EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 14.12.2017 SWD(2017) 445 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Ninth Report on the implementation status and the programmes for implementation (as required by Article 17) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment {COM(2017) 749 final}



TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Details of implementation results presented in the Ninth Report 1.1. Legal compliance and ‘distance to compliance’ rates concerning collection, secondary treatment and more stringent treatment 1.2. Maps of legal compliance with the Directive at regional level 1.2.1. Compliance with Article 3 (collection of waste waters) 1.2.2. Compliance with Article 4 (secondary treatment) 1.2.3. Compliance with Article 5 (more stringent treatment) 1.3. Overview of implementation status at Member State level. Compliance and distance to compliance 1.4. Compliance status of capital cities. Evolution. 1.5. Level of application of individual or other appropriate systems (IAS) as per Member State 1.5.1. Classification of Member States by percentage of total polluting load 1.5.2. Classification of Member States by percentage of agglomerations with higher levels of IAS



1. Details of implementation results presented in the Ninth Report This chapter uses tables, graphs and maps to illustrate the implementation, compliance and ‘distance to compliance’ information provided in the Report, at EU, national and sub national level. 1.1. Legal compliance and ‘distance to compliance’ rates concerning collection, secondary treatment and more stringent treatment NA This table shows the rates for legal compliance and ‘distance to compliance’ in each EU Member State and also at different EU levels, together with the evolution of the compliance status, compared to the previous report, by means of arrows (yellow: decrease, green: no change, blue: increase). The colours in the table show different value ranges, as shown below. The term ‘connection’ is used as an equivalent to ‘collection’ (object of Article 3). ‘Connection’ is just a more precise concept in the sense of covering both collection and IAS. Also when the term ‘collection’ is used to express compliance with Article 3, IAS is included by default, as IAS is accepted in Article 3 as an alternative to collection (under certain conditions).

1.2. Maps of legal compliance with the Directive at regional level 1.2.1. Compliance with Article 3 (collection of waste waters) 1.2.2. Compliance with Article 4 (secondary treatment) 1.2.3. Compliance with Article 5 (more stringent treatment) 1.3. Overview of implementation status at Member State level. Compliance and distance to compliance Austria Austria is in the group of countries that have a very high level of compliance. (100 % compliance rates, 0 % distance to compliance). Belgium Belgium has greatly increased its compliance results since the last implementation report, focusing specifically on the ‘distance to compliance’ concept, which in the case of Belgium is less than 1 % of the load concerning each target (connection, secondary treatment and more stringent treatment). Bulgaria All deadlines in the Accession Treaty of Bulgaria have expired. Bulgaria has improved its compliance result since the last report, but its performance on connection, secondary and more stringent treatments is still insufficient to meet the requirements. Bulgaria’s ‘distance to compliance’ represents 16 % of the generated load concerning connection, 37 % of the load connected to the collecting system for secondary treatment, and 87 % of the load connected to collecting systems (in agglomerations over 10 000 p.e.) for more stringent treatment. The projects listed in the Article 17 Report’) reach a total design capacity that is consistent with the needs to comply with the Directive, but the last projects are forecasted to be finished by 2023, far beyond the 2015 final deadline. Ideally Bulgaria should improve its internal management and planning to finalise the projects concerning the agglomerations in breach of the Directive as soon as possible.

Croatia The first deadline to be met by Croatia is 31 December 2018. The information provided was not enough to calculate the ‘distance to compliance’ in this latest report. The Commission encourages Croatia to start reporting information as soon as possible about the performance of its sanitation systems so that it can at least calculate the distance to compliance for the next report. The projects listed in the Article 17 Report reach a total design capacity that is consistent with the needs to comply with the Directive. Croatia should ideally develop and implement a management plan that would ensure the different deadlines are met. Cyprus All the deadlines in the Accession Treaty have already expired for Cyprus. Its compliance results have fallen since the last report due to the new obligations triggered by the recent expiry of the deadline’ and to the increase in the waste water load. The results are still insufficient to meet the requirements concerning collection, having Cyprus the alternative to connect the untreated load to individual or other appropriate systems. The distance to compliance represents 24 % of the generated load concerning the connection to individual or appropriate systems or collecting systems. Cyprus has a high level of reuse of treated waste water, reducing the impact on waterbodies. The projects listed in the Article 17 Report reach a total design capacity that is consistent with the needs to comply with the Directive, but the last achievements are forecasted by 2026, going far beyond the 2013 final deadline. Ideally Cyprus should implement a management plan that would finalise the projects related to agglomerations in breach of the Directive as soon as possible. Czech Republic All deadlines in the Accession Treaty of the Czech Republic have expired. The Czech Republic has improved its compliance result since the last report. It shows a high level of compliance for collection and secondary treatment, but results are worse for more stringent treatment. The Czech Republic’s ‘distance to compliance’ mainly focuses on more stringent treatment and represents 23 % of the load connected to collecting systems in agglomerations above 10 000 p.e. There are many more agglomerations in breach than projects listed in the Article 17 Report, which does not allow checking, for some these agglomerations, what is expected to do to reach compliance. The last achievements are forecasted by 2018, 8 years after the final deadline in its Accession Treaty. Ideally the Czech Republic should implement the necessary measures to ensure that the agglomerations in breach will reach compliance without delay. Denmark Denmark is among the countries that have a very high level of compliance. The highest value for distance to compliance corresponds to more stringent treatment and represents 5 % of the load connected to collecting systems in agglomerations with over 10 000 p.e. Estonia Estonia has increased its compliance results since the last report, especially when focusing on the ‘distance to compliance’ approach, which in the case of Estonia is less than 1 % of the load for each target (collection, secondary treatment and more stringent treatment).

Finland Finland is among the countries that have a high level of compliance. The difference with the previous report is mainly due to errors in that reporting process, rather than to real problems of performance of the treatment plants in some of the agglomerations. Ideally Finland should report information about the design capacity of its treatment plants in the next reporting exercise. France France has slightly increased its compliance for secondary treatment. For more stringent treatment, there is a small decrease due to recently expired deadlines mainly in the south-west of the country. However, France still has at a high level of compliance (3.5 % of ‘distance to compliance’ concerning the expired deadlines). Also there has been an increase of 11 million p.e. subject to more stringent treatment between the two reporting exercises. France still has pending deadlines concerning Article 3 and 4 in its Indian Ocean Department of Mayotte, and Article 5 in mainland France itself. No information was provided concerning Mayotte. As a result, it was not included in the ‘distance to compliance’ calculation. France’s ‘distance to compliance’ represents 7.5 % of the load connected to the collecting system for secondary treatment, and 5.2 % of the load connected to collecting systems in agglomerations over 10 000 p.e. for more stringent treatment. Part of this load is still under pending deadlines. There are many more agglomerations in breach listed than projects in the Article 17 Report, not allowing this issue to check, for some of these agglomerations, what is expected to be done to comply. The last results are expected by 2021, far beyond the last 2005 deadline. France must implement measures to ensure there will be no future delays concerning agglomerations in breach. Collection Germany Germany is among the countries that have a very high level of compliance, with values ranging between 99.8 and 100 %. Greece Greece is among the countries that have a high level of compliance. The distance to compliance is just about 1 % of the load connected to the collecting system for secondary treatment, and less than 1 % for more stringent treatment. Ideally Greece should progressively replace part of its individual sanitation systems with collecting systems and treatment plants whenever appropriate, e.g. in agglomerations with enough population density. Greece has listed plenty of projects related to this issue under the Article 17 Report, and the Greek authorities expect to finalise the works by 2020. Collection Hungary

Hungary has improved its compliance level specifically on more stringent treatment, and has now reached a good level of compliance. Hungary still has pending deadlines for agglomerations of 10 000 p.e. and less. The last deadline was at the end of 2015. Hungary’s ‘distance to compliance’, including the pending deadline, represents 7 % of the load connected to collecting systems for secondary treatment, and 8 % of the load connected to collecting systems in agglomerations of over 10 000 p.e. for more stringent treatment. Hungary has also committed to ensuring there is a 75% removal rate of nitrogen and phosphorus in all its treatments plants by the end of 2018 (Hungary is part of the catchment area of the Danube River and the Black Sea). More stringent treatment Collection The projects listed in the Article 17 Report reach a total design capacity that is consistent with the needs to comply with the Directive. The last achievements are forecasted to be reached by 2020-2021, far beyond the final 2015 deadline. Hungary should ideally finalise projects related to agglomerations in breach of the Directive as soon as possible. Ireland Ireland has improved its level of compliance for more stringent treatment. However, its compliance on secondary treatment has fallen considerably, mainly due to the bad monitoring results from the Dublin treatment plant, previously reported as compliant, which has a capacity of 2 million p.e. Ireland’s ‘distance to compliance’ is represented by 46 % of the load connected to the collecting system for secondary treatment and 80 % of the load connected to collecting systems in agglomerations of over 10 000 p.e. for more stringent treatment. Ireland is among the countries that still have much to do to comply with the requirements of the Directive. Ireland has still pending deadlines related to Article 5. The projects listed in the Article 17 Report reach a total design capacity that is consistent with the needs to comply with the Directive. The last achievements are forecasted to be finished by 2020-2022, the final 2005 deadline. Ireland has to finalise projects related to agglomerations in breach of the Directive as soon as possible. More stringent treatment Collection Italy While it was not possible to entirely assess Italy’s compliance in the eighth report due to its insufficient data quality, it was possible for this report. Compared to the eighth report, Italy has improved its compliance status but its position for the legal compliance assessment remains unsatisfactory. However, the ‘distance to compliance’ approach, which represents less than 1 % of the load concerning connection to either a collecting system or to an individual or other appropriate system, looks better. It represents 11 % of the connected load to the collecting system for secondary treatment and 13 % of the connected load to collecting systems in agglomerations of over 10 000 p.e. for more stringent treatment. Italy still has pending deadlines under Article 5. Italy has to greatly improve the quality of contents of Article 17 Report in order to better link those agglomerations and treatment plants in breach with the projects needed. Without any such improvement it may not be possible to check if some of these agglomerations are doing what is needed to reach compliance. The last achievements are forecasted to be reached by 2021-2024, far beyond the final 2005 deadline. Ideally Italy should implement a management plan that can facilitate the early finalisation of the projects linked to agglomerations in breach of the Directive. More stringent treatment Collection Latvia Latvia has reached a high level of compliance in meeting its deadlines. The last deadline to meet will be 31 December 2015, concerning all agglomerations between 2 000 p.e. and 10 000 p.e. Distance to compliance, including the pending deadlines, represents less than 1 % of the load concerning connection to either a collecting system or an individual or appropriate system. It represents 11 % of the load connected to collecting systems for secondary treatment and 4 % of the load connected to collecting systems in agglomerations of over 10 000 p.e. for more stringent treatment. The projects listed in the Article 17 Report represent a total design capacity that is consistent with the needs to comply with the Directive. The last achievements forecasted to take place in 2016 correspond to treatment plants, in line with the 2015 final deadline. Latvia should ideally finalise the projects related to agglomerations in breach of the Directive as soon as possible. Lithuania Lithuania is among the countries with a very high level of compliance. Indeed, this country is fully compliant except for more stringent treatment, with a distance to compliance of just 1.6 %.

Luxembourg Luxembourg has improved its level of compliance, which is high for connection and secondary treatment, but not the same for the more stringent treatment requirements. Luxembourg still has a low compliance rate for Article 5 of the Directive. Non-compliance mainly concerns the agglomeration of Luxembourg, where there is the need to finalise one of its treatment plants. The country’s ‘distance to compliance’ on more stringent treatment represents 17 % of the total load generated by agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e. The projects listed in the Article 17 Report represent a total design capacity that is consistent with the needs to comply with the Directive. The last projects are expected to finish in 2018. Luxembourg should ideally finalise the projects related to agglomerations in breach of the Directive as soon as possible. Malta Malta has new installations in place, but unfortunately its treatment plants still have problems with their performance. This explains the non-compliance for secondary and more stringent treatment (100 % of the load is non-compliant, which is the same percentage with regards to the ‘distance to compliance’). This seems to be due to an excess of farm manure discharges in the collecting systems, but also to an excess of salt in sewage that could disturb the biological process of the treatment plants. The projects listed in the Article 17 Report are forecasted to finish in 2017-2018, far beyond the last deadline (2007). Malta should ideally implement the necessary measures related to agglomerations in breach of the regulation as soon as possible. Netherlands Netherlands is among the countries with a very high level of compliance. Indeed, all its compliance rates are equal to 100 %. Poland It was not possible to assess the implementation of the Directive in Poland for the eighth report due to the bad quality of data. Assessment was possible for this report, and compliance results were good for collection and secondary treatment. However they were not as good for the agglomerations over 10 000 p.e. that must apply more stringent treatment. This situation arose from bad investment planning in this sector over the last 10 years. Distance to compliance represents less than 1 % of the load concerning connection to either a collecting system or to an individual or other appropriate system. The figure reaches 2 % of the load connected to the collecting system for secondary treatment and 16 % of the load connected to collecting systems in agglomerations over 10 000 p.e. for more stringent treatment. The projects listed in the Article 17 Report have a total design capacity that is consistent with the needs to comply with the Directive. The last results are expected in 2021 for treatment plants, far beyond the final 2015 deadline. Poland should ideally finalise the projects related to agglomerations in breach of the Directive as soon as possible. Portugal The fact that Portugal’s compliance has slightly decreased since the last reporting exercise is mainly due to the more accurate data provided in this report. The distance to compliance represents less than 1 % of the load concerning connection to either a collecting system or an individual or appropriate system. The figure represents 21 % of the load connected to collecting systems for secondary treatment and 23 % of the load connected to collecting systems in agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e. for more stringent treatment.

The projects listed in Article 17 Report represent a total design capacity that is consistent with the needs to comply with the Directive. The last achievements are expected to be reached in 2018-2019, far beyond the final 2005 deadline. Portugal should ideally finalise the projects related to agglomerations in breach of the Directive as soon as possible. Romania As opposed to the previous report, for which the situation for each agglomeration could not be assessed, this time it was assessed correctly, which explains the very bad results. Full compliance by agglomerations over 10 000 p.e. was required by the end of 2015. All agglomerations have to be in full compliance by the end of 2018. The distance to compliance, including pending deadlines, represents 38 % of the generated load concerning the connection, 64 % of the connected load to the collecting system for secondary treatment and 84 % of the connected load to collecting systems in agglomerations over 10 000 p.e. for more stringent treatment. The projects listed in the Article 17 Report represent a total design capacity that is consistent with the needs to comply with the Directive. The last achievements are forecasted to be reached between 2027-2030, far beyond the final deadlines of 2015 and 2018. Romania should ideally finalise the projects related to agglomerations in breach of the Directive and implement an efficient management plan to achieve this as soon as possible. Slovakia Slovakia has a high level of compliance for collection and secondary treatment and has improved its compliance on more stringent treatment since the last reporting exercise. However, there is still much to do to comply with the requirements of the Directive. Slovakia still has pending deadlines. Slovakia’s ‘distance to compliance’ represents less than 1 % of the generated load concerning connection, 2 % of the load connected to the collecting system for secondary treatment and 40 % of the load connected to collecting systems in agglomerations over 10 000 p.e. for more stringent treatment. There are many more agglomerations in breach than projects listed in the Article 17 Report. , not allowing to check, for some of these agglomerations, what is expected to be done to reach compliance. The last achievements are forecasted by 2021-2022, far beyond the 2015 deadline. Slovakia has to implement the necessary measures to ensure that there will be no future delay regarding all agglomerations that are in breach. Slovenia Slovenia still has pending deadlines. The final deadline was at the end of 2015. Over the years Slovenia has increased its compliance results on its expired deadlines, but they are not sufficient yet. The distance to compliance, including pending deadlines, represents 9 % of the generated load concerning connection, 19 % of the load connected to the collecting system for secondary treatment, and 91 % of the load connected to collecting systems in agglomerations over 10 000 p.e. for more stringent treatment. The projects listed in the Article 17 Report represent a total design capacity that is consistent with the needs to comply with the Directive. The last achievements are forecasted to be reached in 2021, far beyond the final 2015 deadline. Slovenia should ideally finalise the projects related to agglomerations in breach of the Directive as soon as possible. Spain Spain has slightly decreased its compliance status since the previous report, due mainly to the more accurate data provided in this report, but also to the new expired deadlines concerning Article 5 (more stringent treatment) of the Directive. The load subject to more stringent treatment has increased by 15 million p.e. since the last report. Spain still has pending deadlines under Article 5 of the Directive.

Spain’s ‘distance to compliance’, including pending deadlines, represents less than 1 % of the generated load concerning the connection, 13 % of the load connected to the collecting system for secondary treatment, and 34 % of the load connected to collecting systems in agglomerations over 10 000 p.e. for more stringent treatment. The projects listed in the Article 17 Report represent a total design capacity that is consistent with the needs to comply with the Directive. The last achievements are forecasted to be reached between 2027 and 2030, far beyond the final 2005 deadline. Spain should ideally finalise the projects related to agglomerations in breach of the Directive as soon as possible. Sweden Sweden is among the countries that have a very high level of compliance. Sweden’s ‘distance to compliance’ represents less than 1 % of the generated load for connection and secondary treatment and less than 4 % of the load connected to collecting systems in agglomerations over 10 000 p.e. for more stringent treatment. As regards the more stringent treatment requirements, part of the agglomerations assessed as non-compliant are in fact compliant because of the natural removal of nitrogen (‘retention’) in waterbodies downstream, such as rivers and lakes, before reaching the sensitive coastal area. United Kingdom The United Kingdom is among the countries with a very high level of compliance. There is only a small decrease in Article 5 compliance rate (more stringent treatment) mainly due to new expired deadlines. The load subject to more stringent treatment has increased by 6 million p.e. since the previous report. The UK still has pending deadlines under Article 5 of the Directive. The UK’s distance to compliance, including pending deadlines, represents less than 2 % of the load connected to collecting systems for secondary treatment and 10 % of the load connected to collecting systems in agglomerations over 10 000 p.e. for more stringent treatment. 1.4. Compliance status of capital cities. Evolution. Member State Capital city Population equivalents Collection Secondary treatment More stringent treatment (Art 5.2, 5.4) Final assessment UK London 10 970 000 C C C C France Paris 9 296 123 C C C C Greece Athens 5 200 000 C C C C Germany Berlin 4 080 042 C C C C Austria Vienna 4 000 000 C C C C Spain Madrid 3 897 295 C C C (NR) C Sweden Stockholm 2 751 900 C C C C Poland Warsaw 2 515 168 C C C C Belgium Brussels 1 460 000 C C C (NC) C Finland Helsinki 1 255 000 C C C C Denmark Copenhagen 1 100 000 C C C C Netherlands Amsterdam 1 014 705 C C C C Lithuania Vilnius 706 200 C C C C Latvia Riga 660 420 C C C (NC) C Estonia Tallinn 468 000 C C C C Hungary Budapest 2 351 944 C C NA C Portugal Lisbon 1 063 000 C C NA C Cyprus Nicosia 235 000 C C (NC) NA C Croatia Zagreb 957 301 NR NR NR NCO Luxembourg Luxembourg 216 458 C C NC NC Slovakia Bratislava 485 000 C C NC NC Czech Rep. Prague 1 143 070 C C NC NC Slovenia Ljubljana 302 293 C NC NA NC Malta Valetta 433 634 C NC NA NC Italy Rome 2 768 000 C NC NA NC Ireland Dublin 2 124 144 C NC (C) NC NC Romania Bucharest 2 159 995 NC PD PD NC Bulgaria Sofia 2 037 000 NC NC NC NC Capital cities in the EU, classified by order of relevance in compliance (or in non-compliance, when applicable). Marked in blue are the capitals with improved status since the former report and in yellow those with worse results. The previous results are in brackets. 1.5. Level of application of individual or other appropriate systems (IAS) as per Member State 1.5.1. Classification of Member States by percentage of total polluting load