (see recital 54 of 
Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. Cross -compliance links common agricultural policy (CAP) payments to the respect of 
certain rules while infringing such rules leads to a reduction of CAP payments. Cross- compliance should in principle 
use existing control systems. However, it should also ensure a minimum control rate when the control system of the 
sectorial legislation is not sufficiently effective.
124
The Commission recalls that compliance with mandatory requirements of the river basin management plans can -
not be ensured through agri -environment measures which only support voluntary actions. Nevertheless, many 
RDPs included from the beginning certain measures (investment, training, agri -environment) which targeted the 
water -related objectives.
In 2007-2013 the support for mandatory manure storage was limited to those which resulted from the new Commu -
nity standards stemming from the nitrates directive as implemented by Member States.
Reply of the Commission 70
In the 2014-2020 period, the specific measure regarding the implementation of actions linked to the water frame -
work directive has been programmed in a number of the programmes.
Moreover, during the adoption of the 2014-2020 programmes, the Commission commented on the need for Mem -
ber States to make a greater use of targeting including on Water issues.
As regards the application of penalties for water protection, it is up to the Member States to apply them (beyond 
the rules of cross -compliance) if need be and in cases where the individual responsibility for pollution can be 
established.
The Commission considers that there is no inherent difficulty in applying the polluter pays principle to agriculture. 
For instance, a fertiliser or manure tax could be levied. Ambitious nitrate action programmes and WFD basic meas -
ures could set clear controls to reduce pollution at source.
See also Commission replies to paragraphs 91 to 99.
125
The new greening architecture of the CAP with greening requirements in Pillar I influences rural development. 
Actions supported under those greening requirements cannot be subject to agri -environment -climate payments in 
order to avoid double funding.
When the relevant legal bases are not in place, certain rural development measures cannot be activated. This is the 
case for the water framework directive payments measure, which can be implemented only when river basin man -
agement plans and their programmes of measures are established. However, Member States have the possibility to 
amend their programmes throughout the programming period.
While such amendments might lead to additional administrative efforts, they should be seen in the context of their 
additional added value in achieving the objectives and priorities of the programmes.
Recommendation 3(a)
The Commission accepts this recommendation and is in the process of implementing it. When Member States are 
revising their nitrate vulnerable zones and nitrates action programmes, the Commission asks that WFD information 
on agricultural nutrient pollution pressures is taken into account. This is essential to control pollution at source, 
especially in Member States where the national regulation to implement the nitrates directive is the only legal 
instrument controlling agricultural nutrient losses.
Member States must report in the second river basin management plans the degree to which the nitrates directive 
implementation is sufficient to address agricultural nutrient pollution and what additional WFD basic and supple -
mentary measures will be programmed to address this. This will help Member States and the Commission under -
stand where further action is necessary.
Recommendation 3(b)
The Commission notes that these recommendations are addressed to the Member States.
126
For the EUSBSR, Member States opted for a very ‘light’ governance structure. No new institutions or Council for -
mations were created. The Commission considers that the EUSBSR has successfully contributed to promoting the 
environmental protection of the Baltic Sea.
Reply of the Commission 71
127
The Commission considers that the contribution of specific flagships to nutrient reduction can be identified. Flag -
ships serve a wide range of purposes and even small-scale projects can be important drivers in development. Con -
crete results and the impact on the policy objectives can only be seen in a long -term perspective.
128
The Commission agrees with the Court’s analysis and would have preferred to see a stronger embedding of the 
EUSBSR in the ESIF programmes of the Baltic Sea region. It takes note that the level of commitment to the strategy 
varies between the Member States and regions concerned, thus reflecting different national and regional priorities.

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
 one copy:  
 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
  more than one copy or posters/maps:  
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or  
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
The Baltic Sea is one of the world’s most polluted seas. 
Combating eutrophication, which is caused by nutrient 
loads mainly from agriculture and urban waste water, 
poses a significant challenge. Under the Helsinki 
Convention, all bordering EU Member States and non-EU 
countries, as well as the EU, are engaged in the 
environmental protection of the Baltic Sea. The EU legal 
framework requires Member States to implement 
measures to combat excessive loads of nutrients and to 
achieve the good environmental status of marine waters. 
The EU co-finances some of those measures. The Court 
examined whether the EU actions have been effective in 
helping Member States to reduce nutrient loads into the 
Baltic Sea. We concluded that these actions have led to 
limited progress towards nutrient reduction in the Baltic 
Sea. We make a number of recommendations to improve 
the effectiveness of the actions combating eutrophication 
in the Baltic Sea.
EUROPEAN
COURTOF AUDITORS