REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS - Implementation of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. THE MAIN OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THE DIRECTIVE AND THE DEADLINES

3. IDENTIFICATION OF SENSITIVE AREAS

4. SITUATION AT 1 JANUARY 2002 OF AGGLOMERATIONS DISCHARGING INTO SENSITIVE AREAS

4.1. Treatment performance in agglomerations affected by sensitive areas (Monitoring information)

5. SITUATION ON 31 DECEMBER 2000 OF AGGLOMERATIONS DISCHARGING INTO "NORMAL AREAS"

6. AGGLOMERATIONS AFFECTED BY THE DEADLINES 1998 AND 2000

6.1. Waste water treatment

6.2. Waste water collection

7. LESS SENSITIVE AREAS

8. WASTE WATER TREATMENT IN EU CITIES AT 1 JANUARY 2002

9. INDUSTRIAL WASTE WATER DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO RECEIVING WATERS (ARTICLE 13)

10. DESTINATION OF SLUDGE FROM TREATMENT PLANTS

11. SITUATION IN EACH MEMBER STATE

11.1. Belgium

11.1.1. Identification of sensitive areas

11.1.2. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

11.1.2.1. Treatment level

11.1.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas

11.1.3. Collecting systems

11.1.4. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e.

11.1.5. Industrial waste water (Article 13)

11.1.6. Sewage Sludge

11.2. Denmark

11.2.1. Identification of sensitive areas

11.2.2. Agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e.

11.2.2.1. Treatment level

11.2.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results)

11.2.3. Collecting systems

11.2.4. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e.

11.2.5. Industrial waste water (Article 13)

11.2.6. Sewage Sludge

11.3. Germany

11.3.1. Identification of sensitive areas

11.3.2. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitve areas

11.3.2.1. Treatment level

11.3.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas

11.3.3. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas" - situation at 31 December 2000

11.3.4. Collecting systems

11.3.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

11.3.4.2. Collecting system in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas"

11.3.5. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e.

11.3.6. Industrial waste water (Article 13)

11.3.7. Sewage Sludge

11.4. Greece

11.4.1. Identification of sensitive areas

11.4.2. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

11.4.2.1. Treatment level

11.4.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas

11.4.3. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas" - situation at 31 December 2000

11.4.4. Collecting systems

11.4.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

11.4.4.2. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas"

11.4.5. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e.

11.4.6. Industrial waste water (Article 13)

11.4.7. Sewage Sludge

11.5. Spain

11.5.1. Identification of sensitive areas

11.5.2. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

11.5.2.1. Treatment level

11.5.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas

11.5.3. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas" - situation at 31 December 2000

11.5.4. Collecting systems

11.5.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

11.5.4.2. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas"

11.5.5. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e.

11.5.6. Less sensitive areas

11.5.7. Industrial waste water (Article 13)

11.5.8. Sewage Sludge

11.6. France

11.6.1. Identification of sensitive areas

11.6.2. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

11.6.2.1. Treatment level

11.6.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas

11.6.3. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas" - situation at 31 December 2000

11.6.4. Collecting systems

11.6.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas, designated in 1994

11.6.4.2. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas"

11.6.5. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e.

11.6.6. Industrial waste water (Article 13)

11.6.7. Sewage sludge

11.7. Ireland

11.7.1. Identification of sensitive areas

11.7.2. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

11.7.2.1. Treatment level

11.7.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas

11.7.3. Treatment in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas" - situation at 31 December 2000

11.7.4. Collecting systems

11.7.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

11.7.4.2. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas"

11.7.5. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e.

11.7.6. Industrial waste water (Article 13)

11.7.7. Sewage Sludge

11.8. Italy

11.8.1. Identification of sensitive areas

11.8.2. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

11.8.2.1. Treatment level

11.8.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas

11.8.3. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas" - situation at 31 December 2000

11.8.4. Collecting systems

11.8.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

11.8.4.2. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas"

11.8.5. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e.

11.8.6. Industrial waste water (Article 13)

11.8.7. Sewage Sludge

11.9. Luxembourg

11.9.1. Identification of sensitive areas

11.9.2. Agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e.

11.9.2.1. Treatment level

11.9.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results)

11.9.3. Collecting systems

11.9.4. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e.

11.9.5. Industrial waste water (Article 13)

11.9.6. Sewage Sludge

11.10. The Netherlands

11.10.1. Identification of sensitive areas

11.10.2. Agglomerations

11.10.2.1. Treatment level

11.10.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results)

11.10.3. Collecting systems

11.10.4. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e.

11.10.5. Industrial waste water (Article 13)

11.10.6. Sewage Sludge

11.11. Austria

11.11.1. Identification of sensitive areas

11.11.2. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

11.11.2.1. Treatment level

11.11.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results)

11.11.3. Treatment in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas" - situation at 31 December 2000

11.11.4. Collecting systems

11.11.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas or their catchments identified by other Member States

11.11.4.2. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas"

11.11.5. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e.

11.11.6. Industrial waste water (Article 13)

11.11.7. Sewage Sludge

11.12. Portugal

11.12.1. Identification of sensitive areas

11.12.2. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

11.12.2.1. Treatment level

11.12.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas

11.12.3. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas" - situation at 31 December 2000

11.12.4. Collecting systems

11.12.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

11.12.4.2. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas"

11.12.5. Treatment in cities >150 000 p.e.

11.12.6. Less sensitive areas

11.12.7. Industrial waste water (Article 13)

11.12.8. Sewage Sludge

11.13. Finland

11.13.1. Identification of sensitive areas

11.13.2. Agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e.

11.13.2.1. Treatment level

11.13.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results)

11.13.3. Collecting systems

11.13.4. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e.

11.13.5. Industrial waste water (Article 13)

11.13.6. Sewage Sludge

11.14. Sweden

11.14.1. Identification of sensitive areas

11.14.2. Agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e.

11.14.2.1. Treatment level

11.14.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results)

11.14.3. Collecting systems

11.14.4. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e.

11.14.5. Industrial waste water (Article 13)

11.14.6. Sewage Sludge

11.15. United Kingdom

11.15.1. Identification of sensitive areas

11.15.2. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

11.15.2.1. Treatment level

11.15.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas

11.15.3. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas" - situation at 31 December 2000

11.15.4. Collecting systems

11.15.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

11.15.4.2. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas" - situation at 31 December 2000

11.15.5. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e.

11.15.6. Less sensitive areas

11.15.7. Industrial waste water (Article 13)

11.15.8. Sewage sludge

12. INFRINGEMENT PROCEDURES

13. FORTHCOMING TASKS FOR THE COMMISSION

14. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

1. INTRODUCTION

In January 1999, the European Commission published its first report [1] on the implementation of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, [2] as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998 [3]. The Directive is one of the cornerstones of Community water policy and its aim is to protect the environment from the adverse effects of urban waste water discharges.

[1] COM (1998) 775 final, 15.1.1999

[2] OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40

[3] OJ L 67, 7.3.1998, p. 29

The first Commission report gave details of the pollution caused by urban waste water and presented an initial progress report on the implementation of the Directive by the Member States. This first report underlined the major efforts which had been made by Member States, the considerable costs which were likely to be involved in implementing the Directive and the delays which were foreseen for a number of major cities such as Brussels and Milan.

The second Commission report [4] gave details of the identification of sensitive areas and the measures implemented by the Member States in relation to the deadline of 31 December 1998. By this date, Member States were required to ensure inter alia, that waste water treatment facilities were available for all agglomerations with a population equivalent above 10 000 where the effluent was being discharged into a sensitive area. The report was based on the replies submitted by the Member States and a study [5] prepared by the Commission services in relation to sensitive areas. For that report only 13 of the Member States provided all the information requested by the Commission in relation to waste water treatment in sensitive areas.

[4] COM (2001) 685 final, 21.11.2001

[5] "Verification of Vulnerable Zones under the Nitrates Directive and Sensitive Areas under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive", Environmental Resource Management, between March 1999 and June 2000. Also called ERM-Reports.

The second key milestone under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive was 31 December 2000. By this date Member States were required to ensure that waste water treatment facilities were provided for all agglomerations with a population equivalent above 15 000, which discharged their effluent into a so called "normal areas" [6]. By this date, Member States were also required to ensure that biodegradable waste water produced by plants of the food-processing sectors listed in the Directive, and which discharged directly into receiving water bodies, respected certain conditions.

[6] A "normal area" is an area, which is neither identified as sensitive area (Article 5 and Annex II A of Council Directive 91/271/EEC), nor as less sensitive area (Article 6 and Annex II B of Council Directive 91/271/EEC). Urban waste water, which is discharged into such an area, shall before discharge be subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment (Article 4) or an appropriate treatment (Article 7).

The present report presents the measures implemented by the Member States in relation to the deadline of 31 December 2000. In addition, it presents the improvements having taken place by 2002 concerning agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas and subject to the deadline of 31 December 1998. Beyond the updated situation of waste water treatment infrastructure, the report also includes information on the treatment performance of waste water treatment plants discharging their effluents into sensitive areas in the year after the deadline had expired. Furthermore the report gives an overview of waste water treatment in major cities, as well as a general review of the progress of Member States towards the implementation of the directive. Member States are not formally required to submit reports in relation to the respect of the deadlines set down in the directive. However, the Commission, on its own initiative, decided to request the Member States to provide the information in order to verify the implementation of the Directive. Accordingly, formal requests were sent to Member States in December 2000 and March 2001. Reminders were sent in January 2002, in which Member States were also encouraged to provide updated information on waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas and major cities discharging into sensitive and non-sensitive areas.

The draft report was sent to the Member States during 2003 for comments. Feedback and suggestions for changes and improvements arriving before the end of June 2003 were taken into account. In addition, final comments made during the urban waste water committee held on 1st and 2nd September 2003 were still included. The report is based on the replies submitted by Member States, the situation reports, which have to be published by the Member States according to Article 16 of the Directive, and the study carried out for the Commission in relation to the identification of sensitive areas.

The Commission encountered significant delays in collecting the information in order to prepare the present report. One year after the deadline for delivering the information to the Commission, most Member States had still not provided all the requested information. Many Member States only provided the complete information after the Commission had announced infringement procedures. Despite the legal actions taken by the Commission, France and Spain still did not deliver the complete information. In addition to the long delays in providing the requested information, the quality of the data provided was frequently so poor that this resulted in further delays for the Commission in trying to process and analyse the information.

The Commission is continuing to follow the implementation process in all the Member States.

2. THE MAIN OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THE DIRECTIVE AND THE DEADLINES

The principal obligation imposed by the Directive is that waste water collecting and treatment systems must be provided by the following deadlines:

* 31 December 1998: the deadline by which a stringent collecting and treatment system (secondary [7] + tertiary [8] treatment or so-called more stringent treatment according to Article 5) must be provided in all agglomerations with a population equivalent [9] (p.e.) of more than 10 000 where the effluent is discharged into a sensitive area. The results of the Commission's verification of conformity with this deadline are set out in the second Commission report. The improved situation up to 2002 is set out in the present report.

* 31 December 2000: the deadline by which a secondary treatment [10] and collecting system must be provided in all agglomerations of more than 15 000 p.e. where the effluent is not discharged into a sensitive area. This deadline also applies to biodegradable industrial waste-water from plants in the food-processing sector which discharged directly into receiving waters. By that date, waste water of the concerned industrial sectors had to respect prior regulations and/or specific authorisations before discharge into receiving waters. The results of the Commission's verification with this deadline are set out in the present report.

* 31 December 2005: the deadline by which, a collecting and treatment system must be provided in all agglomerations between 2000 and 10 000 p.e. where the effluent is discharged into a sensitive area, and in all agglomerations of between 2 000 and 15 000 p.e. where the effluent is not discharged into such an area. Smaller agglomerations which already have a collecting system must also have an appropriate treatment system in place by the same date.

The other main deadlines and obligations imposed by the Directive are as follows:

* 30 June 1993: the Directive had to be transposed into national law. By that date Member States had to have adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive. The first Commission report indicated that many of the Member States were late in transposing the Directive. To date, all Member States have transposed it, the last being Italy in 1999.

* 31 December 1993: the discharge of industrial waste water into collecting systems and urban waste water treatment plants, and the discharge of certain biodegradable industrial waste water into receiving waters, had to be subject to prior regulations and/or specific authorisations. The Member States have adopted all the measures needed to meet these obligations.

* 31 December 1993: the Member States had to draw up a programme for the implementation of the Directive. All the Member States have communicated such a programme to the Commission, after delays of varying length. Several Member States have also sent the Commission updates on the information contained in these programmes. In the case of Belgium, in the opinion of the Commission, these programmes are not in conformity with the provisions of the Directive or the required model for presentation.

* 31 December 1993: the Member States were required to identify sensitive areas. Further details on this fundamental point, which determines the type of urban waste water treatment to be provided and the deadline for the treatment, are explored in more detail below.

* 30 June 1995, for the first time and every two years thereafter: the authorities and bodies responsible for implementation in the Member States are required to publish a situation report on the disposal of urban waste water and sludge in their sector. The Member States are required to send these reports to the Commission as soon as they have been published. In 1999, a working group consisting of representatives of the Member States and the Commission drafted a specimen situation report to assist the authorities preparing the report and to harmonise the information given. Up to now, the Commission has not received any situation reports from France. Finally, most of the Member States have not complied with the two-year period for the revision and publication of the report and its transmission to the Commission.

* 31 December 1998: the disposal of sludge from urban waste water treatment plants was required to be subject to general rules, registration or authorisation. The checks carried out by the Commission show that all Member States have introduced such measures for the disposal of sludge. In addition, the disposal of sludge to surface waters by dumping from ships, by discharge from pipelines or by other means was to be phased out by the same date. Only Spain, Ireland and the United Kingdom regularly used this practice. The United Kingdom banned the practice after 1998 in its transposing legislation. Ireland has informed the Commission that the disposal of sludge at sea was allowed under national legislation until 31 December 1998, after which it became an offence. However, Ireland has indicated that in fact the disposal of sludge at sea did not cease until September 1999. Spain has not notified the Commission of any measures taken to prohibit the disposal of sludge to surface waters.

* Finally, it should be recalled that the Directive stipulates that discharges of waste water from urban waste water treatment plants must be the subject of prior regulations and/or specific authorisations and that such discharges must also be monitored in accordance with the specific provisions of the Directive. The Commission working together with an expert working group has drawn up a computerised questionnaire to gather information about the monitoring of discharges. The Commission sent this questionnaire to all Member States in September 2000 asking them to gather information about the monitoring carried out in 1999 for the agglomerations affected by the deadline of 31 December 1998. The results are summarised later in this report.

3. IDENTIFICATION OF SENSITIVE AREAS

In accordance with Article 5 of the Directive, the Member States were required to identify sensitive areas at the latest by 31 December 1993 with reference to the identification criteria given in Annex II.

These criteria refer to three groups of sensitive areas:

* freshwater bodies, estuaries and coastal waters which are eutrophic [11] or which may become eutrophic if protective action is not taken;

* surface freshwaters intended for the abstraction of drinking water which contain or are likely to contain more than 50 mg/l of nitrates;

* areas where further treatment is necessary to comply with other Council Directives, such as the Directives on fish waters, on bathing waters, on shellfish waters, on the conservation of wild birds and natural habitats, etc.

If a water body falls into one of these three groups, this is sufficient for it to be designated as sensitive.

The identification of a water body as a sensitive area is an essential prerequisite for the practical application of the Directive. In areas identified as sensitive or in a catchment which contributes to the pollution of the sensitive area (for example a river running into an estuary or coastal area which is designated as sensitive) , collecting systems and treatment systems, had to be operational by 31 December 1998 at the latest, for all agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e. Furthermore the stringency of waste water treatment has to be more than secondary treatment. These treatment requirements do not apply in sensitive areas where it can be shown that the minimum percentage of reduction of the overall nitrogen and phosphorus load is at least 75% for each of the two parameters.

In accordance with Article 5(8), a Member State does not have to identify sensitive areas if it applies more stringent (tertiary) treatment over all its territory. Five Member States have decided to apply more stringent treatment in this way: Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Finland and Austria (since 2002).

Belgium (since 2001) and Sweden do not apply Article 5(8), but have identified their entire territory as a sensitive area.

Eight other Member States - Germany, Spain, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom [12] - have identified certain water bodies in their territory as sensitive areas. These areas were initially identified, with a greater or lesser degree of delay, between 1994 and 1999.

[12] The maps attached show, in dark green, the water bodies identified by Member States as sensitive and, in lighter green, the catchment areas or parts of the catchment areas in which the Member States have decided to apply the provisions of the Directive relating to the protection of sensitive areas. The territories where Member States apply more stringent treatment according to Article 5(8) are also shown in light green.

Some Member States, such as Spain, France and Italy, consider that agglomerations situated in the catchment areas of sensitive areas should not necessarily be subject to more stringent (tertiary) treatment [13]. On this point, the Commission's position is that the nitrates and phosphates, the pollutants in urban waste water which contribute to eutrophication and hence to the designation of an area as being sensitive are highly persistent. This means that if these pollutants are not removed in the sewage works, they will enter the river and be carried down the catchment to the sensitive area where they will contribute to the on-going nutrient enrichment. Therefore, the Commission considers that failure to provide more stringent treatment in agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e. situated in the catchment of a sensitive area , constitutes a failure to comply with the Directive. This failure is particularly marked in the following countries: Spain, which has not provided for any advanced treatment in the catchment areas of rivers identified as sensitive in their downstream section, such as the Ebro or the Guadalquivir; Italy, in particular for the catchment area of the Po, the delta and - highly eutrophicated - adjacent coastal waters. Furthermore the Commission has concerns regarding the manner in which the United Kingdom interprets and implements the provisions of the directive in regard to the catchment areas of sensitive areas.

[13] The parts of catchment areas not taken into account by these Member States are shown on the maps in pink, like the catchment areas of those areas which should have been identified as sensitive due to the Commission's opinion (see footnote 16).

The Member States, which have decided not to introduce an advanced standard of treatment throughout their territory, must ensure that their list of sensitive areas is revised at least every four years. The list should therefore have been revised by 31 December 1997, again by 31 December 2001, and so on. Between 1998 and 2000, the Commission employed a consultant to verify the sensitive areas identified by the above ten Member States. [14] This study reveals shortcomings in the sensitive areas identified by them, [15] identifying other areas which were potentially sensitive because of eutrophication, and the high concentration of nitrates in surface waters intended for drinking water supply. The study highlighted the fact that a large number of Member States had not taken sufficient account of the degree of eutrophication of their waters. The areas concerned are the North Sea (from the coastal waters of northern France to Sweden), the Baltic and the Adriatic; all of them have extensive eutrophication problems. At present, the Commission is carrying out a review of the study for certain Member States.

[14] ERM reports between March 1999 and June 2000 (see also footnote 5).

[15] The water bodies which, in the view of the Commission, should have been identified as sensitive are shown in dark pink on the maps (=potentially sensitive areas). The corresponding catchment areas, in which advanced (tertiary) treatment of urban discharges should have been provided, are shown in pink (see also footnote 14).

One the basis of their own internal assessments, the results of the Commission study on sensitive areas and in some cases as a consequence of legal actions initiated by the Commission, many Member states have, during recent years, significantly increased the number and extent of the sensitive areas in their territory. France and the United Kingdom already revised their lists of sensitive areas in 1999 and 1998 respectively.

Belgium designated Wallonia as a sensitive area in 2001, since then the entire Belgium territory has been designated as a sensitive area.

Since 2001 the entirety of Germany has been designated as a sensitive area, with the only exemption being the Danube catchment.

Greece designated the Saronicos Gulf and the Gulf of Thessaloniki as sensitive areas in 2002. These water bodies receive Athens' and Thessaloniki's waste water which represents almost the half of Greece's produced waste water load. Greece has also announced further designations of sensitive areas.

Spain notified certain unofficial designations of sensitive areas officially to the Commission, but did not designate any further sensitive areas.

Ireland significantly improved and extended its sensitive areas for lakes, rivers and estuaries in 2001.

Italy sent maps of recent identifications of sensitive areas in August 2003, which seemed to include some additional inland waters, but not the crucial regions of the Adriatic or any of the catchments draining into sensitive areas.

Portugal announced further designations of its sensitive areas, which will include most regions requested by the Commissions.

Austria decided to apply more stringent waste water treatment all over its territory according to Article 5(8) in 2002.

The United Kingdom designated a high number of further sensitive areas throughout its territory in 2000, 2001 and 2002. However, the Commission remains of the opinion that there are other important water bodies which still need to be designated.

The Commission very much appreciates the measures undertaken by the Member States in terms of further designation of sensitive areas. However, despite the significant progress of the last few years, Spain, Greece, France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom have, in the Commission's view, still not taken all the measures needed for discharges of urban waste water, which contribute to eutrophication along the coasts of the Atlantic, the English Channel, the North Sea, the Irish Sea and the Mediterranean. The Commission also believes that France, Italy, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom should do more to reduce the level of nitrates and phosphates in waste water entering sensitive areas.

The Commission is also aware of shortcomings on the part of some Member States with regard to the third criterion for the identification of sensitive areas. In particular, tertiary treatment is needed for the protection of numerous bathing waters and shellfish waters to reduce the microbiological pollutants in urban discharges which may affect them. However, only Spain, France, Portugal, Italy and the United Kingdom have taken account of this criterion when identifying their sensitive areas.

4. Situation AT 1 January 2002 of Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

In its second report, the Commission presented the situation at the end of the deadline of 1998 for agglomerations which Member States considered to be located in or which discharged into catchments impacting upon sensitive areas (see previous section for a discussion of the issues relating to the designation of sensitive areas) In January 2002, the Commission offered the possibility to the Member States of providing updated information on the agglomerations affected by sensitive areas in order to demonstrate any progress which had taken place. Certain Member States did not update the situation, but provided more recent information, using the 1999 monitoring information request. In some cases where no information has been provided at all, or data were incomplete, the Commission has used the original data from 1998. The assessment presented below is based on the Member States appreciation of the situation with regard to the designation of sensitive areas (see previous section for a more detailed discussion of the difference of opinion between the Commission and the Member states on these issues)

With regard to the type of required tertiary treatment to reduce or prevent the eutrophication of receiving waters, the Commission believes that discharges of both nitrogen and phosphorus cause eutrophication, whether in freshwaters, marine waters or estuaries. It has been scientifically established that the main causes of eutrophication are nitrogen, in the case of coastal waters, and phosphorus in the case of freshwaters. However, scientific studies also show that in freshwaters, as well as marine waters, bothnitrogen and phosphorus can be limiting factors, either together or in turn, depending on the algal species and the time of the year. It therefore is often necessary to reduce both nutrients. For the evaluation of treatment conformity the Commission considers that unless scientific proof to the contrary can be put forward for certain water bodies, at least phosphorus should be treated to combat eutrophication of fresh waters, and at least nitrogen to combat eutrophication of coastal waters and estuaries. Frequently, the organic design capacity of many treatment plants seemed to be too small for a sufficient waste water treatment of the total nominal load generated by the agglomerations. In cases where the organic design capacity was even less than 80% of the total nominal load of the agglomerations, the Commission regarded these agglomerations as not complying with the Directive, as it believes that under such conditions either the treatment plants were overloaded or the waste water not entirely collected by the sewerage system. By the beginning of 2002, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden and Germany were in principle requiring stringent treatment levels for a very high percentage of the total waste water load. Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and the UK, foresaw more stringent waste water treatment to protect sensitive areas for less than 10% of their waste water load. France and Ireland foresaw about 24% and 86% respectively [16].

[16] The numbers base on the Member States application of Article 5 of the Directive and their waste water load (p.e.) of agglomerations affected by sensitive areas, in relation to the estimated total load (p.e.) regarded by Member States to be affected by the Directive (see overview table of the second Commission report, taking into account the corrected data for the Netherlands). The data do not take account of the current compliance status of waste water treatment.

In addition to measures in relation to treatment works, a number of Member States have taken measures to reduce phosphorous in detergents. These measures have undoubtedly made a significant contribution to reduce loading. The Commission appreciates any measures undertaken at source by Member States in order to reduce pollution.

Table 4-1 shows the number and the organic load of the agglomerations for which Member States decided to introduce more stringent treatment to protect sensitive areas. In total, 5 495 agglomerations out of a total of approximately 20 000 agglomerations covered by the Directive are affected. This figure includes all agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000 discharging into sensitive areas identified by Member States and all agglomerations reported by the Member States applying Article 5(4), which also included agglomerations below 10 000 p.e.

In the 12 Member States, which apply tertiary treatment for all concerned agglomerations above 10 000 p.e. (Article 5.2), 1242 agglomerations were affected by the obligation of more stringent treatment. 559 of them, representing 42 % of the concerned load provided the required level of tertiary treatment and were complying with the Directive by January 2002. Denmark and Austria are practically in full compliance with the Directive, whereas - in the Commission's opinion - in Belgium, Greece, Portugal, Finland and the United Kingdom less than 50% of the waste water load impacting on sensitive areas was receiving the appropriate level of treatment.

Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands do not assess waste water treatment conformity for each concerned agglomeration, but apply the option of Article 5(4) and consider a percentage of reduction of the nitrogen and phosphorous load throughout their territory. At the beginning of 2002, Germany and the Netherlands achieved above more than the requested 75 % phosphorous reduction required by the Directive (90 % and 79 % respectively), but have not yet fully attained the 75 % nitrogen reduction (74 % and 66 % respectively). Luxembourg still has to improve both nitrogen and phosphorous removal rates in order to comply with the Directive, but wishes to be assessed by individual plants until full conformity with Article 5(4) is achieved.

Most Member States plan to achieve conformity with the Directive by 2005 or 2008 at the latest.

A number of Member States improved the treatment situation in agglomerations affected by sensitive areas. However, a direct comparison with the results of the second Commission report would not have presented an objective picture due to the significant changes in the assessment procedures which were carried out by many Member States. There were for example changes in the interpretation of definitions, the approach for calculations, additional designations of sensitive areas, which were outstanding, etc., all this leading to a change of concerned agglomerations. Nevertheless, the total organic load of agglomerations taken into account for tertiary treatment increased, from 198 million population equivalents in 1998 to 210 million population equivalents in 2002.

Table 4-1: Waste water treatment in agglomerations affected by sensitive areas and organic loads -

Situation at 1 January 2002

>TABLE POSITION>

1 According to Article 5(8), a Member State does not have to identify sensitive areas for the purpose of the Directive if it implements the treatment established under paragraphs 2,3 and 4 of the Directive over all its territory.

The option of Article 5(4) of the Directive exempts a Member State from the provisions for individual treatment plants with more than 10 000 p.e. according to Article 5(2) and 5(3), but it has to show that a minimum percentage of reduction in the overall load entering a treatment plant in that area is at least 75% for total phosphorus and 75% for total nitrogen.

2 Percentage in relation to the total organic load affected in the Member State

3 Germany did not include the waste water load of their entire territory, but only the load of agglomerations above 2 000 p.e. In Germany the load of agglomerations below 2 000 p.e. represents about 2% of the entire waste water load produced.

4 Luxembourg applies Article 5(4), but wishes to be evaluated according to Article 5(2) and 5(3) until it achieves full compliance with Article 5(4).

5 As Austria applies Article 5(8) from the end of 2002 onwards. The current evaluation includes only agglomerations discharging into the catchment areas of sensitive areas identified by other Member States.

4.1. Treatment performance in agglomerations affected by sensitive areas (Monitoring information)

The existence of a treatment works is no guarantee that the waste water is receiving the appropriate level of treatment as this depends on the efficiency with which the plants are operated. The Commission therefore requested information on monitoring results from all concerned treatment plants of 1999. The information was requested in the form of an electronic questionnaire and by letter on 18 December 1999. France did not provide any monitoring information; Spain sent certain monitoring information in May 2003, which was too late to be taken into account for the evaluation below. Austria sent its information of the year 2000. In order to provide a first general glimpse on the efficiency of treatment performance in terms of complying BOD5, COD, nitrogen and/or phosphorous removal, the data on plants were aggregated on agglomeration level. In cases of a difference in opinion between the Commission and Member States in terms of treatment requirements, the evaluation below represents the Commission's interpretation.

Excluding Germany and the Netherlands( which apply Article 5(4) of the Directive) as well as France and Spain (which did not supply data in time), only about 44 % of the waste water load of the concerned agglomerations was - according to the Commission's opinion - treated sufficiently in the sense of the Directive before discharge. Denmark and Austria achieved the treatment performance of 99 % and 79 % conformity respectively. Among the rest of the countries the percentage of total waste water load receiving adequate treatment ranged from 4% to 64%.

Table 4-2: Treatment performance in agglomerations affected by sensitive areas (Monitoring year 1999)

>TABLE POSITION>

1 Percentage in relation to the total organic load affected in the Member State

2 Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands apply Article 5(4) of the Directive, whereas Luxembourg wishes to be evaluated according to Article 5(2) until it achieves full compliance.

3 France and Spain did not deliver any information on the treatment performance of plants.

5. Situation on 31 December 2000 of agglomerations discharging into "normal areas"

At 31 December 2000, the second major deadline of the Directive expired which concerned agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15 000 discharging their effluents into areas, which were neither identified as sensitive nor less sensitive areas in the sense of the Directive, but so called "normal areas". The Member States reported on the treatment situation of these areas following a request from the Commission sent on 14 April 2001.

The evaluation of the situation in "normal areas" also includes agglomerations discharging into areas which the Member States consider as "normal areas" and which the Commission considers should be sensitive areas (see previous sections for a more detailed explanation). The nine Member States affected by the above-mentioned deadline on "normal areas" reported on 2 698 agglomerations representing a waste water load of 261 662 171 p.e.

1 832 agglomerations representing 69 % of the concerned load, provided secondary treatment for their waste water by 31 December 2000 and were, therefore, complying with the Directive. Germany and Austria achieved full compliance the United Kingdom provided secondary treatment for 89 % of the waste water load. Countries such as Greece, Ireland, and Portugal achieved a low compliance rate providing secondary treatment for less than 50 % of the concerned waste water load.

Table 5-1: Waste water treatment in agglomerations affected by normal areas (> 15 000 p.e.) and organic loads - Situation at 31 December 2000

>TABLE POSITION>

1 Percentage in relation to the total organic load affected in the Member State

2 The Member States were not affected by "normal areas" as they had either identified their entire territory as sensitive area or

Applied Article 5(8)

3 First version, not taken into account for the total calculation.

4 Second version, after Greece's revision, taken into account for the total calculation.

6. Agglomerations affected by the deadlines 1998 and 2000

6.1. Waste water treatment

In total, Member States reported 8 181 agglomerations, representing a load of 469 269 723 population equivalents being affected by the deadlines of the Directive which have already expired (Article 4 and 5).

Germany and the Netherlands apply Article 5(4) and evaluate compliance rate on the basis of the percentage of nitrogen and phosphorus reduction. Concerning the other 13 Member States, 2 254 out of 3 802 agglomerations affected by both mentioned deadlines, complied with the specific provisions. They represented 64 % of the concerned load.

Table 6-1 and 6-2 present an overview of agglomerations reported by Member States being affected by the above deadlines in terms of waste water treatment.

6.2. Waste water collection

In addition to waste water treatment, the above deadlines also concern provisions for waste water collection (Article 3). This information was requested by the Commission in the previously mentioned letters and questionnaires.

As regards sensitive areas, Member States reported 3 246 agglomerations of which 2 855 had a collecting system which was compliant either already before 1998 or by the beginning of 2002, which represented 91% of the load of the concerned agglomerations. In countries such as Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and the United Kingdom the sewerage systems of agglomerations affected by sensitive areas were fully complying by 31 December 1998 or 1 January 2002. However, in Belgium, Spain and Italy, more than 50 % of the agglomerations provided an insufficient waste water collection.

As far as "normal areas" were concerned, Member States reported on 2 698 agglomerations, representing 261 662 171 population equivalents. 1 910 agglomerations, which covered 77 % of the concerned load, were in conformity when the deadline expired on 31 December 2000. From the countries being affected by "normal areas" at that time, Germany, Ireland, Austria and the United Kingdom were fully in compliance in terms of waste water collection, whereas Italy showed a compliance rate of less than 50 % of its agglomerations.

In total, Member States reported 5 932 agglomerations with a load of 462 million population equivalents being affected by the deadlines of 31 December 1998 and 2000. 4 753 of these agglomerations, representing 83 % of the concerned load, were reported to comply at the latest by 1 January 2002, or by 31 December 2000 respectively.

Table 6-3 presents an overview of agglomerations reported by Member States being affected by the above deadlines in terms of waste water collection.

Table 6-1: Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas and "normal areas" and their organic loads

>TABLE POSITION>

1 Percentage in relation to the total organic load affected in the Member State

2 The Member States were not affected by "normal" areas as they had either identified their entire territory as sensitive of applied Article 5(8).

3 First version, not taken into account for the total calculation

4 Second version, after Greece's revision, taken into account for the total calculation

5 Twelve Irish agglomerations were reported under "normal areas" in 2000, in 2001 they were identified as discharging into sensitive areas, therefore, they were considered under sensitive areas in 2002 as well. For the total load the agglomerations were considered only once.

Table 6-2: Overview of waste water treatment in agglomerations affected by sensitive areas and "normal areas" - Situation at January 2002 and 31 December 2000 (deadline) respectively

>TABLE POSITION>

1 The Member States had either identified their entire territory as sensitive of applied Article 5(8) at the time and, therefore, were not affected by "normal" areas.

2 Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands apply Article 5(4) of the Directive. Luxembourg applies Article 5(4), but wishes to be evaluated according to Article 5(2) and 5(3) until it achieves full compliance with Article 5(4).

3 As Austria applies Article 5(8) from the end of 2002 onwards. The current evaluation includes only agglomerations discharging into the catchment areas of sensitive areas identified by other Member States.

4 First version, not taken into account for the total calculation. Data for sensitive areas see second report of the Commission.

5 Second version, after Greece's revision, taken into account for the total calculation

6 Twelve Irish agglomerations were reported under "normal areas" in 2000, in 2001 they were identified as discharging into sensitive areas, therefore, they were considered under sensitive areas in 2002 as well. For the total load the agglomerations were considered only once.

Table 6-3: Collecting systems of agglomerations affected by the deadlines of 31 December 1998 and 31 December 2000 (Article 3)

>TABLE POSITION>

1 The Member States had either identified their entire territory as sensitive of applied Article 5(8) at the time and, therefore, were not affected by "normal" areas.

2 Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands apply Article 5(4) of the Directive. Luxembourg applies Article 5(4), but wishes to be evaluated according to Article 5(2) and 5(3) until it achieves full compliance with Article 5(4).

3 Austria has applied Article 5(8) from the end of 2002 onwards. The current evaluation includes only agglomerations discharging into the catchment areas of sensitive areas identified by other Member States.

4 First version, not taken into account for the total calculation.

5 Second version, after Greece's revision, taken into account for the total calculation

6 Twelve Irish agglomerations were reported under "normal areas" in 2000, in 2001 they were identified as discharging into sensitive areas, therefore, they were considered under sensitive areas in 2002.

7. LESS SENSITIVE AREAS

While Member States are obliged by the Directive to identify sensitive areas, the identification of less sensitive areas is an option, open to them for certain coastal waters and estuaries which, because of their morphology, hydrology or specific hydraulic conditions, are able to receive urban waste water discharges which have undergone less stringent treatment than secondary treatment without the environment being adversely affected.

Spain and Portugal have identified such less sensitive areas. However, the Commission would like to point out that sensitive or potentially sensitive areas of coastal waters and estuaries and bodies of water adjacent to them do not fulfil the conditions for identification as less sensitive if these areas may be affected by discharges. In particular, bathing waters and shellfish waters, which are particularly fragile and sensitive to waste water discharges, and bodies of water situated in their immediate vicinity which may be affected by discharges may not be identified as less sensitive. The Commission therefore challenges certain less sensitive areas identified on the western coast of Portugal, in Madeira, the Azores and the Canary Islands, on the coast of Andalusia and other regions. With regard to Andalusia, the Commission also believes that, in particular, because of the very limited tides, the waters of the Mediterranean do not comply with the hydrology criteria or the hydraulic conditions required for identification as less sensitive.

It is important to remember that in every case where it is foreseen to have treatment less stringent than secondary treatment for waste water discharged into a less sensitive area it is necessary to have a derogation from the directive. the Member States must present comprehensive studies to the Commission showing that such discharges will not adversely affect the environment (Article 6(2)) and, in exceptional circumstances for agglomerations of more than 150 000 p.e., that more advanced treatment will not produce any environmental benefits (Article 8(5)). The Commission must examine these studies and take the appropriate measures after submitting the project to the Committee provided for in Article 18 and, if necessary, to the Council.

In 1999, Portugal requested a derogation for the agglomeration of the Estoril Coast (720 000 p.e.) near Lisbon. The derogation was granted by the Commission in October 2001 [17] and foresees a re-evaluation during the year 2006.

[17] OJ L 269, 10.10.2001, p. 14

The United Kingdom had also identified less sensitive areas, but subsequently withdrew its requests for derogation under Article 6(2) in 2002.

Spain has not requested any derogation.

As a general consideration, the Commission believes that, apart from the Estoril coast, all EU agglomerations of more than 15 000 p.e. must have at least secondary treatment since 31 December 2000, including those which discharge their effluent into waters identified as less sensitive.

8. Waste water treatment in eu cities at 1 january 2002

Apart from evaluating the situation with regard to conformity on 31 December 1998, the Commission provided in its second report a "snapshot" of the waste water treatment level in all major European cities above 150 000 population equivalents for information and to ensure transparency. In January 2002 the Commission offered Member States the possibility of updating their information on the major cities in order to show the improvements which have taken place between 1998 and 2001. The attached maps show the improved situation. Some Member States did not respond to the Commission request. In these cases the Commission used updated information provided in the context of previous, above-mentioned data requests. In certain cases where Member States no longer reported large cities after 1998, the Commission assumed that the situation remained unchanged. Each major urban centre is described in terms of a single all-over treatment level, even if the urban centre consists of several agglomerations within the meaning of the Directive. Austria reported also amongst its large cities some agglomerations which do not correspond to major urban centres, but represent a point source of more than 150 000 p.e. due to a combination of urban and industrial discharges. Also Italy and Portugal seemed partly to report agglomerations amongst their large cities. The term city, therefore, represents in this report major, urban centres and some agglomerations in the sense of the Directive.

The cities were assessed on the provided treatment level installed and the sensitivity of the receiving water body. Cities discharging into a sensitive area, therefore, should have been equipped with more stringent treatment (nitrogen and/or phosphorus removal and/or any other treatment such as microbiological treatment) by 31 December 1998. Cities discharging into normal areas should have been equipped with at least secondary treatment by 31 December 2000. However, a number of cities evaluated under "normal areas" discharge their effluents into potentially sensitive areas or their catchment areas, and should therefore - according to the Commission's opinion - provide more stringent treatment. This also affects cities such as Paris, London, Madrid, Barcelona, Milan and others.

At 1 January 2002, the situation for 556 cities with a population equivalent of more than 150 000 was as follows:

In "normal" areas:

309 cities discharged their effluents into "normal areas" of which

* 232 provide at least secondary treatment,

* 67 cities have not yet provided secondary treatment.

* 21 of those cities did not have any waste water treatment in place, such as:

-Italy: Milan, Foce Sarno, Imperia Foce Imperia, Medio Sarno, Misterbianco

-Ireland: Cork

-Portugal: Cova da Beira, Vila Nova da Gaia

-Spain: A Coruna, Barcelona, Cadiz, Donostia-San-Sebastian, Ferrol, Gijon, Suances, Tui

-United Kingdom: Brighton, Hastings, Kilmarnock/Irvine, Levenmouth, Torbay

* For 10 cities the Commission did not receive sufficient information.

In sensitive areas:

247 cities discharged their effluent into sensitive areas of which

* 155 were equipped with complete more stringent treatment,

* 91 cities have not yet provided the required more stringent treatment for the entire city

* Four of those cities had no waste water treatment at all:

-Belgium: Pepinster

-Portugal: Barreiro

-Spain: Alginet

-Ireland: Waterford

* For one city the provided information was insufficient

In comparison with 1998 (see second Commission report), the treatment situation in major EU cities had improved significantly by 2002. The number of cities fully providing more stringent treatment increased from 78 to 205 [18]. The number of cities without any waste water treatment in place decreased from 37 to 26, and the number of cities for which insufficient information was available decreased from 134 to 11.

[18] The extraordinary improvement partly leads back to the fact that in 1998 for many German cities no information was available.

According to the Commission's opinion, in total, 387 out of 556 major urban centres in the European Union provided sufficient waste water treatment by the beginning of 2002. (77 cities were situated in potentially sensitive areas and should therefore also be equipped with more stringent than secondary treatment.)

9. industrial waste water Discharged directly into receiving waters (Article 13)

In accordance with Article 13 of the Directive, Member States had to ensure that by 31 December 2000 biodegradable industrial waste water from plants belonging to the agro-food processing sectors (listed in Annex III) and does not enter urban waste water treatment plants before discharge into receiving waters, respects conditions established by the competent authority or appropriate body. The provision only affects discharges from plants of 4 000 population equivalents or more.

The table below shows the percentage of plants belonging to the specific industrial sectors and complying with the Directive by 31 December 2000.

Table 9-1: Percentage of industrial waste water affected by and respecting conditions of Article 13

>TABLE POSITION>

At the end of 2000, 2 576 plants with a total load of about 59 million p.e. were affected by Article 13 [19]. About 91 % of the load complied with the Directive.

[19] The data do not include France, as France did not provide any information on the load of the affected industrial sectors.

According to the available information, in Denmark, Greece, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Sweden all industrial branches falling under Article 13 complied with the established provisions by 31 December 2000. Luxembourg was not affected by industries falling under Article 13.

In Belgium, Germany, Spain, Ireland, Portugal and the United Kingdom certain industrial sectors did not yet comply with Article 13 by 31 December 2000. Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom announced compliance for their outstanding sectors by 2001, 2002 and at the latest by 2003 respectively. Spain and Portugal envisage full compliance of all industrial branches at the latest by 2005.

10. Destination of sludge from treatment plants

The information reported below on sewage sludge generation and disposal is based partly on Member States' situation reports according to Article 16, and partly on the implementation programmes according to Article 17 of the Directive.

* The total amount of sludge generated in urban waste water treatment plants has increased from 5.5 million tonnes dry matter in 1992 (see first Commission report, figure without Italy and Sweden) to 7.0 million tonnes in 2000.

* Since 1992, the amount of sewage sludge re-used in agriculture and landscape architecture (including coverage of landfills) represented about 50 % of the total sludge produced (45% in the 1999-2001 period).

* The quantity of sludge that was disposed of on landfills has slightly decreased.

* Sludge incineration almost doubled from 1992 to 2000.

* Member States should have phased out the disposal of sewage sludge into surface waters by the end of 1998. However, Spain and Ireland still dumped significant amounts of sludge into the sea during recent years. According to information from 2003, Ireland stopped this practice in 1999. The situation in Spain is unclear, but it seems that sludge continues to be disposed of into the sea.

As the data supplied by Member States was not complete and 20% of the sludge could not be accounted for the data do not allow any trend analysis for the sludge being re-used, disposed of or incinerated.

Figure 10-1: Sludge disposal from 1992 - 2000 in EU-Member States (data do not include Sweden and Italy from 1992 to 1998, Italy from 2000)

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

Table 10-1: Sludge disposal and re-use in EU-Member States between 1999-2001*

>TABLE POSITION>

* Member States did not provide data for one and the same year, but for one or more years between 1999 and 2001. Italy did not provide any information.

** The implementation programmes according to Article 17 were used as a data source.

11. Situation in each Member State

11.1. Belgium

In Belgium, the implementation of the Directive lies within the responsibility of the three regions Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels-Capital. Each region sent its data separately, however, the below report presents the picture for the entirety of Belgium.

11.1.1. Identification of sensitive areas

In 1992 and 1995, Flanders identified all of its waters, including its coastal waters, as sensitive. In 1994, the region of Brussels-Capital identified the River Senne as sensitive. In 1995 Wallonia identified certain stretches of its rivers as sensitive. Later, in February 2001, Wallonia identified its entire territory. Therefore, since 2001, the whole of Belgium has been designated as sensitive area.

11.1.2. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

11.1.2.1. Treatment level

In January 2002 Belgium had 186 agglomerations with a nominal load of more than 10 000 p.e., 112 were situated in Flanders [20], two in Brussels Capital and 72 in Wallonia.

[20] Five of the Flemish agglomerations (Heusden, Poperinge, Olsene, Knokke, Ledegem) reported in 1998 became smaller than 10 000 p.e. due to reduced industrial activities, the connection of parts of agglomerations to other agglomerations as well as the optimisation of available data on inhabitants. Therefore they were not longer taken into account. Furthermore, the names of nine Flemish agglomerations have been changed, this has to be taken into consideration in a comparison of previous and recent data.

114 of the 186 agglomerations above 10 000 p.e. were equipped with more stringent treatment, but only 93 of them removed both phosphorus and nitrogen. 51 agglomerations either did not treat their waste water at all or had no more than very inadequate treatment including Brussels (1.1 mio p.e.), Mouscron, Namur, Liegé and Grimbergen.

In at least 25 of the agglomerations with more stringent treatment, the organic design capacity of the treatment plants seemed to be too small for a sufficient waste water treatment of the concerned agglomerations [21]. These agglomerations should, according to the Commission's opinion, be subject to a capacity upgrading.

[21] Antwerpen-Zuid, Beerse, Beersel, Brasschaat, Duffel, Edegem, Gent, Hamme, Hove, Kalmthout, Koersel, Lanaken, Lede, Leuven, Mechelen - Noord, Mol, Morkhoven, Overpelt, Pulderbos, Schilde, Sint-Truiden, Tessenderlo, Turnhout, Zelzate and Zwalm. As to the latest information of 01 September 2003, the Flemish Region stated that the Commission report took into account the reported organic design capacity of treatment plants, but not the hydraulic design capacity, according to which the monitoring data comply with the Directive. The Flemish authorities also confirmed that for the above 24 agglomerations treatment works are being upgraded.

In total, 72 agglomerations with more than 10 000 p.e. were complying with the provisions of the Directive, 114 agglomerations, representing 71.3 % of the total concerned load were not complying, either because no treatment facilities or because insufficient treatment capacity was installed.

Table 11-1: Treatment level of agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

>TABLE POSITION>

* including incomplete more stringent treatment and insufficient treatment capacity of plants taking into account possible overlaps of both shortcomings, such as Antwerpen-Zuid, Brasschaat, Leuven and Mechelen-Nord.

11.1.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas

Treatment performance in Belgium was evaluated for 153 agglomerations with more than 10 000 p.e. discharging into the sensitive areas (113 Flemish agglomerations, the two agglomerations of Brussels Capital and 38 Walloon agglomerations designated before 1999. The evaluation does not include the 38 agglomerations of the Walloon sensitive areas, which were designated after the Commission's data request in 2001).

Even though, 96 out of the above 153 agglomerations were equipped with more stringent treatment, only 44 of them were complying in terms of treatment performance. 109 agglomerations, which represent 78 % of the total nominal load of the concerned agglomerations, discharged their waste water untreated or insufficiently treated.

Table 11-2: Treatment performance in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

>TABLE POSITION>

11.1.3. Collecting systems

In Belgium all agglomerations with more than 10 000 p.e. should already be equipped with a complying collecting system. However, at the beginning of 2002 the collecting systems of 138 Belgian agglomerations were not yet complying with Article 3 of the Directive. This included large agglomerations such as Brussels or Liège.

Table 11-3: Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

>TABLE POSITION>

11.1.4. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e.

Since the whole of Belgium is designated as a sensitive area, all cities should provide secondary treatment followed by tertiary treatment.

* At the beginning of 2002 only two cities were equipped with more stringent treatment (secondary treatment plus nitrogen and phosphorus removal): Oostende and Mons.

* Gent had tertiary treatment for a part of its population.

* Five cities provided secondary treatment: Aiseau-Presles, Antwerpen, Brugge and Deurne and Wavre (165 000 p.e.).

* Four cities had no treatment at all for major parts of their population: Brussels (1.1 mio p.e.), Charleroi (380 000 p.e.), Liège (737 500 p.e.) and Pepinster [22](170 000 p.e.).

[22] According to latest information from the Walloon Region of 01 September 2003, Pepinster provided more stringent treatment since August 2002.

Since 2000, secondary treatment facilities for about one third of Brussels' waste water were in place in the treatment plant Brussels-South. The second plant, Brussels-North, is planned to be operational, providing secondary treatment followed by nitrogen and phosphorus removal, in 2006. The unsatisfactory waste water treatment situation of Brussels is subject to an infringement procedure before court. The case, however, covers not only Brussels but also the shortcomings of the other Belgian regions.

11.1.5. Industrial waste water (Article 13)

Belgium reported 99 industrial plants falling under Article 13 with a total organic load of 3 463 700 p.e. Twenty-four of these plants were located in the Walloon region and in conformity by 31 December 2000. The remaining plants were situated in the Flemish region. The Flemish authorities advised that in terms of permits all concerned plants were complying in time. However, some of them, representing 13% of the concerned industrial load, did not comply with the monitoring requirements and received a penalty.

Table 11-4: Industrial waste water with respect to Article 13 of the Directive

>TABLE POSITION>

11.1.6. Sewage Sludge

Information about the quantities of produced sewage sludge and its disposal was available for Flanders and Wallonia. Complete information for both regions was available from the year 1999.

In Flanders the quantity of produced sewage sludge was 73 490 t dry substance (DS). Seven percent which was re-used in agriculture, 33 % was deposited on landfills, 34 % incinerated and 26 % was reused or disposed of in other ways.

In Wallonia, 17 968 t dry substance of sewage sludge was produced. 53 % was re-used in agriculture, 45% was deposited on landfills and 2 % was incinerated. The tendency of sludge disposal in Wallonia is more towards re-use in agriculture, less deposition in landfills and no incineration.

Tables 11-5: Re-use and disposal of sludge produced in waste water treatment plants

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>

11.2. Denmark

11.2.1. Identification of sensitive areas

In 1999 Denmark decided to apply more stringent treatment over all its territory according to Article 5(8) of the Directive. It is therefore not required to identify sensitive areas for the purpose of the Directive. Denmark applies this option for phosphorus and nitrogen.

11.2.2. Agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e.

11.2.2.1. Treatment level

In 1998 the Danish authorities had reported 125 agglomerations of which already 123 were complying with the Directive.

According to updated information, Denmark had 127 agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10.000 [23]. All agglomerations provided more stringent treatment (phosphorus and nitrogen removal) at that date. However, in a number of agglomerations the organic design capacity of the treatment plants seemed to be too small for a sufficient treatment of the waste water generated in the concerned agglomerations. In at least five agglomerations (Attrup, Sindal, Tårnby, Thisted and Tysinge) the organic design capacity of the plants was less than 80% of the total nominal load of the agglomerations. As each of the concerned plants reached the required emission standards in 1999, Denmark was of the opinion that a capacity upgrading of the concerned plants is not necessary. The Commission believed that under the given conditions, either the treatment plants were overloaded or the waste water was not entirely collected by the collecting systems. Both shortcomings would finally require a capacity upgrading of the concerned plants. Finally in September 2003, Denmark informed that the nominal loads reported for these agglomerations were incorrect and that all the plants were therefore in conformity.

[23] According to Denmark's information, the total nominal load of agglomerations can differ from year to year and the Directive requires compliance for agglomerations in sensitive areas above 10 000 p.e. Therefore, only the agglomerations with a nominal load above 10 000 p.e. were reported to the Commission, which explains the different number of agglomerations.

Table 11-6: Treatment level of agglomerations > 10 000 p.e.

>TABLE POSITION>

11.2.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results)

In 1999, 126 out of the 127 agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000 had waste water treatment plants the performance of which was in compliance with the directive. Only Kalundborg did not comply, as it did not reach the standards for COD due to the industrial load from a medical industry. The Danish authorities mentioned that this problem had been solved in 2002 by an installation of advanced ozone-treatment for the industrial waste water.

Table 11-7: Treatment performance of agglomerations > 10 000p.e.

>TABLE POSITION>

11.2.3. Collecting systems

In 2002, according to the information sent by the Danish authorities, all agglomerations with a nominal load of more than 10 000 p.e. were equipped with a complying waste water collecting system.

Table 11-8: Collecting systems in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e.

>TABLE POSITION>

11.2.4. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e.

Five Danish cities had a population equivalent of more than 150 000: Aalborg, Arhus, Fredericia, Copenhagen and Odense. These five cities already had full more stringent treatment by 1998, which means secondary treatment followed by nitrogen and phosphorus removal.

11.2.5. Industrial waste water (Article 13)

In Denmark only the fish-processing industry is discharging directly into receiving water bodies in the sense of Article 13 of the Directive. The concerned three plants, with a total organic load of 38 358 p.e., were already in full compliance with the Directive before 31 December 2000.

Table 11-9: Industrial waste water with respect to Article 13 of the Directive

>TABLE POSITION>

11.2.6. Sewage Sludge

In 1999, the quantity of produced sewage sludge in Denmark was 155 621 t dry substance (DS). 54 % of which were re-used in agriculture, 23 % were deposited on landfills, 6 % incinerated and 16 % were re-used or disposed of in other ways.

Table 11-10: Re-use and disposal of sludge produced in waste water treatment plants

>TABLE POSITION>

11.3. Germany

11.3.1. Identification of sensitive areas

By the end of 2000 Germany had designated the total catchment of the North Sea and the Baltic as a sensitive area. In addition, Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg designated the Lake Constance, some of the Bavarian lakes and the Upper Danube, including their catchment areas, as sensitive areas. Therefore, in Germany only the lower part of the Danube is not designated as sensitive.

11.3.2. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitve areas

In 2001, Germany decided to apply Article 5(4) of the Directive. Consequently there is no requirement for each waste water treatment plant with more than 10 000 p.e. to employ advanced treatment. However, the German authorities must show that the minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load entering all urban waste water treatment plants discharging into sensitive areas or their catchments, is at least 75 % for total phosphorus and at least 75 % for total nitrogen.

11.3.2.1. Treatment level

Regarding the waste water treatment situation at the beginning of January 2002, Germany provided information on 1 748 agglomerations [24] with more than 10 000 p.e. discharging into sensitive areas. The total nominal load of these treatment plants was 118 825 715 p.e. [25]

[24] Germany defined the catchment area of an urban waste water treatment plant as an agglomeration. Therefore, in general, one agglomeration is served by one treatment plant. Only in Sachsen several settlements can be served by one single treatment plant, being regarded as individual agglomerations and not as one combined agglomeration. The latter case is not in accordance with the Commission's interpretation of the term agglomeration.

[25] Germany defined the nominal load of an agglomeration by the organic design capacity of the concerned treatment plant. However, in the context of monitoring data/compliance-verification with Article 5.4, Germany assumed all treatment plants being well designed, and calculated the nominal load being about 80% of the design capacity. Therefore, these data do no seem to show the real size of the agglomerations and use to capacity of plants. They are also not directly comparable with the size of agglomeration provided in other contexts (e.g. data on 1999).

1 603 of these agglomerations provided more stringent treatment facilities (nitrogen and phosphorus removal) which represented 90 % of the above-mentioned load.

11.3.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas

In order to show the state of compliance with Article 5.4 of the Directive, Germany provided for the year 2002, monitoring information of 3 859 waste water treatment plants, taking into account treatment plants from 2 000 p.e. upwards. The total nominal load of these plants was 124 876 488 p.e. The agglomerations below 2000 p.e. which have to be included in the calculation of the percentage of reduction of the load according to Article 5.4, were not taken into account, as no data were available. However, the agglomerations below 2000 p.e. represent about 2% of the entire produced load in Germany.

According to the provided data, Germany achieved 90 % reduction for phosphorus and 74 % reduction for nitrogen.

For the year 1999 Germany sent additional monitoring results for 1 785 agglomerations with more than 10 000 p.e. discharging into sensitive areas. The total nominal load of these agglomerations was 95 043 770 p.e.and the total organic design capacity: 120 548 115 p.e. (see footnote 25). 82.2 % of the nominal load of these agglomerations complied with the Directive. 17.8 % of the total nominal load was not yet in compliance. According to the Commission's assessment the design capacity of at least 24 plants were considered to be too small for a sufficient treatment of the entire load of the connected agglomerations and should be subject to a size upgrading [26]

[26] According to recent information from Germany in September 2003, a research resulted in only three plants "Haren" and "Obere Niers" and "Heiligenhaus-Nord" being insufficiently designed, of which "Haren" complies with the provisions, "Obere Niers" was be closed in August 2002 and "Heiligenhaus" will be closed in 2004.

11.3.3. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas" - situation at 31 December 2000

As at 31 December 2000 Germany, had 126 agglomerations with more than 15 000 p.e. in "normal areas". All agglomerations were equipped with at least secondary treatment, and therefore complying with the Directive.

Table 11-11: Treatment level of agglomerations discharging into "normal areas"

>TABLE POSITION>

11.3.4. Collecting systems

11.3.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

According to the information sent by Germany, all 1 785 agglomerations served by waste water treatment plants with a nominal load of more than 10 000 p.e. were equipped with a complying collecting system before 31 December 1998.

Table 11-12: Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

>TABLE POSITION>

11.3.4.2. Collecting system in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas"

As at 31 December 2000, all German agglomerations with a nominal load of more than 15 000 p.e. discharging into "normal areas" were equipped with a complying collecting system, and therefore in conformity with Article 3 of the Directive.

Table 11-13: Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas"

>TABLE POSITION>

11.3.5. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e.

Germany sent updated information for 143 cities with a population equivalent of more than 150 000. At 31 January 2002 the treatment situation in these cities was as follows:

* 129 cities were situated in sensitive areas: 119 provided fully tertiary treatment (secondary treatment followed by nitrogen and phosphorus removal). Kassel, Hanau, Hagen, Lünen, Mönchengladbach and Wuppertal provided secondary treatment followed by phosphorus elimination, and the remaining four cities were equipped with secondary treatment (Flensburg, Homburg, Lübeck and Pinneberg).

* 14 cities were situated in "normal areas": Amberg, Augsburg, Eichenau, Erdinger Moos, Ingolstadt, Kempten, Landshut, Memmingen, Mergelstetten, München, Regensburg, Rosenheim, Straubing and Ulm. Each of these cities provided at least secondary treatment.

11.3.6. Industrial waste water (Article 13)

In Germany, 92 industrial plants with a total organic load of 3 525 156 p.e. were operating. By the end of 2000, 97 % of the organic load was dealt with in a satisfactory way in conformity with the criteria of Article 13. The sectors which did not comply were scheduled to comply by 31 December 2001.

Table 11-14: Industrial waste water with respect to Article 13

>TABLE POSITION>

11.3.7. Sewage Sludge

By 2000, in Germany the amount of produced sewage sludge was 2 300 000 t DS. 40 % of it was reused in agriculture, 10 % was deposited on landfills, 20 % was incinerated, and 30 % was re-used or disposed of in other ways.

Table 11-15: Re-use and disposal of sewage sludge produced in waste water treatment plants

>TABLE POSITION>

11.4. Greece

11.4.1. Identification of sensitive areas

Greece identified its sensitive areas late in August 1999. A total of 34 lakes, rivers, estuaries and coastal water bodies have thus been designated as sensitive due to eutrophication. Some tributaries of the Aliakmonas river (Grevenitis), the Axios river and Vozvozis river have also been identified as sensitive.

The Commission's verification study of 2000 concluded that 16 additional water bodies should have been identified as sensitive due to eutrophication and the protection of water for drinking water supply. Among those were the lower part of the Saronicos Gulf and the Gulf of Thessaloniki.

In April 2002, through a ministerial decree, the Greek authorities designated the Thessaloniki Gulf and the lower part of the Saronikos Gulf as sensitive. Additionally, the Greek authorities announced a review of sensitive areas, but have not yet officially designated any further water bodies.

Despite further discussion with the Greek authorities and additional information provided by Greece in February 2002, the Commission still believes that the remaining outstanding 14 water bodies should be identified as sensitive.

11.4.2. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

Greece updated its information on agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas for January 2002 and provided information on 16 agglomerations.

Previously Greece reported 33 agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas, then revised its approach on agglomerations, which led finally to only 17 agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas and therefore requiring more stringent treatment. For 16 agglomerations [27], which were still evaluated in the second Commission report, Greece pointed out that they were no longer considered to have a population equivalent of more than 10 000 p.e. One of those agglomerations (Preveza) discharges into a non sensitive area according to recent information from Greece.

[27] Aliartos, Amphiloxia, Axioupoli Polikastro, Doxato, Eleutheroupoli Kavalos, Emanouil Papas, Kalastra, Koufalia, Lagkadas, Nigrita, Orkomenos, Philippoi, Soufli, Aitoliko, Meliti and Paggaio Kovalos

This change of approach led to a significant increase in compliance rates. However, the Commission is concerned about Member States changing their approach during the implementation process and has already raised these concerns in its second report. The Greek authorities provided information on that matter in 2001 and 2002, which was assessed by the Commission.

The Commission is, in particular, concerned about the apparent decrease in the size of agglomerations, and which resulted in agglomerations being assessed as being of less than 10.000 p.e, which is the threshold triggering a requirement for more stringent treatment.

11.4.2.1. Treatment level

According to Greece's re-organisation of their agglomerations, only 17 agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas were evaluated for the state of 1 January 2002. Ten of the 17 agglomerations were equipped with more stringent treatment facilities.

In total nine agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas were still not in conformity at the beginning of 2002:

* Arta: provided secondary treatment followed by nitrogen removal, but phosphorus removal was missing [28].

* Didimoteicho: had no treatment plant in January 2002. According to recent information from Greece, a plant designed for 15 000 p.e. started operating in early 2002. According to recent information of September 2003, the plant provides nitrogen and phosphorus removal.

* Drama: had no waste water treatment plant in January 2002. According to recent information from Greece a plant for 60 000 p.e. started operating in June 2002.

* Elefsina Aspropyrgos: had no waste water treatment plant [29] in place.

* Grevena: had no waste water treatment plant [30] in place.

* Kilkis: had no waste water treatment plant [31] in place.

* Mesologgi: had only secondary treatment in January 2002. According to recent information, nitrogen and phosphorus removal facilities were operational by the end of 2002.

* Serres: had secondary treatment nitrogen removal, but phosphorus removal was missing

* Theva: had no waste water treatment plant at 1 January 2002 [32]

[32] Note from Greek authorities: The waste water treatment plant of Theva will start operating by June 2002. New environmental terms have been published prohibiting any waste water discharge into Viotikos Kifissos. The treated sewage from the plant will be reused for agricultural purposes.

These nine agglomerations represented 60.4 % of the total nominal load of the concerned agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas.

Table 11-16: Treatment level of agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

>TABLE POSITION>

11.4.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas

For 1999, the Greek authorities reported on the treatment performance of 17 agglomerations each with a nominal load of more than 10 000 p.e. discharging into sensitive areas. Only six of these agglomerations provided more stringent waste water treatment [33]. The required treatment efficiency was only achieved in the agglomerations of Komotini and Lefkada. 89.9% of the waste water load being discharged into sensitive areas did not receive the necessary waste water treatment.

[33] Arta, Komotini, Livadia, Ptolemaida, Levkada and Agrinio.

Table 11-17: Treatment performance in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

>TABLE POSITION>

11.4.3. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas" - situation at 31 December 2000

At 31 December 2000, 91 Greek agglomerations with a nominal load of more than 15.000 p.e. were discharging into "normal areas". In May 2003 Greece sent a corrigendum, in the context of a comment to the draft Commission report, which was based on a "careful review of population records" . This corrigendum included the following changes:

* 18 agglomerations were considered to have less than 15 000 p.e. Many of these agglomerations were previously reported as having population equivalents significantly higher than 15 000. Some of the concerned agglomerations had even more than 30 000 p.e. and up to 50 000 p.e. In total these 18 agglomerations requested by Greece to be considered no longer affected by the deadline of 2000 had a waste water load of about 495 500 p.e. None of these 18 agglomerations had a complying collecting system, and only 4 had secondary treatment at 31 December 2000.

* The review of the Greek authorities of 2003 included five agglomerations [34], which are now considered to have more than 15 000 p.e.

* For 36 additional agglomerations new figures of the nominal loads were provided, in most cases the revised nominal load of the agglomeration was less than in the past.

* The agglomeration Agrinio was considered to discharge into a sensitive area. However, Greece provided no information on the treatment performance.

* The treatment plant of Megara was reported as not complying at 31 December 2000.

In their comment the Greek authorities did not give a substantial explanation for the significant change in number and size of their agglomerations discharging into "normal areas" undertaken in their review of 2003. Due to this review, the waste water load being discharged into "normal areas" and falling under the deadline 31 December 2000, is now 763, 300 population equivalents less than the Greek authorities reported one year after the deadline.

The evaluation presented below is based on the initial data provided by Greece on the situation in "normal areas" in 2001, and on the review undertaken by Greece in 2003 [35].

[35] Evaluation a): This evaluation includes those agglomerations reported by Greece on the deadline of 31 12 2000 during the year 2001, except the agglomeration Agrinio (considered as agglomeration discharging into a sensitive area - see section 0). The change of nominal loads in 2003 is not considered in this evaluation. It recognizes that the UWWTP of Megara was not in conformity on 31.12.2000. The results are demonstrated in Table 11- 18.

According to Greece's 2001 information, 90 agglomerations with a nominal load of more than 15 000 p.e. plus five additional agglomerations reported later, were situated in "normal areas" at the deadline of 31 December 2000. 35 agglomerations did not have secondary treatment at that time and were therefore not complying with the Directive. They represented 52.6 % of the concerned waste water load.

According to the Greek review of 2003, only 77 agglomerations were discharging into "normal areas" representing 51 % of the concerned load, 25 of them were not in conformity.

Table 11-18: Treatment level in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas" -

Evaluation a35

>TABLE POSITION>

Table 11-19: Treatment level in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas" -

Evaluation b on the basis of a review undertaken by Greece in 200335

>TABLE POSITION>

11.4.4. Collecting systems

11.4.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

At 1 January 2002 the collecting system of three agglomerations in sensitive areas was not complying with Article 3 of the Directive. One of the agglomerations without a complying collecting system was Elefsina Aspropyrgos (nominal load: 120 000 p.e.).

Table 11-20: Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

>TABLE POSITION>

11.4.4.2. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas"

On the basis of the information delivered by Greece at the request of the Commission in 2001, the collecting systems of 50 agglomerations out of 90 discharging into "normal areas" were not in conformity with Article 3 of the Directive at 31 December 2000. Two of the agglomerations without a complying collecting system were Iraklion (164 000 p.e.) and parts of Thessaloniki (tourist zone with 130 000 p.e.).

According to the above-mentioned review undertaken in 2003, the Greek authorities consider that 49 agglomerations out of 77 provided a complying collecting system by 31 December 2000. The review carried out by the Greek authorities changed the data concerning waste water collection for agglomerations such as Aigio, Kallithea Chalidiki, Kalymnos, Korinthos-Loutraki, Nea Kalikrateia, Siteia-Crete and Tolo, which previously were not regarded to comply.

Furthermore, the Greek authority stated that the waste water collection through septic tanks in Rhodos is in conformity with the Directive.

Table 11-21: Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas" -

Evaluation a35

>TABLE POSITION>

Table 11-22: Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas" -

Evaluation b on the basis of a review undertaken by Greece in 200335

>TABLE POSITION>

11.4.5. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e.

Greece has five cities with a population equivalent of more than 150 000: Athens, Thessaloniki, Iraklion, Metamorphosis and Patra.

In the second Commission report Elefsina Aspropyrgos was also included in the list of "major cities", but in 2002 the Greek authorities reported the size of this agglomeration to be only 120 000 p.e. Since Elefsina Aspropyrgos discharges into a sensitive area, it should have already been equipped with more stringent treatment (secondary treatment followed by nitrogen and phosphorus removal) already by 31 December 1998. It is subject to an infringement procedure before Court.

On 31 December 1998 Athens and Thessaloniki had primary treatment or partial secondary treatment only. Patra and Elefsina Aspropyrgos did not have any treatment. This situation had improved by 2002.

At 1 January 2002 the situation of big cities was the following:

* Athens (3 500 000 p.e.) discharges into a sensitive area, which was designated in April 2002. More stringent treatment is under construction and, according to the information from the Greek authorities, will be completed at the end of 2003. The waste water situation of Athens/Psittalia is subject to an infraction procedure (Court application not yet lodged).

* Iraklion is situated in a "normal area" and provides full secondary treatment followed by nitrogen removal.

* Thessaloniki discharges into a sensitive area that was designated in April 2002 and provides secondary treatment followed by nitrogen removal.

* Metamorphosis and Patra are situated in a "normal area" and provide full secondary treatment followed by nitrogen removal.

11.4.6. Industrial waste water (Article 13)

As regards Article 13, Greece reported 52 industrial plants with a total load of 3 482 492 p.e. All plants were complying with the Directive on 31 December 2000.

Table 11-23: Industrial waste water with respect to Article 13 of the Directive

>TABLE POSITION>

11.4.7. Sewage Sludge

The Greek authorities did not provide the necessary data on the total amount of sewage sludge generated by urban waste water treatment. In the situation report according to Article 16 Greece only stated that about 1.5 % of the sewage sludge is re-used in agriculture and 98.5 % is deposited in landfills.

11.5. Spain

11.5.1. Identification of sensitive areas

Spain identified sensitive areas in 1999 and 2000, but many of those were only identifications of regional authorities, which had not been officially notified to the Commission by the national authorities. In the course of 2001 and 2002, many sensitive areas were officially notified. However, some sensitive areas have still not yet been designated officially. The European Court of Justice ruled against Spain on this issue in May 2003.

Apart from the regional designations for which official notifications from the national authorities are still outstanding, there are many additional areas in Spain which the Commission believes should be designated as sensitive areas. In total there are 44 additional water bodies which the Commission regards as candidates for designation. Many of these are water bodies which are fed by large catchment areas, such as the Rivers Ebro and Tejo.

11.5.2. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

A number of agglomerations, which were reported to the Commission when compiling in its second report were no longer reported by the Spanish authorities in the information submitted for the present report. Some agglomerations have apparently dropped below the threshold of 10 000 p.e. and for this reason were not taken into account any longer [36]. Some agglomerations were merged and some, according to the Spanish authorities, no longer discharged into sensitive areas. One such case is Santa Pola (125 000 p.e.), which does not even provide biological treatment.

[36] Muro (< 10 000 p.e.), Sant Bartelomeu del Grau (only industrial waste water), Campo Criptana (merged with Alcázar de San Juan), Colindres and Laredo (both merged with Santona, Cuenca Baja del río Asón).

According to recent information from the Spanish authorities of 2003, their data include 33 agglomerations which discharge their effluents into not yet officially designated sensitive areas.

11.5.2.1. Treatment level

The Spanish authorities provided updated information on 113 agglomerations with more than 10 000 p.e. discharging into sensitive areas: 57 agglomerations were indicated as being equipped with more stringent treatment representing 77% of the total load. However, at the time of finalising the present report, the Commission still had a number of outstanding questions concerning the data presented by the Spanish authorities. Therefore for carrying out its assessment, the Commission based itself on figures submitted by Spain in relation to the previous data request. These figures indicate that only 34 agglomerations were in compliance and that only 25% of the load was subject to adequate treatment. For at least nine agglomerations no wastewater treatment was provided at all: Alfarras-Almenar, Alginet, Almonte, Celra, Deltebre, Marines, Naut-Aran, Santoña (132 135 p.e.) and Sueca. [37]

[37] In May/September 2003, the Spanish authorities provided updated data in the frame of monitoring information which will be considered in the future evaluations.

Table 11-24: Treatment level of agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

>TABLE POSITION>

* n.a.: no information available

11.5.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas

Spain did not provide any information on treatment performance (monitoring data for the year 1999) of urban waste water treatment plants, which was requested by the Commission on the basis of Article 15 of the Directive in December 2000. For certain agglomerations incomplete monitoring information was provided in May/September 2003, which was too late to be taken into account for this report.

11.5.3. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas" - situation at 31 December 2000

At 31 December 2000, 458 agglomerations with a nominal load of more than 15 000 p.e. were reported to discharge their effluent into "normal areas". 245 of them were equipped with at least secondary treatment. 213 agglomerations did not provide secondary treatment, and therefore did not fulfil the requirements of Article 4 of the Directive. More than 20 million population equivalents representing 38.2 % of the waste water load discharged into "normal areas" was not treated appropriately. Among the agglomerations not providing adequate treatment, were a number of cities with more than 150 000 p.e. (details in section 11.5.5).

Table 11-25: Treatment level in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas"

>TABLE POSITION>

11.5.4. Collecting systems

11.5.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

Out of 113 agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas, for which information was provided, only 62 were equipped with a collecting system being in conformity with Article 3 of Directive 91/271/EEC.

Table 11-26: Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas

>TABLE POSITION>

11.5.4.2. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas"

At 31 December 2000 the collecting systems of 430 agglomerations out of 458 discharging into "normal areas" were in conformity with Article 3 of the Directive (91,9% of the nominal load of all concerned agglomerations). The non complying agglomerations included some major cities such as El Prat de Llobregat (1.7 mio. p.e.), La Coruña (580 000 p.e), Tui (274 000 p.e.), Algeciras (174 000 p.e.) or Ferrol (161 000 p.e.).

Table 11-27: Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into "normal areas"

>TABLE POSITION>

11.5.5. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e.

The Spanish authorities reported 75 cities with a nominal load of more than 150 000 p.e.

Six cities (Alginet, Benidorm, Calvia, Castellón de la Plana, Colmenar Viejo and Palma de Mallorca) were located in sensitive areas and should therefore be equipped with more advanced treatment. However, only Calvia (Santa Ponça) was provided with more stringent treatment (elimination of nitrogen and phosphorus). The other 5 cities did not fulfil this requirement and, therefore, did not comply with the Directive [38]. Alginet (180 000 p.e.) did not have any treatment at all.

[38] Alginet (180 000 p.e.): no treatment (more stringent by 2005); Benidorm (347 041 p.e.): primary treatment (more stringent treatment by 2004); Castellón de la Plana (156 000 p.e.): primary treatment (more stringent treatment by 2004); Colmenar Viejo (151 996 p.e.): secondary treatment only; Palma de Mallorca II (481 450 p.e.): partial secondary treatment (due to recent information the waste water of Palma de Mallorca is treated by two treatment plants, of which one - Palma I (28 027 p.e.) -discharges into a normal area).

The remaining 69 cities were discharging into "normal" areas and should have been equipped with at least secondary treatment. At the end of December 2001 the waste water situation in these cities was as follows:

* Nine had more stringent treatment: Almeria, León, Oviedo, Roquetas de Mar, Sestao (=Bilbao) (1.25 mio p.e.), Talavera de la Reina, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Xirivella and Zaragoza (1.2 mio p.e.);

* 36 had secondary treatment [39], including Cordoba (505 000 p.e.), Madrid (6.0 mio p.e.), Malaga (978 400 p.e.), Murcia (833 000 p.e.) and Sevilla (1.28 mio p.e.), Vallaloid (715 300 p.e.)

* 16 had primary treatment or incomplete secondary treatment only: Mostoles (882 000 p.e.), Alcobendas, Algeciras, Alicante (744 709 p.e.), Cartagena, Fuengirola, Alcala de Henares, Guadalajara, Vigo, Muro del Alcoy, Pineda del Mar, Salamanca, San Roman, Santiago de Compostela, Valencia (1.5 mio p.e.), Granada (496 000 p.e.);

Eight still do not treat their waste water at all: A Coruña, Barcelona (3.4 mio p.e.), Cadiz, Donostia-San Sebastian, Ferrol,