WRITTEN QUESTION P-1129/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Naming and shaming to achieve environmental policy implementation

The objective of the naming and shaming approach is to highlight failures by Member States to comply with EU law and increase public pressure upon decisions-makers. The organisation by the Commission of a seminar on the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Directive on 19 March is therefore to be welcomed.

However, the credibility of the Commission's seminar was seriously undermined by the inclusion in its press release of locations such as Bebington, Birkenhead and Liverpool, where waste water treatment plants have recently been brought into use which ensure full compliance with the directive and have secured major improvements in water quality, and of locations such as Macclesfield, where a treatment plant has been in operation for many years but has apparently not been included on information supplied to the Commission.

Will the Commission agree that to assume that a place is a source of pollution, solely on the basis that it does not have the information to confirm that it is not, is unacceptable, maligns the town or city concerned and could result in damage to its reputation and image?

Will the Commission consider in the future giving one month's notice of a name and shame list to each Member State, both to provide decision-makers with an opportunity to confirm the factual accuracy of the information, and to allow them to prepare a public response which, insomuch as it is likely to indicate action which will be taken to ensure future compliance, is likely to encourage implementation of directives?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2001)

The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water(1) sets clear objectives in terms of deadlines and environmental objectives to achieve:

- designation by the end of 1993 of sensitive areas according to criteria set out in the Directive;

- by the end of 1998, tertiary treatment for all agglomerations above 10 000 population equivalent (p.e.)(2) in the catchment of such sensitive areas;

- by the end of 2000, secondary treatment for all agglomerations above 15 000 population equivalents in the catchment normal areas (i.e. such waters not identified as sensitive);

- by the end of 2005, secondary treatment for all remaining agglomerations within the scope of the Directive.

The Commission will shortly publish its second report for the implementation of Council Directive 91/271/EEC, showing the state of play regarding the second deadline, i.e. 31 December 1998. It is in this context that the name and shame seminar was organised. The Commission wanted to address in particular the following two issues: compliance in designating sensitive areas, and secondly and linked to the first, compliance with the 1998 deadline for discharges into sensitive areas.

For the sensitive areas, the Commission came to the conclusion that the United Kingdom, as is the case with other Member States, has not provided a complete designation of sensitive areas. This has in many cases led to a lower level of treatment (secondary treatment instead of tertiary treatment, involving nitrogen removal, for discharges into waters meeting the eutrophication criteria or disinfection in case of certain bathing waters).

Apart from evaluating the situation with regard to conformity for agglomerations concerned by sensitive areas on December 1998, the Commission wished to provide a snapshot of the level of treatment of urban waste water in all large Community cities (above 150 000 p.e.) on 31 December 1998. With regard to the level of treatment provided in major cities and towns, one has to bear in mind that the Commission relies on the information provided by Member States. If no information is provided, the Commission can only conclude that no treatment has been put in place.

As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, on the situation of the main cities at 31 December 1998, Liverpool was provided with primary treatment, Bedington had preliminary treatment and there is no information about the level of treatment in Birkenhead and Macclesfield.

The draft of the second implementation report was sent to the Member Sates on the 13 March 2001. It has to be noted, however, that any new information that is provided by the Member States after the 31 January 2001 can only and will be taken into account for the third implementation report, which will reflect the situation for the third deadline of the directive, 31 December 2000 (see above).

In summary, the Commission considers that the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Directive, although considerable efforts have been made by certain Member States, is behind schedule and incomplete, both as regards compliance with the necessary treatment objective and deadlines.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2) Population equivalent means the organic biodegradable load having a five-day chemical oxygen demand (BOD5) of 60 g of oxygen per day.