Special Report No 3/98 concerning the implementation by the Commission of EU policy and action as regards water pollution accompanied by the replies of the Commission (Pursuant to the second indent of paragraph 4 of Article 188c of the EC Treaty)
Date: 1998-03-19
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU financing, EU policy, national implementing measure, pollution control measures, water pollution, water treatment

C 191/2

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

18.6.98

SPECIAL  REPORT  No  3/98

concerning  the  implementation  by  the  Commission  of  EU  policy  and  action  as  regards  water
pollution  accompanied  by  the  replies  of  the  Commission

(Pursuant  to  the  second  indent  of  paragraph  4  of  Article  188c  of  the  EC  Treaty)

(98/C 191/02)

TABLE  OF  CONTENTS

Paragraph
reference

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1—10

CHAPTER  I  —  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  DIRECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11—44

Transposition  of  the  Directives  into  national  law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12—15

Reporting  by  the  Member  States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16—23

Progress  against  the  specified  timescales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24—44

Urban  waste  water  treatment  Directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24—28

Nitrates Directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29—37

3

7

7

7

8

8

9

Sludge Directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38—44

10

CHAPTER  II  —  EU  EXPENDITURE  ON  THE  IMPROVEMENT  OF  WATER
QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45—56

Budgetary implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45—51

Data deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

52—53

Lack  of  specialised  data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54—56

CHAPTER  III  —  AUDIT  OF  PROJECT  IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57—127

Conformity  with  the  UWWT  Directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57—62

Project  performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63—101

Outdated  design  of  projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64—68

The  problems  of  stormwater  and  industrial  waste  water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69—77

The  cost  of  projects  —  planned  versus  actual  costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

78—84

Delays  in  carrying  out  projects  and  their  effects  on  the  increase  of  costs . . . .

85—91

Management  of  projects  by  the  responsible  authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

92—96

Malfunctioning  treatment  plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

97—101

The  Envireg  Inititative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

102—125

Problems  of  implementing  the  Envireg  CI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

105—112

‘Ambiente  e  Regione’  (AMBER)  technical  assistance  network. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

113—119

Ex  post  facto  assessment  of  the  Envireg  CI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

120—125

The  LIFE  Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

126—127

CHAPTER  IV  —  THE  QUESTION  OF  WATER  CHARGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

128—134

Water charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

129—134

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

135—141

TECHNICAL  ANNEX:  Tables  1—9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The  Commission’s  replies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

11

13

13

14

14

15

18

18

19

20

20

21

22

22

24

25

26

26

26

27

29

35

18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/3

INTRODUCTION

to  pursue  certain  objectives 

Article  130r  of  the  EC  Treaty  empowers  the
1.
for
European  Union 
improving  the  environment  by  controlling,  reducing  and
preventing  pollution.  Policies  aimed  at  achieving  these
objectives should be consistent  with, and reinforce, other
EU  policies,  and  the  principle  that  the  ‘polluter  pays’
should  normally  apply.

2.
The Commission has the initiative under the Treaty
to  propose  Directives  aimed  at  the  achievement  of  EU
objectives in the environment field. These Directives, once
agreed  by  the  EU,  have  then  to  be  transposed  into
national legislation by the Member States. Failure to take
action  within  the  timescale  specified  in  a  Directive
exposes  a  Member  State  to  infringement  proceedings  by
the  Commission  before  the  European  Court  of  Justice.

the 

3. One  of 
fundamental  objectives  of  EU
environment  policy  is  the  reduction  of  water  pollution
and  the  improvement  of  water  quality.  Since  1973  some
20  Directives  have  been  agreed  concerning  aspects  of
water  quality.  Three  of  the  most  important  Directives
concerning  the  reduction  of  water  pollution  are:

(a)

(p.e.) (2) 

the  urban  waste  water  treatment  Directive  (UWWT
Directive) (1). Its aim is that by the year 2005 almost
all agglomerations in the EU above 2 000 population
should  be  provided  with
equivalent 
collecting  systems  and  waste  water  treatment  plants.
Available  data  shows  that  more  than  40 000  waste
water  treatment  plants  are  to  be  constructed  or
renovated  in  order  to  meet  the  new  European  water
pollution  limit  values;

(b)

the  Directive  concerning  the  protection  of  water
against  pollution  from  nitrates  from  agricultural
sources  (the  nitrates  Directive) (3).  This  Directive  ties

(1) Council  Directive  91/271/EEC  of  21  May  1991  concerning
urban  waste  water  treatment,  OJ  L  135,  30.5.1991,  p.  40.
(2) Population  equivalent:  Population  equivalent  is  mainly  a
conversion  value  derived  by  the  comparison  of  trade  waste
water  or  industrial  waste  water  with  domestic  sewage  as
determined  from  the  daily  quantity  of  sewage  water  or
sewage substances. It is based on what is known as the 5-day
biochemical  oxygen  demand  (BOD5).  This  is  measured  by  a
test (5-day BOD) in which the biological oxidation process is
mimicked in the laboratory over a period of 5 days to give a
measure of the amount of the oxygen required to oxidise the
waste  against  a  standard.  This  definition  is  accepted  and
applied  by  the  Commission  in  all  measurements.

(3) Council  Directive  91/676/EEC  of  12  December  1991
concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution  caused
by nitrates from agricultural sources, OJ L 375, 31.12.1991,
p.  1.

in  with  the  objectives  of  the  reform  of  the  common
agricultural  policy  (CAP)  and  with  environment-
related  aspects,  for  which  significant  funds  from  the
EAGGF-Guarantee  budget  are  to  be  spent  in  the
coming years;

(c)

the  Directive  concerning  the  protection  of  the
environment  and  especially  of  the  soil  when  sewage
sludge is used in agriculture (the sludge Directive) (4).
This  Directive  is  directly  linked  to  the  increased
number  of  sewage  stations,  since  treated  sludge  is  a
by-product  of  the  stations.

falls 

costs 

Substantial 

associated  with 

task  which  normally 

4.
the
are 
implementation of these Directives. The UWWT Directive
requires  the  construction  of  many  new  water  treatment
to  public
facilities,  a 
authorities. The capacity of the required facilities depends
not  only  on  the  amount  of  household  waste  but  also  on
the  quantity  of  untreated  industrial  discharges  into  the
‘the  polluter  pays’
sewerage  system.  Application  of 
principle  requires  either  that  industrial  water  pollution  is
eliminated  or  corrected  at  source  by  the 
industry
concerned,  or  at  least  that  the  industry  bears  the  extra
costs  it  imposes  on  the  public  treatment  facilities.  The
conditions  governing
nitrates  Directive  prescribes 
procedures for the use of nitrates on agricultural holdings
and  the  quantities  permitted,  with  the  aim  of  preventing,
in  particular,  the  pollution  of  groundwater  and  surface
water  by  effluent  from  stock  rearing.  The  sludge
Directive  is  similarly  concerned  to  protect  the  soil  from
pollution  resulting  from  the  agricultural  use  of  sewage
sludge.

5.
The  cost  of  implementing  the  UWWT  Directive  for
the  national  budgets  is  very  difficult  to  estimate.  For
France  it  is  estimated  to  reach  – 12 355  Mio  ECU
(80 000 Mio FF) (5) for the sewage stations only, without
considering  the  collection  systems.  For  Greece  it  is
estimated  to  reach  1 000  Mio  ECU,  for  Portugal
1 300 Mio ECU, for Spain (only for Objective 1 regions)
5 500  Mio  ECU  and  for  Ireland  550  Mio  ECU (6).
cost  of
Another 
implementing  the  UWWT  Directive  in  nine  Member
States  could  reach  the  amount  of – 201 120  Mio  ECU  at
May  1995  prices  (see  Table  1).

study (7)  has 

shown 

that 

the 

(4) Council  Directive  86/278/EEC  of  12  June  1986  on  the
protection  of  the  environment,  and  in  particular  of  the  soil,
when  sewage  sludge  is  used  in  agriculture,  OJ  L  181,
4.7.1986,  p.  6.

(5) Source:  Ministry  of  the  Environment  (Water  Department),

Paris  1996.

(6) ‘Environmental  Investment  needs  in  the  Lagging  Regions  —
final  report  to  the  Community’,  July  1991  (ERL-ESPAÑA
SA).

(7) ‘Transposition  of 

the  UWWT  Directive  and  Nitrates
Directives  —  Approaches  in  other  Member  States’,  National
Rivers  Authority  (NRA),  Bristol,  May  1995.

Population  (million  1991)

Requirement

Collection

Rehabilitation

New  treatment

infrastructure

Total  in  Mio  UKL

Total  in  Mio  ECU (1)

B

10

150

180

850

2 420

2 910

TABLE  1

Estimated  cost  of  implementing  the  UWWT  Directive  in  some  Member  States

DK

5,1

—

—

—

ES

F

D

I

38,8

56,8

78,7

57,5
(1989)

—

—

—

—

—

—

40 000 (5) (6)

20 000 (5) (6)

—

—

—

—

IRL

3,5

—

—

250

850 (2)

8 000 (3)

17 600 (4) 120 000 (4) (7)

8 400 (4)

1 200 (3)

P

UK

Total
(Mio  UKL)

Total
(Mio  ECU)

10,5
(1989)

57,6

500

200

—

900

—

—

—

8 300

167 670

1 020

9 600

21 110

143 950

10 070

1 440

1 070

9 950

201 120

(1) Exchange  rate  May  1995  (ECU/UKL).
(2) For  implementing  the  National  Action  Plan.
(3) McCann  et  al  (1994).
(4) Haddon  (1994).
(5) ATV  1994.
(6) These  figures  relate  only  to  the  situation  in  West  Germany.
(7) UKL  80  billion  in  the  west  and  UKL  40  billion  in  the  east.
Source:  NRA  Study  on  the  Cost  of  Implementation  of  the  UWWT,  May  1995.

C
1
9
1
4

/

E
N

O

f
f
i
c
i
a
l

J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

1
8
.
6
.
9
8

 
 
 
 
 
18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/5

mainly  through  the  Structural  Funds  in  Objectives  1,  2
and  5(b)  areas,  to  programmes  and  projects  aimed  at
environmental  objectives.  The  financial  effort  of  the
European  Union  in  favour  of  the  environment  and
especially  of 
is  significant.
the  quality  of  water 
Environmental  expenditure  by  the  Structural  Funds  has
doubled  for  the  new  Community  Support  Framework
(CSF). Expenditure for Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) increased
from  54 500  Mio  ECU  for  the  period  1989-93  to
107 000  Mio  ECU  for  the  period  1994-99  (see  Table 2).
Although  the  data  presented  in  Table  2  concerning
environmental  expenditure  for  the  1994-99  period  does
not 
it
appears  that  the  environmental  expenditure  in  the  CSF
is  evolving
and  the  OP  (operational  programmes) 
proportionally.  Environmental  expenditure  represents
9 %  of  the  European  Union  budget  in  Objective  1
regions,  5,7 %  in  Objective  2  and  11,7 %  in  Objective
5(b),  and  includes  contributions  by  ERDF,  ESF  and
EAGGF  Guidance.  The  share  of  the  water-related
expenditure  (including  water  provision  and  waste  water
treatment  projects) 
total
Structural  Funds  expenditure.  However  it  represents  the
most  important  part  of  total  environmental  expenditure
(– 80 %).

include  1997-98  Objective  2  appropriations, 

is  approximately  7 %  of 

The  nitrates  Directive  is  an  equally  important
6.
directive  in  terms  of  combating  water  pollution  from
agricultural sources. Its aim is that Member States should
reduce  water  pollution  caused  or  induced  by  nitrates
from agricultural sources, and improve farming methods.
Its  implementation  cost  in  France  is  estimated  to  be
– 618  Mio  ECU  (4 000  Mio  FF) (8).

7.
Financing  sewage  stations  has  a  significant  impact
on  the  generation  of  sludge.  Since  sludge  is  processed  in
the  same  plant  as  waste  water,  the  cost  of  implementing
this  Directive  is  partly  covered  by  the  UWWT  Directive.
The  cost  of  implementing  the  sludge  Directive  will
increase as a function of the transposition of the UWWT
Directive.  However,  another  significant  part  of  the  costs
(the  preparation  of  appropriate  landfills)  will  be  added
progressively.  The  Court  found  no  reliable  financial
information  for  this.

8.
As  well  as  taking  the  lead  in  setting  EU  standards
and  monitoring  their  enforcement,  the  Commission
makes  an  important  contribution  to  the  implementation
of  the  EU  policies  through  its  financial  contributions,

(8) Source:  Ministry  of  the  Environment  (Water  Department),

Paris  1996.

TABLE  2

Structural  Funds  Financing  of  Community  Environmental  Policy  and  of  Waste  Water  Treatment  by  Source  and  Objective  (Europe  12  Member  States)

(Amounts  previewed  in  the  CSF)

(Mio  ECU)

Period  1989-1993  (Programme)

Period  1994-1999  (Programme)

Environment (3)

Structural
Funds
Total (1)

(a)

Envir + Water
Total (2)

(b)

%

(b/a)

Structural
Funds
Total (3)

(c)

Envir.
Total (3)

(d)

Water  supply
and  Water
Treat. (3)

%

%

%

ERDF

ESF

EAGGF
Guidance

Total

(e)

(d/c)

(e/c)

(e/d)

1994/1999

1994/1999

1994/1999

1994/1999

44 088,60

4 294,00

9,74

93 809,00

8 327,00

6 970,00

8,88

7,43

83,70

7 755,20

549,90

21,90

8 327,00

7 476,00

1 143,00

15,29

6 975,20 (4)

397,00 (4)

162,00 (4)

5,69

2,32

40,81

363,50

33,10

396,60

720,50

Objective  5(b)

2 977,60

415,00

13,94

6 144,70

721,00

216,20

11,73

3,52

29,99

302,80

108,60

309,10

Total

54 542,20

5 852,00

10,73

106 928,90

9 445,00

7 348,20

8,83

6,87

77,80

8 421,50

691,60

331,00

9 444,10

Sources:
(1) Fifth  annual  report  on  Structural  Funds  COM(95)  30  final.
(2) Proposal  amending  Regulation  1973/92  (LIFE)  COM(95)  135  final  (includes  water  supply  and  water  treatment  projects).
(3) 7th  annual  report  on  the  Structural  Funds  COM  (96)  502  final.
(4) Covers  two  years  only  (1994-1996).

Objective  1

Objective  2

C
1
9
1
6

/

E
N

O

f
f
i
c
i
a
l

J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

1
8
.
6
.
9
8

 
 
 
 
 
18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/7

The audit enquiry which is the subject of this report

9.
accordingly  addressed  two  main  issues:

legislation  into  line  with  the  quality  standards  required
by  the  Directives.

a)

the  extent  of  action  by  the  Commission  and  the
Member  States  to  implement  the  three  Directives,
and

b) whether  or  not  the  water  treatment,  etc,  facilities
constructed  with  financial  contributions  from  the  EU
are  contributing  to  the  achievement  of  the  EU’s
policies  as  established  in  the  Directives.

(Sachsen),  Greece 

10.
The  audit  of  projects  was  carried  out  in  various
regions  of  seven  Member  States  of  the  European  Union.
Germany 
and
Macedonia),  Spain 
(Andalucia,  Asturias,  Canarias,
Cantabria,  Castilla  la  Mancha  and  Galicia),  France
(Brittany  and  Corsica),  Ireland  (Dublin  and  Kerry),  Italy
(Basilicata and Puglia) and Portugal (Alentejo, Centre and
Madeira)  were  visited.

(Attica,  Crete 

CHAPTER  I

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  DIRECTIVES

13.
In  the  1996  edition  of  its  annual  publication
concerning  its  monitoring  of  the  implementation  of
Community  law (10),  the  Commission  drew  attention
to  numerous 
instances  of  non-conformity  with,
non-application or incorrect application of the directives.
In  these  cases  the  Commission  is  required  by  Article  169
of  the  EC  Treaty  to  institute  the  procedure  for  failure
to  fulfil  an  obligation.  The  action  provided  for  under
instituted  against  Portugal
this  procedure  has  been 
(non-conformity)  and  against 
five  Member  States
(Germany,  Greece,  Spain,  Italy  and  the  United  Kingdom)
for not notifying national measures transposing the urban
waste  water  Directive.  In  this  context  the  Commission
has  taken  the  matter  to  the  EC  Court  of  Justice  in  the
case  of  three  of  these  six  (Germany,  Greece  and  Italy).

instituted 

Similar  proceedings  were  also 

14.
in
connection  with  the  nitrates  Directive,  against  France,
for  incorrect  application  of  the  Directive,  and  against
Italy,
six  Member  States  (Belgium,  Greece,  Spain, 
Netherlands  and  Portugal)  for  non-conformity;  reasoned
opinions  were  also  sent  to  these  Member  States.  It  is
possible  that  the  procedure  for  non-notification  of
national  transposing  measures  will  also  be  instituted
against  two  Member  States  (Austria  and  Finland).
Finally,  this  same  procedure  was  invoked  against  France
in  connection  with 
sludge  Directive
(86/278/EEC)  and  a  reasoned  opinion  was  sent.

sewage 

the 

11.
The major objectives and requirements of the three
Directives are summarised in Tables  1,  2,  3  and  4  of  the
attached  Technical  Annex.  Effective  implementation  of
the  Directives  requires  their  transposition  into  national
law,  the  establishment  of  plans  or  programmes  for  the
achievement  of  objectives  (covering  both  requirements
concerning  the  behaviour  of  economic  operators  and  the
construction  of  facilities  to  improve  water  treatment  and
quality)  and  the  provision  of  information  about  progress
towards  the  achievement  of  the  objectives.

15.
Delays  in  transposing  these  Directives  have  led  to
delays  in  Member  States’  preparation  of  a  number  of
reports  required  by  the  Directives.  The  reports 
in
question  are  subsequently  used  as  the  basis  for  the
assessments  which  the  Commission  is  required  to  carry
out  in  order  to  ascertain  the  extent  of  water  pollution
and/or  the  progress  achieved  towards  applying  the
directives  correctly,  so  that  the  Commission  and  the
Member  States  can  review  their  management  and
financial  policies  on  water  quality  as  necessary.

Transposition  of  the  Directives  into  national  law

Reporting  by  the  Member  States

12.
There were problems with the transposition of the
urban  waste  water,  nitrates  and  sludge  Directives  in
the  Member  States.  The  Court  noted
almost  all 
substantial  delays:  up  to  three  years  for  the  urban  waste
water and sludge Directives and four years in the case of
the  nitrates  Directive.  As  of  end-1996  some  Member
States  had  still  not  transposed  them (9).  Others  had
conformity  problems  and  problems  in  bringing  regional

16.
Table  5  of  the  Technical  Annex  shows  the
reporting requirements imposed by the Council Directives
for  all  Member  States,  for  water  pollution  alone.  A
Commission  study (11)  has  pointed  out  that  problems
could  arise  with  the  reporting  frequencies  and  the
monitoring  methods  used.  For  the  UWWT  Directive  the
Court  found  that  the  Commission  had  not  received  the

(9) Directive  91/271/EEC  (UWWT  Directive)  has  not  been
transposed  by  Germany,  Greece  and 
Italy;  Directive
91/676/EEC (nitrates) not transposed by Austria and Finland.
It  was  not  correctly  transposed  by  Belgium,  Greece,  Spain,
Italy,  Netherlands,  Portugal  and  not  correctly  applied  in
France.

(10) Fourteenth  annual  report  on  monitoring  the  application  of

Community  law,  OJ  C  332,  3.11.1997,  pp.  184  and  185.

(11) ‘Final  Report  to  the  Commission  on  the  comparability  of
quantitative  data  on  waste  water  collection  and  treatment’,
European  Water  Pollution  Control  Association,  April  1995,
Contract  No 
the
Commission.

B4/3040/93/000924/JS/B1  with 

C 191/8

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

18.6.98

implementation  programme  described  in  Article  17  from
all  Member  States.  According  to  the  Community  water
regulations (12),  moreover,  some  of  the  data  should
nevertheless 
the  Commission
systematically.

forwarded 

be 

to 

17.
The Court found that some Member States do not
provide  reports  on  the  implementation  of  the  directives
that  were  under  review.  This  applied  particularly  to  the
information  on  the  programmes  for  implementation  of
Directive 91/271/EEC, which  Member States  must report
to  the  Commission  in  accordance  with  Article  17  of  the
same  Directive  and  which  seven  Member  States  had  still
not forwarded to the Commission as of September 1996.
It  also  applied 
for  by
Article  13  (2),  in  relation  to  industrial  discharges,  and
Article  16,  which  requires  Member  States  to  report  on
the  disposal  of  urban  waste  water  and  sludge  in  their
areas.  In  consequence  the  Commission  has  carried  out
neither the assessments provided for in Article 17 (5), nor
the  comparisons  provided  for  in  Article  13  (3).

the  reports  provided 

to 

their 

forwarded 

reports  on 

18.
Concerning  the  reporting  requirements  of  the
‘sludge  Directive’,  the  Court  noted  that  some  Member
States  had  not 
the
implementation  of  the  Directive  to  the  Commission  by
September  1996.  Initially  they  were  required  every  four
years  and  since  1991  have  been  required  every  three
years.  The  reports  already  received  are 
incomplete,
particularly  those  relating  to  period  I  (1987-90).  For  the
second  period  (1991-94),  only  five  Member  States  have
sent  summary  reports  in  compliance  with  the  reporting
Directive  91/692/EEC.  In  both  cases  the  reports  were
written and sent to the Commission only after significant
delays.

to 

late 

The 

the  reports 

forwarding  of 

19.
the
Commission  has  meant  that  the  Commission  has  only
published  one  report,  on  27  February  1997,  and  has  not
submitted appropriate proposals to the Member States, as
provided  for  in  the  UWWT  Directive.  Consequently  the
Member  States  are  unable  to  take  advantage  of  this
essential  information  for  their  policy  development  in  this
field.

20.
The  framework  regulation  for  the  Structural
Funds  (Regulation  (EEC)  No  2052/88,  as  amended  by
Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 of 20 July 1993) stipulates
that  the  regional  development  plans  for  Objectives  1,  2
and 5 (b) regions must include an appraisal of the current
environmental  situation  and  the  development  priorities,
as  well  as  the  specific  objectives,  quantified  wherever
possible.  Article  8  also  stipulates  that  the  Community
support  frameworks  (CSFs)  for  these  regions  must

contain  quantified  development  objectives  and  cover  the
progress to be achieved in relation to the situation at the
outset.

Furthermore,  the  Regulation  coordinating  the
21.
various  Structural  Funds,  as  amended  by  Regulation
(EEC)  No  2082/93  of  20  July  1993,  and  the  standard
clauses  on  CSF  implementation  and  the  tasks  of  the  CSF
monitoring  committees  both  provide  for  indicators  to  be
used  as  a  means  of  monitoring  and  continuously
assessing  the  CSFs.  On  this  basis  the  Commission,  in
agreement with the Member States, identified a whole list
of  indicators  and  established  a  database  for  monitoring
the  13  main  expenditure  categories  financed  by  the
Structural  Funds  (transport,  energy,  water,  environment,
telecommunications,  etc).

The  Court  found  that  the  database  covered  the
22.
period  1986-91,  but  for  Objective  1  regions  only.  The
data  on  the  environmental  indicators,  and  the  treatment
of  waste  water 
in  most  cases,
in  particular,  are, 
non-existent  and  when  they  are  available,  they  do  not
cover  all  regions  and  all  Member  States.

and  Green 

its  document 

indicators 
the  Commission  has  accepted 

‘Directions  for  the  EU  on
23.
In 
national
environmental 
accounting’ (13) 
that
economic indicators should be developed in parallel with
environmental  ones.  In  the  field  of  waste  water  and  in
relation  to  the  UWWT  Directive,  the  Commission  has
indicators  and  population
established  only  quality 
equivalent  (PE)/quality  indicators.  However  the  Directive
assumes  that  economic  and  environmental  indicators
already  exist.  A  similar  conclusion  may  be  drawn  by  an
examination of Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on
the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects  on  the  environment,  as  amended  by  Directive
97/11/EC (14).

Progress  against  the  specified  timescales

Urban  waste  water  treatment  Directive

The objectives of Directive 91/271/EEC (Article 4)
24.
include provision that ‘agglomerations’ with a p.e. of less

(13) Communication  of  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the
the  EU  on
European  Parliament  —  Directions 
Environmental  Indicators  and  Green  National  Accounting.
The 
and  Economic
of  Environmental 
Information  Systems  (COM(94)  670  FINAL).

integration 

for 

(12) Article  17  of  Directive  91/271/EEC  concerning  urban  waste
water  treatment  and  Commission  Decision  92/446/EEC
concerning  questionnaires  relating  to  directives  in  the  water
sector,  as  amended  by  Decision  95/337/EEC.

(14) Council  Directive  97/11/EC  of  3  March  1997,  which  enters
into  operation  in  1999,  amending  Directive  85/337/EEC  on
the  assessment  of  the  effects  of  certain  public  and  private
projects  on 
the  environment,  OJ  L  73,  14.3.1997,
pp.  5-15.

18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/9

than  15 000  must  be  provided  with  treatment  plants  by
the end of 2005; in the case of agglomerations with a p.e.
of more than 15 000 the date is the end of 2000; in most
cases  the  plants  must  provide  secondary  or  tertiary
treatment.  In  the  case  of  sensitive  areas  the  target  date
was  1998  (see  Table  1  of  the  Technical  annex).  Most  of
the  Member  States  visited  were  finding  it  difficult  to
achieve  these  objectives  within  the  specified  time  frame.

There  are  currently  more  than  40 000  sewage
25.
plants  in  operation  in  the  Member  States  (see  Table  6  of
the  Technical  annex).  Although  the  statistics  that  are
available 
in  this  area  are  not  homogeneous  and,
therefore,  difficult  to  use,  the  Court  has  estimated  that
almost  30 %  of  the  plants  built  before  1992  ought  to  be
upgraded.  In  the  case  of  Belgium  and  Italy  almost  half
the  existing  plants  are  likewise  in  need  of  upgrading (15).
In  the  case  of  Member  States  that  have  not  yet  defined
sensitive  areas  (where  plants  must  be  of  the  tertiary
treatment  type)  the  figures  for  such  plants  should
probably  be  higher.

According to the available data (see Table 7 of the
26.
Technical annex), the percentage of the population served
by  sewage  plants  in  1990  was,  on  average,  69 %
(Eurostat  data),  ranging  from  10 %  (Greece)  to  98 %
(Denmark). Taking into account the information given in
the  preceding  paragraph  and  the  fact  that  many  small
municipalities  do  not  yet  have  sewage  plants,  it  can  be
estimated that around 40 000 plants will need to be built
or  renewed  by  the  end  of  2005.

27.
In  addition  there  are  a  large  number  of  projects
for  the  construction  of  sewerage  systems.  As  can  be  seen
in  Table  8  of  the  Technical  annex,  the  average  level  of
connection  to  sewage  systems  in  the  Member  States  in
1994  was  around  76 %.  Even  though  the  Directive  does
not  specify  time  limits  for  connection  to  such  systems,  it
is obvious that the connections must be completed before
the  end  of  2005  if  plants  are  to  comply  with  the
Directive.  The  works  involved  in  providing  connections
and  collection  systems  are  sometimes  difficult  and  are
also  subject  to  delay,  since  most  of  the  work  takes  place
in  urban  areas.

28.
In  all  the  Member  States  where  the  Court  carried
out  audits  the  authorities  confirmed  the  possibility  of
their  being  unable  to  fulfil  their  statutory  obligation  (to
construct  sewage  plants)  within  the  specified  time  frame,
especially in the case of the ‘small’ agglomerations which
are  also  confronted  with  the  problem  of  financing  the
investment.  If  the  construction  work  is  speeded  up  in
order  to  meet  these  deadlines  there  is  a  risk  that  the
quality  of  the  work  may  suffer.  In  the  Court’s  opinion
the  Commission  should  have  given  this  matter  closer
consideration,  long  before  the  implementation  deadlines
specified  in  the  Directive.

(15) Transposition  of  the  UWWT  and  nitrates  Directives,  NRA,

1995.

Nitrates Directive

29.
The  main  objective  of  this  Directive  is  to  reduce
the  water  pollution  caused  by  nitrates  from  agricultural
sources.  Table  3  of  the  Technical  Annex  shows  the  main
implementation  requirements  to  be  met  by  the  Member
States.  The  definition  of  a  code  of  good  agricultural
practice  and  the  introduction  of  training  and  advisory
programmes  for  farmers  form  part  of  this  effort.  The
concepts  of  vulnerable  areas  (nitrates  Directive)  and
sensitive  areas  (urban  waste-water  Directive)  are  closely
related  and  demonstrate  the  importance  of  coordination
between  departments  at  the  Commission  and  in  the
Member  States.

Studies  financed  by  the  Commission (16)  indicate
30.
that there are serious problems with water pollution from
nitrates  in  some  Member  States,  for  example,  Belgium,
Denmark, some regions of Germany, France, Netherlands
and  United  Kingdom.  Brittany  (France)  was  selected
primarily  because  it  receives  Community  aid  under  the
three  Structural  Funds,  but  also  because  it  is  an  area  in
which  the  problem  of  water  pollution  is  particularly
acute.  A  review  of  the  action  taken  in  the  region
confirmed  that  much  remains  to  be  done.

31.
The  population  of  the  region  is  exposed  to  nitrate
concentrations  considerably  higher  than  the  50  mg/litre
limit  imposed  by  the  nitrates  Directive  and  the  drinking
water  Directive,  Directive  80/778/EEC (17).  In  1990,
however,  this  Member  State  launched  the  Bretagne  eau
pure [‘Brittany pure water’] programme with a budget of
500  Mio  FF  and  the  objective  of  stabilising  the  quantity
of nitrates in the water and thereby improving its quality.
Several  million  pigs  are,  however,  reared  in  the  region
and  there  is  no  effective  infrastructure  for  treating  or
otherwise  dealing  with  the  manure.

from 

the  soil,  but 

32.
It  must  be  pointed  out  that  Community  policies
are  inconsistent.  Nitrogen-fixing  crops  (certain  grasses,
clover,  lucerne,  legumes,  etc)  could  be  beneficial  in
resorbing  excess  nitrogen 
the
Community  aid  for  maize  silage  is  significantly  higher
than  that  for  the  former  crops  and  they  are  ignored  by
producers  in  consequence.  For  example,  55  Mio  ECU
was  paid  to  Breton  farmers  under  the  1996  budget,  as
subsidies  for  the  cultivation  of  maize  for  silage (18).
Furthermore,  Commission  subsidies  are  not  available  for
rewooding  in  Objective  2  areas,  even  though  this  can  be
a  very  important  factor  in  preventing  and  eliminating

(16) Europe’s  Environment,  The  Dobris  Assessment,  European

Environment  Agency  (Copenhagen),  1995.

(17) Council  Directive  80/778/EEC  of  15  July  1980  relating  to
the  quality  of  water  intended  for  human  consumption,  OJ
L  229,  30.8.1980,  p.  11.

(18) Source:  Table  of  information  at  15  January  1996  pursuant
to  Commission  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1664/93  of  29  June
1993.  Regulation  published  in  OJ  L  158,  30.6.1993,  p.  19.

C 191/10

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

18.6.98

nitrate  pollution  in  water  and  is  particularly  relevant  in
Côtes d’Armor, where the problems associated with these
substances  are  most  acute.

contrary  to  the  objectives  which  the  Commission  hoped
to  achieve  with  regard  to  water  quality.

33. One  of  the  cooperatives  visited  by  the  Court  was
an  association  of  1 500  farmers  who  raise  almost  3
million  pigs  per  year.  Of  these  farmers  only  two  had
sewage  treatment  plants.  The  same  cooperative  was  due
to receive a subsidy of 72 000 ECU (504 600 FF) through
the  ERDF  under  Objective  2  for  the  construction  of  a
pilot  treatment  plant,  but  the  project  had  to  be
abandoned  for  technical  and  bacteriological  reasons
before  it  was  finished.  The  ERDF  aid  was  accordingly
reduced  pro  rata  to  the  eligible  expenditure,  to  62 784
ECU  (440 011  FF).

34.
The  French  action  programme  for  vulnerable
zones is still in preparation. It should have been ready by
31  December  1995.  A  programme  for  controlling
pollution of agricultural origin (PMPOA) has been put in
place  and  a  map  of  the  cantons  that  are  ‘in  structural
surplus’  (more  than  170  kg/ha  of  organic  discharge)  has
been  drawn  up.  It  must  be  emphasised,  however,  that
these statistics only take account of current discharges of
organic  waste  in  general,  and  nitrates  in  particular,
without  considering  the  hydrological  sensitivity  of  the
areas  in  question  and  without  any  study  of  the  subject
beforehand.

35.
In Brittany the ERDF aid sometimes took the form
of  funding  for  experimental  agro-industry  projects,  but,
in  the  nature  of  experimental  projects,  some  of  them
ended  in  total  or  partial  failure.  It  would  be  better  if  the
Commission  funding  for  this  type  of  project  could  be
combined  with  measures  to  promote  the  exchange  of
experience.  The  Commission  should  collaborate  with
Member  States  to  publicise  the  results  of  experiments
more  widely,  not  only  at  regional  and  provincial  level,
but  at  national  level  as  well.

36.
In  the  case  of  the  French  Objective  2  OPs  in
particular,  the  Commission  systematically  excluded  any
urban  water-treatment  project  and  any  investment  of  an
agricultural  nature,  and  also  criticised  the  Member  State
for putting forward too many experimental projects. The
draft  single  programming  document  (DOCUP)  Objective
2  (period  1994-96)  that  was  submitted  by  the  Brittany
region  initially  concentrated  on  two  aspects  and  seven
measures.  After 
it
comprised  27  measures  spread  over  five  aspects.  Under
these  circumstances  the  projects  that  received  funding
were  very  small  and  their  expected  impact  in  terms  of
environmental  improvement  was  extremely  slight.

the  Commission’s  amendments 

37.
The  dispersal  of  ERDF  funds  over  measures  of
varying  types,  combined  with  the  low  volume  of  the
environmental  projects  financed  by  the  ERDF  within  the
region  and  the  lack  of  a  proper  policy  for  publishing  the
is
results  of  the  pilot  experiments  already  funded, 

Sludge Directive

38.
The  implementation  of  the  sludge  Directive  is
closely  linked  to  the  implementation  of  the  UWWT
Directive,  since  the  increase  in  the  number  of  sewage
plants  will  result  in  an  increase  in  the  sludge  produced.
Table  4  of  the  Technical  Annex  sets  out  the  major
implementing  requirements  to  be  met  by  the  Member
States.  According  to  a  Commission  survey  in  1994 (19),
6,5  Mio  tonnes  of  sludge  are  produced  each  year  in  the
EU.  Around  40 %  of  the  sludge  produced  in  the  EU
comes  from  1,3 %  of  the  sewage  plants,  from  the  urban
centres having more than 100 000 p.e. (see Table 9 of the
Technical  Annex).  It  is  therefore  necessary  for  sewage
plants  in  large  urban  centres  to  be  improved  technically
so  that  they  can  produce  treated  sludge  for  organic
fertiliser that is compatible with the terms defined by the
Directive.

39.
Depending  on  the  quality  of  the  sludge  produced
by the sewage plant, it is either stored in selected landfills
(40 %),  used  in  agriculture  (37 %)  or  incinerated  (11 %).
A  part  of  it  is  dumped  at  sea  (6 %),  which  will  be
prohibited after 1998 (20). Production is expected to reach
10,1 million tonnes/per year (15,5 % increase) in the year
2005  due  to  the  application  of  the  UWWT  Directive.

40.
In  many  of  the  Member  States  the  use  of  treated
sludge  in  agriculture  presents  problems  concerning  its
quantity  or  its  quality,  as  defined  by  the  Regulations.  In
Brittany  (France)  sludge  is  used  in  addition  to  chemical
fertilisers,  which  is  contrary  to  the  objective  of  the
Directive  in  terms  of  pollution  limits.  In  Corsica  sludge,
treated  and  untreated,  is  widespread  in  sites  designated
for public waste disposal. Failure to implement efficiently
the Envireg measure on the elimination of solid waste —
for which only 25 % of the appropriations allocated were
used  —  has  resulted  in  the  deterioration  of  the  solid
waste situation on the island. This was also the case with
a project in Portugal, where sludge was disposed of in the
open,  further  increasing  pollution.

41.
At the water treatment plant of Alviela in Portugal
the  untreated  sludge  was  being  disposed  of  close  to  the
centre  of  an  olive  grove.  The  treatment  plant  received  its
waste  water  from  a  large  industrial  complex  where  there
were  tanneries  and  the  water  contained  large  quantities
of  mercury.

42.
In  Ireland  only  15 %  of  the  total  sludge  produced
was  treated  (32 000  tonnes  in  1993).  About  50 %  of  the

(19) ‘EWPCA:  Final  Report  to  the  Commission  (DG  XI)  on  the
Comparability  of  Quantitative  Data  on  Waste  Water
Collection  and  Treatment’,  April  1995.

(20) Article  14  (3)  of  Directive  91/271/EEC  (UWWT  Directive).

18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/11

untreated  sludge  was  dumped  at  sea,  aggravating  the
problems  of  coastal  and  marine  pollution.  In  Galicia
(Spain)  and  Corsica  (France)  sludge  was  also  put  in
unsupervised  and  ill-prepared  sites,  with  attendant  risks
to  groundwater.

farmers  who  participate 

43.
The issue of the use of sludge in agriculture is still
controversial.  In  some  regions  in  the  Member  States,  for
example  Saxony,  its  use  in  agriculture  is  forbidden  for
those 
‘ecological
agriculture  programme’,  and  it  is  exported  to  other
regions. In other cases where farmers are permitted to use
sludge as a fertiliser, they are obliged to mention the fact
when  selling  their  produce.  That  provokes  a  negative
effect in the market and farmers are more reluctant to use
treated  sludge  for  fertiliser,  even  if  it  is  offered  free  of
charge.

the 

in 

44.
As with the nitrates Directive, the Commission has
been  able  to  complete  some  studies  on  this  subject,  but
they  have  not  been  adequately  publicised  or  exploited,
neither  at  the  Commission  nor  in  the  Member  States.  It
has  thus  not  been  possible  to  demonstrate  what  the
effects  might  be  if  farmers  were  to  use  sewage  sludge  as
fertiliser.

CHAPTER  II

EU  EXPENDITURE  ON  THE  IMPROVEMENT  OF  WATER
QUALITY

Budgetary implementation

45.
budget 

The  major  part  of  the  contributions  from  the  EU
infrastructure

in  the  form  of  environmental 

largest  part  are 

projects  are  those  of  the  Structural  Funds,  within  which
the 
the  contributions  by  ERDF
(8 421  Mio  ECU).  Funds  are  also  available  from  the
Cohesion  Fund  (3 791  Mio  ECU)  and  the  EAGGF
Guidance  appropriations  (331  Mio  ECU).  In  addition,
the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF)  provides  assistance  for
education  and 
training  on  environmental  aspects
(692  Mio  ECU) (21).  Some  assistance  is  also  provided  by
the  financial  instrument  for  the  environment  (LIFE)  for
innovatory  projects  (292  Mio  ECU).

46.
Exact  data  on  the  projects  and  expenditure
involved  in  waste  water  treatment  are  generally  not
available, because Structural Funds contributions to these
infrastructure  projects  are  not  identified  in  the  various
OPs.  Consequently  the  figures  provided  in  Table  2  are
global estimates at Community support framework (CSF)
level.  The  Court  could  find  almost  no  financial  data  on
environmental  expenditure,  especially  in  the  field  of
waste  water, 
the
Commission,  where  the  first  results  of  the  reform  of  the
Structural  Funds  are  examined (22).  The  Seventh  Report
on  the  implementation  of  the  Structural  Funds  contains
some  information,  although  it  is  neither  systematic  nor
specific  regarding  waste  water  treatment,  despite  the
importance  of  the  policy  and  of  the  financial  amounts
involved.

fifth  Annual  Report  of 

the 

in 

Cohesion  Fund  environment-related  expenditure
47.
(see  Table  3) 
from  1993-96  was  approximately
1 847  Mio  ECU,  representing  48,7 %  of  the  Fund’s
resources.  Commitments  for  water  treatment  projects  for
the  same  period  were  1 502  Mio  ECU,  being  39,6 %  of
the  Fund’s  commitments  for  environmental  purposes  or
18,8 %  of  the  Fund’s  total  available  resources.

(21) All  figures  provided  cover  the  period  from  1994-99,  except
for  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  LIFE  which  cover  1993-96  and
1994-96  years  respectively  (see  Tables  2  and  3).

(22) COM(95)  30  final,  Brussels,  20  March  1995.

C 191/12

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

18.6.98

TABLE  3

Cohesion  financial  instrument  and  cohesion  fund  expenditure  in  the  field  of  environment  and  waste  water
treatment  (years  1993-1996)

Environment

Waste  water  treatment

Commitments

Payments

Commitments

(ECU)

Total

(1)

Total

(2)

2 009 173 906,00

910 170 219,00

837 365 911,00

444 877 731,00

322 819 330,00

184 078 834,00

621 608 384,00

307 238 522,00

Spain

Greece

Ireland

Portugal

Total  environment

3 790 967 531,00

1 846 365 306,00

Total  transport

4 217 142 548,00

3 369 476 453,00

Total  (CFI  and  CF)

8 008 110 079,00

5 215 841 759,00

Source:  Cohesion  Fund  Annual  Report  years  1993/94/95/96.

%

(2:1)

45,30

53,13

57,02

49,43

48,70

79,90

65,13

Total

(3)

644 425 000,00

426 339 460,00

179 700 000,00

252 400 000,00

1 502 864 460,00

%

(3:1)

32,07

50,91

55,67

40,60

39,64

1 502 864 460,00

18,77

the  problem  of  water  pollution  in  the  rural  environment
and  two  others  concerned  with  separate  treatment  of
stormwater  and  treatment  of  waste.  These  measures
covered  1 158  and  4 782  beneficiaries  respectively.  This
example illustrates how the Commission opted to finance
a  large  number  of  small  projects  —  a  choice  which
increased  the  problems  of  monitoring  funded  projects
effectively.

Budget  line  B4—3040  (Fifth  environmental  action
51.
programme)  is  designed  to  finance  a  wide  range  of
activities  such  as  study  contracts,  financial  contributions,
subsidies,  technical  assistance,  publications,  conferences,
etc.  All  aim  to  facilitate  the  implementation  of  the
objectives  of  the  Fifth  action  programme.  Table  4  shows
that  water-related  expenditure  (including  waste  water
treatment  and  water  provision)  represented  9  and  9,5 %
of  the  total  commitments  and  payments  appropriations
respectively  for  the  three  years  1994,  1995  and  1996.
Furthermore,  only  40 %  of  the  commitments  concerning
water  projects  were  actually  used.

Initiative 

The  Community 

48.
(CI)  Envireg  was
allocated 500 Mio ECU (1990 prices) for the period from
1989  to  1993,  to  finance  environmental  projects  in  the
less-developed  EU  regions.  Approximately  70 %  of  its
resources  were  allocated  for  waste  water  treatment
systems  (WWTS) (23).  The  end  of  1995  was  the  formal
payments  deadline  for  the  Envireg  Initiative.

49.
EAGGF-Guidance  contributions  in  the  field  of
water  treatment  are  mainly  found  in  the  framework  of
the  OP’s  Objective  1  and  Objective  5(b)  and  Envireg.

As  in  the  case  of  ERDF  projects,  the  number  of
50.
projects  relating  to  rural  waste  water  treatment  is  rarely
known  at  the  level  of  the  Commission.  A  study  of  the
agricultural development OP in Northern Ireland showed
that  among  the  four  sub-programmes  one  included  one
measure  (for  a  total  cost  of  25,1  Mio  ECU,  including  6
Mio ECU financed by EAGGF Guidance) concerned with

(23) ‘Comparative  analysis  of  the  Envireg  Programme  (Final
Report)’,  ECOTEC  Research  and  Consulting,  April  1993.

18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/13

Commitments  and  payments  1994-1996  (actions  financed  under  the  fifth  action  programme)

TABLE  4

Budget  Item  (B4—3040) (1)

Commitments

Payments

Total

Total  Line  (1)

Water  Projects  (2)

%  (2:1)

(a)

(b)

42 646 813,11

15 619 955,88

3 759 899,13

1 478 532,28

8,82

9,47

(ECU)

%

(b:a)

36,63

39,32

(1) This  line  includes  expenditure  covering  aspects  of  Study  Contracts,  Financial  Contributions,  Subsidies,  Technical

Assistance,  Publications,  Lectures,  Meetings  and  others,  for  both  aspects;  Water  Supply  and  Water  Protection.

Source:  Data  DG  XI  at  the  date:  20/11/96.

Data deficiencies

etc).  The  ex  post  facto  assessments  of  the  1989-93  CSF
did  not  include  a  specific  assessment  in  the  area  of
sewage  treatment.

exist  between 

Considerable  differences 

the
52.
terminology  used  by  the  Commission  and  that  used  by
other  organisations 
the
Directives and Regulations. Use of a uniform terminology
is  essential,  not  only  for  scientific  purposes,  but  also  for
the  preparation  of  inventories  of  water  pollution  which
are  required  by  almost  all  important  Directives.

for  certain  definitions 

in 

in 

the  case  of 

53. Moreover,  the  lack  of  precise  data  is  particularly
the  European  Regional
significant 
Development  Fund  (ERDF),  where  the  Commission  (DG
XVI) has no detailed information about the amount of its
contributions  to  the  improvement  of  the  treatment  of
urban  waste  water  in  the  first  Community  support
framework  (CSF  1989-93).

Lack  of  specialised  data

those  earmarked 

The  environmental  protection  data 

54.
that  are
available  refer  only  to  the  amounts  provided  under  the
Structural  Funds  overall,  with  no  breakdown  by  type  of
Fund  or  eligible  region.  The  amounts  provided  in  the
Objective  1  CSFs  are 
the
‘environment’  specific  aspect  and  do  not  take  account  of
other  amounts  allocated  to  other  aspects  that  may  also
contain  environmental  protection  measures.  It  is  difficult
to  determine  the  amounts  provided  in  the  Objectives  2
and  5  (b)  CSFs,  because  they  are  spread  over  several
aspects.  There  are  no  data 
for  current  measures
(Integrated  Mediterranean  Programmes  (IMPs),  national
programmes of Community interest, non-quota measures,

for 

55.
Under  the  new  1994-99  CSF  the  situation  with
regard  to  sewage  treatment  is  similar  to  that  of  the
previous  CSF.  There  are  still  no  data  for  the  Objective  1
regions  of  Belgium,  Netherlands  or  Portugal;  for  the
Objective 2 regions in Belgium, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg,
Netherlands  or  United  Kingdom;  and  none  for  any  part
of  Objective  5  (b).  The  available  data  are  not  broken
down  by  eligible  region,  except  in  the  case  of  Italy  and
France  (Objective  2),  and  there  is  no  distinction  between
treatment  and  drainage  measures  (waste  water,  coastal
waters) and distribution measures (irrigation, systems) for
Spain  and  Italy  (Objective  1).  Not  until  the  new
programme  (1994-99)  was 
in  preparation  did  the
Commission  carry  out  a  series  of  studies  in  order  to
determine  both  the  need  for  investment  in  sewage
infrastructure  and 
three
the  cost  of 
environmental 
Directive
91/271/EEC (24).  These  studies  were  hampered  by  a  lack
of  national  statistics,  however,  and  the  Commission  had
difficulty 
they
produced,  because  they  were  disparate  and  incomplete.

forecasts  which 

implementing 

interpreting 

directives, 

including 

the 

in 

56.
Data  harmonisation  should  be  one  of  the  major
preoccupations  of  the  Commission  services,  especially
when  this  information  is  to  be  used  to  demonstrate
progress and/or the need for further investment. Different
sources  of  data  show  different  percentages  of  population
served  by  sewage  or  collecting  systems  (see  Tables  7  and
8  of  the  Technical  Annex).

(24) ‘Environmental  investment  needs  in  Objective  1  regions’,

ECOTEC,  July  1993.

C 191/14

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

18.6.98

CHAPTER  III

was  of  the  primary  treatment  type,  whereas  under
the  Directive  it  should  be  of  the  secondary  type;

AUDIT  OF  PROJECT  IMPLEMENTATION

(c)

the  discharge  from  the  Mola  di  Bari  (Italy)  sewage
plant  did  not  meet  the  standards  laid  down  by  the
Directive.

Conformity  with  the  UWWT  Directive

The  Community  contribution  for  these  projects  amounts
to  12,7  Mio  ECU.

Article  7  of  Council  Regulation 

57.
(EEC)  No
2081/93,  concerning  the  Structural  Funds,  and  Article  8
of  the  Cohesion  Fund  Regulation (25)  state  that  the  grant
of  Community  aid  is  conditional  on  compliance  with  all
is
the  Community  rules  on  the  environment.  This 
emphasised  in  the  water-treatment  projects:  the  decisions
to  grant  Cohesion  Fund  aid  often  refer  to  Directive
91/271/EEC.  There  are  similar  references  in  connection
with  various  measures  and  sub-programmes  that  are
being  cofinanced  as  part  of  ERDF  funding  for  the
1994-99  programming  period.  A  clause  of  this  type  is
important  for  compliance  with  Community  law  on  the
environment,  but  is  pointless  if  the  following  conditions
are  not  satisfied:

— the  clause  must  be  coercive;

— the Commission must have the means of carrying out
level  of  cofinanced

the 

compliance  checks  at 
projects.

The  obligation  on  Member  States  to  comply  with
58.
the  terms  of  the  Directive  derives  from  Article  19  1,
which  specifies  30  June  1993  as  the  final  date  for
compliance  with  the  Directive.  The  provision  in  question
applies  to  Member  States,  whether  they  have  transposed
the  Directive  or  not.  Projects  cofinanced  initially  by  the
Financial  Instrument  and  subsequently  by  the  Cohesion
Fund must comply with Directive 91/271/EEC, since both
it  and  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  792/93  on  the
Financial  Instrument  entered  into  force  during  1993.

59.
As regards the Envireg CI, which was approved in
May  1990,  it  was  agreed  in  the  framework  of  the
negotiations  between  the  Commission  and  the  Member
States that, as far as possible, projects involving treatment
plants  would  comply  with  the  terms  of  Directive
91/271/EEC.  The  following  projects  did  not,  however,
comply:

(a)

(b)

the  project  concerning  the  underwater  outfall  at  La
Coruña (Spain) provided only pre-treatment, whereas
the  Directive  requires  secondary  treatment;

the  sewage  plant  at  Funchal  in  Madeira  (Portugal)
was too small (it could only treat between 60 % and
70 %  of  the  volume  of  sewage  from  the  town)  and

(25) Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1164/94  of  16  May  1994

establishing  a  Cohesion  Fund,  OJ  L  130,  25.5.1994.

60.
There  was  a  similar  type  of  problem  with  other
projects  financed  by  ERDF  under  the  old  1989-93  CSF.
The  projects  in  question  started  in  1990  and  were
finalised  after  the  date  on  which  the  Directive  entered
into  force,  but  did  not  necessarily  comply  with  it.

This  applied 

61.
particular:

to 

the 

following  projects 

in

(a)

(b)

(c)

the  Arteixo 
integrated  drainage  project  (Spain),
which  provided  only  pre-treatment,  whereas  the
secondary  type  is  required;

the  collector  and  underwater  outfall  at  Nigran
(Spain),  where  untreated  effluent  was  discharged
direct  to  the  aquatic  environment,  contrary  to  the
provisions  of  Article  4  of  Directive  91/271/EEC;

the treatment plant for the Biguglia lagoons (France)
did  not  meet  the  quality  standards  provided  for  in
Annex  I  of  the  Directive.  Further  investment  of  the
order  of  22  Mio  FF  should  be  envisaged  for  this
project,  in  order  to  bring  it  up  to  the  standard
required  by  the  Directive.

The  Community  contribution  for  the  above  projects  was
around  7,2  Mio  ECU.  There  are  similar  examples  in  the
Cohesion  Fund  context,  for  example,  operation  of  the
Bassin  d’Alviela  sewage  works  (see  also  paragraph  41).
Finance  for  modernising  the  plant  was  obtained  through
the  Cohesion  Fund.  The  Portuguese  authorities  informed
the Commission that the quality criteria laid down by the
Directive  were  not  being  met  and  introduced  a  further
application  for  reprogramming,  so  that  the  requisite
standards  could  be  achieved.  The  plant  is,  in  fact,  too
small  in  terms  of  the  actual  requirements  of  the  area,
where  there  is  a  high  concentration  of  tanneries.  The
Community  contribution  to  this  project  amounted  to
4,9  Mio  ECU.

62.
In  conclusion,  as  the  Court  has  already  pointed
out,  it  is  regrettable  that  co-financed  work  on  new
sewage works was undertaken without taking account of
the  requirements  imposed  by  this  Directive (26).  Even
though  these  plants  were  built  recently,  the  capital  costs
will be increased because of the additional work that will
be  needed  in  the  short  term,  in  order  to  bring  them  into
line  with  the  standards  imposed  by  the  Directive.

(26) Annual 

report  concerning 

financial  year  1994,
accompanied  by  the  replies  of  the  institutions,  OJ  C  303,
14.11.1995,  p.  109.

the 

18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/15

Project  performance

The  Court  audited  67  projects 

involving  the
63.
construction  of  waste  water 
treatment  plants  and
collection  systems.  Their  total  cost  was  approximately
467,7  Mio  ECU  and  the  European  Union  cofinancing

was  291,7  Mio  ECU  (see  Table  5).  These  projects  were
cofinanced  by  the  ERDF,  the  Cohesion  Fund,  EAGGF
Guidance  and  LIFE.  In  the  following  paragraphs  the
projects  are  examined  for  their  contribution  to  the  needs
of  the  agglomerations  served,  the  accuracy  of  the  cost
estimates  and  the  eligibility  of  expenditure  presented.

TABLE  5

List  of  audited  projects  by  Member  State  and  main  observations

Country/Project

Total  cost
(ECU)

EC
contribution
(ECU)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Paragraphs  of  report

FRANCE  (Brittany/Corsica)

1

Agroclar  (ERDF  Obj.  2)

2 Matairbi  (ERDF  Obj.  2)

Socavi  (EAGGF  Guid.  Obj.  5a)

Brevial  (EAGGF  Guid  Obj.  5a)

Abera  (EAGGF  Guid.  Obj.  5a)

309 000

210 000

1 861 432

3 638 665

3 821 217

85 000

62 784

33

271 828

178 460

478 930

82

Baie  de  Brest  contract  (LIFE)

7 735 256

1 867 867

Preliminary  study  for  extension  of
Ajaccio sewage-treatment capacity
(Envireg)

Sewerage  for  Bastia  Nord
improvement  scheme  (IOP  Corsica
Obj.  1)

Preliminary  and  further  studies  for
Bastia  Sud  sewage  plant  (Envireg)

Biguglia  lagoons  sewage  scheme
(IMP  Phase  1  Measure  7  and
Phase  3  additional  line)

Biguglia  lagoons  sewage  scheme
(IMP  Phase  2)

Biguglia  lagoons  sewage  scheme
(IOP  Corsica  Obj.  1)

Sewerage  La  Marana  plant
(Envireg)

SPAIN  (Galicia,  Andalucia,
Asturias,  La  Gomera,  Cantabria
and  Toledo)

Valladares  Lagares  collector  (OP
Environment  Obj.  1)

Coruxo-Canido  (OP  Environment
Obj.  1)

La  Coruña  underwater  outfall
(Envireg)

La  Torre  Peninsula  sewage  scheme
(OP  Environment  Obj.  1)

Collector  Gral.  Port  of  La  Coruña
(OP  Galicia  Obj.  1)

Arteixo  integrated  sewage  scheme
(OP  Environment  Obj.  1)

265 872

185 519

86

96

1 949 285

86

95

359 484

326 178

86

96

3 028 028

1 509 922

61

86

95

2 766 307

1 369 914

61

86

95

322 294

233 864

61

95

769 600

656 363

70

86

96

526 741

277 397

87

96

1 475 545

854 389

6 533 973

5 070 854

59

88

96

1 029 820

998 409

835 705

835 705

4 545 253

3 785 291

61

87

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

C 191/16

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

18.6.98

Country/Project

Total  cost
(ECU)

EC
contribution
(ECU)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Paragraphs  of  report

20 Nigran  collector  and  underwater
outfall  (OP  Galicia  Obj.  1)

290 546

61

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

Sabon  industrial  zone  drainage
scheme  (OP  Local  Obj.  1)

Collector  Gral.  de  Loureda  (OP
Local  Obj.  1)

Sada  integrated  sewage  scheme
(Envireg)

Cabanas/Pontedeume  integrated
sewage  scheme  (Envireg)

91 285

27 157

74

111 113

89 135

4 768 395

3 232 937

87

99

2 428 883

927 708

87

87

Ribeira  sewage  scheme  (Envireg)

4 694 725

3 076 089

68

Boiro  sewage  scheme  (Envireg)

4 408 436

3 776 503

Rianxo  sewage  scheme  (OP  Local
Obj.  1)

EDAR  river  Lagares  (Cohesion
Fund)

Collector  and  EDAR  Cangas
(Cohesion  Fund)

3 586 055

3 190 925

87

99

16 097 535

12 878 028

4 059 806

3 247 849

EDAR  Aljarafe  (Obj.  1)

17 765 232

10 659 139

Aviles  major  sewage  scheme
(Obj.  1)

Figuereido  carbon  treatment  prior
to  discharge  to  Turon  river
(Obj.  1)

Sewage  plant  San  Sebastian/
P.Santiago/Gran  Rey  (Obj.  1)

Torrelavega sewage scheme
(Obj.  1)

Sewage  plant  Toledo  integrated
sewage  scheme  (Obj.  1)

GREECE

36

Perama (sewerage Municipality
Network)  (Obj.  1)

37 Greater  Athens  Sewerage  (Waste
Water  Treat.  Plant)  Psytalia
(Obj.  1)

38

39

40

41

Biological Cleaning Sewerage
Lavrio  (Obj.  1)

Lavrio  Arrangement  of  Sewerage
(Obj.  1)

Rethimo  Waste  Water  Treat.  Plant
(Envireg)

Sewage  Treat  Plants  Veria
(Cohesion  Fund)

IRELAND

20 636 701

12 382 020

1 636 023

981 614

3 718 584

1 860 103

43 100 000

15 315 000

15 554 000

7 777 000

75

457 207

329 409

94

58 715 700

44 035 000

79

2 592 245

1 940 186

48 381

26 253

6 139 692

4 113 594

65

7 291 256

2 047 000

89

89

42

Ennis  Main  Drainage  (Obj.  1  and
Cohesion  Fund)

1 482 000

1 213 800

43 Greystones  S.  Scheme  (OP  Obj.  1,

27 133 903

20 565 424

91

92

Envireg,  Cohesion  Fund)

18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/17

Country/Project

Total  cost
(ECU)

EC
contribution
(ECU)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Paragraphs  of  report

44 Waterford  Foods  (EAGGF
Guidance  Obj.  5a)

45 Wexford  Main  Drainage  (OP
Obj.  1,  Cohesion  Fund)

5 073 630

1 775 770

76

48 740 850

36 654 420

91

92

46

47

Tralee  (OP  Obj.  1,  Envireg)

15 974 747

11 072 615

Killorglin (Envireg)

7 714 360

5 614 789

48 Dingle  (Envireg)

5 950 058

5 104 694

81

49

Cacherciveen (Envireg)

4 043 833

2 206 365

PORTUGAL

50

51

52

Baixa  Canico  sewage  scheme  waste
water  treatment  plant  (Obj.  1)

2 000 000

1 500 000

ETAR  Funchal  Madeira  waste
water  treatment  plant  (Envireg)

9 600 000

6 700 000

59

67

Etar  San  Miguel  outfall  (OP
Centro  Obj.  1))

476 654

53 Odeoluca-Fucho-Franqueira  project

6 009 000

5 107 000

54

55

56

57

58

(Cohesion  Fund)

Franca  de  Xira  sewerage
improvement  (Cohesion  Fund)

Alviela Basin sewage scheme
(Cohesion  Fund)

GERMANY

14 971 000

12 726 000

5 840 000

4 964 000 61,41

Sachsen Abwasserzweckverband
Dippoldswalde  (OP  Obj.  1)

8 382 815

2 135 424

Berlin

no  figures

Bichofswerda  (OP  Obj.  1)

5 649 534

3 672 407

59 Meißen  (OP  Ob.  1)

6 370 918

2 619 406

60 Hartmannsdorf  Oberes  Bobritztal

2 856 200

1 639 224

(OP  Ob.  1)

ITALY

43

43

43

61 Mola  di  Bari  (Envireg)

1 569 405

780 635

59

62

63

64

65

Barletta  (POP  Puglia  Obj.  1)

3 109 760

1 554 880

Taranto  (POP  Puglia  Obj.  1)

10 500 000

5 250 000

66

Brienza  (POP  Basilicata  Obj.  1)

650 223

325 111

Lago  Cotugno  (POP  Basilicata
Obj.  1)

13 664 099

6 832 049

66

Littorale  Ionico  (Envireg)

no  figures

67 Depuracque  (LIFE)

405 211

TOTAL

467 647 720

291 671 093

83

90

90

98

98

98

98

98

(a) Problems  of  transposition  and  of  Implementation  of  the  Directives
(b) Outdated  design  of  the  projects
(c) Taking  account  of  the  problem  of  stormwater  and  industrial  waste  water
(d) The  cost  of  the  projects  —  planned  versus  actual  costs  and  delays  in  carrying-out  and  their  effects  on  the  eligibility

costs/expenditure

(e) Management  of  projects  by  responsible  authorities  and  malfunctioning  sewage  plants

C 191/18

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

18.6.98

Outdated  design  of  projects

64.
A  large  number  of  projects  were  designed  a  long
time before their construction started and had not always
been adapted to take account of population and pollution
increases  or  technological  changes.

65.
As  a  consequence,  these  water  treatment  plants
were,  in  most  cases,  of  insufficient  size  or  technical
capacity to cover the needs of the agglomerations served.
Such  cases  were  identified  by  the  Court  in  a  number  of
Member States. In Greece a sewage plant was constructed
without  taking  into  account  at  the  initial  stage  two
industries,  a
closely  situated 
slaughterhouse  and  the  hotels  being  developed  in  the
area.  The  effluent  from  these  industries  was  discharged
into the sea without any treatment. They are located at a
distance of 400 m from the treatment plant. It was noted
that the beneficiary had requested and received additional
funds in order to link the polluter establishments with the
treatment  plant.  The  cost  of  this  project  is  6,1  Mio
ECU.

leather-processing 

local 

66.
The  initial  plans  for  the  construction  of  a  sewage
plant  in  Italy  dated  from  1988  but  the  technical  aspects
of  the  project  had  to  be  revised  because  of  budgetary
restrictions, resulting in the construction of a plant with a
treatment capacity that is inadequate for the needs of the
town.

The  Funchal-SRESA  project,  in  Portugal,  allowed
67.
only  60  to  70 %  of  the  urban  waste  water  to  be  treated.
Moreover  it  was  designed  as  a  primary  treatment  plant,
whereas  it  should  have  provided  secondary  treatment.
The  total  cost  was  9,6  Mio  ECU.

in  Galicia, 

In  a  collecting  system  and  a  sewage  plant  that
68.
the  collectors
were  under  construction 
designed  were 
insufficient  for  the  total  volume  of
stormwater  received.  In  addition,  seawater  was  entering
the  main  collector  and  causing  problems 
the
functioning of the pumping stations. This will later affect
the functioning of the sewage plant itself. The cost of the
project  was  – 4,7  Mio  ECU.

to 

The  problems  of  stormwater  and  industrial  waste  water

69.
Drainage  projects  must  take  into  account  the
problems  posed  by  stormwater  in  waste  water  collection
and  treatment.  In  simple  collection  systems  in  areas
subject  to  flooding  rises  in  water  level  at  times  of  heavy
rain  may  result  in  drains  overflowing  and  sewage  plant
malfunction,  as  well  as  causing  substantial  pollution  of
the  aquatic  environment.

Legislation 

70.
in  France  only  requires  collection
systems  to  provide  for  the  waste  water  that  is  produced
during  dry  weather  and  leaves  local  authorities  to

to 

regard 

to  La  Marana 

systems,  having  due 

determine  the  flow  of  pollution  that  will  be  brought  by
wet  weather  and  to  decide  on  the  collection  and
treatment 
cost
effectiveness.  For  example,  the  project  for  transferring
effluent 
(OP
Envireg-STRIDE  1990-93),  did  not  provide  separate
drains  for  sewage  and  stormwater,  because  of  budgetary
constraints,  despite  the  fact  that  the  Biguglia  local
authority is in an area that is subject to periodic flooding
(with  the  highway  acting  as  a  barrier  and  preventing
stormwater  from  draining  away).  In  consequence  the
stormwater is led away via ditches to the Biguglia lagoon
and  remains  untreated.

treatment 

plant 

71.
Almost  all  the  projects  audited  by  the  Court  in
Spain  were  prone  to  problems  caused  by  the  absence  of
separate storm drains: overflowing sewage, pollution and
operating  problems  at  sewage  treatment  plants.  The
drainage systems inspected by the Court in Portugal were
also  of  the  combined  type.

72. However,  as  the  Court  found  in  Germany,  some
sewerage  systems  had  separate  storm  drains  (on  the
outskirts  of  towns),  as  well  as  the  combined  type,  which
were  mainly  in  town  centres.

73.
As  regards  the  discharge  of  industrial  waste  water
to  collecting  systems  and  urban  waste-water  treatment
plants,  Directive  91/271/EEC  (Article  11)  states  that
Member States must ensure that such discharge is subject
to  prior  regulation  and/or  specific  authorisation  by  the
competent  authorities.  Industrial  waste  water  must  be
adequately  pre-treated  before  it  is  discharged  to  the
public  sewers,  so  that  it  has  the  same  characteristics  as
water  of  urban  origin.  This  is  done  in  order  to:  ensure
that  treatment  plants  function  properly;  prevent  their
being  damaged;  protect  the  health  of  personnel  working
in  collection  systems  and  treatment  plants;  and,  finally,
ensure  that  discharges  of  effluent  are  environmentally
acceptable.  The  preliminary  treatment  must  be  carried
out  by  the  industries  in  question,  in  accordance  with  the
‘polluter  pays’  principle.

74. However,  the  Court  audits  showed  that  these
provisions were not always respected. This applied in the
case of the Spanish project involving drains for the Sabon
industrial  zone  (Objective  1  local  OP),  which  provided
for  the  industrial  system  to  be  connected  to  the  Arteixo
urban sewers, but without any preliminary treatment. All
the  effluent  is  discharged  direct  to  the  sea  through  the
underwater  outfall  at  La  Coruña.  The  project  cost  is
around  14,5  Mio  PTA.

75.
Another  Spanish  project,  the  Tagus  integrated
development  project  at  Toledo,  for  a  total  of  2 540  Mio
PTA  (to  which  the  ERDF  contributed  1 000  Mio  PTA),
included  the  upgrading  of  the  plant  which  treats
industrial  waste  water  from  the  town’s  industrial  area.
The  water  is  not  treated  in  any  way  by  the  industries  in

18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/19

question  before  it  reaches  the  treatment  plant;  there  are
local  authority  regulations  on  the  treatment  of  waste
water  from  industrial  sources,  but  they  have  never  been
applied  in  practice.

76. Monitoring  discharges  of  treated  water,  whether
discharged  direct  to  the  natural  environment  (where  the
Community  standards  are  directly  applicable)  or  into
urban  collection  and  treatment  systems,  is  an  important
factor in combating water pollution. A national system of
monitoring  discharge  conditions 
in  the
operating licences which the Member States grant a priori
for each classified installation. However, during the audit
in  Ireland  of  an  agro-foodstuff  project  which  received
funds  from  EAGGF  Guidance,  the  Court  noted  that  the
standards  stipulated  by  the  licence  were  not  always
observed,  but  no  real  sanctions  were  imposed  (whether
administrative  or  pecuniary),  even  though  there  was
provision  for  them  in  the  national  regulations.

is  provided 

77.
These  controls  are  exclusively  the  responsibility  of
national authorities. The Commission, for its part, should
make provision for checks of this type during its audits in
the Member States and should carry them out in order to
satisfy  itself  that:

(a)

(b)

the chemical properties of the waste water intakes to
treatment plants which receive industrial waste water
are  continuously  monitored;

local  authorities  have  full  information  concerning
classified installations and the controls on discharges
from  them;

(c) where  Community  financing  is  granted  to  public  or
private  enterprises  which  produce  waste  water,  the
results of the controls carried out meet the standards
laid  down  by 
licences  and  Community
directives.

the 

The  cost  of  projects  —  planned  versus  actual  costs

The  technical  weaknesses  observed  in  the  design
78.
and  planning  of  projects  give  rise  in  most  cases  to
incorrect  estimates  of  the  costs  of  the  works  that  are  to
be  carried  out.  The  actual  costs  are  substantially  higher.
In  all  Member  States  visited  and  for  almost  all  projects
audited  significant  cost  differences  were  detected.  The
most  important  cases  of  underestimation  of  eligible
expenditure  observed  by  the  Court  are  described  in  the
following paragraphs.

79.
For  the  construction  of  the  sewage  plant  of  the
Greater  Athens  Region  in  Psytalia  (OP  ERDF  Attica  axe
1.1.)  at  the  time  of  the  audit  visit  six  main  contracts  —
covering  77 %  of  the  cost  of  the  project  —  had  been
completed at a cost of approximately double the planned
amount  [from  a  planned  – 40,4  Mio  ECU  (11 500  Mio
GRD)  to  – 78,9  Mio  ECU  (22 400  Mio  GRD)].

In Spain the General Hydrological Plan for Galicia
80.
(PHGC)  drafted  by  the  regional  authorities  in  1990
included  investments  of  – 19,6  Mio  ECU  (3 125  Mio
PTA)  for  the  programme  for  pollution  abatement  in  Ria
de La Coruña. In 1994, the revised regional plan foresaw
investments for the same programme of – 39,2  Mio  ECU
(6 245 Mio PTA), which constitutes an increase of 100 %
of  the  initial  plan.  Despite  the  fact  that  the  various
estimates  are  not  really  comparable,  because  particular
factors  must  be  taken  into  account  (e.g.  inflation,  the
requirements
inclusion  of  new  projects  and 
introduced by Directive 91/271/EEC), it must be said that
a  fair  proportion  of  the  increases  in  estimated  cost  are
due  to  substantial  delays  in  carrying  out  projects;  delays
produced  by  a  variety  of  technical,  legal  (expropriations)
and  budgetary  causes.  Similar  deviations  from  plan  were
observed 
‘Ria  de  Vigo’  programme,  which
increased  from  – 67,2  Mio  ECU  (10 700  Mio  PTA)  to
– 177,1  Mio  ECU  (28 200  Mio  PTA)  (163 %),  and  the
increased  from
‘Ria  de  Arousa’  programme,  which 
– 29,5  Mio  ECU  (4 697  Mio  PTA)  to  – 51,3  Mio  ECU
(8 167 Mio PTA) (73 %). The increases on the actual cost
of  the  projects  are  examined  in  paragraph  86.

in  the 

the 

81.
In Ireland, for the construction of the sewage plant
in  Dingle  (OP  Envireg),  final  expenditure  was  – 6,1  Mio
ECU  (4,9  Mio  IRL)  compared  to  the  planned  – 4,1  Mio
ECU  (3,3  Mio  IRL),  which  is  a  45 %  increase  over  the
planned  costs.

82.
In  a  French  project,  the  planned  cost  for  the
construction  of  a  small  sewage  station,  financed  by
EAGGF  Guidance  (Société  d’abattage  des  porcs  ABERA)
was  93 000  ECU  (0,6  Mio  FF).  The  final  cost  of  the
plant,  after  numerous  technical  improvements,  reached
– 0,9  Mio  ECU  (6  Mio  FF)  or  10  times  more  than  the
estimated  expenditure.

Finally,  for  the  sewage  plant  of  Meißen 

83.
in
Germany  (ERDF  OP  Saxony)  costs  were  ‘corrected’
upwards  by  engineers  for  supplementary  works.  These
changes have nevertheless remained below the 10 % limit
above  which,  according  to  national  law  [paragraph  2
(3.2)  part  B  of  the  Verdingungsordnung  Bauleistung
(VOB-guidelines)],  new  prices  would  have  had  to  be
renegotiated.  However,  contrary  to  the  view  of  the
Commission,  the  Court  considers  that  for  the  same
project  important  savings  could  have  been  made  without
reducing  the  efficiency  of  the  plant.  In  particular  it  is
unnecessary and inappropriate to construct a cellar and a
number  of  galleries  under  the  entire  plant,  for  the
purpose  of  direct  access  to  all  pipes  and  basins
(oxidation/nitrification  basins,  etc),  via 
large  and
well-heated  corridors.  This  is  the  only  sewage  works
among  those  visited  by  the  Court  that  incorporated  such
facilities.

The  Court 

84.
of
recognises 
implementing  important  infrastructure  projects  without
increases.  Price  modifications  are  planned  and
cost 
accepted 
long-term
in  all  forms  of  short-term  and 
technical  planning.  Typically,  increased  costs  do  not

difficulty 

the 

C 191/20

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

18.6.98

in 

result 

increased  Community 

support.
directly 
However,  significant  changes 
in  costs  are  a  clear
indication of weak planning and project management and
of delays in carrying out the project. The delays result in
most  cases  in  increased  costs.

Delays  in  carrying  out  projects  and  their  effects  on  the
increase  of  costs

85.
There  exists  a  strong  correlation  between  the
delays  that  were  observed  in  the  implementation  of
projects  and  increases  in  the  construction  costs.

In  France  a  project  financed  by  the  Integrated
86.
Mediterranean  Programme  (IMP)  for  abatement  of
pollution in the Cordon Lagunaire de Biguglia, started in
1991, although the initial studies were prepared in 1986.
In  the  same  context,  for  another  project  financed  by
Envireg,  certain  works  should  have  been  finished  within
three  months  (September  1992).  In  fact  they  were
completed  after  21  months  (June  1994).  For  this  project,
works were commissioned and tendering procedures took
place  after  the  deadline  for  commitments  for  an  amount
of  0,7  Mio  FF.  It  is  the  same  as  far  as  tendering
procedures are concerned for another project financed by
the  Integrated  Operational  Programme  (IOP)  Corsica
1990-93 
for  an  amount  of  1,4  Mio  FF.  The
commencement  of  the  sewage  works  project  for  the  city
of Ajaccio was equally delayed. Although the preliminary
studies  were  financed  by  the  Envireg  OP  in  1991,  they
were  only  ordered  in  1993.  The  deadlines  for  the
completion  of  the  first  stage  (1997),  and  consequently
those for the whole project (2000), will not be respected.
Significant  delays  were  found  in  the  preparation  of  the
studies  for  the  sewage  plant  project  at  Bastia-South,
financed  by  Envireg  at  the  beginning  of  1991.  These
studies  were  completed  in  1995,  instead  of  1993  as
planned,  and  consequently  the  new  sewage  plant  will
only  be  finished  at  the  beginning  of  1999.  The  longest
delays  were  found  in  the  project  for  the  abatement  of
pollution  along  the  south  shore  of  the  Gulf  of  Ajaccio,
where  the  initial  studies  started  in  1984  and  the  sewage
plant  came  into  operation  only  eleven  years  later.

integrated  pollution  abatement  project 

87.
In  Spain  in  the  case  of  the  ‘Collector  GLI-3
Valladares  Lagares’  project  the  cost  increased  by  26 %
and  the  project  was  delayed  for  28  months.  For  the
Arteixo 
the
deviation  was  45 %  from  the  initial  cost  and  the  project
was  delayed 
integral
for  50  months.  For 
decontamination  of  Sada  project  the  deviation  was  47 %
and  the  delay  15  months.  For  the  integrated  project  for
pollution  abatement  of  Cabanas  y  Pontedeume  —  which
was  temporarily  halted  for  28  months  for  ‘technical
improvements’  and  is  still  under  construction  —  the
delays  had  already  reached  38  months  in  February  1997
and  its  cost  has  increased  by  23 %.  For  the  integrated
pollution  abatement  project  at  Ribeira,  which  is  still

the 

under  construction,  the  financial  deviation  is  already
33,5 %.  Finally,  there  is  already  a  30 %  overrun  on  the
cost  of  the  Rianxo  pollution  abatement  project,  and  the
sewage  treatment  plant  was  not  in  operation  in  March
1996,  although  it  had  been  completed  a  year  earlier.

88.
A  two-year  delay  was  noted  for  the  Coruña  Ria
underwater  outfall  project.  Until  November  1996  the
project  had  not  been  officially  accepted  by  the  local
authorities.  In  such  cases  the  construction  company  has
responsibility  for  the  maintenance  and  operation  of  the
plant.  The  high  levels  of  rainfall  and  the  absence  of
separate sewerage systems have resulted in a large part of
the  waste  water  being  discharged  untreated  into  the  sea.

89.
In  Greece,  significant  delays  were  found  in  all
projects  audited  by  the  Court,  for  mainly  technical  and
administrative reasons. The Rethymnon sewage treatment
plant  was  delayed  for  27  months  and  the  cost  has
increased  by  257 %.  This  project  is  still  insufficient  for
the  needs  of  the  city.  The  construction  of  the  sewage
treatment  plant  at  Veria  had  almost  doubled  in  cost  and
at  the  time  of  the  visit  the  project  was  still  incomplete.
The  total  cost  for  the  two  projects  reached  – 6,1  Mio
ECU.

90.
In Italy the project at Brienza started in July 1990
for  a  duration  of  12  months.  At  the  end  of  1995  the
project  was  not  finished.  The  Taranto  sewage  project
started in 1991, with a planned duration of one year, and
was  still  not  completed  at  the  end  of  1995.

also 

Irish  projects 

experienced  delays 

91.
in
completion  for  the  same  reasons  as  in  other  Member
States.  Due  to  technical  improvements  a  part  of  the
Greystones  project  cofinanced  by  the  ERDF  was  two
years late in starting up. Delays were also observed in the
Wexford  Drainage  Scheme  project,  where  the  start  of
construction  of  certain  works  of  the  Wexford  Drainage
Scheme  was  delayed  for  three  years.  The  project  only
started  in  September  1993.

Management  of  projects  by  the  responsible  authorities

92.
The splitting-up of large projects sometimes makes
it  difficult  to  ensure  that  the  provisions  of  the  Structural
and  Cohesion  Funds  regulations  are  complied  with.
Article  1  3  of  the  Regulation  establishing  the  Cohesion
Fund  (No  1164/94)  provides  for  the  possibility  of
financing  projects  in  phases,  provided  that  they  are
technically  and  financially  independent.  There  were,
however,  some  cases  where  projects  which,  in  theory,
could  not  be  subdivided  were  nevertheless  split,  in  order
to  obtain  finance,  first  from  the  ERDF  and  then,
subsequently,  from  the  Cohesion  Fund,  as  in  the  case  of
the  Greystones  Sewerage  Scheme  and  Wexford  Main
Drainage  Scheme  projects  which  the  Court  audited  in
Ireland.  Part  of  the  financing  for  these  projects  was
provided  by  the  ERDF  and,  afterwards,  by  the  Cohesion
Fund,  on  the  basis  of  the  same  contract  with  the

18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/21

for 

therefore, 

enterprise  instructed  to  carry  out  the  actual  works.  It  is
difficult, 
to  be
considered  as  independent  projects;  in  reality  they  are
only  ‘payment  phases’  and  for  practical  purposes  could
be  defined  as  the  part  of  the  project  which  has  not  yet
received  ERDF  financing.

the  project  phases 

93.
This  practice  opens  up  the  question  of  respect  for
and  compliance  with  the  Community  regulations  in  this
area.  Moreover,  there  is  a  risk  that  breaking  down
projects into phases may make it easier to split up public
works  contracts 
limits
stipulated  in  the  various  directives  on  the  subject.  The
Court  has  mentioned  this  problem  before,  in  Special
report  no  1/95  on  the  cohesion  financial  instrument (27).

in  order  to  circumvent  the 

to 

problems 

associated  with 

found  and  pointed  out 

that  are  available  under  national 

As  regards  the  matter  of  public  works  contracts,
94.
the
the  Court  again 
Commission 
excessive
discounting of prices in order to secure contracts, as well
as  the  use  by  some  national  administrations  of  various
possibilities 
law
(emergency  procedures  and  the  like)  and  which  aim  to
limit, or occasionally exclude, competition. Splitting up a
project into several sub-projects and several public works
contracts  contributed  to  this  situation.  The  Court  noted
that one Greek project financed by the ERDF (OP Attica,
municipality  of  Perama)  had  been  divided  into  54
contracts.  The  total  cost  of  this  project  was  of  the  order
of  457 207  ECU.  Practices  of  this  kind  increase  the
delays in carrying out projects, swell the costs and render
projects top-heavy. The Court has already noted that fact
in  a  previous  report (28).

Project 

frequently 

management 

95.
lacked
transparency. For example, some projects — large ones in
particular — had accumulated Community subsidies from
various  sources  and,  under  current  regulations,  should
have  kept  separate  sets  of  accounts.  At  financial
beneficiary  level  the  various  forms  of  assistance  were,  in
the  main,  regarded  as  sources  of  finance  to  be  used
indiscriminately  for  the  various  phases  of  projects.  This
applied  to  IMP  assistance  in  particular  (IMP  phase  1
IMP-related  measures,  IMP  additional  heading),  or  IOP
for  the  projects  audited  in  Corsica:  Biguglia  lagoon
drainage  works,  drainage  works  on  the  south  shore  of
the  Gulf  of  Ajaccio.

Similarly,  the  Court  found  that  it  was  not  always
96.
possible to reconcile the amounts of expenditure declared
to  the  Commission  by  central  administrations  with  those
declared  to  national  authorities  by  managers  and/or
beneficiaries.  The  main  reason  was  the  absence  of
separate  accounts  or  an  adequate  account  classification,
which  would  have  made  it  possible  to  identify  the

(27) Special report No 1/95 on the cohesion financial instrument,

OJ  C  59,  8.3.1995.

declared  expenditure  for  the  project  that  was  being
subsidised.  This  applied  to  the  projects  audited  in  Spain:
collector  GLI-3  Valladares-Lagares  (Environment  OP)
and  La  Coruña  underwater  outfall 
(Envireg  OP).
Furthermore,  as  regards  the  waste  water  treatment
measure in the Envireg-Stride Corsica programme, it was
not  possible  to  reconcile  the  declared  expenditure  with
the  evidence  of  payments  disbursed  by 
final
beneficiaries. These documents are, however, supposed to
form  the  basis  for  certifying  expenditure.

the 

Malfunctioning  treatment  plants

97.
Plants  that  do  not  meet  the  quality  standards  laid
down  by  the  directives  (see  paragraphs  58-62)  and  the
need  for  further  investment  in  order  to  bring  them  up  to
the  required  standard  have  already  been  mentioned.  In
these  cases  it  is  a  question  of  improving  the  quality  of
existing  treatment  plants.  However,  there  are  also
problems of a different order: some treatment plants had
been  finished,  but  were  not  yet  operational  and  others
were ineffective because of serious operating problems. In
both  cases  the  impact  of  the  Community  funds  was  in
jeopardy.

98.
In  1996  the  Court  found  that  five  of  the  six
sewage  plants  audited  in  Italy  were  not  operational,
although  the  work  was  finished  and,  in  some  cases,  had
ended several months before. One reason was the refusal
of  ENEL  (the  national  electricity  company)  to  connect
them  to  a  power  supply,  because  of  lack  of  funds.  The
same plants showed evidence of other problems too, such
as  the  fact  that  some  of  them  were  not  connected  to
sewers,  etc.  There 
installations
(mechanical and electronic equipment and buildings) may
deteriorate  if  they  are  not  used.  The  appropriations
invested  for  these  plants  amounted  to  – 26,5  Mio  ECU
(55 125  Mio  LIT).

is  also  a  risk  that 

99.
In  Galicia  (Spain)  only  one  of  the  three  finished
sewage  plants  was  operational.  A  second  (integrated
improvement scheme for the town of Sada) was operating
unsatisfactorily.  The  third  (Rianxo  sewage  works)  was
handed over to the local authority in April 1995, but was
still  not  operational,  partly  because  it  was  not  connected
to  the  electricity  supply  system,  but  also  because  there
was  no  procedure  for  calling  for  tenders  to  operate  it.
The  prescribed  objective  of  reducing  pollution  was  not
achieved. The total cost of these two projects is – 8,4 Mio
ECU.

A  study,  cofinanced  by  Envireg (29),  which  has
100.
evaluated  15  treatment  plants  in  Crete  has  pointed  out
that  they  did  not  operate  under  optimum  conditions  and
that  controls  on  the  outgoing  water  should  be  improved.

(28) Court’s  Annual  Report  1994,  Chapter  4,  OJ  C  303,

(29) ‘Study  on  the  creation  of  a  centre  for  environmental

14.11.1995,  p.  108.

upgrading  of  Crete’,  Envireg-EOT,  1995.

C 191/22

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

18.6.98

In  conclusion,  instances  of  malfunctioning  systems  and
sewage  plants  were  found  in  all  the  Member  States
visited.

101.
The cases that have been mentioned illustrate the
many complex factors that need to be combined in order
to  obtain  satisfactory  results  in  terms  of  the  quality  of
treatment  plants,  thus  ensuring  that  Community  funds
in  the  optimum  way.  Community  funds
are  used 
the
undoubtedly  play  a  very 
implementation of any policy in this area. As regards the
principle  of  shared  responsibility,  the  Member  States
must  ensure  that  the  efficiency  of  these  plants 
is
maintained.  The  most  important  aspects,  such  as  plant
operation, network maintenance and the associated costs,
were also examined more closely in some of the Member
States.

important 

role 

in 

The  Envireg  Initiative

102.
The  Commission  launched  the  Envireg  CI  in
1990,  as  a  contribution  to  environmental  protection  and
a  means  of  promoting  economic  development.  The
specific  objectives  included  the  following:

— to  reduce  pollution  of  coastal  areas,

— to  promote  the  planning  of  land  use  in  coastal

areas,

— to contribute to the better management and control of

industrial  waste,

— to  strengthen  knowhow  relating  to  the  design  and

management  of  facilities  for  reducing  pollution.

for 

the  Envireg  CI 

The  total  contribution  from  the  Structural  Funds
103.
to 
the  period  1990-93  was
approximately  500  Mio  ECU  (at  1990  prices).  The
eligible  areas  were  the  coastal  areas  of  Objective  1
regions  and  the  coastal  areas  of  the  Objectives  2  and
5  (b)  regions  along  the  Mediterranean.  In  the  case  of
industrial  waste  and  technical  assistance  all  Objective  1
regions  were  eligible.

104.
Almost  two  thirds  of  the  appropriations  were
used  to  reduce  pollution  in  Objective  1  coastal  areas,
notably  via  the  construction  or  modernisation  of  sewage
treatment  plant  and  infrastructure.  For  this  reason  the
Court  audited  the  use  of  ERDF  appropriations 
in
improvement
Objective  1  regions  for  water  quality 
projects,  the  technical  assistance  network  set  up  by  the
Commission to strengthen knowhow and the exchange of
experience,  and  the  ex  post  facto  assessment  of  the
Envireg  CI.

Problems  of 
initiative

implementing  the  Envireg  Community

for 

The  Envireg  Community  initiative  was  approved
105.
in  May  1990  and  the  final  date  for  payments  was  set  at
31  December  1994 
some  programmes  and
31  December  1995  for  others.  There  were  substantial
delays  in  the  implementation  of  these  programmes  and
most of the Member States concerned asked for the final
deadlines  to  be  extended.  At  the  end  of  1996  (two  years
after  the  initial  closure  date  for  some  programmes  and
one  year  after  for  others)  only  three,  out  of  thirteen,
programmes  had  been  closed  (Envireg  Provence-Alpes-
Côtes  d’Azur  (PACA),  Northern  Ireland  and  Portugal).
17,9 %  of  the  commitments  for  this  initiative  was  still
outstanding  (see  Table  6).

18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/23

TABLE  6

Execution  of  the  Community  Initiative  Envireg  at  31.12.1996

Programme

Total  Cost

ERDF

Commitments

Payments

Still  to  be
paid

CI  Regis-Envireg-Stride  Guyane

31 689

10 362

10 362

8 392

1 970

CI  Regis-Envireg-Stride  Martinique

70 866

14 139

14 139

11 686

2 453

CI  Regis-Envireg-Stride  Réunion

140 895

27 169

27 169

22 496

4 673

CI  Regis-Envireg-Stride  Guadeloupe

72 956

17 022

17 022

14 615

2 407

CI  Envireg  PACA

8 318

3 000

3 000

2 981

CI  Envireg  Languedoc-Roussillon

5 202

1 000

1 000

800

0

200

CI  Envireg-Stride  Corse

37 216

14 684

14 684

12 113

2 571

CI  Envireg  Ireland

40 557

30 420

30 420

29 044

1 376

CI  Envireg  Italy

342 478

168 672

168 672

105 437

63 235

CI  Envireg  Greece

117 774

78 934

78 934

64 108

14 826

CI  Envireg  Northern  Ireland (1)

25 664

17 448

17 654

16 308

0

CI  Envireg  Spain

235 702

126 934

126 934

111 140

15 794

CI  Envireg  Portugal

145 510

101 486

101 486

98 631

0

TOTAL

1 274 827

611 270

611 476

497 751

109 505

1 000  Ecu  (prices  1993)

%

19

17

17

14

0

20

18

5

37

19

0

12

0

18

Decommit-
ments

19

1 346

2 852

4 217

(1) OP Envireg Northern Ireland, Commission committed 3rd tranche (November 1993) without regard to financial plan changes approved by Monitoring

Committee  (October  1993).  Excess  commitment  1 346  Mio  ECU,  adjusted  in  final  payment  (May  1996).

Source:  DG  XVI  data  1997.

including 

the  sewage 

106.
Ireland  did  not  ask  for  a  deferral  of  the  closing
dates.  The  late  closure  of  the  programme  was  due  to
divergence  in  the  way  the  Commission  and  the  Irish
authorities  interpreted  the  term  ‘final  beneficiary’  for
some  projects, 
infrastructure
projects.  Ireland  treated  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment
(the  Department  responsible  for  project  finance)  as  the
final  beneficiary,  rather  than  the  local  authorities  that
were acting as contractors. The other Member States, for
their  parts,  regarded 
final
beneficiaries.  In  consequence  the  expenditure  statements
submitted  by  Ireland  included  expenditure  that  had  not
been  disbursed  at  the  date  of  the  statement,  estimated
expenditure  and,  even,  expenditure  that  had  been
disbursed  before  the  qualifying  period.  The  Commission
should ensure that the term ‘final beneficiary’, as defined
in  the  financial  provisions  approving  every  OP, 
is
uniformly  applied  for  all  the  Member  States  and  that
expenditure  statements  include  only  the  expenditure
actually 
current
regulations.

the  contractors  as 

as  provided  by 

incurred, 

the 

the 

107.
Implementation  of  the  Envireg  programme  in
Italy  came  up  against  particularly  difficult  problems
connected  with  the  implementation  of  the  1989-93  Italy
CSF.  In  the  case  of  Envireg  the  Court  found  a  lack  of
programme monitoring, partly because financial data and
progress  reports  had  not  been  sent  to  the  Commission,
but  also  because  the  monitoring  committees  often  met
under  somewhat  precarious  conditions  (lack  of  precise
data,  representatives  of  regions  were  sometimes  absent,
minutes  were  not  kept).  As  a  result,  only  3,5 %  of  the
amounts  transferred  by  the  Commission  by  way  of
advances  from  1991  (an  amount  of  – 3,1  Mio  ECU
(6 600 Mio LIT)) had been disbursed by the end of 1994.
The  problems  of  implementing  the  Italy  CSF  gave  rise  to
a  general  agreement  between  Italy  and  the  Commission,
whereby  the  Envireg  programme  was  extended  until
31  December  1996  in  the  case  of  commitments  and
31  December  1997  for  payments.

108.
In  the  Northern  Ireland  Envireg  programme
96 %  of  the  appropriations  were  earmarked  for  the

C 191/24

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

18.6.98

reduction  of  pollution  in  coastal  areas.  14  waste-water
treatment projects were initially planned for that purpose.
However the problems of bringing these projects into line
with  the  water-quality  directives,  and  the  new  Directive
91/271/EEC  in  particular,  made  it  impossible  for  half  of
them to be carried out within the deadlines laid down in
the  programme.  Seven  projects  were  replaced  by  one
large project for the renovation of one of the two Belfast
treatment  plants,  serving  250 000 
inhabitants.  This
project  —  for  a  total  qualifying  cost  of  – 16,5  Mio  ECU
(13,3  Mio  UKL),  financed  entirely  out  of  national  funds
— had already started in 1986 and has absorbed 68 % of
the  ERDF  contribution  to  this  programme.  It  must  be
emphasised 
the  Envireg
the  guidelines 
operational  programmes (30)  envisaged  the  financing  of
sewage plants for urban areas with a population of more
than  100 000  only  very  exceptionally.  Under  these
circumstances  the  objectives  and  priorities  defined  for
Northern  Ireland  within  the  Envireg  framework  were
the
only  partially  achieved,  especially  as  regards 
innovative  nature  of  the  projects.

that 

for 

For the Galicia part of Envireg the Member State
109.
included a new project concerning the underwater outfall
to  reduce  pollution  in  La  Coruña.  The  project  accounted
for  32 %  of  the  total  qualifying  expenditure  for  this
– 8,8  Mio  ECU
independent  community,  namely 
the  Commission
(1 400  Mio  PTA).  Contrary 
guidelines (31)  the  project 
is  part  of  a  unit  which
comprises  only  pretreatment  of  the  waste  water  from  La
Coruña,  a  town  with  a  population  far  in  excess  of
100 000  inhabitants.  Moreover,  this  project  does  not
comply  with  the  terms  of  Directive  91/271/EEC  (Articles
4  and  6).

to 

to  make  up 

The  situation  varied  according  to  the  Member
110.
State. In the case of Portugal, for example, it was to some
extent  possible 
the  absence  of
environmental  measures  in  the  1989-93  CSF  through  the
Envireg  CI  and  the  initiative  benefited  from  a  13  Mio
ECU increase in the ERDF contribution, as a result of the
transfer  of  appropriations  from  the  REGEN  initiative.
This  made  the  inclusion  of  further  projects  possible.

for 

111.
In the case of Envireg Greece the Commission cut
the  qualifying  amounts  by  22  Mio  ECU  (15,7 %)  and,
hence,  the  ERDF  cofinancing  by  15  Mio  ECU  (16 %)
relative  to  the  amount  initially  programmed.  This  was
in  the
due  to  the  poor  execution  of  measure  1 
programme,  which  concerned  waste-water  treatment  and
accounted for 61 %  of  the  appropriations.  In fact  32 out
of  the  total  100  projects  initially  provided  for  by  this
measure  had  to  be  abandoned.  Furthermore,  40  of  the
remaining  68  projects  also  suffered  problems  during
execution  and  could  thus  not  be  completed  under  the

Envireg  programme.  Greece  has  asked  for  them  to  be
included  in  the  new  1994-99  CSF.

112.
The Envireg-Stride Corsica programme suffered a
6,3  Mio  ECU  cut  in  the  total  qualifying  costs  (14,5 %),
whilst  the  ERDF  cofinancing  increased  by  1,8  Mio  ECU
(13,8 %).  This  amount  was  obtained  by  transferring  the
unused appropriations from the Interreg Corsica-Sardinia
OP,  and  was  used  to  finance  measure  2  ‘Waste-water
treatment’. The reduction in the qualifying costs was due
to  the  partial  failure  of  measure  3  ‘Elimination  of  solid
waste’,  where 
the  available
appropriations  was  used,  which  also  had  repercussions
on  the  treatment  and  disposal  of  the  sludge  produced  by
the  sewage  works.

than  25 %  of 

less 

‘Ambiente  e  Regione’  (AMBER)  technical  assistance
network

113. One  of  the  innovative  aspects  of  the  Envireg  CI
was  the  strengthening  of  knowhow  and  the  exchange  of
experience  in  the  areas  which  it  funds,  by  means  of  the
AMBER technical assistance network (1 006 573  ECU  of
funding spread over three years). It was intended that the
network  should  provide  technical  reports  on  projects,  by
request, for programme managers and contractors. It was
information  and
also  to  promote  the  exchange  of 
experience,  as  well  as  the  transfer  of  knowhow  between
the  various  administrations  involved,  and  was  also  to
assist  the  Commission,  especially  with  the  monitoring  of
the CI. In the case of waste water treatment, the network
was to provide technical support for the strengthening of
knowhow  in  the  design  and  maintenance  of  sewage
treatment facilities.

The  review  of  the  AMBER  technical  assistance
114.
network  was  considered  to  be  important  in  as  far  as  the
Court had in the past found that many sewage treatment
plants  were  not  operational,  especially  in  Objective  1
regions,  and  the  Commission  had  undertaken  to  monitor
this  problem  in  the  future (32).

115.
In June 1991 the Commission contracted out to a
firm  of  consultants  the  task  of  setting  up  the  technical
assistance  network.  The  first  contract  signed  was  for  a
one-year  term,  and  it  was  subsequently  renewed  three
times  up  to  20  December  1994.

116.
It was very evident that the ‘request for technical
report’  element  did  not  function:  only  9 000  ECU  was
spent on this objective. There were several factors behind
this,  the  main  one  being  that  two  of  the  Member  States
largest  Envireg  programmes
(Spain,  Italy)  with  the 
(around  60 %  of  the  total)  did  not  use  the  network.  In
addition,  awareness  of  the  network  was  mainly  confined
to  central  level  and  local  authorities  had  very  little

(30) Commission  Notice  to  the  Member  States  (90/C 115/03)  of

9  May  1990,  OJ  C  115,  9.5.1990,  p.  3.

(31) Commission  Notice  to  the  Member  States  (90/C 115/03)  of

9  May  1990.

(32) Special  report  No  3/92  concerning 

the  environment,
paragraph  3.15,  and  the  Commission’s  reply,  OJ  C  245,
23.9.1992.

18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/25

information  about  it.  Moreover,  there  was  no  provision
for  the  AMBER  network  to  pay  the  fees  of  the  experts
recruited,  so  that  there  was  no  incentive  for  local
authorities  to  use  it.  Finally,  technical  assistance  was
already  being  provided  by  national  civil  services  or  by
calls  on  outside  consultants.

deadline set for the first phase (September 1994) and ten
months  after  that  set  for  the  second  phase  (December
1995).  The  total  cost  of  the  assessment  was  211 887
ECU  and,  according  to  the  Commission,  the  report
already contained most of the information for the overall
assessment  of  the  Envireg  CI.

organising 

conferences 

and  workshops 

117.
The  network’s  tasks  also  included  preparing
newsletters  and  handbooks  for  local  authorities,  as  well
on
as 
environmental  issues.  There  were  also  problems  with  the
circulation  of  these  handbooks.  Not  until  the  end  of
1993  was  there  any  attempt  to  send  them  to  local
authorities  in  the  Envireg  qualifying  areas.  However,  the
final  date  for  placing  contracts  for  work  was,  in  fact,
31  December  1993,  for  Envireg.  Furthermore,  the  Court
was  able  to  ascertain  that  only  900  or  so  copies  of  the
waste-water  treatment  handbook,  out  of  an  edition  of
5 000,  were  distributed  to  the  appropriate  authorities.

It  was 

118.
intended  that  conferences  should  be
organised,  to  facilitate  the  exchange  of  experience  and
the  transfer  of  knowhow  in  various  ways,  including
bilateral  cooperation  between  the  various  authorities
involved. With a few  exceptions,  cooperation  initiated as
a  consequence  of  such  exchanges  was  not  followed  up.

The  network’s  third  task  was  to  assist  the
119.
Commission.  This  mainly  took  the  form  of  carrying  out
surveys  with  a  scope  far  beyond  the  objectives  of  the
Envireg  CI  and  the  terms  of  the  technical  assistance
contract.  The  Commission,  in  its  replies  to  the  Special
report  on  the  environment (33),  had  already  informed  the
Court  of  its  intention  of  widening  the  scope  of  the
AMBER  network  beyond  the  confines  of  the  Envireg  CI
to  include  the  environmental  aspects  of  all  the  structural
measures.  This  widening  of  the  network’s  remit  was
undertaken,  but  on  the  basis  of  a  contract  that  was
limited  to  Envireg  programmes  and  without  a  new  call
for  tenders.

Ex-post  facto  assessment  of  the  Envireg  CI

120.
In  December  1993  the  Commission  concluded  a
contract to a value of 276 500 ECU for the assessment of
the Envireg CI. The Envireg assessment was to be carried
out  in  two  phases,  ending  in  December  1995.  The  aims
of  the  first  phase  were  mainly  to  evaluate  the  set
objectives and to assess the Community added value, but
also  to  analyse  the  administrative  procedures  and
the
management  systems  pertaining 
beneficiary  Member  States.  The  second  phase  was
concerned  with  the  economic  impact  achieved  through
implementation  of  the  CI  and  was  not  to  begin  until  the
Commission had established that the quality of the work
produced  during  the  first  phase  was  satisfactory.

the  CI 

to 

in 

121. However,  a  final  report  was  submitted  to  the
Commission  in  October  1996,  25  months  after  the

(33) Replies  to  paragraphs  3.13  and  3.14  of  Special  report  No

3/92  on  the  environment,  OJ  C  245,  23.9.1992.

122.
In  the  Court’s  opinion,  however,  the  report  did
not  achieve  the  assessment  objectives  set  out  and  laid
down  in  the  contract  and,  in  particular:

(a)

(b)

(c)

the  analysis  of  administrative  procedures  and
management  systems  was  purely  descriptive,  with
wide  variations  in  quality  between  Member  States;

the  report  did  not  compare  programming  and
implementation  methods  and  did  not  evaluate  the
management  structures  in  relation  to  the  objectives
pursued;

there  was  no  analysis  of  the  physical  results  of  the
cofinanced  programmes  and  projects  and  no
evaluations  which  might  have  made  it  possible  to
measure  the  impact  of  these  contributions  on  the
basis  of  suitable  indicators  (with  the  exception  of
Portugal);

(d)

the  expected  budgetary  and  financial  analyses  were
not  carried  out;

(e)

there  was  insufficient  discussion  of  the  Envireg  CI’s
impact  in  terms  of  resolving  the  environmental
problems  which  the  initiative  was  to  address  (water
pollution,  orderly  development  of  coastal  areas,
etc);

(f)

the  report  did  not  make  any  connection  between
Envireg  and  economic  development  and/or  the
development  of  tourism  in  the  region  concerned.

The  data  contained  in  the  report  cannot  be  used  as  the
basis for conclusions about the impact of the Envireg CI.
Lastly,  the  scientific  assessment  committee  has  not  even
been  set  up.

123.
In conclusion, as regards the achievements of the
Envireg  CI,  it  is  the  Court’s  opinion  that  this  measure
only  partially  achieved  the  objectives  that  were  initially
set. In the area of waste-water treatment the link between
Envireg  and  Directive  91/271/EEC,  in  terms  of  project
quality,  was  not  adequately  defined  (with  the  exception
of Ireland). In consequence it was possible for projects to
be  jointly  funded,  even  though  they  did  not  comply  with
the  Directive.  Similarly,  there  was  no  mention  of  the
polluter-pays  principle  in  connection  with  treatment
projects,  so  that  it  was  possible  to  obtain  finance  for
projects involving the treatment of industrial waste-water,
even  though  the  polluter  industries  had  no  authorisation
to  discharge  such  water  and  did  not  pre-treat  the
discharge  in  any  way.

124.
The  CI  was  late  starting,  which  also  limited  the
time  available  for  implementing  it.  This  did  nothing  to
the  submission  of  new  projects,  which
encourage 

C 191/26

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

18.6.98

accounted for only a small percentage of the projects that
were  already  under  way  or  scheduled  before  the  CI.  The
delays in executing them were considerable, as in the case
of Italy, and led to the abandonment of large numbers of
projects and/or the non-completion of many others (as in
Greece),  as  well  as  substantial  changes  in  the  project
content  of  the  initial  programme,  as  was  the  case  in
Northern  Ireland.

investments  are  made  in  projects  relating  to  water
provision  and  solid  waste  disposal.  The  financing  of  the
operating, maintenance, capital and replacement costs are
mainly  the  responsibility  of  the  regional,  departmental,
local,  or  municipal  authorities.  This  money  comes  from
the charges imposed and collected at local level which are
integrated  in  the  local  taxes  or  the  ‘water  bill’.

The strengthening of knowhow and the exchange
125.
of  experience  through  information  campaigns  were  very
small-scale,  as  were  the  calls  on  technical  assistance.

Water  charges

The  LIFE  Programme

126.
The  Financial  Instrument  for  the  Environment
(LIFE)  was  established  by  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No
1973/92  of  21  May  1992 (34)  for  the  period  1991-95.
This  Regulation  was  modified  by  Council  Regulation
(EEC)  No  1404/96  which  established  the  second  period
of  LIFE  (1996-99).  LIFE  was  allocated  a  budget  of
450  Mio  ECU  for  the  period  1996-99.

Projects 

127.
financed  by  LIFE  are  mainly  of
innovative  character,  seeking  to  improve  and  diffuse
specific  and  technical  knowledge  among  the  Member
States in the field of the environment. One of the French
LIFE  projects  audited  concerned  the  construction  of  a
small  water  treatment  plant  of  experimental  character.
Its  objective  was  to  test  a  method  of  treating  domestic
waste  water  of  50  to  150  p.e.,  at  low  cost.  This  project
has  been  successful  and  its  results  deserved  further
exploitation  by  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States
according  to  the  stipulation  of  the  LIFE  Regulation  in
Article  2  (1)  (b)  and  (3)  concerning  the  dissemination  of
the  results  of  the  innovatory  projects.  The  Court  has
already  mentioned  these  points  in  its  Annual  Report
concerning  the  financial  year  1994 (35).

129. Water  charges  and  the  manner  and  basis  used  to
levy  them  are  complex  and  vary  across  Europe.  The
charges  differ  according  to  the  type  of  discharge (36),  the
user  group,  the  type  of  charge  base  and  the  charging
agency.

130.
having  two  distinct  functions:

A Commission study considered water charges as

(a)

(b)

the financing function or element which refers to the
financing  of  the  construction  and  operational  costs
of  communal  treatment  plants,  and

the  incentive  function  or  element  which  refers  to  its
action as an incentive to reduce pollution to such an
extent  that  lower  charges  will  result.

All  EU  countries  have  charge  systems  with  a  financing
function.  However,  there  are  wide  differences  in  the
extent  to  which  charge  revenue  covers  the  costs  of
communal  waste  water  treatment.  According  to  the
above-mentioned  report,  for  the  period  1988  to  1992
user  charges  met  a  high  proportion  of  the  costs  in
Denmark,  Germany,  the  Netherlands  and  the  United
Kingdom  (England  and  Wales).  Such  charges  met  a
relatively  low  proportion  of  the  costs  in  Portugal  and
Spain and Belgium was at an intermediate position. There
was  no  or  incomplete  information  for  Ireland,  France,
Luxembourg,  Greece  and  Italy.

CHAPTER  IV

THE  QUESTION  OF  WATER  CHARGES

131. Not enough information is available to determine
whether the user charges were structured in a way which
covers  the  aggregate  costs  and  gives  polluters  a  sufficient
incentive  to  reduce  their  burdens  on  the  system.

128.
As discussed in Chapter I (see paragraphs 21-23),
the  costs  of  implementing  the  UWWT  Directive  are
significant. The issue arises of how the Member States are
planning  to  address  the  management,  operational  and
replacement  (depreciation)  costs.  The  financing  of  the
construction  costs  is  mainly  assured  by  the  national
budgets  and  subsidies  from  the  Community  where
appropriate.  It  should  be  stressed  that  parallel  to  the
similar
investments 

in  waste  water 

infrastructure, 

(34) OJ  L  206,  22.7.1992,  p.  1.
(35) OJ  C  303,  14.11.1995,  p.  167.

An  effective  combination  of  the  financing  and
132.
incentive  functions  can  be  achieved  if  the  charge  tariff  is
determined by the financial requirements of water quality
management.  It  means  that  the  costs  of  operating  the

(36) In  dealing  with  discharges,  there  are  two  ways  in  which
waste  water  is  disposed  of:  the  direct  discharge  and  the
indirect  discharge.  This  classification  is  based  on  whether
the waste water is subject to treatment prior to discharge to
a  receiving  body  of  water.  This  in  turn  determines  the
fundamental  manner  in  which  pollutants  impact  on  the
environment.  In  both  cases  some  type  of  prior  treatment
may  take  place,  depending  on  the  nature  of  the  discharge.

18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/27

system  and  all  the  ancillary  services,  including  the
amortisation of capital costs, should be billed to the user
in accordance with the polluter-pays principle. Under this
approach the expected reduction in capacity generated by
the 
incentive  effects,  as  well  as  the  size  of  the
agglomeration  served,  must  be  taken  into  account  in
planning  the  capacity  of  a  treatment  plant,  otherwise
overcapacity  may  be  the  result.

legislation  (see  paragraphs  12-15);  that  much  remains  to
be done to establish the programmes needed to attain the
standards  laid  down  in  the  Directives;  and  that  the
information  needed  to  assess  progress  in  achieving  the
standards  laid  down  by  the  Directives,  and  doing  so
within  the  prescribed  timescale,  is  frequently  lacking.
These  problems  arise  in  the  case  of  all  three  Directives
discussed  in  this  report  (see  paragraphs  16-19).

It  is  a  matter  of  concern,  for  example,  that  these
133.
projects, and the arrangements apparently made for their
financing,  did  not  take  into  account  seasonal  variations
in  the  throughput  of  the  facilities,  with  the  result  that
facilities  in  more  popular  tourist  areas  were  unable  to
meet  the  demands  during  the  height  of  the  tourist
season.

improvements 

134.
It  is  not  clear  that  rational  charging  policies  in
accordance  with  the  polluter  pays  principle  have  been
sufficiently  reconciled  with  the  impact  of  EU  subsidies.
The  capital  costs  of 
in  waste  water
treatment  facilities  and  the  corresponding  maintenance
costs  are  such  that  Member  States  naturally  wish  to
minimise  these  costs,  or  at  any  rate  to  obtain  as  much
assistance  towards  them  as  possible,  in  order  to  reduce
both  their  impact  on  public  sector  budgets  and  the
impact  of  high  water  charges  on  their  electorates.  In  the
case of most of the projects audited by the Court, public
authorities  and  operators  were  already  experiencing
significant difficulties,  especially in:

is  the  position  satisfactory  where  the
136. Nor 
Commission  —  on  behalf  of  the  EU  —  is  contributing
directly  to  the  costs  of  facilities  required  to  meet  the
standards  laid  down  in  the  Directives.  Of  the  projects
audited  by  the  Court  a  high  proportion  of  those  that
aimed  to  improve  the  treatment  of  waste  water  failed  to
meet  the  standards  laid  down  by  the  Directives  (see
paragraphs  59-62  and  74-76).

137. Nor  has  sufficient  progress  been  made 
in
reducing the contribution to water pollution arising from
intensive methods of agricultural production. There is no
sign  that  the  producers  who  are  responsible  for  the  most
serious  nitrate  pollution  are  being  effectively  restrained
either  by  prohibitions  or  specific  charges  related  to  their
operations  or  by  the  creation  of  effective  incentives  to
overcome  the  problems.  This  is  a  problem  not  yet
adequately  addressed  in  the  context  of  the  reform  of  the
CAP  (see  paragraphs  30-36).

— advancing  capital  (the  region’s  share  in  financing  the

capital  investment),  and

— fixing  ‘politically’  and  ‘socially’  acceptable  charging

rates  for  their  ‘customers’.

138.
The  position  is  equally  unsatisfactory  in  respect
of sewage sludge. Effective implementation of the UWWT
Directive  is  bound  to  add  to  the  difficulties  of  disposing
of  sewage  sludge,  but  there  has  as  yet  been  no  clear
Commission  response  to  this  challenge  (see  paragraphs
38-44).

facilities  are  co-financed  by 

Moreover  where 
the
Structural  Funds  (and  notably  by  the  Cohesion  Fund,
where  associated  revenue  has  explicitly  to  be  taken  into
account  in  determining  the  amount  of  EU  assistance  [see
Article  7,  paragraph  2  of  the  CF  Regulation]),  the
political  and  economic  incentives  are  such  that  the  costs
of  countering  pollution  are  all  too  readily  transferred
from  the  polluter  to  the  European  taxpayer.

CONCLUSION

shown 

the  difficulty 

The  audit  has 

135.
the
Commission  has  in  securing  the  implementation  of  an
effective policy to counter water pollution throughout the
EU.  Where  action  rests  entirely  with  Member  States  and
their  local  administrations  to  take  the  action  required  to
meet  the  Directives,  the  audit  has  shown  that  difficulties
remain in transposing Community decisions into national

139.
Further  consideration  needs  to  be  given  to  the
effective  implementation  of  the  polluter-pays  principle  in
relation to water pollution. In principle charges and taxes
need  to  be  set  in  such  a  way  that  not  only  is  sufficient
revenue secured to meet both the capital and operational
costs of the facilities concerned, but also more significant
polluters  have  an  incentive  to  improve  their  practices  in
order  to  reduce  the  impact  of  the  taxes  or  charges  they
would  otherwise  have  to  pay.  The  Court  is  concerned
that  there  might  be  a  conflict  between  the  normal
requirement,  whereby  revenue  generated  by  projects  is
taken  into  account  in  determining  the  amount  of  EU
finance  to  be  made  available,  and  the  polluter-pays
principle: in order to qualify for maximum EU assistance,
authorities  in  the  Member  States  may  be  discouraged
from  ensuring  that  the  principal  polluters  bear  their
proper  share  of  the  costs  and  face  the  correct  financial
incentives to reduce pollution at source and so reduce the
burden  on  public 
(see  paragraphs
128-134).

infrastructure 

140.
There  is  scope  for  improvement  of  coordination
within  the  Commission.  While  DG  XI  has  the  primary

C 191/28

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

18.6.98

responsibility for EU environmental policy, and for action
to  enforce  the  Directives,  it  needs  to  strengthen  its  links
with other operational DGs in the Commission to ensure
that  the  programmes  and  projects  for  whose  execution
they  are  responsible  are  fully  consistent  with  the  EU’s
environmental  objectives  (see  paragraph  8).

The 

141.
fifth  environmental  action  programme
presented to the Council in February 1993 fixed the main
lines of Community action for the medium and long term
for  the  development  of  all  sectors  of  economic  activity
associated with environmentally sustainable development.

It  also  set  a  timetable  for  the  attainment  of  the
programme  objectives.  As  regards  sewage  treatment,  the
difficulties  highlighted  by  the  Court  in  this  report  could
make it difficult for the fifth programme objectives to be
achieved  by  the  year  2000.  This  uncertainty  is  shared  by
the  Commission  and  Parliament  which  have  also  stated
that there has been a lack of progress in combating water
pollution.  Positive  action  must  be  undertaken  by  the
Commission  and  the  Member  States,  well  in  advance  of
the  deadlines  for  implementation  that  have  been  laid
down  in  the  directives,  in  order  to  redress  the  present
situation  (see  paragraphs  3,  5,  24-28  and  51).

This  report  was  adopted  by  the  Court  of  Auditors  in  Luxembourg  at  its  Court  meeting  of
19  March  1998.

For  the  Court  of  Auditors

Bernhard  FRIEDMANN

President

18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/29

TECHNICAL  ANNEX

TABLE  1

Treatment  requirements  under  Articles  4-7  of  the  UWWT  Directive  (91/271/EEC)

Agglomeration
size  (1 000 p.e.)

Nature  of  receiving  water

Treatment  level  required

Type

Sensitivity

31  Dec  1998

31  Dec  2000

31  Dec  2005

, 2

All waters

All

2-10

Coastal  waters

Standard

Estuaries

Less  sensitive

Freshwater
estuaries

Standard

10-15

Coastal  waters

Less  sensitive

All waters

Standard

All waters

Sensitive

. 15

Coastal  waters

Less  sensitive (1)

All waters

Standard

All waters

Sensitive

Tertiary
treatment

Tertiary
treatment

Primary
treatment

Secondary
treatment

Appropriate
treatment

Appropriate
treatment

Primary
treatment

Secondary
treatment

Primary
treatment

Secondary
treatment

(1) Less  sensitive  areas  cannot  be  designated  if  the  discharge  size  is  PE . 150 000.
Source:  National  Rivers  Authority  (NRA),  Final  Report  1995/UK.

TABLE  2

Timetable  for  implementing  some  of  the  requirements  of  the  UWWT  Directive

Date  for  implementation

Requirement

30  June  1993

Bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions.

31  December  1993

Establish  a  programme  of  implementation.

30  June  1994

1998-2005

Designate  sensitive  and  less  sensitive  areas  and  review  these  at  intervals  of
no more than four years (Article 5). (The designation is not required where
Member States choose to apply Article 5(8) implementing tertiary treatment
for  all  discharges  of  PE . 10 000  within  their  territory).

Ensure  that  discharges  to  sewer  are  regulated.

Provide 
the  Commission  with 
programme  and  update  this  every  two  years.

information  on 

the 

implementation

Ensure that urban waste water entering collection systems is treated, before
being  discharged,  to  the  required  standard  by  the  specified  deadlines.

Monitor  discharges  to  verify  compliance  with  the  requirements,  and
monitor  the  receiving  waters.

Source:  National  Rivers  Authority  (NRA)  Final  Report  1995/UK.

C 191/30

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

18.6.98

TABLE  3

Timetable  for  implementing  some  of  the  Nitrates  directive

Date  for  implementation

Requirement

December  1993

Bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions.

Undertake  a  one-year  monitoring  programme 
to  establish  nitrate
concentrations  of  surface  and  groundwaters  for  the  purpose  of  designating
vulnerable zones. To be repeated every four years depending on the level of
nitrate  pollution.

Identify  vulnerable  zones  and  review  these  at  intervals  of  no  more  than
four  years.  (This  is  not  required  where  Member  States  choose  to  appply
Article  3(5)  and  implement  the  action  programme  throughout  the  whole
territory).

Establish a Code of good Agricultural Practice to provide a general level of
protection  against  pollution  on  a  voluntary  basis  throughout  the  country.

December  1995

Establish  Action  Programme(s)  regarding  agricultural  practices  for  use  in
vulnerable  zones  (limiting  the  application  of  organic  manure,  requiring
minimum  storage  capacity,  etc).  They  are  to  be  revised  at  least  every  four
years.

June  1996

Forward  a  report  covering  all  these  points  every  four  years.

December  1999

Implement  Action  Programmes  on  a  compulsory  basis  across  the  whole  or
part  of  the  vulnerable  zones.

Source:  National  Rivers  Authority  (NRA)  Final  Report  1995/UK.

TABLE  4

Timetable  for  implementing  some  of  the  Sludge  directive

Date  for  implementation

Requirement

August  1989

Member States should have implemented the Directives and put in place all
administrative  and  regulatory  procedures  and  instructions  to  facilitate
implementation

i) Member  States  should  prepare  a  report  for  the  Commission  on  the

implementation  of  the  Directives

ii)

to  keep  detailed  registers  with 
composition  and  characteristics  of  the  sludge  produced

information  about  quantities/

iii)

to  keep  registers  with  names,  addresses  of  farmers  together  with
quantities  of  sludge  used  in  agriculture  as  fertiliser

Source:  National  Rivers  Authority  (NRA)  Final  Report  1995/UK.

18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/31

TABLE  5

Reporting  requirements  specified  in  directives

Directive

Reporting  authority

Frequency

Date  for  first  report

Period

Surface  water
(75/44/EEC)

Commission  thorugh  a
central  national  agency

every  12  months

before  1  October  of  the
following year

1  year

Sampling and analysis
(79/869/EEC)

Commission

every  3  years

9  months  before  the
end  of  period  covered

1993-1995

Bathing  water
(76/160/EEC)

Commission

regular  intervals  after  ?

Dangerous  substances
(76/464/EEC)

Commission

every  5  years

Mercury  (82/176/EEC)

Commission

every  5  years

Mercury  (84/156/EEC)

Commission

every  5  years

Cadmium  (83/513/EEC)

Commission

every  5  years

Hexachlorocyclohexane
(84/491/EEC)

Commission

every  5  years

Carbon  tetrachloride
(86/280/EEC)

Commission

every  5  years

Aldrin  (89/34/EEC)

Commission

every  5  years

Commission

every  5  years

4  years  after
notification

4  years  after
notification

4  years  after
notification

4  years  after
notification

4  years  after
notification

4  years  after
notification

4  years  after
notification

4  years  after
notification

4  years  after
notification

bathing  season

5  years
(1980/1985/1990/1995)

5  years
(1980/1985/1990/1995)

5  years
(1980/1985/1990/1995)

5  years
(1980/1985/1990/1995)

5  years
(1980/1985/1990/1995)

5  years
(1980/1985/1990/1995)

5  years
(1980/1985/1990/1995)

5  years
(1980/1985/1990/1995)

Dichloroethane
(90/415/EEC)

Freshwater  fish
(78/659/EEC)

Exchange  of
information
(77/795/EEC  and
86/574/EEC)

Reporting  decision
(92/446/EEC)

Groundwater
(80/68/EEC)

Drinking  water
(80/778/EEC)

Commission

regular intervals

5  years  after
implementation  (before
1  Oct.  1995)

1  year

Commission  through  a
central  national  agency

every  12  months

before  1  October  of  the
following yeare

1  year

Commission

Specific  to  directives

specific  to  directives

Specific  to  directives

Commission

on  request

on  request

3  years
(1993/1994/1995)

Commission

ns

within  15  days

ns

UWWT  (91/271/EEC)

Commission

on  request

within  6  months  of  the
request

1  year

C 191/32

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

18.6.98

Directive

Reporting  authority

Frequency

Date  for  first  report

Period

Nitrates  (91/676/EEC)

Commission

4  years  period

Shellfish  (79/923/EEC)

Commission

regular intervals

4  years  after
notification

4  years

6  years  after
implementation  (before
1  Oct.  1995)

1  year

Proposal  on  landfill
(COM(93) 275)

Commission

every  3  years

3  years  after
implementation

3  years

Proposal  on  bathing
water  (COM(93) 680)

Commission

every year

31  Dec.  1996

1  year

Proposal  on  ecological
quality  (COM(93) 680)

Commission

every  3  years

9  months  after  the  end
of  period  covered

3  years
(1999/2000/2001)

Titanium  dioxide
(82/883/EEC)

Commission

ns

1981  and  1986

1  year  (1981)

Source:  ECT/IW  Project  Report.  Ref:  PO  1/95,  12  July  1995.

Numbers  of  WWTS  in  groups  of  design  capacities  in  the  EU  Member  States  (1994)

TABLE  6

Member  State

Belgium

Denmark

France

Germany (1) (2)

Greece

Irland

Italy (2)

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Portugal

Spain

United  Kingdom

Percent (3)

, 5

264

1 600

8 502

7 199

521

4 071

58

92

263

6 598

81,9

5-15

49

183

808

716

27

385

6

112

30

395

7,6

WWTS  capacity  (× 1 000  p.e.)

15-50

50-100

100-200

200-500

. 500

50

53

804

772

25

12

441

3

127

24

493

7,9

13

26

143

90

8

1

4

66

3

3 281

102

1,3

9

8

69

1

1

36

108

4

2

35

64

1

1

24

82

1,3

1

7

2

1

3

1

19

Total

389

1 873

10 368

9 941 (1)

170

562

5 069

73

460

324

3 281

7 797

40 307

(1) Data  for  former  West  Germany,  except  total  which  includes  1 100  WWTSs  in  former  East  Germany.
(2) Change  to  WWTS  capactiy  class  at  10 000  p.e.
(3) Excludes  data  which  covers  more  than  one  WWTS  capacity  class,  except  Germany.
Source: Final  report  to  the  Commission  DG  XI  B1:  The  comparability  of  quantitative  data  on  waste  water  collection  and  treatment  (European  Water

Pollution  Control  Association,  April  1995).

18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/33

TABLE  7

Population  in  EU  Member  States  served  by  waste  water  treatment  plants

Total
population

Percent  of  population  served  by  waste  water  treatment  plants

Percent  of
sewerage
systems (5)

Source

Eurostat  (1992)

EWPCA
(1984) (1)

Sobemap
(1990) (2)

OECD  (1991)

Eurostat (3) WRC  (1994) (4) WHO  (1990)

Reference  year

1991

1981-1983

1988

late  80s

1989-1990

1987-1993

1990

Belgium

Denmark

France (6)

Germany

(former  West  and

former  East)

Greece

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Portugal

Spain

Netherlands

United  Kingdom

millions

9,9

5,1

56,9

79,7

10,2

3,5

57,7

0,4

9,9

39,0

15,0

57,5

%

24

92

59

80

26

35

, 100

82

%

35

98

50

90

62

10

41

60

83

8

47

90

84

%

98

52

90

60

48

89

84

%

25

98

68

86

91

62

10

44

61

90

21

50

93

87

%

28

92

50

83

90

58

34

45

60

87

20

59

88

85

%

45

95

40

100

18

70

—

92

45

26

85

100

Total  in  EU

344,8

68,9 %

66,5 %

(1) EWPCA:  European  Water  Pollution  Control  Association.
(2) Extracted  from  Morse  et  al.  (1993),  based  on  Sobemap  (1990).
(3) Data  provided  by  Eurostat  during  this  study.
(4) WRC:  Water  Research  Centre.
(5) Not  clear  from  reference  if  data  refer  to  total  population,  %  of  sewage  collected  or  %  of  number  of  collecting  systems.
(6) Data  on  population  served  probably  not  directly  comparable  with  other  countries.
Source:  The  European  Water  Pollution  Control  Association  (April  1995).

C 191/34

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

18.6.98

TABLE  8

Population  in  EU  Member  States  served  by  collecting  systems

Total  population

Percent  of  population  served  by  collecting  systems

Source

Eurostat  (1992)

EWPCA  (1982) (1) WHO (2)  (1989)

Sobemap  (1990)

Eurostat (3)

WRC  (1994) (4)

Reference  year

1991

1981-1983

1988-1989

1988

1989-1990

1987-1993

Belgium

Denmark

France

Total  Germany
former  West
former  East

Greece

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Portugal

Spain

Netherlands

United  Kingdom

millions

9,9

5,1

56,9

79,7

10,2

3,5

57,7

0,4

9,9

39,0

15,0

57,5

%

55

98

92

90

—

—

56

—

—

90

100

95

%

. 70

83

85

94

. 42

66

—

97

41

68

90

98

%

70

98

70

93
70

40

66

80

69

6

8

29

96

%

—

99

87

93
76

—

66

—

90

—

—

95

96

%

70

93

65

89
92
77

67

75

97

52

70

97

96

Total  in  EU

344,8

(1) EWPCA:  European  Water  Pollution  Control  Association.
(2) Weighted  mean  for  urban  and  rural  population.
(3) Data  provided  by  Eurostat  during  this  study.
(4) WRC:  Water  Research  Centre.
Source:  The  European  Water  Pollution  Control  Association  (April  1995).

Production  of  sludge  (as  disposed)  in  each  EU  Member  State  on  annual  and  per  head  of  population
(connected  to  WWTP)  basis  (WRC,  1994)

TABLE  9

Member  State

Belgium

Denmark

France

Germany

Greece (1)

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Portugal (1)

Spain

United  Kingdom

Total

Sludge  disposed

tds  y-1 (2)

59 200

170 300

852 000

2 681 200

48 200

36 700

816 000

7 900

322 900

25 000

350 000

1 107 000

6 476 400

(1) Upper  estimate.
(2) Tonnes  of  sludge  disposed  per  year.
Source: EWPCA  Report  to  the  Commission  in  April  1995.

(%)

(1)

(3)

(13)

(42)
(, 1)
(, 1)
(13)
(, 1)

(5)
(, 1)

(5)

(17)

(100)

18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/35

THE  COMMISSION’S  REPLIES

CHAPTER  I

in  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  impact  of
programmes.

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  DIRECTIVES

Transposition  of  the  directives  into  national  law

12.-13.-14. On  1  October  1997  the  Commission
adopted  its  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Nitrates
Directive.  According  to  this  recent  report,  only  four
Member  States  (DK,  F,  L,  E)  are  judged  as  having
complied  with  their  obligations  of  transposition.  Figures
are  also  given  for  the  obligations  concerning  codes  of
good  agricultural  practice  and  action  programmes  for
vulnerable zones. The report also states that infringement
procedures  against  most  Member  States  have  been
opened.

The  Commission  is  currently  working  on  its  report  on
the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment
Directive,  to  be  published  next  year.  Infringement
procedures  are  (November  1997)  under  way  against  six
Italy,
Member  States 
Portugal and Spain). In three cases (Greece, Germany and
Italy),  the  Court  of  Justice  already  ruled  in  1996  that
Member  States  had  not  complied  with  their  obligations
to  transpose  the  provisions  into  national  law.

(Austria,  Belgium,  Germany, 

Reporting  by  the  Member  States

17. With  regard  to  the  implementation  programmes
under  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive,  by
November  1997  the  Commission  had  received  reports
from  11  Member  States,  while  those  from  Belgium
(Walloon region), Greece, Italy and Portugal had still not
been  provided.

As concerns the comparison of Member States’ provision
for  industrial  waste  water  discharges,  studies  concerning
all Member States including the three new ones have been
completed,  though  later  than  expected  due  to  Member
States  being  late  in  their  transposition.  The  results  of  the
studies  are  at  present  being  evaluated,  and 
the
Commission will publish its report under Article 13(3) in
1998.

in 

for 

inclusion 

indicators 

Regarding the database of indicators, it was developed in
the period prior to the negotiations as a tool to assist the
Member  States  and  the  Commission  in  the  identification
of 
the  programming
documents.  It  was  not  intended  that  the  database  would
be  the  means  whereby  indicators  would  be  managed  on
an  ongoing  basis,  that  being  the  responsibility  of  the
Monitoring Committees, on the basis of whatever sources
of  information  they  consider  appropriate.  Rather,  the
purpose  of 
to  provide  general
background information on the ‘context’ of the Objective
1 regions, based largely on data collected by the National
Statistics  Institutes  (NSI).

the  database  was 

is  acknowledged  that  the  range  of 

It 
information
available  in  the  database  was  insufficient.  However,  this
reflects  the  limited  availability  of  regional  data  on  the
environment  at  that  time.  It  also  explains  why  the
database was confined to regions eligible for Objective 1,
as  very  little  environmental  data  is  generally  collected  at
the  level  (NUTS  III)  at  which  eligibility  is  established  for
Objectives  2  and  5b.

In  the  period  since  the  development  of  the  database,
improve  the
significant  efforts  have  been  made  to 
availability  of  regional  data  on 
the  environment,
including  the  provision  of  financial  support  to  the
Member  States  for  the  collection  of  data.  This  should
allow  an  improved  database  to  contribute  to  the  choice
of  indicators  for  inclusion  in  the  next  generation  of
programming  documents.

Progress  against  the  specified  timescale

Urban  waste  water  treatment  Directive

24.-28. When  the  Directive  concerning  urban  waste
water  treatment  was  adopted,  quantitative  targets  had
not  yet  been  clearly  discerned.  Statistics  have  been
collected  and  are  being  compiled.  The  results  should  be
available  some  time  in  1998.

20.-22.
Regarding  the  legal  requirement  to  include
quantified indicators in the programming documents and
monitor progress towards the achievement of targets, the
situation  is  that,  arising  from  the  negotiations  with  the
Member  States,  a  range  of  environmental  indicators  has
in  fact  been  included  in  each  programming  document.  It
is  the  task  of  the  Monitoring  Committees  to  ensure  that
the  necessary  data  are  made  available, 
from  all
appropriate  sources,  to  allow  such  indicators  to  be  used

The  widely  differing 

26.
rates  of  population/
agglomerations  being  connected  to  adequate  treatment
plants  had  in  fact  been  one  of  the  main  reasons  for  the
Commission to propose and for the Council to adopt the
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. Firstly, Member
States  have  to  assess  the  situation  and  to  establish
implementation  programmes,  secondly,  they  have  to
implement 
the  necessary  measures.  Therefore,  on
adoption,  the  number  of  treatment  plants  could  not  be

C 191/36

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

18.6.98

foreseen throughout the Community, in particular as only
a case-by-case assessment can provide a sufficiently sound
basis to answer the question whether to construct a joint
treatment plant for several agglomerations in a region, or
individual  ones.  However, 
the  Commission  Report
planned  for  1998  (cf.  response  to  12.-13.-14.)  will  give
an  overview  of  the  number  of  treatment  plants  as  well.

late 

The  Commission  is  aware  of  the  fact  that  some
28.
in  meeting  their
Member  States  seem  to  be 
obligations,  some  of  them  having  not  even  formally
transposed  the  Directive  (cf.  response  to  12.-13.-14.).
However,  the  Commission  considers  the  deadlines  for
achieving  the  objectives  as  adopted  by  the  Council
sufficient, and does not consider at present proposing any
changes  to  the  deadlines.  It  feels  itself  supported  in  this
context  by  the  fact  that  not  a  single  Member  State  has
formally requested such a change. As for non-compliance
with  the  Directive,  the  Commission  will  vigorously
pursue  the  necessary  infringement  procedures,  including
those  under  Article  171  of  the  Treaty.

Nitrates Directive

The  Commission  has  been 

33.
informed  that  a
considerable  number  of  other  farmers  are  interested  in
being  equipped  with  treatment  plants,  but  the  cost  of
such  installations  is  very  high  for  an  individual  farmer.
The  cooperative  and 
the  regional  authorities  are
encouraging  the  grouping  of  neighbouring  farmers  in
order  to  facilitate  the  financing  of  such  plants;  it  is  true,
however,  that  the  situation  is  progressing  slowly.

34.
The  last  sentence  refers  to  the  data  on  current
land  application  of  organic  waste  etc.  It  is  true  that
such  data  might,  given  local  circumstances,  lead  to
misinterpretation. However, Annex III.I.3 to the Directive
clearly 
the  nitrogen
requirements  of  the  crops  and  the  nitrogen  supply  to  the
crops.

requires  a  balance  between 

Experimental  projects 

in  Brittany  have  been
35.
ERDF.  The
by 
exceptionally 
implementation  of  the  projects  and  the  respect  of
Community  legislation  relating  to  them  is  primarily  the
responsibility  of  the  Member  State.

co-financed 

the 

36.-37.
As  regrettable  as  the  pollution  caused  by
agricultural  activities  in  Brittany  with  respect  to  the
Community’s  environment  policy  is,  the  national  and
Community  public  grants  which  could  be  awarded  to
remedy  the  situation  are  considered  to  be  State  aids,  and
such  a  definition  outlaws  any  grants  which  would  be
awarded  to  enable  farms  to  comply  with  the  statutory
provisions,  since 
the
application  of  the  ‘polluter-pays’  principle  and  hence
likely 
competition.
Consequently,  when  applying 
regional  policy  and
promoting  environmental  protection,  the  Commission

this  would  be  contrary 

distortions 

introduce 

to 

to 

of 

cannot  contravene  the  principles  set  out  in  Community
policies  on  the  environment  and  competition.

As  part  of  the  guidelines  for  the  new  generation  of
Objective  2  programmes  (1997-1999),  the  Commission
has  informed  the  Member  States  of  its  desire  to  step  up
the  share  devoted  to  the  environment.  However,  it  must
be clear that it is not the purpose of the Structural Funds
to  solve  single-handedly  all  the  pollution  problems  of  a
region.

Sludge Directive

40.
The  French  authorities  have  stated  that  the
controls  on  the  use  of  treated  sludge  for  agriculture  will
soon  be  strengthened.

In  1996  the  Portuguese  authorities  adopted  the  Strategic
Plan  for  Urban  Waste  (PERSU),  the  execution  of  which
will  allow  95 %  of  the  population  to  be  served  by  an
urban  waste  treatment  system  respecting  the  Community
directives.  A  number  of  relevant  projects  are  being
executed  or  have  already  been  completed.

As  these  treatment  centres  become  operational,  the
Portuguese authorities are closing down the unsupervised
discharge sites in the region. About 20 of these discharge
sites  have  been  de-activated.

41.
These  problems  have  been  solved  in  the  following
way.  The  Commission  approved  a  top-up  to  the
Cohesion  Fund  in  August  1995  for  projects  not  covered
by  the  initial  decision.  The  new  decision  provides  for
financing  to  step  up  the  disposal  of  sludge.  It  is  planned
to carry out tertiary treatment to deal with mercury. This
reprogramming  has  led  to  a  substantial  increase  in
financing  which  has  risen  from  ECU  5  million  to
ECU  11,1  million.

The  results  of  the  studies  undertaken  by  the
44.
Commission  have  been  distributed  via  the  Permanent
Representatives, various ministries or their contact points.
Further  dissemination  by  the  Member  State  to  interested
parties  may  not  always  be  sufficient,  however.

CHAPTER  II

EU  EXPENDITURE  ON  THE  IMPROVEMENT  OF  WATER
QUALITY

Budgetary implementation

Because  of  the  programme  approach  adopted  in
46.
the  case  of  the  Structural  Funds,  it  is  normal  that  the
Commission  should  not  be  in  a  position  to  provide
systematic  information  below  the  level  of  priorities  or

18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/37

measures approved by it, such as information concerning
the  individual  projects  approved  by  the  Member  States.
In many cases, water measures are integrated into general
priorities  for  the  environment.  This  is  reflected  in  the
environmental  reporting  in  the  Annual  Reports.

However, the 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds
in  1995  gave  special  attention  to  the  environmental
aspect,  giving  a  breakdown  of  Community  support  for
direct  environmental  investments,  including  those  for
reducing  water  pollution.  The  report  also  contains
numerous  examples  of  environmental  aspects  in  the
programmes.  The  increasing  focus  on  integrating  the
environmental  dimension  into  the  different  programme
priorities,  especially  in  Objective  2  programmes,  has
precluded  a  more  systematic  approach.

the 

agricultural 
in  Northern 

50.
Regarding 
development
the
Operational  Programme 
Ireland, 
decentralised  nature  of  the  Structural  Funds  means  that
the  Commission  does  not  have  details  on  individual
projects.  In  the  case  in  point,  decisions  on  approval  of
individual farm investments come under the responsibility
of the Member State, which has a series of administrative
and  on-the-spot 
control
procedures.

checks  as  part  of 

its 

Data deficiencies

The  proposed  Water  Framework  Directive
52.
(Commission Proposal COM(97)49 of 26 February 1997,
as amended by COM(97)614 of 26 November 1997) will
provide 
for  water-related
definitions 
Community legislation.

common 

53.

Please  see  reply  to  paragraph  46.

Lack  of  specialised  data

54.-55.
The  relative  shares  spent  for  environmental
purposes are presented as aggregate figures, reflecting the
integrated  approach  of  the  Structural  Funds.  Moreover,
while  Commission  reporting  aims  at  giving  an  overview
of the Funds’ operations, details on individual regions are
accessible  in  the  published  programmes  concerned.

The extent to which environmental measures are included
in the programmes differs according to the Member State
and  to  the  Objectives  concerned.  As  regards  Objective  1,
the  CSF  for  the  Netherlands,  for  example,  contains  a
specific  measure  on  ‘water  management’.

such 

as  Portugal  or  Belgium, 

include
Others, 
‘environment’  measures,  but  not  explicitly  for  water.  In
Objective  2,  the  co-financing  of  basic  infrastructure
investments such as the collection and treatment of water

has  not  been  a  priority  and  therefore  requires  a  specific
justification  in  terms  of  regional  development  needs.

The  non  explicitly  environmental  projects  are  important;
however,  it  is  not  possible  to  identify  the  shares  of
non-environmental  measures  which  have  a  positive
environmental  effect,  as 
these  are  not  specifically
indicated  in  the  programmes.

the
The  1994  CSFs  contain  an  assessment  of 
environmental  investments  supported  in  the  1989-1993
CSFs.  However,  programme  level  evaluations  can  only
address  priorities  (e.g.  ‘environment’)  and  not  individual
measures  (such  as  ‘waste  water  treatment’).  In  view  of
the  importance  of  environmental  issues,  the  Commission
has  launched  a  broad  thematic  evaluation  of  the  impact
of  the  Structural  Funds  on  the  environment,  covering  all
Member  States  and  aimed  at  providing  guidance  for
future  programmes;  it  is  expected  to  be  completed  in
1998.

With regard to the Cohesion Fund and within the context
of  action  as  part  of  technical  assistance,  the  Commission
has  financed  studies  carried  out  by  a  private  consultant
to  identify  the  situation  in  the  cohesion  countries  with
respect  to  Directive  91/271/EEC.

56.
The harmonisation of data is already a continuous
concern  of  the  Commission.  The  differences  in  data,
however,  reflect  the  variety  of  content  and  form  of  the
different programmes. It is only possible to harmonise the
data  on  the  environment  in  the  programmes  to  a  limited
extent  at  this  stage.  Already,  the  category  ‘environment’
is  very  differently  defined  by  the  Member  States  and
regions  in  their  programmes.  The  growing  and  certainly
welcome  trend  to  integrate  the  environment  horizontally
increasingly
into 
complicates  the  clear  identification  of  environmental
measures.

non-environmental 

measures 

CHAPTER  III

AUDIT  OF  PROJECT  IMPLEMENTATION

Conformity  with  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Directive

57.
Under  the  rules  governing  the  Structural  Funds,
ensuring  the  conformity  of  co-financed  measures  with
Community policy on environmental protection is a clear
responsibility of the Member States. According to Article
23(2)  of  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  4253/88,  the
Commission  may  carry  out  on-the-spot  checks. 
If
irregularities are detected, the Commission applies, where
necessary,  the  provisions  of  Article  24  of  Council
Regulation  (EEC)  No  4253/88  and  takes  the  necessary
corrective action.

C 191/38

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

18.6.98

The  application  of  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No
2064/97,  establishing  detailed  arrangements  for  the
implementation  of  Council  Regulation 
(EEC)  No
4253/88  as  regards  the  financial  control  by  Member
States  of  operations  co-financed  by  the  Structural  Funds,
will improve the financial monitoring of compliance with
all  Community 
the
environment.

those  on 

including 

rules, 

the 

timetable 

The  deadline  for  commitments  for  most  of  the
59.
programmes  of  the  1989-1993  programming  period  was
31  December  1993.  Given 
the
implementation  of  the  UWWT  Directive  (30  June  1993
for  bringing  into  force  the  laws  and  31  December  1993
for  the  establishment  of  an  implementation  programme
by Member States), it seems reasonable that a number of
projects  which  were  in  the  process  of  being  implemented
could  not  be  modified  to  reflect  the  new  requirements  of
the  Directive.

for 

a) According to information obtained from the Member
State, the Coruña pre-treatment plant will be enlarged
to  comply  with  Directive  91/271/EEC.  Additional
works  of  5  billion  PTS  have  been  planned  in  this
respect.

treated  by 

b) Only  70 %  of  the  waste  water  of  this  conurbation  is
the  Funchal  waste  water
currently 
treatment  plant 
in  Madeira  because  the  sewer
networks have not been completed and some of these
networks  do  not  function  very  well.  Works  currently
being  carried  out  under  the  responsibility  of  Funchal
municipal  authorities  will  enable  the  system  to
function  properly.

c) Following  an  enquiry  by  the  Commission,  the  Italian
authorities  have  replied  that,  at  the  present  time,  the
parameters  concerning  discharges  of  effluents  for  the
Mola  di  Bari  waste  water  treatment  plant  comply
with  the  standards  set  out  in  Directive  91/271/EEC
where  the  majority  of  values  are  concerned.  This
result  has  been  achieved  precisely  on  the  completion
of  the  finishing  works  financed  under  the  ENVIREG
programme.  The  Commission  has  asked  for  detailed
technical  information  in  this  respect.

61. a) According  to  information  from  the  Member
State,  it  is  planned  to  enlarge  the  pre-treatment
plant  to  comply  with  Directive  91/271/EEC.

in 

the 

framework  of 

b) The  investments  co-financed  by  the  Cohesion
Fund 
the  project
‘Enlargement  of  sewers  and  construction  of  the
Nigran  water  purification  plant  with  secondary
treatment’  will  guarantee  compliance  with  the
Directive.

With  respect  to  the  Alviela  Basin  purification  plant,
of  which  only  the  improvement  (third  phase  of  the
project)  is  being  financed  by  the  Cohesion  Fund,  the
decision  to  grant  funding  approved  in  July  1993
clearly  specifies  that  the  Portuguese  authorities  must
fulfil  the  quality  criteria  of  the  Directive.  Checks
regarding  this  will  be  carried  out  before  the  balance
of  funding  for  the  project  is  disbursed.

Outdated  design  of  projects

65.
The  Commission  will  ask  the  Greek  authorities  to
provide  information  about  the  operating  conditions  of
this  sewage  plant  today.

67.

Please  see  reply  to  para.  59.  b).

68.
According to information supplied by the Member
State,  the  sewers  of  the  town  of  Ribeira  can  cope
adequately  with  the  evacuation  of  rain  and  waste  water.
It  seems  that  the  technical  problems  which  appear  in
some  municipal  collectors  under  exceptional  conditions
do  not  cause  serious  problems  in  the  functioning  of  the
system  as  a  whole.

The  problems  of  stormwater  and  industrial  waste  water

69.
As concerns the choice of ‘separate’ or ‘combined’
collecting  systems,  there  are  no  general  advantages  or
disadvantages  attached  to  either.  The  choice  will  have  to
be  made  case  by  case,  depending  on  environmental,
meteorological,  local  and  hydrological  considerations.
However,  surface  water  drainage  (in  most  cases  of
separate  systems)  will  discharge  into  the  receiving  waters
without  further  treatment.

In  the  case  of  combined  systems  (one  collecting  system
for  sewage  and  one  for  rain  water  run-off),  the  Directive
does  not  require  that  rain  water  run-off  be  collected
but  requires  that  pollution  to  receiving  waters  from
stormwater  overflows  be  limited  (see  Annex  I.A).

70.
It is true that the municipal network of Biguglia is
not  a  separate  system.  The  explanation  of  the  French
authorities is that it is unthinkable to build a network to
collect  and  treat  rain  water  because  of  the  investment
needed. The cost of re-dimensioning the sewers under the
national  trunk  road  alone  is  estimated  at  FF  30  million.

c) Biguglia:  As  explained  by  the  French  authorities,
this  project  had  been  approved  before  the
application  of  Directive  91/271/EEC.  Additional
works  have  been  planned  in  order  to  meet  the
requirements  of  the  Directive.

At its meeting on 15 October 1993, the ENVIREG-Stride
programme  Monitoring  Committee  proposed  increasing
funds  under  the  ‘sanitation’  heading  by  ECU  0,379
million  to  cope  with  the  additional  requirements  for
sanitation  connected  with  the  flooding  in  Corsica  in
1993.

18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/39

It is correct that the Spanish authorities use mixed
71.
sanitation  systems,  which  does  not  in  itself  constitute  a
technical  problem.  A  mixed  system  does  not  necessarily
entail  problems  for  the  functioning  of  the  purification
plants which are now able to incorporate storage systems
or  evacuation  devices  leading  to  the  general  floodway.
These  investments  are  financed  by  the  Cohesion  Fund.

In the case of Portugal, the Court’s assertion applies only
to  the  ancient  and/or  historical  areas  of  towns.  The  new
treatment  systems  or  those  which  have  been  replaced  are
already equipped with two separate systems (urban waste
water/rain  water).

73.
The  proposed  Water  Framework  Directive
(Commission Proposal COM(97)49 of 26 February 1997,
as amended by COM(97)614 of 26 November 1997) has
as  one  of  its  objectives  the  obligation  to  introduce  full
cost  recovery  charges  for  services  such  as  water  supply
and waste water collection and treatment, since the aim is
to  utilise  natural  resources  prudently  and  rationally,
which  is  a  goal  enshrined  in  Article  130r  of  the  Treaty.

74.
The  Member  State  has  reported  that  the  regional
administration  is  doing  all  it  can  to  effectively  apply  the
‘polluter-pays’  principle,  to  organise  the  way  in  which
industrial  effluent  is  discharged  and  to  encourage  the
pre-treatment  of  water  before  it  reaches  the  connections
to  the  communal  networks.

The  Commission  will  examine  this  case  with  the

75.
Spanish  authorities.

The  Irish  authorities  have  indicated  that  they  are

76.
following  up  the  case  highlighted  by  the  Court.

the 

subject 

77. a) Monitoring  of  waste  water  discharges  from
industries/installations  under 
Integrated
Pollution  Prevention  and  Control  Directive  is
adequate  monitoring
already 
96/61/EC.
requirements 
Monitoring  of  discharges 
‘non-IPPC
industries/installations’  will  be  dealt  with  under
the  proposed  Water  Framework  Directive.  The
Commission amended, on 26 November 1997, its
proposal  for  a  Water  Framework  Directive,  by:

under  Directive 

from 

to 

— incorporating 
controls,

the  principle  of  emission

— obliging  the  Commission  to  come  forward  at
short  notice  with  a  first  batch  of  emission
limit  value  proposals  for  priority  substances
(COM(97)614).

b) both  the  IPPC  Directive  and  the  proposed  Water
Framework  Directive  foresee  a  system  of  prior
authorisation  and/or  permit  procedure,  those
owning  and  maintaining  the  urban  waste  water
systems  will  have  to  be  part  of  the  decision
taking  process  and  be  kept  informed.

The  costs  of  projects  —  planned  versus  actual  costs

79.
The  Psytalia  water  purification  plant  was  started
with ERDF funding and continued with support from the
Cohesion  Fund.  It  is  correct  that  the  initial  cost  estimate
(ECU  40,1  million)  for  a  purification  plant  to  cover  a
metropolis the size of Athens was not realistic. This error
occurred  because  of  the  particular  way  in  which  the
Greek  public  works  system  operated,  making  it  possible
to  begin 
the  structure  without  having  calculated
sufficiently  precisely  its  real  cost  and  without  having
made  sure  that  all  the  financing  would  be  forthcoming.
In  addition,  the  practice  at  the  time  favoured  companies
the
which  offered  substantial  discounts 
contract.  Meanwhile 
largely
reviewed and modified due, in particular, to the efforts of
the  Commission.  Current  legislation  should  no  longer
permit  such  practices.

this  system  has  been 

to  obtain 

80. On  the  basis  of  the  comments  of  the  Spanish
authorities,  it  seems  that  the  increased  costs  for  these
projects as indicated in the revised regional plan of 1993
are mainly due to the additional works required in order
to  correspond  to  the  provisions  of  the  Directive.

In  addition,  where  the  Cohesion  Fund  is  concerned,  it  is
accurate  that  requests  for  grants  are  submitted  on  the
basis  of  regional  reprogramming  which  does  not  yet
incorporate  all  the  components  of  the  cost  of  the
investment.  The  real  cost  of  the  project  can  only  be
the  contract  has  been  signed.  The
known  after 
Commission  is  aware  of  this  problem  and  is  trying  to
find  solutions.

The  reasons  for  the  increase  in  relation  to  the
81.
original  cost  estimate  are  an  extension  to  the  scheme
which  was  approved  in  1994,  increases  in  materials  and
labour costs under the price variation clause, increases in
measured  work,  contractors’  claims  and  currency
fluctuations.

— obliging  Parliament  and  the  Council  to  set
(via Directives) emission limit values based on
best  available  techniques  (BAT)  —  for  all
those  sources  which  are  not  yet  covered  by
Community  legislation,

82.
Under  the  Structural  Funds  the  Commission
finances  programmes  and  not  projects.  The  project
mentioned  by  the  Court  is  part  of  a  programme  which
benefited  from  EAGGF  Guideline  financing.  Even  if  the
cost  of  this  project  has  risen,  the  Commission’s  total

C 191/40

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

18.6.98

commitment  for  the  entire  programme  has  remained
identical  to  its  forecasts.

authority  was  diverted  to  rebuilding  the  Furiani
stadium  after  the  disaster  which  took  place  there;

83.
The  German  authorities  have  provided  a
justification  for  the  extension  of  the  installation  and
related  cost  increase.  The  justification  for  the  building  of
a cellar appears to be well founded in so far as technical
requirements  had  to  be  taken  into  account.

Delays  in  carrying  out  the  projects  and  their  effects  on
the  increase  of  costs

86.
The  Commission,  aware  of  the  delays  in  the
execution  of  projects  in  Corsica,  has  already  raised  these
problems  and  recommended  improvements  in  a  number
of  cases  through  the  Monitoring  Committees.

It  is  true  that,  in  certain  cases,  the  tendering  procedures
took  place  after  the  deadline  for  commitments  because
the French authorities had interpreted the notion of ‘legal
and financial commitment’ in a way corresponding to the
national  procedures.  The  Commission  is  currently  in
discussion with the French authorities for the clarification
of  this  aspect.

The  French  authorities  have  provided  the  following
explanations  regarding  the  individual  projects:

1)

2)

3)

‘sanitation  of  the  Biguglia  lagoon  barrier’:  the  delays
in  execution  and  the  increase  in  cost  are  due  to
technical  modifications  of  the  initial  project  which
were  made  for  environmental  purposes:  change  of
location  of  the  treatment  plant,  transfer  of  effluents
from  the  municipalities  of  Biguglia  and  Lucciana  to
the  lagoon  barrier  network;

transfer of effluents from Biguglia municipality to the
lagoon  barrier  purification  plant:  the  works  were
executed late — but in a short time — because it was
not  possible  in  1992  to  discharge  effluents  into  the
lagoon barrier;

launched 

the  ‘expansion  of  capacity  of  the  greater  Ajaccio
treatment  plant’  project,  studies  for  which  were
financed  by  ENVIREG  and 
in  1993,
concerns  not  only  the  town  of  Ajaccio  but  also  the
peripheral  municipalities  of  Afa,  Alata,  Appietto,
Sarrola  and  Bastelicaccia.  While  the  treatment  of
effluents  in  Ajaccio  itself  is  deemed  satisfactory  (but
there  is  no  reserve  capacity),  the  same  is  not  true  of
the  peripheral  municipalities.  If  a  decision  is  taken
quickly,  the  major  part  of  this  operation  (plant  and
network)  can  be  executed  in  the  context  of  the  SPD
and  the  date  of  31  December  2000  respected;

4)

the  South  Bastia  plant  will  indeed  be  operational  at
the end of 1998 or the beginning of 1999. The reason
for  the  major  delay  in  building  the  South  Bastia
purification  plant  is  that  financing  by  the  awarding

5) Studies  on  the  sanitation  of  the  southern  bank  of  the
Gulf  of  Ajaccio  did  indeed  begin  in  1984  but  the
service  only  started  operating  in  1991.  Despite  its
obvious  merits,  this  project  was  strongly  opposed  by
some  inhabitants.  The  Minister  for  the  Environment
had two surveys carried out, the conclusions of which
were highly favourable. This held up the launching of
the  project  considerably.  In  addition,  and  this  is  true
for  all  the  projects  mentioned  above,  the  awarding
authorities  are  not  always  structured  in  a  way  which
enables  them  to  launch  such  projects  quickly;  the
difficulty  of  raising  finance,  often  requiring  much
time  to  finalise,  should  also  not  be  forgotten.

in 

Changes 

the  projects  have 

87.-88.
to  a
substantial improvement in quality and have extended the
coverage  of  the  service.  All  the  projects  mentioned  are
operating  at  the  present  time,  run  by  the  respective
municipalities.

led 

The  cost  of  these  plants  rose  for  the  reasons
89.
mentioned  in  the  reply  to  paragraph  79.  This  practice  in
Greece  was  modified  during  the  second  programming
period.

90. Many  of  the  projects  carried  out  in  Italy  during
the period in which the programme was running suffered
considerable delays due, inter alia, to  the  introduction  of
new  rules  and  new  procedures  governing  the  award  of
contracts  and  changes  in  the  responsibilities  of  officials
employed  by  the  public  administrations  responsible  for
managing  the  projects.

91.
As  the  Court  states,  delays  in  the  execution  of
these two projects are due to the technical improvements
required.

Management  of  projects  by  the  competent  authorities

92.-93.
Cohesion  Fund:  With  regard  to  Greystones,
the  decision  to  award  a  grant  under  the  Cohesion  Fund
clearly  specifies  in  its  Annex  I  (Decision  C(94)3513  final
of  9  December  1994)  the  works  which  are  subject  to
co-financing.  The  criterion  governing  the  breakdown
between the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund was not in the
contract but dictated by the nature of the works. Even if
there  is  only  one  contract,  it  is  therefore  possible  to
distinguish  between  that  part  of  the  works  financed  by
the  ERDF  under  the  ENVIREG  programme  and  that
financed  by  the  Cohesion  Fund.

Where  financial  independence  is  concerned,  it  cannot  be
deduced from the existence of a single contract that such
independence  does  not  exist.  The  works  financed  by  the
Cohesion Fund can be identified as a part of the contract
and  the  invoices  and  related  documents  can  clearly  be
connected  to  the  works  in  question.

18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/41

With  regard  to  the  Wexford  Main  Drainage  project,  it  is
accurate that this project was identified as one of those in
the ENVIREG programme, but the amount allocated to it
was  minimal  and  related  only  to  the  initial  planning
phase.  The  actual  project  was  later  submitted  as  a
candidate  for  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  adopted  under  it.
The  Commission  decision  clearly  spells  out  what
constitutes  ineligible  expenditure.

As  to  the  accounting  difficulties  encountered  by  the
Court  when  trying  to  verify  expenditure  on  these  two
projects,  the  Commission  will  ask  the  Member  State  to
supply  more  information  concerning  the  accuracy  of  the
amounts  declared.

ERDF:  In  order  to  give  continuity  to  the  global  effort  of
improving  water  quality,  the  ERDF  has  allowed  the
they  span  overlapping
phasing  of  projects  where 
programming periods. This phasing requires that there be
no  double  funding  and  that  the  basic  criteria  in  relation
to  start  and  end  dates  are  met.

The  splitting-up  of  major  public  works  schemes  (across
all  sectors)  in  Ireland  has  more  to  do  with  the  nature  of
the  works  involved  and  the  limited  financial  resources
available  to  local  authorities  than  with  the  motives
suggested by the Court. If local authorities were to await
financial  approval  for  all  the  schemes,  far  fewer  projects
would  be 
in  any  given
programming period.

started  and  completed 

94. Meanwhile,  the  situation  has  improved,  thanks  to
a  series  of  ministerial  decrees  which  have  amended  the
way  in  which  public  works  contracts  are  carried  out  in
Greece.  Furthermore,  a  new  law  is  being  drafted  along
the  same  lines.  In  the  meantime,  this  project  has  been
withdrawn 
the  Greek
authorities.

the  programme  by 

from 

95.-96.
The  Commission  is  aware  of  the  accounting,
reporting  and  control  weaknesses  in  Corsica.  In  this
context,  it  decided  on  30  July  1996  to  reduce  the
Community  grant  for  the  1994-1999  OP  (Commission
Decision  C(96)1895).

The  Commission,  however,  regards  the  establishment  by
the  regional  authorities  of  a  computerised  management
system  and  the  instructions  for  use  by  the  services
concerned,  as  stated  by  the  national  authorities,  as
the  proper
improvements  which  will 
co-financed
implementation 
operations.

guarantee 
the  Community 

of 

As  regards  the  accounting  problems  encountered  by  the
Court  in  Spain,  the  Commission  has  been  informed  that
improvements 
in  the  processing  of  the  co-financed
expenditure  accounts  were  introduced  in  1994.

Malfunctioning  treatment  plants

98.
Information  now  available  to  the  Commission
leads  us  to  believe  that  solutions  have  been  found  to  the
majority  of  problems  reported  by  the  Court  in  1996
concerning projects financed under ENVIREG. Before the
ENVIREG  programme  is  closed,  a  last  check  will  be
made  by 
their
monitoring  operation.

Italian  authorities  as  part  of 

the 

99.
Sada:  The  Spanish  authorities  have  explained  that
the  Regional  Government  has  financed  additional  works
in  respect  of  this  project  from  its  own  resources;  the
Commission will ask for information about the operation
of  this  sewage  plant  today.

Rianxo:  The  Spanish  authorities  have  explained  that  the
plant  is  now  functioning  properly,  because  of  additional
works executed. The call for tenders to operate the plant
was made in December 1995 and the contract was signed
on  1  July  1996.

Problems  of  implementing  the  ENVIREG  Community
Initiative

in 

Delays 

implementing 

105.
ENVIREG
programmes are due mainly to the lack of infrastructure,
technical  know-how  and  experience  on  the  part  of
implementing  authorities  and  beneficiaries.  At  the  end  of
1997,  only  5  ENVIREG  programmes  remained  open.

the 

106.
The financial implementation provisions attached
to  the  Commission  co-financing  decision  on  the  Irish
ENVIREG  programme 
the  expenditure
state 
declarations  should  refer  to  amounts  spent  by  the  final
beneficiaries,  which  are  deemed  to  be  organisations  or
public  or  private  undertakings  responsible  for  ordering
the works (project managers). It appears that there was a
misinterpretation  of 
Irish
authorities.

these  provisions  by 

that 

the 

The  Irish  authorities  now  accept  the  common  definition
of  final  beneficiary  and  have  withdrawn  their  original
claim  for  the  Water  and  Sanitary  Services  OP  (based  on
their  old  definition)  and  resubmitted  a  revised  claim,
where the local authorities are deemed final beneficiaries.
The  same  definition 
is  being  applied  to  the  new
Operational  Programmes  for  Environmental  Services
1994-1999.

The  financial  implementation  provisions  attached  to  the
ERDF co-financing decisions are in principle the same for
all programmes in all Member States. In order further to
clarify these rules, the Commission has adopted clear and
detailed implementation provisions attached to the ERDF
co-financing  decisions  for  the  1994-99  programming
period.

C 191/42

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

18.6.98

The  Commission  concurs  with 

the  Court’s
107.
analysis  concerning  shortcomings  in  the  management  of
the ENVIREG programme. It should be recalled that this
was the first time the Italian Ministry of the Environment
had  managed  a  Community  programme.  Difficulties
arose, above all, when defining organisational aspects and
in  the  choice  of  procedures  for  selecting  and  financing
projects  as  adopted  by  the  Ministry.  The  monitoring  of
the  programme  could  have  been  improved  in  the  latter
management  period.

108.
The  time-scale  for  ENVIREG  did  not  allow
(considering  lead-in  times  for  projects  in  this  sector)  for
the  conception,  definition  and  completion  of  totally  new
innovative  projects  of  a  scale  large  enough  to  absorb  all
the  funds  available  to  Northern  Ireland.  After  careful
consideration and after commissioning a new cost-benefit
analysis  and 
long-term
environmental impact of this project, including its impact
on  Belfast  Lough,  the  Commission  agreed  to  the  project
being 
for
Northern Ireland to enable the remainder of the available
funds  to  be  used.

the  ENVIREG  programme 

into  account 

included 

taking 

the 

in 

109.
The  Spanish  authorities  have  explained  that
additional  works  valued  at  5  billion  PT  have  been
planned  for  this  project  in  order  to  correspond  to  the
requirements  of  the  Directive.

110.
The  Commission  considers  that  ENVIREG  has
made  it  possible  to  remedy  partially  the  almost  total
absence of environmental measures within the CSF 89-93
in  Portugal.  The  positive  impact  of  ENVIREG  has  not
made  it  possible  to  make  up  all  the  shortcomings  in  the
environmental  field  in  Portugal.  Financing  through  the
Cohesion  Fund  and  the  ERDF  during  the  period
1994-1999  will,  however,  play  a  very  important  part  in
making up for these shortcomings, particularly as regards
basic sanitation.

111.
In  Greece,  the  amounts  awarded  under  the
ENVIREG  initiative  have  been  reduced  on  a  proposal
from  the  competent  Greek  authorities  which  has  been
accepted  by  the  Commission.  The  reason  behind  this
reduction  was  the  very  low  rate  of  use  of  funds  at  the
beginning of ENVIREG. The delay was due to the lack of
experience  on  the  part  of  the  public  authorities  for  this
type  of  structure  (municipal  waste  water  purification
plants).  The  lack  of  experience  in  question  led  to  major
delays in launching projects in the field which meant that
the  funds  were  hardly  used.

Consequently,  the  Greek  authorities  transferred  these
funds  to  other  initiatives  or  to  projects  ready  for
co-financing.  The  reduction  in  the  budget  has  led  to  a
substantial  drop  in  the  number  of  projects.

Results in the field have shown that the Greek authorities
underestimated  the  real  costs,  even  though  they  reduced
the number of projects. It is true that this was practically
the  first  time  such  structures  had  been  built  in  Greece
and  the  cost  estimates  were  inaccurate.  Those  plants

for  completion  within 

which  it  has  not  been  possible  to  complete  with  the
limited  funds  under  the  ENVIREG  initiative  will  be
included 
‘Environment’
Operational  Programme  under  the  Community  support
framework  (CSF)  for  Greece  in  1994-99  on  a  Greek
proposal  accepted  by  the  CSF  Monitoring  Committee.
The Commission will hold the balance of funds owing to
Greece  (for  ENVIREG)  in  abeyance  as  long  as  this
question  has  not  been  solved  definitively.

the 

112.
It  is  true  that  the  programme  proposed  in  1991
and  adopted  in  April  1992  suffered  delays  due  both  to  a
lack  of  experience  in  the  programme’s  approach  and
owing  to  the  fact  that  this  programme  contained
innovatory  measures.  This  led  the  French  authorities  to
propose changes to the Commission on two occasions by
adjusting  the  appropriations  between  measures  and
ERDF  participation  rates,  decisions  which  were  taken  in
October  and  December  1993.  According  to  information
contained  in  the  final  report  on  the  completion  of  the
programme  and  submitted  by  the  French  authorities,  it
transpires that this programme has been 100 % executed,
when  compared  with  the  latest  version  of  the  financial
tables.

‘Ambiente  e  Regione’  (AMBER)  technical  assistance
network

113.-119.
The  AMBER  technical  assistance  network
was  set  up  to  develop  the  exchange  of  know-how  in  all
areas  covered  by  ENVIREG  and  not  just  in  the  area  of
water.

The  heading  entitled  ‘requests  for  expert  appraisals’
(point  116)  in  the  contract  was  the  subject  of  an  order
form  worth  ECU  45 000  for  30  expert  appraisals.  The
fact  that  the  request  is  lower  than  the  forecasts  is  due
largely  to  the  fact  that,  as  indicated  in  paragraph  124,
most  of  the  projects  financed  were  not  new  projects
the  most  appropriate
identify 
needing  analysis 
purification  system.  The  ECU  45 000  spent  on  expert
appraisals  (ECU  1 500  per  expert  appraisal)  concerned
the  cost  of  such  identification  for  AMBER  by  the
appropriate  experts  and  a  check  on  the  quality  of  the
work  carried  out.  It  is  accurate  that  the  cost  of  the
appraisal  should  be  borne  by  the  ENVIREG  OPs.

to 

into  account  of  the  environment 

The  manuals  of  best  practice  and  seminars  focused  on
water  treatment,  management  of  urban  waste  and  the
taking 
in  coastal
planning.  The  manuals  were  first  distributed  to  the
national  and  regional  authorities  and  to  participants  at
seminars,  national  and  regional  authorities  being  totally
at  liberty  either  to  adapt  the  manuals,  reproduce  them
and  distribute  them  to  local  communities  or  to  ask
AMBER 
for
them  with 
distribution  or  to  give  AMBER  a  list  of  the  communities
to  whom  they  should  be  sent.  Since  the  Member  States
did  not  supply  any  lists,  AMBER  proceeded  to  distribute
the manuals to local communities, particularly during the
seminars.

further  copies 

to  supply 

18.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 191/43

It was the purpose of the conferences to enable exchanges
to  take  place  between  participants  during  them  and  not
afterwards.  It  transpired  in  some  cases  that  exchanges
were  pursued  after  the  conferences  but  without  any
financial  participation  from  AMBER,  as  no  provision
existed  for  this,  which  probably  limited  their  number.

Ex  post  facto  assessment  of  the  ENVIREG  C.I.

The 

draft 

in
121.
December  1995  had  to  be  completed  by  additional
information  and  was  finalised  in  October  1996.

submitted 

report 

final 

In  the  report,  the  assessor  included  a  collection  of  data
information  as  could  be
which  covered  as  much 
produced,  account  being 
the  constraints
taken  of 
governing  this  assessment.  That  is  why  the  Commission
felt  that  it  was  not  useful  to  spend  any  more  money  on
an  assessment  which  could  not  go  into  further  detail.

The  additional  delay  in  finalising  the  study  is  due  to
organisational difficulties affecting the carrying out of the
assessment  in  certain  Member  States,  notably  the  United
Kingdom  (Northern  Ireland),  Spain,  Portugal,  Greece,
Italy  and  the  Overseas  Departments  of  France.  It  took
five  months,  for  example,  to  obtain  agreement  from  the
authorities 
the  assessment  of  Northern
Ireland.

initiate 

to 

The  Commission  believes  that  this  assessment
122.
was  able  to  gather  the  maximum  of 
information
concerning  the  analysis  of  administrative  procedures  and
the  implementation  of  the  initiative.  It  was  of  course
difficult  to  establish  the  final  impact  of  this  programme.
Actions  of  the  kind  promoted  by  ENVIREG  have  since
been  multiplied  and  largely  stepped  up  in  the  planning
for  1994-99.

123.
As  the  Court  states  in  paragraph  59,  in  the
framework  of  negotiations  between  the  Commission  and
the  Member  States  on  the  ENVIREG  Community
initiative,  it  was  agreed  that,  as  far  as  possible,  projects
involving  treatment  plants  would  comply  with  the  terms
of  Directive  91/271/EEC.

Under  Article  7  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2052/88,
measures  co-financed  by  the  Structural  Funds  must
comply  with  the  provisions  of  the  Treaties,  with  the
instruments  approved  pursuant 
thereto  and  with
Community  policies;  moreover,  specific  reference  to
compliance with all Community policies is included in the
implementation  provisions  attached  to  the  co-financed
programmes.

in 

implementing 

Initial  delays 

124.
Italian
programme  have  now  been  caught  up.  Indeed,  data  on
the  carrying  out  of  works  in  the  month  of  December
1997 make it clear that the final execution rate is close to
100 %  of  the  sums  programmed.

the 

As  regards  the  difficulties  of  implementing  ENVIREG  in
Greece and Northern Ireland, please see the comments on
paragraphs  111  and  108.

The  LIFE  programme

Local  and  regional  authorities  were  closely
127.
associated  with 
the  project.  The  mayors  of  137
municipalities  in  the  Contrat  de  Baie  perimeter  were
approached  to  give  their  opinion  of  the  results  of  the
pilot  projects  and  to  draw  consequences  as  regards
investments since the financers of the project included —
apart from the European Union — the State (Ministry of
the  Environment),  the  Regional  Council  of  Brittany,  the
Département  of  Finistère  and  the  Loire-Brittany  Water
Board.

The  exploitation  of  these  results  by  the  Commission  and
the  Member  States  could  nevertheless  be  improved  and
the  departments  of  DG  XI  which  are  involved  are
endeavouring,  precisely, 
to
to 
disseminate  the  results  of  LIFE  projects.

institute  a  strategy 

CHAPTER  IV

THE  QUESTION  OF  WATER  CHARGES

Water  charges

128.-134. One  of  the  main  objectives  of  the  proposed
Water Framework Directive (COM(97)49 of 26 February
1997,  as  amended  by  COM(97)614  of  26  November
1997),  is  an  obligation  to  introduce  full  cost  recovery
charges  for  all  services  related  to  water  (i.e.  basically
water  supply  and  waste  water  collection  and  treatment).
This  provision  (in  Article  12  of  the  Proposal)  will  not
only  provide  for  the  necessary  financial  means  for
maintenance  etc,  but  also  constitute  a  financial  incentive
for  the  sustainable  use  of  water  as  a  resource.  However,
certain  exemptions  will  be  possible:

— to allow a basic level of water supply and waste water
collection  and  treatment  for  domestic  purposes  at  an
affordable  price,

— to  allow  capital  costs  subsidies  for  infrastructure
projects where Community funding is provided under
Articles  130a  to  130e  of  the  Treaty,

— to  take  account  of  specific  situations  of  regions
eligible  for  assistance  pursuant  to  Objectives  1,  5b
and  6  of  the  Structural  Funds.

134. Whenever the Commission calculates the amount
of  financing  to  grant  for  a  project  under  the  Cohesion
Fund,  it  takes  into  account  all  the  estimates  of  receipts
received  by  the  promoter  on  condition  that  such  receipts
are  net,  intrinsic  and  directly  attributable  to  the  project.
At  the  present  time  there  is  no  legal  basis  in  Community
law for imposing a pricing policy on the Member State as
regards  water.  In  its  proposal  for  a  framework  Directive
on  water,  the  Commission  has  introduced  a  provision
along  these  lines.

In  the  area  of  ERDF  expenditure,  the  individual  projects
in  principle
and  the  corresponding  grant  rates  are 

C 191/44

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

18.6.98

approved  by  the  national  authorities;  these  are  required
to modulate the amount of Community grant in line with
(among  other  elements)  the  capacity  of  the  investments
concerned  to  generate  revenue  (Article  17  of  the
Coordination  Regulation).

increased
Such  activities  are  also  boosted  by  the 
application  of  the  ‘polluter-pays’  principle,  as  proposed
by  the  Commission  (Commission  proposal  COM(97)  49
of  26  February  1997,  amended  by  proposal  COM(97)
614  of  26  November  1997).

CONCLUSION

135.-141.
Despite  the  difficulties  underscored  by  the
Court,  the  Commission  considers  that  considerable
progress  has  been  made  in  introducing  a  water  policy.

Substantial  efforts  still  need  to  be  made,  of  course,
particularly  to  devise  a  strategy  for  the 
integrated
planning and management of water resources which takes
account  of  qualitative  as  well  as  quantitative  factors.  In
addition,  it  is  true  that  the  way  in  which  the  Directives
are  applied  in  many  Member  States  is  still  not  wholly
satisfactory.  The 
latter  have,  however,  organised
substantial investment programmes to meet the objectives
of  these  Directives  and  thus  to  achieve  a  considerable
increase  in  water  quality.

The  Commission  is  also  trying  to  step  up  coordination
and  cooperation  between  all  the  Directorates-General
involved  in  implementing  the  environment  policy.  The
into  other  Community
incorporation  of  this  policy 
policies (agriculture, Structural Funds) is one of the major
concerns  of  the  Commission  at  the  present  time  and  is
also  subscribed  to  by  the  Parliament  through  the
‘Greening  of  the  Budget’.

139.
The  proposed  Water  Framework  Directive
(Commission Proposal COM(97)49 of 26 February 1997,
amended by COM(97)614 of 26 November 1997) has as
one  of  its  objectives  the  obligation  to  introduce  full  cost
recovery  charges  for  services  such  as  water  supply  and
waste  water  collection  and  treatment,  since  the  aim  is  to
utilise  natural  resources  prudently  and  rationally,  which
is  a  goal  enshrined  in  Article  130r  of  the  Treaty.