2009
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF STRUCTURAL 
MEASURES SPENDING ON WASTE WATER 
TREATMENT  FOR THE 199499 AND 
200006 PROGRAMME PERIODSEUROPEAN COURT 
OF AUDITORS
Special Report  No 3THE WASTE WATER AND SEWAGE SLUDGE FROM URBAN  
AGGLOMERATIONS CAN AFFECT THE QUALITY OF EUROPE’S LAKES, RIVERS, COSTAL WATERS, GROUNDWATERS AND SOILS. AS A RESULT, THE EU HAS ADOPTED A SERIES OF DIRECTIVES AND HAS ALSO COFINANCED THE BUILDING OF URBAN WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS. IN THIS REPORT THE COURT ANALYSES WHETHER  EU COFINANCED TREATMENT PLANTS ACHIEVE AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE IN THE TREATMENT OF WASTE WATER AND WHETHER THE SLUDGE 
PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS IS BEING USED APPROPRIATELY. THE ROLE 
OF THE COMMISSION IS ALSO EXAMINED.
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
ISSN 18310834
EN
QJ-AB-09-003-EN-C
ISBN 978-92-9207-250-6
kg904920_EN_coverBT.indd   1 19/05/09   15:27:41
How to obtain EU publications
Publications for sale:
•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);•  from your bookseller by quoting the title, publisher and/or ISBN number;•  by contacting one of our sales agents directly. You can obtain their contact 
details on the Internet (http://bookshop.europa.eu) or by sending a faxto +352 2929-42758.
Free publications:•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);•  at the European Commission’s representations or delegations. You can obtain 
their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a faxto +352 2929-42758.
kg904920_EN_coverBT.indd   2 19/05/09   15:27:42
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF 
STRUCTURAL MEASURES SPENDING ON WASTE WATER TREATMENT FOR THE 199499 AND 200006 PROGRAMME PERIODSSpecial Report  No 3   2009
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS(pursuant to Article 248(4), second subparagraph, EC)
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   1 19/05/09   15:30:55
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods2
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG
Tel. +352 4398-45410
Fax +352 4398-46430
E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu
Internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu
Special Report  No 3   2009
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2009
ISBN 978-92-9207-250-6
© European Communities, 2009
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Belgium
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   2 19/05/09   15:30:56
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods3
CONTENTS
Paragraph
  GLOSSARY
IX  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
114   INTRODUCTION
14   ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND
513   EU GOVERNANCE AND COFINANCING
14  COVERAGE RATE OF AGGLOMERATIONS BY WASTE WATER TREATMENT
1519   AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH
2056   OBSERVATIONS
2028    DO EU COFINANCED TREATMENT PLANTS ACHIEVE AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE 
IN THE TREATMENT OF WASTE WATER?
2021  BACKGROUND
22  MOST OF THE TREATMENT PLANTS OPERATED AT AN APPROPRIATE CAPACITY…
23  … BUT A NUMBER OF TREATMENT PLANTS OPERATED WELL BELOW CAPACITY…
24  … AND ONE TREATMENT PLANT HAD INSUFFICIENT CAPACITY
2526  A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE TREATMENT PLANTS PRODUCED EFFLUENT MEETING EU REQUIREMENTS
2728  EFFLUENT QUALITY MONITORING: GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE DATA BUT SOME OPPORTUNITIES 
FOR IMPROVEMENT
2938   IS THE SLUDGE PRODUCED BY THE TREATMENT PLANTS BEING USED APPROPRIATELY?
2930  BACKGROUND
3133  TWO THIRDS OF THE TREATMENT PLANTS AUDITED DISPOSED OF THE SEWAGE SLUDGE IN ACCORDANCE 
WITH EU RECOMMENDED PRACTICES
34  SATISFACTORY RESULTS AGAINST SEWAGE SLUDGE DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
3536  REVISION OF THE DIRECTIVE?
3738  SLUDGE DISPOSAL MONITORING: SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT AT OPERATING PLANTS 
AND MONITORING BODIES OF THE MEMBER STATES
3956   IS THE COMMISSION FULFILLING ITS ROLE?
3940  BACKGROUND4145  NEED FOR CONSISTENCY IN PROJECT EXAMINATION4648  NEED FOR BETTER MONITORING OF OUTCOMES4956  MORE CONSIDERATION OF EU ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES REQUIRED
5766   CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5860   WASTE WATER TREATMENT
6163   SEWAGE SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
6466   EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION
  ANNEX  URBAN WASTE WATER TREATMENT ENVIRONMENT
  REPLY OF THE COMMISSION
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   3 19/05/09   15:30:56
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   4 19/05/09   15:30:56
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods5
GLOSSARY
Agglomeration : Area where the population and/or economic activities are sufficiently con-
centrated for urban waste water to be collected and conducted to an urban waste water 
treatment plant or to a final discharge point.
Cohesion Fund : Financial instrument designed to strengthen economic and social cohesion 
by financing environment and transport projects in Member States with a per capita GNP of less than 90 % of the Community average. The Cohesion Fund was originally implemented in Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Since 1 January 2004 Ireland has no longer been eligible.
Effectiveness : Measure of the relationship between the results obtained and the objectives 
set.
Effluent or discharged water : Treated waste water discharged into river basin receiving 
waters.
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) : Financial instrument designed to promote 
economic and social cohesion between the regions of the EU. ERDF interventions are mainly implemented through operational programmes encompassing a large number of projects.
Eutrophication : The enrichment of water by nutrients especially compounds of nitrogen 
and phosphorus, causing an accelerated growth of algae leading to the reduction of water oxygen levels and to the disappearance of native aquatic plants, fish and other aquatic animal life.
Independent checks : Checks carried out by independent authorities (at national, regional 
or river basin level) in order to monitor the quality of the discharged water and the content of the sludge and of the soils where it is disposed.
Normal areas : Water body or section of water body not at risk of eutrophication.
Operational programme : A document approved by the Commission which takes the form 
of a coherent set of priorities comprising multiannual measures. The priorities may be imple-mented through recourse to one or more Structural Funds, or, alternatively, to other financial instruments and the European Investment Bank.
Population equivalent (p.e.) : Quantitative expression of the pollution load of waste water 
in terms of the number of ‘equivalent’ people that would create a waste of the same strength. One p.e. corresponds to the pollution load of sewage generated by one inhabitant.
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   5 19/05/09   15:30:56
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods6
Precautionary principle : The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy might 
cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would 
advocate taking the action. In some legal systems, such as the law of the European Union, the precautionary principle is also a general and compulsory principle of law.
Primary treatment : Mechanical phase involving the initial separation from waste water of 
large sewage particles.
Programme period : The multiannual framework within which Structural Funds and Cohe-
sion Fund expenditure is planned and implemented.
River basin : 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.
Secondary treatment : Biological phase involving the treatment of waste water to eliminate 
biodegradable organic pollutants.
Self-checks : Checks carried out regularly by an operator, in the framework of the daily 
operation of an urban waste water treatment plant, to monitor the quality of the discharged water and the content of the sludge.
Sensitive area : Water body or section of water body at risk of eutrophication. The appropri-
ate designation of sensitive areas is crucial as it dictates the type of waste water treatment 
that should be put in place to reduce eutrophication-inducing agents. In sensitive areas 
nitrogen and/or phosphorus should be removed.
Sewage Sludge Directive : Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection 
of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture (OJ L 181, 4.7.1986, p. 6).
Structural Measures : In the present report, interventions from the European Regional Devel-
opment Fund (ERDF) and from the Cohesion Fund.
Tertiary treatment : Biological/chemical phase applied were necessary to reduce the con-
centration levels of nutrients in treated waste waters prior to their discharge into receiving waters at risk of eutrophication.
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   6 19/05/09   15:30:57
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods7
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive : Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 
concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40).
Urban Waste Water Treatment Plant : Infrastructure providing a series of treatment pro-
cesses aiming to reduce the level of pollution of urban agglomeration waste water received to an acceptable level before discharge into the receiving waters.
Water Framework Directive : 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).
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   7 19/05/09   15:30:57
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods8
EXECUTIVE 
SUMMARY
I.
The waste water and sewage sludge from  
urban agglomerations can affect the qual-ity of Europe’s lakes, rivers, coastal waters, soils and groundwaters. As a result the EU  
has adopted a series of directives and has  also co-financed the building of urban waste 
water treatment plants through the Cohesion Fund and the ERDF. This has improved signifi -cantly the coverage rate of the urban popu-
lation served by waste water treatment.
II.
The Court’s audit focused on Cohesion Fund 
and ERDF funded plants for the 1994–99 and 
2000–06 programme periods, in Spain, Por-tugal, Greece and Ireland, which represented the majority of the spending in this area. The audit conclusions presented in this report  are based on an examination of management and control systems at the Commission and 
on an assessment of the performance of 73 
treatment plants. In addition, the disposal of sewage sludge produced as a by-product 
of waste water treatment and the role of the Commission in the area of waste water were 
also looked at.
III.
The Court concluded that, in general,  Structural Measures have contributed to an 
improvement in waste water treatment in  the four Member States audited.
IV.
Overall, treatment plants co-financed by  Structural Measures were performing ade-
quately. However, some were found to be  
operating below capacity and in a minority 
of cases EU requirements were not met with 
regard to effluent quality.
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   8 19/05/09   15:30:57
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods9
V.
The Court found that more attention needed 
to be paid to ensuring that treatment plants are adequately connected to the sewage  network and that the industrial waste water 
received by plants has been pre-treated as required.
VI.
Concerning sewage sludge, the Court con-
cluded that the majority of co-financed  
treatment plants, in the four Member States audited, disposed of sludge according to  
EU-encouraged methods of reuse; although 
a minority had chosen less sustainable  
non-reuse methods. In addition the Court  identified some aspects with regard to moni-
toring of sludge disposal which could be  
improved.
VII.
The current Sewage Sludge Directive dates 
from 1986 and therefore does not contain  advances in the field made since then. Any revision of the directive should take into  
account all costs and all benefits of pro-
posed new measures and potential impact  on other EU policies.
VIII.
As regards the role of the Commission, the Court is of the opinion that there could be more consistency in its review of grant appli-
cations, which would be facilitated through 
the development of internal guidelines and 
checklists for use in the appraisal process.EXECUTIVE 
SUMMARY
IX.
Furthermore, the Court noted that there is 
a need for a better monitoring of outcomes by the Commission when examining final  reports before any payment of the fund-
ing balance. Appropriate follow-up action  should be taken with regard to the non-
provision of required information or non-achievement of anticipated results.
X.
Finally, the Court considered that maintain-ing the good ecological status of water bod-ies requires a stronger emphasis on the EU environmental principles of ’the polluter  pays’ and pollution reduction at source.
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   9 19/05/09   15:30:57
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods10
1 Article 174 of the consolidated 
version of the Treaty establishing 
the European Community 
(OJ C 325, 24.12.2002, p. 1). 
2 Council Directive 91/271/EEC. 
3 Article 14 of 
Directive 91/271/EEC. 
4 Council Directive 86/278/EEC. 
5 Directive 2000/60/EC of the 
Parliament and of the Council. INTRODUCTION
ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND
 1.  According to the Treaty, the Community shall contribute to preserving, 
protecting and improving the quality of the environment based on the 
precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action 
should be taken, damage should be rectified at source and that the polluter pays
1.
 2.  Urban agglomerations’ waste water and sewage sludge can affect the 
quality of Europe’s lakes, rivers, coastal waters and groundwaters,  as well as its soils. The key relevant EU legislative instruments in the field are:
the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (a) 2 requiring Member  
States to ensure that, by 31 December 2000 or by 31 Decem-
ber 2005 depending on the size of the agglomeration concerned, all agglomerations be provided with collecting systems for  
urban waste water which should be subject to at least secondary 
treatment and tertiary treatment in the case of sensitive areas. Appropriate urban waste water treatment aims at monitoring and 
reducing to acceptable levels organic and inorganic pollutants  including those potentially causing the eutrophication of nearby 
water bodies or posing health risks for bathers frequenting these waters; the directive also provides for the reuse of sludge arising from waste water treatment
3;
the Sewage Sludge Directive (b) 4 which specifies rules for the sam-
pling and analysis of sludge and soil and sets limits for concen-trations and maximum annual quantities of heavy metals which may be introduced into soil. The directive aims at regulating and encouraging the use of sewage sludge in agriculture in such a way as to avoid harm to vegetation, animals or humans;
the Water Framework Directive (c) 
5 which concerns the safeguarding 
and monitoring of the quality of river basin waters and their eco-
systems. This Directive required the establishment of classification 
systems and a monitoring network by 2006, the publication of river basin management plans in 2009 and, as a rule, the attainment of 
environmental objectives by 2015.
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   10 19/05/09   15:30:57
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods11
6 Decision No 1600/2002/EC 
of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 22 July 2002 
laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme 
(OJ L 242, 10.9.2002, p. 1). 
7 Article 5 of the consolidated 
version of the Treaty establishing the European Community says: 
‘only if and in so far as the 
objectives of the proposed action 
cannot be sufficiently achieved 
by the Member States and can 
therefore, by reason of the 
scale of effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by 
the Community’.  3.  A brief overview of the process of waste water treatment and sludge 
disposal is provided in a diagram entitled ‘Urban Waste Water Treat-
ment Environment’, together with accompanying explanations in the Annex .
 4.  According to the ‘Sixth Community Environment Action Programme’6, 
the management of waste water is an EU priority for the period  2002–12.
EU GOVERNANCE AND COFINANCING
 5.  Environmental protection is an area of shared competence between the 
Member States and the Community, and therefore any action taken 
by the Community should be in accordance with the principle of  subsidiarity
7.
 6.  Directives on the environment apply across the Union. Compliance with 
their provisions can require investment projects which vary according to the level of waste water treatment required by the environmental situation of the water bodies where the effluent is discharged and 
by the type of equipment necessary (pumping stations, sludge dry-ers, etc.). They can vary from less than 10 million euro for a small  
agglomeration to more than 200 million euro for a major urban centre, 
with the cost per capita declining with the size of the plant due to economies of scale (see Textbox 1 ).
EXAMPLES OF CO-FINANCED PROJECTS VISITED BY THE COURT
In Spain, a project was co-financed by the Cohesion Fund to serve four villages with a population of 
10 000 inhabitants. It included an urban waste water treatment plant providing secondary and tertiary level of 
treatment, 18 kilometres of pipes and six pumping stations. Th  e cost of the project was 5,5 million euro, with an 
EU grant of 4,3 million euro.
In Portugal, the cost of a new treatment plant co-fi  nanced by the Cohesion Fund was 22,8 million euro. Th  is plant, 
designed to serve a population of 250 000 inhabitants with a secondary level of treatment and disinfection of the water, received an EU grant of 19,4 million euro.
In Greece, the Cohesion Fund co-fi  nanced a substantial upgrading of a treatment plant for a city of 3,7 million 
inhabitants from that of simple primary to secondary and tertiary treatment. The cost of the project was 202,2 million euro, with an EU grant of 135,0 million euro.TEXTBOX 1
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   11 19/05/09   15:30:57
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods12
 7.  Costs for the construction of treatment plants are eligible for Structural 
Measures assistance. In Objective 1 regions the level of grant may  
attain 85 %8. EU financial support totalled 10,6 billion euro for the 
2000–06 programme period9, with four Member States (Spain, Portu-
gal, Greece and Ireland) accounting for more than 50 % of expenditure. 
A total of 13,9 billion euro is allocated for the 2007–13 programme 
period, with the 12 new EU Member States accounting for 9,1 billion euro.
 8.  Two Directorates-General in the European Commission have a significant 
role in the approval and follow-up of waste water and sewage sludge treatment projects: Directorate-General for the Environment (DG ENV) and Directorate-General for Regional Policy (DG REGIO).
 9.  DG ENV is responsible for EU environmental policy in the field of waste 
water treatment. It is required to follow up the performance of treat-
ment plants in terms of the quality of water discharged and the dis-posal of sludge, and also to launch infringement procedures when required.
 10.  DG REGIO is responsible for the EU budget in the area of regional policy 
through shared management with Member States. Treatment plants are co-financed under this policy through two financial instruments: 
the Cohesion Fund and the ERDF
10.
 11.  The Commission examines all applications in respect of Cohesion Fund 
projects and ERDF major projects11 submitted by Member States, to 
ensure that they have been completed correctly and are in compli-
ance with EU directives. Guidance intended to aid Member States  
with their submission of applications for assistance is provided by the Commission in its ‘Guide to the Cohesion Fund 2000–06’. DG  REGIO’s role is to examine the quality of the individual projects to be financed, consulting other Directorates-General as necessary (par-
ticularly DG ENV).8 Objective 1 promotes the 
development and structural 
adjustment of regions whose 
development was lagging behind the average (per capita GDP less 
than 75 % of the EU average). 
Two thirds of Structural Fund 
operations were related to 
Objective 1 with almost 20 % of the Union’s total population 
concerned by this Objective. For 
the programme period 2000–06, 
the maximum rate of grant in 
these regions is 75 % for ERDF 
projects and 85 % for Cohesion 
Fund projects. 
9 Information is not available 
at the Commission for the 
programme period 1994–99 as 
data concerning the ERDF were, 
for that period, only available 
at Member State level. 
10 The co-financing of treatment 
plants was also approved for 
the candidate countries under 
the Pre-Accession Structural Instrument (ISPA). These projects 
were converted into Cohesion 
Fund projects at the time 
of the accession. 
11 For the 1994–99 programme 
period, ‘major projects’ were ‘those the total cost of which 
taken into account in determining 
the amount of Community 
assistance is, as a general rule, 
greater than ECU 25 million for infrastructure investments or 
greater than ECU 15 million for 
productive investments’. For 
the 2000–06 programme period, 
the definition of ‘major projects’ 
covered projects ‘whose total cost 
taken into account in determining 
the contribution of the Funds 
exceeded 50 million euro’. For the 
period 2007–13, the threshold 
for environmental projects 
is 25 million euro. 
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   12 19/05/09   15:30:58
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods13
 12.  The decision to co-finance a project establishes the amount granted and 
the conditions which must be satisfied. After completion of Cohesion 
Fund projects, in order to receive the balance of the grant, the benefi-ciary must submit a final report describing the work carried out and 
providing an initial assessment as to whether the anticipated results 
have been achieved
12. For ERDF major projects, specific final reports 
are not required by the regulation but reports on the operational  
programmes in which the major projects are included must contain a chapter providing separate information on them.
 13.  As regards the other ERDF projects, the Commission’s role is limited to 
the assessment and approval of the operational programmes, rather than individual projects.
COVERAGE RATE OF AGGLOMERATIONS BY WASTE 
WATER TREATMENT
 14.  Partly as a result of the entering into force of the Urban Waste Water 
Treatment Directive and the significant EU financial support13, there 
has been a significant increase in the coverage rate of the urban  population served by secondary and tertiary treatment capabilities (see definition in the Annex ). This is particularly marked in the four 
Member States who received more than 50 % of EU expenditure for implementing urban waste water treatment for the 2000–06 pro-
gramme period ( Tables 1  and 2).12 Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 
establishing a Cohesion Fund 
(OJ L 130, 25.5.1994, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) 
No 1265/1999 (OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, 
p. 62). 
13 For the four Member States 
visited, more than 50 % of the 
financial resources necessary 
for implementing urban waste 
water treatment had been 
provided by the EU. 
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   13 19/05/09   15:30:58
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods14
EVOLUTION OF PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION OF URBAN AGGLOMERATIONS 
SERVED BY TREATMENT PLANTS PROVIDING SECONDARY TREATMENT
Member StateStart of 1994–99
programme periodEnd of 2000–06
programme period
Ireland120 % (1994) 87 % (2006)
Spain241 % (1995) 77 % (2005)
Portugal332 % (1994) 80 % (2006)
Greece4< 20 % (1994) 85 % (2005)
1 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — Office of Environmental Enforcement, Urban Waste Water Discharges in Ireland — Reports for the Years 2002–03 and 2004–05. 2006 figures provided by Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
2 For 1995 data, report prepared according to Article 16 of the Urban Waste Water 
Treatment Directive, sent by Spain to the Commission (October 2004) and, for 2005, estimate received from the Ministry of the Environment.
3 Strategic Plan for Water and Waste Water Treatment (2007–13).
4 Ministry of Environment — Central Water Agency estimate.TABLE 1
EVOLUTION OF PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION OF URBAN AGGLOMERATIONS 
LOCATED IN SENSITIVE AREAS SERVED BY TREATMENT PLANTS PROVIDING SECONDARY AND TERTIARY TREATMENT
Member StateStart of 1994–99
programme period (1995)1End of 2000–06
programme period
Ireland 2 % 8 % (2006)2
Spain 3 % 84 % (2005)3
Portugal 0 % 63 % (2005)4
Greece 6 % 55 % (2006)5
1 OECD Environmental Data (Compendium 2006).
2 For 2006, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and for 2009 the Department of 
Environment has estimated that the percentage will increase to 80 %.
3 Ministry of Environment.
4 Instituto da Água I. P. (INAG I. P.) has estimated that the percentage will increase to 78 % 
in 2008.
5 Ministry of Environment — Central Water Agency. The figure had increased to 97 % by 
2007.TABLE 2
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   14 19/05/09   15:30:58
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods15
AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH
 15.  The main objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of Struc-
tural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 
and 2000–06 programme periods.
 16.  The Court addressed the following questions:
Do EU co-financed treatment plants achieve an adequate perform- (a) 
ance in the treatment of waste water?
Is the sludge produced by the treatment plants being used  (b) 
appropriately?
Is the Commission fulfilling its role in relation to project selection, (c) 
monitoring of outcomes through its analysis of final reports and promotion of environmental principles?
 17.  The audit was carried out at the European Commission and in four Mem-
ber States: Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland. The total Community expenditure on waste water treatment projects for these Member  States was 5,2 billion euro for the programme period 1994–99 and 
5,9 billion euro for the 2000–06 period. The audit was conducted from 
May 2007 to March 2008.
 18.  The audit was based on an assessment of the performance of a sample 
of 73 operating treatment plants co-financed during the relevant  programme periods.
 19.  Commission project approval, monitoring and follow-up procedures 
were examined. In the Member States, the Court interviewed repre-
sentatives from the various local, regional and national authorities 
charged with the design, selection, operation and monitoring of treat-
ment plants. The Court visited 26 projects ( Table 3 ), accompanied  
by independent experts knowledgeable in the areas of treatment  
plant operation, maintenance and control. A further 47 treatment  
plants were subject to desk checks. In order to identify and compare benchmarks and best practices in the field, a review of standards of some non-EU countries was undertaken (USA, Switzerland, Canada, Australia and Japan).
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   15 19/05/09   15:30:58
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods16
WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS VISITED AS PART OF THE COURT’S AUDIT:
BY LOCATION AND FUNDING SOURCE
Cohesion Fund ERDF Total
Spain 516
Portugal 516
Greece 606
Ireland 628
Total 22 4 26TABLE 3
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   16 19/05/09   15:30:58
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods17
DO EU COFINANCED TREATMENT PLANTS 
ACHIEVE AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE IN THE TREATMENT OF WASTE WATER?
BACKGROUND
 20.  The purpose of the treatment of domestic and pre-treated industrial 
waters is to reduce pollutants to an acceptable level which can then 
be safely absorbed by the receiving water bodies. The quality of the 
effluent is monitored through the taking of water samples.
 21.  The Court examined:
whether the treatment plants operated at an appropriate  (a) 
capacity;
whether the quality of the effluent produced was acceptable; (b) 
whether the treatment plants were adequately monitored with  (c) 
regard to performance.
MOST OF THE TREATMENT PLANTS OPERATED 
AT AN APPROPRIATE CAPACITY…
 22.  Of the treatment plants visited, 18 out of 26 were deemed to be operat-
ing satisfactorily with regard to capacity, having an utilisation rate above 50 %. In these cases, there was an adequate connection of  households and industrial users to the treatment plant.
… BUT A NUMBER OF TREATMENT PLANTS OPERATED 
WELL BELOW CAPACITY…
 23.  Plants operating at less than 50 % capacity can be considered as being 
underutilised. In the Court’s sample, seven plants were operating as 
such and their underutilisation can be explained as follows14:OBSERVATIONS
14 Two treatment plants operated 
at a capacity of 35 %, four at 
around 40 % and one at 45 %. 
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   17 19/05/09   15:30:59
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods18
six of the seven cases of underutilisation resulted from problems (a) 
in completing the network, with many households and industrial users remaining unconnected to the treatment plants despite the plants being five years or more in operation. As a result, not all 
of the waste water produced in the area was treated;
the other plant was operating at lower than planned capacity due (b) 
to the loss of local industries, which led to a drastic reduction in the quantity of water received for treatment.
… AND ONE TREATMENT PLANT HAD INSUFFICIENT CAPACITY
 24.  One plant was operating at full capacity due to the unexpectedly rapid 
economic growth of the region concerned. As a result the treatment plant did not have enough capacity to handle its waste water load 
at the time of the Court’s visit. Expansion works for this plant are  
planned for 2009–10, leaving it currently unable to properly treat all 
waste water received.
A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE TREATMENT PLANTS PRODUCED 
EFFLUENT MEETING EU REQUIREMENTS
 25.  The Court assessed the quality of the water discharged by the 73 treat-
ment plants selected against the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
15. The directive was in turn compared with 
regulations in existence in non-EU countries with a similar level of 
economic and social development. In 64 cases the quality of the  
discharged water met EU requirements and Table 4  summarises the 
results.15 Council Directive 91/271/EEC, 
Annex I, Tables 1 and 2 establish 
requirements for discharges concerning biochemical oxygen 
demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen 
demand (COD), total suspended 
solids (TSS) for normal areas, and 
in addition, for sensitive areas, 
total phosphorus (TP) and/or total 
nitrogen (TN) (see the Annex ). 
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   18 19/05/09   15:30:59
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods19
PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT PLANTS IN THE AUDIT SAMPLE 
WITH REGARD TO EU EFFLUENT QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
Treatment plants 
auditedEU requirements 
clearly metEU requirements 
borderline metEU requirements 
not met
Spain 1 9 973
Ireland 18 12 5 1
Portugal 1 8 864
Greece 18 12 5 1
Total 73 41 23 9
% 100 % 56,2 % 31,5 % 12,3 %TABLE 4
EXAMPLES OF TREATMENT PLANTS MEETING EU REQUIREMENTSPICTURES 14
Picture 1: Psyttalia treatment plant — Greece Picture 2: Febros treatment plant — Portugal
Picture 3: León treatment plant — Spain Picture 4: Drogheda treatment plant — Ireland
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   19 19/05/09   15:30:59
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods20
 26.  As presented in Table 4 , in nine cases the quality of the discharged 
water did not meet EU requirements and the following problems were noted:
industrial waste water should normally be pre-treated before being (a) 
discharged into the municipal sewage system to avoid problems in 
the performance of the treatment plant. In four treatment plants 
not meeting EU requirements, the main problems were due to the reception by the plants of water from industrial sources which had not been fully pre-treated and in some cases the operators had not been informed as to the composition of the industrial waste water they were receiving (see Textbox 2 );
some treatment plants were being operated by local authorities (b) 
lacking adequate resources and expertise and with no mechanisms in place to be informed of best practice;
in other cases poor performance resulted from failure to ade- (c) 
quately remove the eutrophication-inducing nutrients due to a lack of appropriate nutrient removal equipment.
EXAMPLES OF INADEQUATE PRE-TREATMENT OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE WATER
In Spain, operators of two of the three treatment plants not meeting standards, noted in their ‘Monthly Operating 
Reports’ that industries were channelling untreated waste water to their plants which had an adverse impact on 
performance. For one of these two plants, 74 of the 93 self-checks carried out during 2006 deviated by more than 
100 % from the limits established in the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.
In Portugal, in two of the four treatment plants not meeting EU requirements, industries were discharging directly 
into the municipal sewage system without carrying out appropriate pre-treatment. Th  e situation was known to 
the operators and furthermore had been noted in the reports of the independent body charged with monitoring treatment plant performance.TEXTBOX 2
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   20 19/05/09   15:31:02
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods21
16 Annex I.D of 
the directive 91/271/EEC. 
17 Directive 86/278/EEC and 
Directive 91/271/EEC. EFFLUENT QUALITY MONITORING: GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE 
PERFORMANCE DATA BUT SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT
 27.  Generally, for the 26 treatment plants visited, the self-checks carried 
out by the plant operator were in accordance with the standards  
set out in the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive with regard  
to their frequency and the sampling methods used. However, some 
weaknesses were identified especially at smaller plants:
in one case, the frequency of the self-checks was insufficient (five (a) 
self-checks were carried out in 2006 instead of the 12 required);
in three cases the sampling method used was not in compliance (b) 
with the directive (grab sampling was used while the directive  provides for 24h-composite or flow-proportional sampling).
 28.  During the audit a number of good practices were observed which were 
additional to the requirements of the directive:
operators in treatment plants with a capacity above 50 000 p.e. (a) 
were performing more self-checks than the 24 required by the  
directive16. In the 14 such plants visited , the number of samples 
taken per year varied from 38 to 365;
three of the four Member States visited operate a system of dis- (b) 
charge licences establishing the discharged water requirements for each treatment plant (although some of the treatment plants visited in those Member States were operating without licences 
or with out of date licences). The fourth Member State launched its licensing system in 2008.
IS THE SLUDGE PRODUCED BY THE TREATMENT PLANTS 
BEING USED APPROPRIATELY?
BACKGROUND
 29.  The treatment of waste water results in the discharge of effluent and 
the production of sewage sludge. The EU encourages its use as a  fertiliser
17, as treated sewage sludge is a good source of phospho-
rus, nitrogen and potasium. Such use of the sludge makes economic 
sense for the farmer, being a good use of available resources whilst at 
the same time being beneficial for the soil. However, sewage sludge 
may also contain harmful contaminants which have to be kept to an acceptable level for the sludge to be used or disposed of safely.
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   21 19/05/09   15:31:02
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods22
18 Council Directive 75/442/EEC 
of 15 July 1975 on waste 
(OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39). 
DISPOSAL OF THE SEWAGE SLUDGE PRODUCED BY THE TREATMENT PLANTS 
IN THE AUDIT SAMPLE
EU recommended 
reuse methodsNon-reuse methods
Total
Land 
applicationInciner-
ationMunicipal 
landfi  llsTreatment 
plant
on-siteOther
Spain 1 6 0201 1 9
Ireland 1 7 0100 1 8
Portugal 1 4 0130 1 8
Greece 01 1 4 21 1 8
Total 4 711 85 27 3TABLE 5 30.  The Court examined:
whether the sludge was disposed of safely, with the EU encourag- (a) 
ing18 its safe reuse in agriculture and energy generation through 
incineration, with disposal in municipal landfills being acceptable 
although recognised as being the least sustainable method;
whether when used in agriculture, the sludge and the soil had  (b) 
safe levels of certain substances considered hazardous;
whether monitoring at operating plants and Member States pro- (c) 
vided adequate assurance that the sewage sludge was being dis-posed of safely.
TWO THIRDS OF THE TREATMENT PLANTS AUDITED 
DISPOSED OF THE SEWAGE SLUDGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EU RECOMMENDED PRACTICES
 31.  Of the 73 treatment plants in the audit sample, of those following EU rec-
ommended reuse methods, 47 chose agriculture and one plant selected the generation of energy through incineration (see Table 5 ).
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   22 19/05/09   15:31:02
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods23
EXAMPLES OF DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE SLUDGEPICTURES 56
Picture 5: EU-encouraged practice 
of reuse on agricultural landsPicture 6: Poor practice: storage on-site 
at treatment plant visited 32.  Non-reuse methods were practised at the other 25 treatment plants for 
various reasons:
although Greece is currently developing a national plan to deal (a) 
with the issue of sewage sludge disposal, at the time of the audit 
neither national nor regional plans were in place and 14 of the 
18 Greek treatment plants audited disposed of their sewage sludge 
in municipal landfills;
in Greece and Portugal, some treatment plants do not have a  (b) 
viable strategy for sludge disposal, particularly those municipally operated. This has led to on-site storage and, in one case, dump-
ing in an abandoned mine. One large treatment plant in Greece did not have a valid contract for the sludge disposal and, as a  
result, 13 450 tonnes of sludge were each year stored on-site  
(Picture 6 ).
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   23 19/05/09   15:31:03
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods24
EVOLUTION OF PERCENTAGE OF REUSE OF TREATMENT PLANT SEWAGE SLUDGE 
IN ACCORDANCE WITH EU RECOMMENDED PRACTICES1
Member StateStart of 1994–99 
programme periodEnd of 2000–06 
programme periodReuse method
Ireland 12 % / 15 % (1994) 76 % / 83 % (2005) Agriculture/all land
Spain 46 % (1997) 66 % (2003) Agriculture
Portugal 30 % (1995) 42 % (2005) Agriculture
Greece 0 % (1997)0 % (2005) /
50 % (mid–07)2 Energy (incineration)
1 Reports on sewage sludge that Member States prepare according to Article 17 of the Sewage Sludge 
Directive.
2 Estimate. Ministry of Environment.TABLE 6 33.  For the Member States visited, the Court’s review of data on the disposal 
of sewage sludge indicated that there had been a noticeable increase in reuse of sewage sludge as encouraged by the EU ( Table 6  and  
Textbox 3 ).
EXAMPLE OF HOW ONE MEMBER STATE ENCOURAGED EU RECOMMENDED PRACTICE
Th e performance achieved by Ireland was attributable in part to its implementation of the Sewage Sludge Directive 
through the development and application of guidelines identifying best practice for sewage sludge treatment and disposal. One guideline focused on the preparation of eff  ective sludge management plans for local authorities, 
whereas two others dealt with the safe disposal of sludge on agricultural lands, including a requirement for the 
use of a ‘Nutrient Management Plan’ for each farmer.TEXTBOX 3
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   24 19/05/09   15:31:04
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods25
EXAMPLES OF CHECKS FOR OTHER COMPOUNDS IN SEWAGE SLUDGE
In Ireland, three of eight treatment plants visited periodically tested for fl  uoride, arsenic, selenium and magnesium. 
Some plants also tested polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
In Portugal, since 2006, sludge produced by treatment plants receiving industrial waters has to be checked for 
organic compounds and dioxins. Th  is had been carried out at four of the six treatment plants visited.TEXTBOX 4SATISFACTORY RESULTS AGAINST SEWAGE SLUDGE 
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
 34.  For the treatment plants audited on-site in the three Member States 
applying sludge to land, lab tests carried out on heavy metal con-
centrations in sewage sludge and soils, prior to the application of  
the sludge, gave results which were in compliance with the maximum limits required by the Sewage Sludge Directive. Checks were carried out for other compounds, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), although not required by the directive (see Textbox 4 ).
REVISION OF THE DIRECTIVE?
 35.  Although the Court found that the requirements of the Sewage Sludge 
Directive were being satisfactorily adhered to, as the current direc-tive was adopted in 1986, it does not take into account subsequent developments in techniques and methods of sludge treatment and 
disposal. For example the directive does not require testing for  organic contaminants such as PCBs, or pathogens such as E. coli , 
whereas some EU Member States set maximum concentration levels 
for organic contaminants in their national regulations and certain  non-EU countries have set standards aimed at reducing the harmful effects of pathogens in sludge. In addition, there is no mention in  
the directive of other popular land applications such as forestry.
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   25 19/05/09   15:31:04
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods26
 36.  If a revision is deemed necessary, it is likely that new limits for various 
substances would be more stringent than those found in the current directive. However, in other instances, there may be an opportunity, in the light of research carried out since the adoption of the 1986  
directive, to relax certain limits which were thought prudent in the past. There may also be a need to instigate tests for contaminants 
not mentioned in the current directive.
SLUDGE DISPOSAL MONITORING: SOME OPPORTUNITIES 
FOR IMPROVEMENT AT OPERATING PLANTS AND MONITORING BODIES OF THE MEMBER STATES
 37.  The Court’s review of sludge quality testing and recording for the oper-
ating plants in the sample indicated that the frequency of sampling and the choice of sampling method for the sewage sludge testing  
were generally in accordance with the Sewage Sludge Directive, even 
if some weaknesses were identified concerning the number of tests 
carried out.
 38.  In Member States, the Court noted that:
at the various levels, the authority responsible for monitoring  (a) 
sewage sludge were often not able to indicate the quantity of  
sludge produced, its content or how it was disposed of;
as different units were sometimes responsible for monitoring agri- (b) 
cultural and non-agricultural sludge disposal separately, there was 
a lack of overview with regard to the situation of each treatment 
plant as a whole.
IS THE COMMISSION FULFILLING ITS ROLE?
BACKGROUND
 39.  The approval and follow-up of waste water treatment projects co-financed 
by the EU involves two Directorates-General of the European Commis-sion: DG REGIO and DG ENV. For the Cohesion Fund and ERDF major projects, the Commission’s role in the appraisal of grant applications 
and the decision process relates to individual projects, whereas for 
smaller ERDF projects, its intervention is at the level of the oper-ational programme (paragraphs 8 to 13).
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   26 19/05/09   15:31:04
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods27
 40.  For Cohesion Fund and ERDF major projects, the Court examined whether 
the Commission:
checked in a consistent manner the environmental information (a) 
contained in the grant applications;
reviewed the outcomes achieved by approved projects before  (b) 
paying the balance of the grant;
ensured that Member States applied the EU environmental prin- (c) 
ciples that pollution should be reduced at source and the polluter should pay.
NEED FOR CONSISTENCY IN PROJECT EXAMINATION
 41.  For the Commission to ensure that all grant applicants are treated equally 
and that all aspects of the applications are covered, an appropriate and systematically applied framework including internal guidelines and checklists is essential. During the course of its audit, the Court 
noted an absence of such guidelines and checklists.
 42.  The Commission’s Cohesion Fund 2000–06 Guide stipulated certain key 
documents and information which had to be included with grant  
applications. Such information was not always included with the  applications reviewed by the Court and the use of checklists could have prevented this.
 43.  In its review of the 22 treatment plants visited on the spot and co-
financed by the Cohesion Fund the Court noted:
while almost all applications and Commission decisions include (a) 
targets for the quality of discharged water and the volume of  waste water to be treated, they contain little information about the nature of sewage sludge disposal (only indicated in eight  
applications for assistance and six granting decisions) or about 
the quality of sewage sludge (referred to in only two applications for assistance and one granting decision);
an absence of quantified receiving water quality performance indi- (b) 
cators in almost all applications for assistance and corresponding 
Commission decisions (and this was confirmed by the findings of an ex post  evaluation carried out for the Commission).
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   27 19/05/09   15:31:04
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods28
19 The most recent examples 
were observed by the Court in 
its Special Report No 1/2008 
concerning the procedures for 
the preliminary examination and 
evaluation of major investment 
projects for the 1994–99 and 
2000–06 programme periods 
(OJ C 81, 1.4.2008, p. 1).  44.  Indeed, the Court has noted that the assessment of whether projects have 
met their objectives can be affected by shortcomings in aid applica-
tions, in particular concerning anticipated effects and indicators19.
 45.  A more rigorous examination of projects at application stage could have 
identified and helped solve certain problems noted during the course 
of the audit:
inadequate treatment plant quality in sensitive areas due to a lack (a) 
of appropriate nutrient removal equipment (paragraph 26);
inadequate disposal of sludge, with some large treatment plants (b) 
accumulating its sewage sludge on-site (paragraph 32).
NEED FOR BETTER MONITORING OF OUTCOMES
 46.  Before paying the balance of the grant of Cohesion Fund projects, a final 
report containing in particular an assessment of whether anticipated results have been achieved has to be submitted to the Commission. If the final report is not sent to the Commission within 18 months  of the final date in the granting decision, the remaining balance of the payment should, according to the relevant EU legislation, be  cancelled.
 47.  In its audit of the final reports of the 22 treatment plants co-financed 
by the Cohesion Fund and visited by the Court, it was noted that  only six final reports provided data on the quality of the discharged 
water, only one provided data related to measured water quality  improvement and only three indicated the method of sewage sludge disposal.
 48.  The Court concludes that the Commission is not in a position to properly 
evaluate final reports without being in possession of fundamental  and key information such as referred to in paragraph 47. Given such lack of information, suspension or cancellation of the balance of a payment will only occur on the non-submission of a report, rather  
than following an assessment as to whether anticipated results have 
actually been achieved.
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   28 19/05/09   15:31:04
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods29
20 The good ecological status is 
defined in the Water Framework 
Directive based on three groups 
of elements: biological quality 
elements, hydromorphological 
quality elements and physico-chemical quality elements 
(Article 2 and Annex V). 
21 Report from the Commission 
to the Council and the European Parliament pursuant to Article 16 
of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of 
the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 31 March 2004 on 
detergents, concerning the use 
of phosphates / COM(2007) 234 
final — Brussels, 4 May 2007. 
22 EU Environment Directorate — 
Final Report on Phosphates and 
Alternative Detergent Builders / 
WRc Ref: UC 4011 / June 2002 pages 120, 121 and 125, 
UNDP/GEF report at Danube River 
and MARE/HELCOM project on 
the Baltic Sea area. 
23 Bulgaria and Romania were not 
taken into account in this study. 
24 The Commission reported 
that two of the countries which 
had received large amounts 
of assistance from the EU in 
support of waste water treatment 
investment, and which were visited in this audit, were less than 
50 % phosphate-free in laundry 
detergents. MORE CONSIDERATION OF EU ENVIRONMENTAL 
PRINCIPLES REQUIRED
 49.  Preserving the good ecological status of water bodies20 requires not only 
the satisfactory treatment of waste water at individual plant level but also application of the EU environmental principles that pollution  should be reduced at source and the polluter should pay.
 50.  A Commission report asserts21 that two of the main sources of eutrophi-
cation of fresh waters by urban agglomerations are phosphate-based 
domestic laundry detergents and human metabolic waste. Concerns over the contribution of phosphate-based laundry detergents have led 
most Member States to move towards phosphate-free detergents.
 51.  Other reports22 conclude that the provision of tertiary treatment alone 
may not in itself be sufficient in avoiding eutrophication without a 
move away from phosphate-based detergents.
 52.  The Commission has studied the potential environmental benefits for 
Member States of such a move away from phosphate-based detergents and concluded that 24 of the 25
23 studied would benefit in varying 
degrees24. Amongst the factors taken into account for each Member 
State were the annual consumption of detergent phosphates, the  provision of tertiary water treatment and the extent of concern over eutrophication.
 53.  The Commission has recognised the need for appropriate action and in 
the report referred to in paragraph 50, it stated that a decision on 
whether restrictions on phosphates in detergents would be taken if 
justified and that an impact assessment and eventual presentation of a legislative proposal would follow if considered appropriate.
 54.  Concerning the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the Water Framework Directive 
requires by 2010  the adoption of water-pricing policies providing  
incentives for the efficient use of water resources and recovery of  costs.
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   29 19/05/09   15:31:04
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods30
 55.  When assessing a grant application, the Commission is required to verify 
compliance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle and this may influence 
the rate of assistance granted25. However, no specific benchmarks  
are provided against which to assess the proposed tariff rates in the application. The Court noted that tariff rates were never included  in the granting decision and often not in the final reports, thereby making difficult an assessment of financial sustainability.
 56.  The Court’s review of the tariffs applied by the plants visited showed 
that generally tariffs are too low to cover operating costs (see  
Textbox 5 ).25 EC DG Regio ‘Cohesion Fund 
2000–06 Manual of Procedures’ 
(Version 2006–09) — page 21.
EXAMPLES OF TARIFFS APPLIED BY THE TREATMENT PLANTS VISITED
Th e tariff  s applied by the treatment plants visited in Spain, Portugal and Greece varied signifi  cantly (e.g. ranging 
for a quantity of water over 20 m3 from 0,079 euro/m3 to 1,17 euro/m3).
Ireland does not directly charge domestic users for their use of water and waste water services, though it does 
charge commercial and industrial users of water and waste water services.TEXTBOX 5
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   30 19/05/09   15:31:05
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods31
CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS
 57.  The overall conclusion of the Court is that Structural Measures have 
contributed to the improvement of waste water treatment in the four 
Member States audited.
WASTE WATER TREATMENT
 58.  As regards the performance of waste water treatment plants, the Court 
found that in general those plants co-financed by Structural Measures 
perform at an adequate level (paragraphs 22 and 25).
 59.  However:
seven of the 26 plants were found to be operating below capacity (a) 
due, in six cases, to a failure to connect all potential domestic  
and industrial users to the treatment plants and in one case to 
the loss of local industries (paragraphs 23 and 24);
the quality of the effluent did not meet EU requirements in nine (b) 
out of 73 cases due to inadequately pre-treated industrial waste 
water being discharged into the sewage network, a lack of exper-tise on the part of some local authorities and a lack of adequate equipment or technology in areas designated as sensitive (para-graph 26).
60. THE COURT THEREFORE RECOMMENDS THAT:
Member States should ensure that sufficient thought is given to  (a) 
the connection of newly constructed treatment plants to the sew-
age network;
Member States should, in order to improve the quality of the water (b) 
discharged, pay greater attention to the adequate pre-treatment of industrial waste water and to promote the sharing of best practice amongst operators.
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   31 19/05/09   15:31:05
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods32
SEWAGE SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
 61.  As regards the plants’ treatment and disposal of sewage sludge, the Court 
found that two thirds of the treatment plants co-financed by Struc-tural Measures reuse the sludge resulting from the treatment of waste water following methods recommended in EU directives, with almost 
all of them prefering its reuse on agricultural land (paragraph 31).
 62.  However:
in 25 out of 73 plants unsustainable non-reuse methods were  (a) 
found, such as on-site storage (paragraph 32);
in three out of four Member States, for some plants, the relevant (b) 
authorities were not able to indicate the quantity of sludge pro-
duced, its content or how it was disposed of (paragraph 38);
although the Court found that the requirements of the Sewage (c) 
Sludge Directive were being adhered to, developments in sludge 
treatment and disposal subsequent to 1986 are not taken account 
of in EU legislation, though some Member States apply more strin-gent standards (paragraphs 35 and 36).
63. THE COURT THEREFORE RECOMMENDS THAT:
Member States should, before submitting the project for co-finan- (a) 
cing, ensure that urban waste water treatment plants have a strat-egy for the disposal of sewage sludge;
Member States should ensure that their databases on sewage sludge (b) 
contains information for each plant on the quantity of sludge pro-duced, its content and method of disposal;
the Commission should consider whether the time is now appropri- (c) 
ate for the revision of the Sewage Sludge Directive. Any revision should take into account the costs and benefits of proposing new 
measures as well as the need to maintain a balance with other EU 
policies.
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   32 19/05/09   15:31:05
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods33
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION
 64.  As regards the role played by the Commission in relation to its approval 
and follow up of Cohesion Fund projects and ERDF major projects, the Court noted the following significant weaknesses:
the Commission approved projects which did not include key  (a) 
information in the application for assistance as required by the 
Guide to the Cohesion Fund (e.g. performance objectives in rela-tion to sludge disposal and quality of receiving waters). Such  information facilitates the assessment of achieved results to be included in the project final report (paragraphs 41 to 45);
individual Cohesion Fund project final reports often do not contain (b) 
results concerning the quality of the discharged water, the receiv-
ing waters and the quality and the nature of the disposal of the 
sewage sludge. Without such information the Commission is not 
in a position to carry out the necessary evaluation of final reports 
before payment of the final balance (paragraphs 46 to 48).
 65.  As regards the consideration given by the Commission relating to EU 
environmental principles, the Court noted the following:
a number of studies have indicated possible benefits on the  (a) 
environment to be gained by moving to non-phosphate-based  detergents. Assessment of this issue should continue to be bal-anced, with an adequate component of cost–benefit analysis  (paragraphs 50 to 53);
the Commission did not always take the ‘polluter-pays’ principle (b) 
sufficiently into account, as the Court’s review found that the  tariffs applied were generally too low to cover operating costs. Furthermore, tariff rates were not often included in final reports, making difficult any assessment of financial sustainability (para-
graphs 54 to 56).
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   33 19/05/09   15:31:05
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods34
66. THE COURT THEREFORE RECOMMENDS  
THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD:
require that information allowing the setting of performance tar- (a) 
gets, in such key areas as quality of water discharged, quality of 
receiving water bodies, volume of water to be treated and intended 
method of sludge disposal should be included in grant applications 
and systematically checked as part of the project appraisal process. The establishment of appropriate internal guidelines and checklists for use by desk officers would facilitate this;
encourage Member States to assess the achievement of the antici- (b) 
pated results at project level as set out in the application for assist-
ance, noting that for the period 2007–13 no final report is required 
to be submitted to the Commission in respect of Cohesion Fund  projects and ERDF major projects;
assess whether a further move away from phosphate-based deter- (c) 
gents is justifiable on the basis of costs and benefits to the EU  
citizen;
ensure that the financial sustainability of treatment plant projects (d) 
is considered at the application approval stage and pertinent infor-mation such as proposed tariffs is given due consideration.
  This report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its 
meeting of 18 and 19 March 2009.
  For the Court of Auditors
Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira
President
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   34 19/05/09   15:31:05
/g51/g76/g83/g72
/g3/g88/g81/g71/g72/g85/g3/g70/g82/g81/g86/g87/g85/g88/g70/g87/g76/g82/g81
/g56/g85/g69/g68/g81/g3/g58/g68/g86/g87/g72/g3/g58/g68/g87/g72/g85/g3/g55/g85/g72/g68/g87/g80/g72/g81/g87/g3/g51/g79/g68/g81/g87/g3/g11/g56/g58/g58/g55/g51/g12/g20/g17/g3/g51/g85/g72/g16/g87/g85/g72/g68/g87/g80/g72/g81/g87/g3
/g11/g80/g72/g70/g75/g68/g81/g76/g70/g68/g79/g12/g21/g17/g3/g51/g85/g76/g80/g68/g85/g92/g3/g87/g85/g72/g68/g87/g80/g72/g81/g87/g3
/g11/g80/g72/g70/g75/g68/g81/g76/g70/g68/g79/g12/g22/g17/g3/g54/g72/g70/g82/g81/g71/g68/g85/g92/g3/g87/g85/g72/g68/g87/g80/g72/g81/g87/g3/g11/g69/g76/g82/g79/g82/g74/g76/g70/g68/g79/g12/g56/g81/g87/g85/g72/g68/g87/g72/g71/g18
/g83/g68/g85/g87/g76/g68/g79/g79/g92/g3/g87/g85/g72/g68/g87/g72/g71/g3
/g90/g68/g86/g87/g72/g90/g68/g87/g72/g85/g3
/g72/g81/g87/g72/g85/g76/g81/g74/g3/g87/g75/g72/g3
/g56/g58/g58/g55/g51
/g53/g44/g57/g40/g53/g55/g85/g72/g68/g87/g72/g71/g3
/g90/g68/g86/g87/g72/g90/g68/g87/g72/g85
/g54/g79/g88/g71/g74/g72/g3/g87/g85/g72/g68/g87/g80/g72/g81/g87/g3/g11/g71/g85/g92/g76/g81/g74/g12/g3/g69/g72/g73/g82/g85/g72/g3/g71/g76/g86/g83/g82/g86/g68/g79
/g23/g17/g3/g55/g72/g85/g87/g76/g68/g85/g92/g3/g11/g69/g76/g82/g79/g82/g74/g76/g70/g68/g79/g18/g70/g75/g72/g80/g76/g70/g68/g79/g12
/g68/g81/g71/g3/g84/g88/g68/g87/g72/g85/g81/g68/g85/g92/g3/g11/g56/g57/g12/g3/g87/g85/g72/g68/g87/g80/g72/g81/g87
/g56/g81/g87/g85/g72/g68/g87/g72/g71/g3/g90/g68/g86/g87/g72/g90/g68/g87/g72/g85
/g40/g91/g70/g72/g86/g86/g3/g86/g79/g88/g71/g74/g72/g54/g79/g88/g71/g74/g72/g3/g87/g85/g68/g81/g86/g83/g82/g85/g87
/g49/g88/g87/g85/g76/g72/g81/g87/g3
/g85/g72/g80/g82/g89/g68/g79
/g56/g57/g3
/g87/g85/g72/g68/g87/g80/g72/g81/g87
/g54/g70/g85/g72/g72/g81/g76/g81/g74
/g39/g72/g16/g86/g68/g81/g71/g76/g81/g74/g3
/g68/g81/g71/g3/g71/g72/g16
/g82/g76/g79/g76/g81/g74/g53/g44/g57/g40/g53
/g53/g72/g88/g86/g72/g3/g76/g81/g3/g76/g81/g70/g76/g81/g72/g85/g68/g87/g76/g82/g81
/g39/g76/g86/g83/g82/g86/g68/g79/g3/g76/g81/g3/g79/g68/g81/g71/g73/g76/g79/g79/g86/g53/g72/g88/g86/g72/g3/g76/g81/g3/g68/g74/g85/g76/g70/g88/g79/g87/g88/g85/g72/g3/g76/g81/g3/g70/g82/g88/g81/g87/g85/g92/g86/g76/g71/g72 /g53/g88/g81/g18/g82/g73/g73/g86/g3/g82/g73/g3/g76/g80/g83/g85/g82/g83/g72/g85/g79/g92/g3/g88/g86/g72/g71/g3
/g73/g72/g85/g87/g76/g79/g76/g93/g72/g85/g86/g3/g76/g81/g87/g82/g3/g87/g75/g72/g3/g85/g76/g89/g72/g85
/g52/g88/g68/g79/g76/g87/g92/g3/g38/g82/g81/g87/g85/g82/g79/g3/g55/g72/g86/g87/g76/g81/g74/g36/g74/g74/g79/g82/g80/g72/g85/g68/g87/g76/g82/g81/g3/g81/g82/g87/g3/g70/g82/g81/g81/g72/g70/g87/g72/g71/g15/g3
/g71/g76/g86/g70/g75/g68/g85/g74/g76/g81/g74/g3/g71/g76/g85/g72/g70/g87/g79/g92/g3/g76/g81/g87/g82/g3/g87/g75/g72/g3/g85/g76/g89/g72/g85/g36/g74/g74/g79/g82/g80/g72/g85/g68/g87/g76/g82/g81/g3/g70/g82/g81/g81/g72/g70/g87/g72/g71
/g39/g76/g86/g70/g75/g68/g85/g74/g76/g81/g74/g3/g90/g68/g86/g87/g72/g3/g90/g68/g87/g72/g85/g3/g11/g90/g76/g87/g75/g3
/g68/g71/g72/g84/g88/g68/g87/g72/g3/g83/g85/g72/g16/g87/g85/g72/g68/g87/g80/g72/g81/g87/g3/g87/g82/g3/g87/g75/g72/g3
/g80/g88/g81/g76/g70/g76/g83/g68/g79/g3/g86/g72/g90/g68/g74/g72/g3/g86/g92/g86/g87/g72/g80/g12/g47/g76/g89/g72/g86/g87/g82/g70/g78
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods35
URBAN WASTE WATER TREATMENT ENVIRONMENTANNEX
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   35 19/05/09   15:31:06
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods36
ANNEX  
COMPLEMENTARY NOTES TO DIAGRAM
DIFFERENT WASTE WATER AND SEWAGE TREATMENT STAGES
Waste water is collected through the urban sewage pipe network 
and pumped to the urban waste water treatment plant (UWWTP), 
where it undergoes several stages of treatment before its discharge into the waterways of the river basin.
Waste water pre-treatment
This mechanical phase involves the removal of the largest pieces of waste through screening (e.g. paper, plastic ...) as well as of sand and oil through other processes.
Waste water primary treatment
This mechanical phase  involves the initial separation from waste 
water of large sewage particles, which settle at the bottom of the 
tank. These particles are then scraped and channelled as sewage 
sludge for subsequent treatment and reuse.
Waste water secondary treatment
This biological phase involves the  treatment of waste water to elimi-
nate biodegradable organic pollutants, as measured in BOD5, COD 
and TSS concentration levels (see Quality Parameters).
The most common type of secondary treatment involves the use 
of purifying micro-organisms which break down and consume the 
biodegradable sewage content. This in turn leads to the separation and collection of sewage sludge similar to that described in the waste water primary treatment phase.
Waste water tertiary treatment
This biological/chemical phase is applied where necessary, to  
reduce the concentration levels of nutrients in treated waste  
waters prior to their discharge into river basin waterways at risk of eutrophication.
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   36 19/05/09   15:31:09
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods37
Eutrophication arises from the explosive growth of algae induced 
by nutrients, which leads to the reduction of oxygen levels in water resulting in the disappearance of native marine plants, fish and  other acquatic animal life.
The two major eutrophication-inducing nutrients are phosphorus (in 
relation to fresh water) and nitrogen (in relation to salt waters).
Waste water quaternary treatment
This radiation phase is applied where necessary, to eliminate harm-
ful bacteria ( E. coli ) to humans using nearby waters, commonly for 
bathing. This treatment usually involves the disinfectment of treated 
sewage using ultraviolet light.
Sewage sludge treatment
Sewage sludge is generally dewatered to a 20 % water content in a 
mud state known as ‘biosludge’ and can be further dried to a 1 % water content in a dry pellet state known as ‘biofert’ prior ship-
ment for disposal.
Biosludge and biofert may be reused in land applications, provided 
contaminant levels are not exceeded. In addition biofert may be 
reused in energy generation though incineration.
The SSD also requires the periodic testing of agricultural soils for 
acceptable heavy metals concentrations prior to the application of sewage sludge.
QUALITY CONTROL PARAMETERS MANDATED 
BY EU DIRECTIVES
Treated waste water (Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive)
The following parameters are tested in treated waste water prior 
leaving the UWWTP for discharge into the receiving waters of the 
river basin:
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   37 19/05/09   15:31:09
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods38
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Quantity of oxygen consumed by micro-organisms to eliminate bio-
degradable organic and mineral matter contained in water. BOD5 
is conventionally used to measure oxygen consumption in terms 
of mg O2/l after 5 days. The higher the BOD5 value, the greater the 
consumption of oxygen by micro-organisms and the greater the  
pollution.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Quantity of oxygen consumed to oxidise, by chemical means, the 
organic and mineral matter present in water. COD therefore includes both biodegradable matter characterised by BOD5 and non-bio-
degradable oxidisable matter. This parameter is also expressed in mg O
2/l.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Quantity of mineral and organic particles suspended in water which can be captured on a porosity filter. This parameter is also expressed 
in mg/l.
Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP)
Quantity of eutrophication-inducing nutrients contained in water. This parameter is also expressed in mg/l.
Treated sewage sludge (Sewage Sludge Directive)
The following heavy metals are tested for concentration levels  expressed in mg/kg of dry matter in sludge prior to application on 
agricultural soils:
cadmium, copper, nickel, lead, zinc, mercury and chromium.
River basin water quality (Water Framework Directive)
The EU has developed sophisticated testing and monitoring clas-
sifications and monitoring systems allowing for categorising Mem-ber States’ waters into five ecological status levels, of which two, good and high, are acceptable for meeting EU clean water policy 
objectives.
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   38 19/05/09   15:31:09
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods39
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
III.
The Commission underlines that waste water 
treatment was a key investment priority  
of the Cohesion Fund and the ERDF in the  
four audited Member States.
IV.
Underutilisation of some treatment plants is sometimes caused by time lags in the con-struction of the waste water systems, associ-
ated with significant changes in economic  
activity that could not be foreseen. In addi-tion, projects may include treatment of waste water sources beyond the requirements of 
the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. 
In such cases, a future-oriented design of the treatment plant can be cost-effective, but  it might lead temporarily to the treatment plants operating below capacity.
V.
The Commission agrees that investments  
in this sector need to rely on a long-term  
planning at local/regional level, and finan-
cial resources should include the Cohesion 
Policy funds, but they need to be comple-
mented by other sources.
VI.
Reuse of sewage sludge is in many cases lim-
ited by the quality of the sludge, geographi-
cal conditions or economic considerations.
VII.
The Commission is working on a revision of 
the Sewage Sludge Directive, based on the 
development of a comprehensive impact  assessment of options and their costs and  
benefits.
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   39 19/05/09   15:31:10
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods40
VIII.
Member States have the primary responsi-
bility for the selection, implementation and monitoring of the co-financed projects.
For the period 2007–13, the Commission has 
developed a checklist for internal use dur-ing major water and wastewater projects  appraisal, for assessing consistency with  the environmental acquis  and policy. How-
ever, only major projects are now subject  
to a Commission decision (projects in this  
sector — above 25 million euro).
IX.
Before paying the balance to any Cohe-sion Fund or major project the Commission endeavours to check that the conditions of 
funding have been fulfilled and where neces-
sary requests clarifications from the benefi-
ciary. The Commission will consider how best to achieve the Court’s recommendations.
For projects approved during 2007–13, in  
the wastewater sector, a series of output  
indicators are included in the Commission’s 
decisions for co-financing (i.e. level of treat-
ment, capacity of the plant).
X.
During 2000–06, the Commission made  
efforts in promoting the ‘polluter pays’  
principle, by issuing an indicative paper  
on the application of the principle in the  frame of Cohesion Policy. It underlined the 
importance of this element and requested  Member States to commit themselves to a  strengthened application of the principle.  From 2010 onwards, the polluter pays prin -ciple will become operational, under the pro-visions of the Water Framework Directive.INTRODUCTION
2.(c)It should be noted that the provisions of the Water Framework Directive were not applic-
able for the audited projects and period  
(1994–2006).
For projects prepared after 2009, they will 
become applicable.
8.
The Commission recalls that Member States have the primary responsibility for the selec-tion, implementation and monitoring of the projects.
9.
The Commission is regularly checking com-
pliance with the Urban Waste Water Treat-ment Directive. The four Implementation  
Reports issued by the Commission by the  
end of 2007 list horizontal infringement pro-
cedures commenced against Member States, 
inter alia against the audited states, and  
judgments by the Court of Justice.
11–12.
For the 2007–13 period, the regulation  enables the Commission to assess and  
approve only major projects (above 25 mil-lion euro for environmental projects), co-
financed by either the Cohesion Fund or the 
ERDF. For these projects, there will not be project final reports to be approved by the Commission.
For the period audited, the Commission  
examined the quality of individual projects submitted by Member States only for  Cohesion Fund projects and major ERDF  projects.
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   40 19/05/09   15:31:10
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods41
For both periods, the Commission’s review 
of projects is based on socio-economic fac-tors, the coherence and consistency of the project, the degree of maturity and deliv-
erability, using techniques such as cost–benefit analysis and internal rate of return. 
The Commission carries out the final evalu-
ation based on the fact that the project is  operational and in conformity with the ini-tial decision. The proper subsequent opera-tion of the co-funded treatment plant is not in the scope of the evaluation of Cohesion Policy but falls under the general Commu-nity legislation.
OBSERVATIONS
23.Underutilisation of some treatment plants  is sometimes caused by time lags in the  construction of the waste water systems,  
associated with significant changes in eco-
nomic activity that could not be foreseen.  
In addition, projects may include treatment 
of waste water sources beyond the require-
ments of the directive. In such cases, a  
future-oriented design of the treatment  
plant can be cost-effective, but it might lead temporarily to the treatment plants operat-ing below capacity.
The Commission agrees that investments in 
this sector need to rely on a long-term plan-ning at local/regional level, and financial  resources should include the Cohesion Pol-
icy funds, which need to be complemented by other sources.
24.
The unexpected growth or socio-economic changes in this specific region is among the 
risks affecting project development.
25.
Overall, the co-funded waste water treat-ment plants have led to an improvement of 
the management of the waste waters in the 
specific regions, and to a reduction of their impact on the environment.26.
The Commission takes note of the facts and 
will make further enquiries. It underlines,  
however, that Member States are respon-
sible for the operation of the treatment  plants and their compliance with Commu-
nity legislation.
(a)
Industrial waste waters pre-treatment  
should indeed be in place when the urban 
waste water treatment plant starts opera-tion. Thus, at the application stage when the Commission examines the project, the bene-
ficiary should demonstrate that industrial  waste waters are either correctly pre-treated or subject to an action plan for solving the matter.
The industrial wastewater discharges should 
also be subject to a permitting procedure, as 
enshrined in the Urban Waste Water Treat-ment Directive (Article 11).
(b)
Projects can include technical assistance to 
improve beneficiaries’ capacities.
(c)
The Commission has been active in imple-
menting the requirement for nutrient  removal, both by informing (letter to Mem-ber States of 3 July 2003) and by under-
taking legal infringement procedures (for  
inadequate effluent quality from treatment plants and/or for inadequate designation of sensitive areas), leading to judgments by the Court of Justice (see 2007 Implementation 
Report).
27.
(a)
The Commission has requested monitoring 
and performance data on treatment plants 
for the forthcoming fifth Implementation  Report for the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   41 19/05/09   15:31:10
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods42
32.
Reuse of sewage sludge is in many cases lim-ited by the quality of the sludge, geographi-cal conditions or economic considerations.
(a)
The Commission explains the disposal of  
sewage sludge in municipal landfills at the time of the audit with the industries’ lack of interest in reusing sludge, combined with  public reactions.
(b)
For the large treatment plant in Greece the 
Commission co-finances a project on the  
extension and completion of this waste  
water treatment plant. It comprises the con-
struction of a sludge drying unit and aims  at further utilisation of dried sludge. The  project was approved in 2006 and will be  
finalised end of 2009.
34.
As regards sewage sludge quality checks  
under the Sewage Sludge Directive, certain 
Member States have estalished lower maxi-
mum limits than those in the directive. It  
may be necessary to check additional param-eters, depending on the types of waste water discharged into the sewer (i.e. industrial  waste water).
35.
The Commission is working on a revision of the 1986 Sewage Sludge Directive, based on the development of a comprehensive impact 
assessment of options and their costs and  benefits.
The tentative timing is: preparation of an  
impact assessment for a possible legislative proposal in 2009; adoption of a possible legi-
slative proposal in 2010.36.
The impact assessment for the revision of  
the Sewage Sludge Directive has to exam-
ine the environmental, economic and social 
risks connected with the land spreading of 
sewage sludge. The tightening of existing  
limit values for heavy metals and the intro-
duction of further limit values for organic  and other contaminants are among the main options that will be considered.
39.
The Commission refers to its replies given  on points 8, 9 and 12.
41.
For the period 2007–13, the Commission has 
developed a checklist for internal use dur-
ing major water and waste water projects  
appraisal, for assessing consistency with the environmental acquis  and policy.
42.
A guide as well as a checklist for major  
projects is not binding for Member States  
but only indicative.
For the period 2007–13, the Commission  
organises regular internal training ses-
sions on appraisal of water and waste water projects.
43.
(a)For the period 2007–13, project beneficiaries 
are expected to present the final destination of sludge in the application, which implies 
a preliminary estimation of the sludge qual-
ity and quantity. However, for greenfield  investments, the quality of sewage sludge  may not be known in detail.
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   42 19/05/09   15:31:10
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods43
(b)
For the audited period (1994–2006), water quality performance indicators existed at EU level only for certain waters (i.e. drinking  
water abstraction, bathing waters). Hence  the indicators contained in the Guide to  
Cohesion Fund 2000–06 could not be applied 
for all projects. Comprehensive perform-ance indicators have only been introduced through the Water Framework Directive,  with objectives to be defined by Decem-ber 2009 and to be achieved, as a rule, by  December 2015.
45.
The Commission underlines that it nei-
ther has the legal basis nor the necessary  
resources to go into more detail when  assessing project applications.
(a)
The Commission has in numerous cases  
taken Member States to the Court of Justice, 
including the four Member States audited, 
for inadequate effluent quality from treat-
ment plant and/or for inadequate designa-
tion of sensitive areas, and will continue to 
do so.
(b)
As regards the inadequate disposal of sludge 
at a large plant in Greece, the Commission 
was aware of the problem and asked the rele-vant Member State to work out a solution, which was implemented with the support of 
the Commission (see point 32(b)).
47.
The Commission carries out the final evalu-
ation based on the fact that the project is  operational and in conformity with the ini-
tial decision. The proper subsequent oper-ation of the co-funded treatment plant is  not in the scope of the evaluation of cohe-
sion policy. Furthermore, there is no legal  
requirement for Member States to routinely provide information regarding quality of the discharged water, of the receiving waters  and the quality and the nature of the dis-
posal of the sewage sludge.48.
A recently introduced IT tool should make  the upcoming closure procedure easier and 
more transparent. A check is done on a case-by-case basis, especially when a project has experienced difficulties. Suspension or can-cellation of the balance of payment may also occur following the reception and analysis 
of the final report by the Commission.
49.
The Commission refers to its comments on points 43(b) and 55.
53.
The Commission is currently assessing the  need for a revision of the detergents legisla-tion, based on the development of a compre-hensive impact assessment of options and  their costs and benefits.
55.
During 2000–06, the Commission made  efforts in promoting the ‘polluter pays’  principle, by issuing an indicative paper on the application of the principle and a guide on cost–benefit analysis (2002). These tools have asked Member States to commit them-
selves to a strengthened application of the 
‘polluter pays’ and cost-recovery principles. 
From 2010 onwards, these principles will  become operational, under the provisions  of the Water Framework Directive.
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   43 19/05/09   15:31:10
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods44
CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS
59.
(a)
Underutilisation of some treatment plants  
is sometimes caused by time lags in the  construction of the waste water systems,  associated with significant changes in eco-
nomic activity that could not be foreseen.  In addition, projects may include treatment of waste water sources beyond the require-ments of the directive. In such cases, a  
future-oriented design of the treatment  plant can be cost-effective, but it might lead temporarily to the treatment plants operat-ing below capacity.
(b)
The Commission underlines that Member  
States are responsible for the operation of the treatment plants and their compliance 
with Community legislation. The Commis-
sion has in numerous cases taken Member  
States to the Court of Justice, including the 
four Member States audited, for inadequate effluent quality from treatment plants and/or for inadequate designation of sensitive  areas, and will continue to do so.
60.
(a)The Commission agrees that investments in this sector need to rely on a long-term plan-
ning at local/regional level, and financial  
resources should include the cohesion pol-icy funds, which need to be complemented by other sources.
(b)
Instruments for regulating the industrial  waste water discharges are enshrined in  
the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 
(Article 11), and should be applied by Mem-ber States.62.
(a)
Reuse of sewage sludge is in many cases lim-ited by the quality of the sludge, geographi-
cal conditions or economic considerations.
63.
(a)The Commission agrees that projects in  this sector should indicate the strategy for the sewage sludge management. For new  projects, submitted during 2007–13, this  element is being checked.
(b)
In 2007, Member States were asked to provide data related to the sewage sludge produc-tion, for the preparation of the fifth Imple-
mentation Report of the Urban Waste Water 
Treatment Directive. The requirement to  report has encouraged Member States to  
establish national databases.
(c)
The Commission is working on a revision of the Sewage Sludge Directive, based on the development of a comprehensive impact  assessment of options and their costs and  
benefits.
64.
The Commission recalls that Member States 
have the primary responsibility for the selec-
tion, implementation and monitoring of the 
projects.
(a)
The Commission has neither the legal basis 
nor the necessary resources to undertake  
a detailed assessment. However, for the  period 2007–13, the appraisal of major  projects has been streamlined, and without 
fulfilling minimum requirements, projects  
cannot be co-financed (i.e. information on 
sludge management strategy). This is being addressed through the use of checklists and 
specific training.
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   44 19/05/09   15:31:11
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods45
(b)
In relation to the period 2007–13, under both the Cohesion Fund and the ERDF, only major urban waste water treatment projects will  
be subject to individual Commission deci-sions. The Commission will not, in general, 
have the same level of detail in relation to 
the implementation and finalisation of major projects as in the past.
65.
(b)During 2000–06, the Commission made  
efforts in promoting the ‘polluter pays’ prin-
ciple, by issuing an indicative paper on the application of the principle and underlin-ing its importance in the Guide to Cohesion Policy. The guide to cost–benefit analysis  (2002) provided also Member States with rel-evant guidance to progress on cost recovery. 
However, since those guidances were not  legally binding, it could only ask Member  
States to commit themselves to a strength-
ened application of the principle.
66.
(a)
For the period 2007–13, the Commission has 
developed a checklist for internal use dur-ing major water and waste water projects  appraisal, for assessing consistency with the 
environmental acquis  and policy, including 
among others the quality of the waters dis-
charged, and sludge management. Also, a  number of output indicators are included  in the individual project Commission’s deci-
sions (i.e. level of treatment, capacity of the plant).(c)
The Commission is currently assessing the  
need for a revision of detergents legislation, based on the development of a comprehen-sive impact assessment of options and their 
costs and benefits.
(d)
The new guide to cost–benefit analysis of  
investment projects (June 2008) highlights the central role of the ‘polluter pays’ prin-
ciple as well as the total cost recovery for  waste water projects. It is now supported by the legal requirements of the Water Frame-work Directive and will lead to a better water 
pricing based on cost recovery by 2010.
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   45 19/05/09   15:31:11
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   46 19/05/09   15:31:11
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000– 06 programme periods47
European Court of Auditors
Special Report No 3/2009
The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
2009 — 45 pp. — 21 x 29.7 cm
ISBN 978-92-9207-250-6
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   47 19/05/09   15:31:11
kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   48 19/05/09   15:31:11
How to obtain EU publications
Publications for sale:
•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);•  from your bookseller by quoting the title, publisher and/or ISBN number;•  by contacting one of our sales agents directly. You can obtain their contact 
details on the Internet (http://bookshop.europa.eu) or by sending a faxto +352 2929-42758.
Free publications:•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);•  at the European Commission’s representations or delegations. You can obtain 
their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a faxto +352 2929-42758.
kg904920_EN_coverBT.indd   2 19/05/09   15:27:42
2009
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF STRUCTURAL 
MEASURES SPENDING ON WASTE WATER 
TREATMENT  FOR THE 199499 AND 
200006 PROGRAMME PERIODSEUROPEAN COURT 
OF AUDITORS
Special Report  No 3THE WASTE WATER AND SEWAGE SLUDGE FROM URBAN  
AGGLOMERATIONS CAN AFFECT THE QUALITY OF EUROPE’S LAKES, RIVERS, COSTAL WATERS, GROUNDWATERS AND SOILS. AS A RESULT, THE EU HAS ADOPTED A SERIES OF DIRECTIVES AND HAS ALSO COFINANCED THE BUILDING OF URBAN WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS. IN THIS REPORT THE COURT ANALYSES WHETHER  EU COFINANCED TREATMENT PLANTS ACHIEVE AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE IN THE TREATMENT OF WASTE WATER AND WHETHER THE SLUDGE 
PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS IS BEING USED APPROPRIATELY. THE ROLE 
OF THE COMMISSION IS ALSO EXAMINED.
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
ISSN 18310834
EN
QJ-AB-09-003-EN-C
ISBN 978-92-9207-250-6
kg904920_EN_coverBT.indd   1 19/05/09   15:27:41