Commission Report - Implementation of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998
Date: 2001-11-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: action programme, industrial pollution, pollution control measures, report, urban area, wastewater, water treatment

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 21.11.2001
COM(2001) 685 final

COMMISSION REPORT

Implementation of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning
urban waste water treatment, as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of
27 February 1998

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................5

THE MAIN OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THE DIRECTIVE AND THE
DEADLINES ................................................................................................................7

IDENTIFICATION OF SENSITIVE AREAS..............................................................9

SITUATION ON 31 DECEMBER 1998 IN AGGLOMERATIONS
AFFECTED BY SENSITIVE AREAS ......................................................................12

LESS SENSITIVE AREAS........................................................................................16

TREATMENT SITUATION ON 31 DECEMBER 1998 IN EU CITIES..................16

SITUATION IN EACH MEMBER STATE ..............................................................17

7.1.

Belgium.......................................................................................................................17

7.1.1.

Identification of sensitive areas ..................................................................................17

7.1.2. Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas................................................................18

7.1.3.

Treatment in cities ......................................................................................................18

7.2.

Denmark .....................................................................................................................18

7.2.1.

Identification of sensitive areas ..................................................................................18

7.2.2. Agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e. ..................................................................19

7.2.3.

Treatment in cities ......................................................................................................19

7.3.

Germany......................................................................................................................19

7.3.1.

Identification of sensitive areas ..................................................................................19

7.3.2. Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas................................................................20

7.3.3.

Treatment in cities ......................................................................................................20

7.4.

Greece .........................................................................................................................20

7.4.1.

Identification of sensitive areas ..................................................................................20

7.4.2. Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas................................................................20

7.4.2.1. First version ................................................................................................................21

7.4.2.2.. Second version............................................................................................................21

7.4.3.

Treatment in cities. .....................................................................................................21

7.5.

Spain ...........................................................................................................................22

7.5.1.

Identification of sensitive areas ..................................................................................22

7.5.2. Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas................................................................22

7.5.3.

Treatment in cities ......................................................................................................23

2

7.5.4.

Less sensitive areas .....................................................................................................24

7.6.

France..........................................................................................................................24

7.6.1.

Identification of sensitive areas ..................................................................................24

7.6.2. Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas................................................................25

7.6.3.

Treatment in cities. .....................................................................................................25

7.7.

Ireland .........................................................................................................................26

7.7.1.

Identification of sensitive areas ..................................................................................26

7.7.2. Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas................................................................26

7.7.3.

Treatment in cities ......................................................................................................27

7.8.

Italy .............................................................................................................................27

7.8.1.

Identification of sensitive areas ..................................................................................27

7.8.2. Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas................................................................28

7.8.3.

Treatment in cities ......................................................................................................29

7.9.

Luxembourg................................................................................................................29

7.9.1.

Identification of sensitive areas ..................................................................................29

7.9.2. Agglomerations...........................................................................................................29

7.9.3.

Treatment in cities ......................................................................................................30

7.10.

The Netherlands..........................................................................................................30

7.10.1.

Identification of sensitive areas ..................................................................................30

7.10.2. Agglomerations...........................................................................................................30

7.10.3. Treatment in cities ......................................................................................................31

7.11.

Austria.........................................................................................................................31

7.11.1.

Identification of sensitive areas ..................................................................................31

7.11.2. Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas................................................................31

7.11.3. Treatment in cities ......................................................................................................32

7.12.

Portugal.......................................................................................................................32

7.12.1.

Identification of sensitive areas ..................................................................................32

7.12.2. Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas................................................................33

7.12.3. Treatment in cities ......................................................................................................33

7.12.4. Less sensitive areas .....................................................................................................34

3

7.13.

Finland ........................................................................................................................34

7.13.1.

Identification of sensitive areas ..................................................................................34

7.13.2. Agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e. ..................................................................34

7.13.3. Treatment in cities ......................................................................................................36

7.14.

Sweden........................................................................................................................36

7.14.1.

Identification of sensitive areas ..................................................................................36

7.14.3 Treatment in cities ......................................................................................................37

7.15.

United Kingdom .........................................................................................................37

7.15.1.

Identification of sensitive areas ..................................................................................37

7.15.2. Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas................................................................38

7.15.3. Treatment in cities ......................................................................................................39

7.15.4. The information is incomplete for the 11 other towns and cities. Less

sensitive areas .............................................................................................................39

8.

9.

INFRINGEMENT PROCEDURES............................................................................40

FORTHCOMING TASKS FOR THE COMMISSION..............................................41

10.

CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................42

4

Summary report on
The identification of sensitive areas by the Member States
The measures implemented by the Member States with the
view of the deadline 31.12.1998
Waste water treatment in major cities
Verification of the identification of sensitive areas by the
Commission

1.

INTRODUCTION

In  January  1999,  the  European  Commission  published  its  first  report1  on  the
implementation of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21  May 1991 concerning urban
waste  water  treatment,2  as  amended  by  Commission  Directive  98/15/EC  of
27 February 19983.  The  Directive  is  one  of  the  cornerstones  of  Community  water
policy  and  its  aim  is  to  protect  the  environment  from  the  adverse  effects  of  urban
waste water discharges.

The  first  Commission  report  gave  details  of  pollution  caused  by  urban  waste  water,
presented  an  initial  progress  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Directive  by  the
Member States, and summarised their implementation programmes. It emphasised, in
particular, the major efforts which had been made by Member States, the considerable
cost  likely  to  be  involved  in  implementing  the  Directive  (EUR 130 billion  for  the
14 Member States excluding Italy) and the worrying delays announced for the cities of
Brussels and Milan.

Under  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive,  December  1998  was  a  key
milestone. By this date Member States were required to ensure inter alia, that waste
water  treatment  facilities  were  available  for  all  agglomerations  with  a  population
equivalent above 10,000 where the effluent was being discharged into a sensitive area
(see  below  for  further  details).  While  Member  States  were  not  formally  required  to
submit  reports  specifically  in  relation  to  the  December  1998  deadline,  the
Commission,  on  its  own  initiative  decided  to  request  Member  States  to  provide
information. Accordingly formal requests were sent to Member States in April 1999.
Reminders were sent in March 2000. In addition to the issue of waste water treatment
in sensitive areas, Member States were also requested to provide information on waste
water treatment in major agglomerations, even if not discharging into sensitive areas.

1

2

3

COM(1998) 775 final, 15.1.1999.
OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40.
OJ L 67, 7.3.1998, p. 29.

5

                                                
The  present  report  is  based  on  the  replies  submitted  by  the  Member  States  and  a
study4 prepared by the Commission services in relation to sensitive areas. Only 13 of
the  Member  States  provided  all  the  information  requested  by  the  Commission  in
relation to waste water treatment in sensitive areas.

Given the delays encountered in collecting information from the Member States, it is
clear that the situation as presented in the report will have evolved in the intervening
2 years  since  the  initial  requests  were  made.  A  first  draft  report  was  sent  to  the
Member  States  in  December  2000for  a  final  comment.  Inputs  from  Member  States
received until the 15 of February 2001 were taken into account in the text.

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

The  report  also  presents  the  Commission’s  projects  for  the  years  ahead.  The
Commission plans in particular to continue the process of verifying conformity  with
the Directive and to provide assistance for achieving conformity. It will in particular
increase its support to small and medium-sized agglomerations in the Member States
affected  by  the  deadline  of  31 December 2005  and  to  candidate  countries  for
accession to the European Union to help them achieve conformity with the Directive.

4

ERM-Study:  ”Verification  of  Vulnerable  Zones  under  the  Nitrates  Directive  and  Sensitive
Areas  under  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive”,  Environmental  Resource
Management.

6

                                                
2.

THE  MAIN  OBLIGATIONS  IMPOSED  BY  THE  DIRECTIVE  AND
THE DEADLINES

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

(cid:1)  31  December  1998:  the  deadline  by  which  a  stringent  collecting  and  treatment
system  (secondary5  +  tertiary6  treatment)  must  be  provided  in  all  agglomerations
with  a  population  equivalent7  (p.e.)  of  more  than  10 000  which  discharge  their
effluent into  a  sensitive area, as identified  by  the  Member State,  or  its  catchment
area. The results of the Commission’s verification of conformity with this deadline
are set out below in this report.

(cid:1)  31  December  2000: the deadline by  which  a  secondary  treatment8  and  collecting
system must be provided in all agglomerations of more than 15 000 p.e. which do
not discharge their effluent into a sensitive area or its catchment area. This deadline
also  applies  to  biodegradable  industrial  waste  water  from  plants  in  the
food-processing  sectors  listed  in  the  Directive  which  is  discharged  directly  into
receiving  waters.  The  Commission  has  started  to  verify  conformity  with  this
deadline and will present the results in a third report on the implementation of the
Directive.

5

6

7

8

Secondary  treatment  means  treatment  by  a  process  generally  involving  biological  treatment
with a secondary settlement or an equivalent process.
Tertiary treatment means treatment, supplementary to the secondary treatment, of the nitrogen
(nitrification-denitrification)  and/or  phosphorus  and/or  any  other  pollutant  which  affects  the
quality or a specific use of the water: microbiological pollution, colour, etc. Paragraphs 3 and
4 of Article 5, and table 2 of Annex I (amended by the Directive 98/15/EC), describe the waste
water  treatment  criteria  for  the  discharges  into  sensitive  areas  as  a  minimum  percentage
reduction in the load for total phosphorus and total nitrogen and define concentration standards
for these parameters.
Population  equivalent  (p.e.)  is  a  unit  of  measurement  of  biodegradable  organic  pollution
representing the average load of such pollution produced per person per day. It is specified in
the Directive as 60 g BOD5 (biochemical oxygen demand in five days) per day. The size of
the  agglomeration,  expressed  in  p.e.,  corresponds  to  the  organic  load  produced  in  the
agglomeration during an average day during the week of the year with maximum production. It
is  calculated  from  the  sum  of  the  organic  load  produced  during  that  day  by  permanent  and
seasonal  residential  establishments  and  services  and  the  organic  load  produced  on  the  same
day by the industrial waste water which must be collected by a collecting system.
The  treatment  may  be  less  stringent  than  secondary  treatment,  where  there  are  certain
derogation conditions, with the agreement of the Commission and the Council, in the case of
discharges to coastal waters or estuaries identified by the Member States as less sensitive.

7

                                                
(cid:1)  31 December 2005: the deadline by which a collecting and treatment system must
be  provided  in  all  agglomerations  of  between  2000  and  10 000  p.e.  which
discharge their effluent into a sensitive area or its catchment area, with secondary
treatment  or  appropriate  treatment9  depending  on  whether  the  discharge  is  to
freshwaters, estuaries or coastal waters, and in agglomerations between 2 000 and
15 000  p.e.  which  do  not  discharge  their  effluent  into  such  an  area.  Smaller
agglomerations  which  already  have  a  collecting  system  must  also  have  an
appropriate treatment system in place by the same date.

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

(cid:1)  30 June  1993: the  Directive had to  be transposed into  national  law.  By  that  date
Member  States  had  to  have  adopted  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative
provisions  necessary  to  comply  with  the  Directive.  The  first  Commission  report
indicated  that  many  of  the  Member States  were  late  in  transposing  the  Directive.
To date, all the Member States have transposed it, the last being Italy in 1999.

(cid:1)  31 December 1993: the discharge of industrial waste water into collecting systems
and urban waste water treatment plants and the discharge of certain biodegradable
industrial waste water into receiving  waters  had  to  be subject to prior regulations
and/or  specific  authorisations.  The  Member States  have  adopted  all  the  measures
needed to meet these obligations.

(cid:1)  31  December  1993:  the  Member States  had  to  draw  up  a  programme  for  the
implementation of  the  Directive. They have all communicated such  a  programme
to  the  Commission,  after  delays  of  varying  length.  Several  Member States  have
also  sent  the  Commission  updates  on  the  information  contained  in  these
programmes.  In  the  case  of  Belgium  and  Italy,  these  programmes  are  not  in
conformity  with  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  or  the  required  model  for
presentation.

(cid:1)  31 December  1993:  the Member States  were  required  to  identify  sensitive  areas.
Further  details  about  this  fundamental  point,  which  determines  the  type  of  urban
waste water treatment to be provided and the deadline for the treatment, are given
below.

9

‘Appropriate treatment’ means any process and/or system of disposal which enables the waters
receiving  the  discharges  to  meet  the  specified  quality  objectives  and  to  comply  with  the
relevant provisions of Directive 91/271/EEC and any other Community Directives.

8

                                                
(cid:1)  30 June 1995, for the first time and every two years thereafter: the authorities
and  bodies  responsible  for  implementation  in  the  Member States  are  required  to
publish a situation report on the disposal of urban waste water and sludge in their
sector. The Member States must send these reports to the Commission as soon as
they have been published. In 1999, a working party consisting of representatives of
the  Member States  and  the  Commission  drafted  a  specimen  situation  report  to
assist the authorities preparing the report and to harmonise the information given.
Up to now, the Commission has not received situation reports from Greece or Italy.
Furthermore, it has received a report from Germany for only several regions of the
territory. Lastly, most of the  Member States have not complied  with the  two-year
period  for  publication  of  the  report  and  its  transmission  to  the  Commission,  as
required under the Directive.

(cid:1)  31 December 1998: the disposal of sludge from urban waste water treatment plants
was required to be subject to general rules, registration or authorisation. The checks
carried out by the Commission show that all Member States have introduced such
measures for the disposal of sludge. In addition, the disposal  of sludge  to  surface
waters by dumping from ships, by discharge from pipelines or by other means was
to  be  phased  out  by  the  same  date.  Only  Spain,  Ireland  and  the  United  Kingdom
regularly use this practice. The United Kingdom banned the practice after 1998 in
its transposing legislation. Ireland has informed the Commission that the disposal
of  sludge  at  sea  was  allowed  under  national  legislation  until  31 December 1998,
after which it became an offence. However, Ireland has admitted that the disposal
of sludge at sea did not cease until September 1999. In addition, Ireland believed it
was not necessary to prohibit the disposal of sludge to surface waters other than the
sea  since  this  method  of  disposal  was  not  used.  Spain  has  not  notified  the
Commission  of  any  measures  taken  to  prohibit  the  disposal  of  sludge  to  surface
waters.

(cid:1)  Lastly,  it  should  be  recalled  that  the  Directive  stipulates  that  discharges  of  waste
water  from  urban  waste  water  treatment  plants  must  be  the  subject  of  prior
regulations  and/or  specific  authorisations  and  that  such  discharges  must  also  be
monitored in  accordance  with  the specific  provisions of  the Directive.  The  above
mentioned  working  party  has  drawn  up  a  computerised  questionnaire  to  gather
information  about  the  monitoring  of  discharges.  The  Commission  sent  this
questionnaire  to  all  Member  States  in  September  2000  asking  them  to  use  it  to
gather information about the monitoring carried out in 1999 for the agglomerations
affected by the deadline of 31 December 1998. The Member States must send this
information  to  the  Commission  by  the  end  of  June 2001.  The  Commission  will
summarise the results in its third report on implementation.

3.

IDENTIFICATION OF SENSITIVE AREAS

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

9

These criteria refer to three groups of sensitive areas:

(cid:1)  freshwater bodies, estuaries and coastal waters which are eutrophic10 or which may

become eutrophic if protective action is not taken;

(cid:1)  surface freshwaters intended for the abstraction of drinking water which contain or

are likely to contain more than 50 mg/l of nitrates;

(cid:1)  areas where further treatment is necessary to comply with other Council Directives,
such as the Directives on fish waters, on bathing waters, on shellfish waters, on the
conservation of wild birds and natural habitats, etc.

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

The identification of a water body as a sensitive area was an essential prerequisite for
the  practical  application  of  the  Directive.  In  areas  identified  as  sensitive,  collecting
systems and treatment systems with more stringent than secondary treatment had to be
operational  by  31 December 1998  at  the  latest  for  all  agglomerations  of  more  than
10 000 p.e. which discharge into the sensitive area and into the catchment areas which
contribute  to  pollution  of  the  area.  These  treatment  requirements  do  not  apply  in
sensitive areas where it can be shown that the minimum percentage of reduction of the
overall nitrogen and phosphorus load is at least 75% for each of the two parameters.

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

Nine other Member States - Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Portugal  and  the  United  Kingdom  -  have  identified  certain  water  bodies  in  their
territory as sensitive areas. These areas were identified, with a greater or lesser degree
of  delay,  between  1994  and  1999.  Austria  considered  that  no  water  body  in  its
territory met the criteria for the identification of sensitive areas.11 Austrian authorities
have  stated  that  their  measures  even  go  beyond  those  required  by  the  Directive  by
requiring tertiary treatment for treatment plants with less than 10.000 p.e.

10

11

Subject  to  eutrophication:  eutrophication  means  the  enrichment  of  water  by  nutrients,
especially compounds of nitrogen and/or phosphorus, causing an accelerated growth of algae
and  higher  forms  of  plant  life  to  produce  an  undesirable  disturbance  to  the  balance  of
organisms present in the water and to the quality of the water concerned.
The  maps  attached  show,  in  dark  green,  the  water  bodies  identified  by  Member  States  as
sensitive  and,  in  lighter  green,  the  catchment  areas  or  parts  of  catchment  areas  in  which  the
Member States have decided to apply the provisions of the Directive relating to the protection
of sensitive areas.

10

                                                
Some Member States, such as Belgium, Spain, France and Italy, did not believe that
agglomerations  situated  on  certain  parts  of  the  catchment  areas  of  sensitive  areas
should be the subject of stringent (tertiary) treatment12. On this point, the Commission
believes  that  nitrogen  and  phosphorus,  the  pollutants  in  urban  waste  water  which
cause the types of pollution corresponding to the first two criteria for the identification
of  sensitive  areas,  are  highly  persistent.  A  substantial  part  of  the  nitrogen  and
phosphorus  from  agglomerations  of  more  than  10 000  p.e.  located  in  the  catchment
areas  of  water  bodies  identified  as  sensitive,  enter  these  water  bodies.  The
Commission  believes 
in  certain
agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e. situated in the catchment area of a sensitive
area to reduce the nutrients responsible for polluting the area, constitutes a failure to
comply  with  the  Directive.  This  failure  is  particularly  marked  in  the  following
countries: Spain, which has not provided for any advanced treatment in the catchment
areas of rivers identified as sensitive in their downstream section, such as the Ebro or
the Guadalquivir; Italy, in particular for the catchment area of the Po, the delta and -
highly  eutrophicated -  adjacent  coastal  waters  of  which  have  been  identified  as
sensitive; and Belgium, for discharges in the Walloon Region, which contribute to the
pollution of freshwaters in Flanders and the coastal waters of the North Sea, both of
which are designated as sensitive.

that,  failure 

to  provide 

treatment 

tertiary 

The  above  ten  Member  States,  which  have  decided  not  to  introduce  an  advanced
standard  of  treatment  throughout  their  territory,  must  make  sure  that  their  list  of
sensitive areas is revised at least every four years. The list should therefore have been
revised  by  31 December 1997,  must  be  revised  again  by  31  December 2001,  and  so
on.  Only  France  and  the  United  Kingdom  have  revised  their  initial  list  of  sensitive
areas,  in  1999  and  1998  respectively.  Austria  has  announced  that  its  revision
procedure has not shown any water bodies which should be designated as sensitive.

Between  1998  and  2000,  the  Commission  employed  a  consultant  to  verify  the
sensitive  areas  identified  by  the  above  ten  Member  States.13  This  study  reveals
shortcomings in the sensitive areas identified by them,14 identifying other areas which
were  potentially  sensitive  because  of  eutrophication,  and  the  high  concentration  of
nitrates  in  surface  waters  intended  for  drinking  water  supply.  The  study  highlighted
the fact that a large number of Member States had not taken sufficient account of the
degree of eutrophication of their waters. The areas concerned are the North Sea (from
the coastal waters  of northern France to  Sweden),  the  Baltic  and  the  Adriatic;  all  of

12

13

14

The parts of catchment areas not taken into account by these Member States are shown on the
maps  in  pink  without  cross-hatching.  The  pink  areas  without  cross-hatching  in  Germany
represent  the  territory  of  the  regions  of  Saxony  and  Saxony-Anhalt.  However,  these  two
regions  decided,  in  July 2000,  to  introduce  tertiary  treatment  of  nitrogen  and  phosphorus
throughout their territory in order to combat eutrophication of the coastal waters of the North
Sea and the Baltic.
Verification  of  vulnerable  areas  identified  pursuant  to  the  Nitrates  Directive  and  sensitive
areas identified pursuant to the Directive on urban waste water - ERM reports between March
1999 and June 2000.
The  water  bodies  which,  in  the  view  of  the  Commission,  should  have  been  identified  as
sensitive are shown in  dark  pink  on  the  maps.  The  corresponding  catchment  areas,  in  which
advanced  (tertiary)  treatment  of  urban  discharges  should  have  been  provided,  are  shown
crosshatched in pink.

11

                                                
them  have  extensive  eutrophication  problems.  The  Commission  believes  that
Belgium, France, Italy, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom have not taken all
the measures needed to reduce the nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) in waste water
to remedy the situation. In addition, Spain, Greece, France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and
the United Kingdom have, in the Commission’s view, also not taken all the measures
needed  for  discharges  of  urban  waste  water,  which  contribute  to  more  localised
eutrophication  along  the  coasts  of  the  Atlantic,  the  English  Channel,  the  North  Sea,
the Irish Sea and the Mediterranean.

On the subject of eutrophication, the Commission has also had two reports drawn up
which  describe  the  methods  used  by  the  Member  States  to  identify  eutrophic,  or
potentially eutrophic bodies of water, and propose recommendations for harmonising
them in the light of current scientific knowledge. One report is on coastal waters,15 the
other on freshwaters.16

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

4.

SITUATION  ON  31  DECEMBER  1998  IN  AGGLOMERATIONS
AFFECTED BY SENSITIVE AREAS17

The Member States have reported on the situation in the agglomerations they believe
to  be  affected  by  the  sensitive  areas,  they  have  identified,  as  requested  by  the
Commission by letter on 23 April 1999. The situation report below therefore does not
take  account  of  agglomerations  situated  in  the  parts  of  catchment  areas  of  sensitive
areas  not  considered  by  the  Member  States  (pink  areas  on  the  maps)  or  in  the
catchment  areas  of  areas  considered  to  be  potentially  sensitive  by  the  Commission
(cross-hatched pink areas).

The  first  part  of  the  table  below  shows  the  number  and  the  organic  load  of  the
agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000 which, according to
the  Member  States,  should  be  provided  with  stringent  (tertiary)  treatment  to  protect
sensitive areas. Each load clearly represents a high percentage of the Member State's
total  organic  load  in  the  case  of  those  which  have  decided  to  introduce  stringent

15

16

17

Criteria used for the definition of eutrophication in coastal/marine waters - ERM - April 2000
Criteria for the identification of freshwaters subject to eutrophication - European Commission
- Joint Research Centre - January 2001
For the purpose of this report agglomerations affected by sensitive areas means agglomerations
which are situated in the relevant catchment areas of sensitive areas and which  contribute  to
the  pollution  of  these  areas  (see  Article  5  of  Council  Directive  91/271/EEC).  The  term
agglomeration has to be interpreted in the sense of the Directive 91/271/EEC, Article 2.4.

12

                                                
treatment  throughout  their  territory18  (Denmark,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands,
Finland and Sweden) or over a large part of it (Germany). Conversely, other Member
States (Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Austria, Portugal) believe that stringent treatment
to  protect  sensitive  areas  is  needed  for  less  than  10%  of  the  Member  State's  total
organic load, and therefore for only a small number of agglomerations. The figures for
France and the United Kingdom are slightly higher, with 25% and 18%, respectively,
of each Member State's organic load requiring stringent treatment.

The  evaluation  of  the  degree  of  conformity  of  the  3  247  agglomerations  considered
out of a total of some  20  000 agglomerations covered by the  Directive,  looks  at  the
collecting systems as well as the treatment plants. With regard to the type of tertiary
treatment  required  to  reduce  or  prevent  the  eutrophication  of  receiving  waters,  the
Commission  believes  that  discharges  of  both  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  cause
eutrophication,  whether  in  freshwaters,  marine  water  or  estuaries.  It  has  been
scientifically established that the main causes in general of eutrophication are nitrogen
in  the  case  of  coastal  waters  and  phosphorus  in  the  case  of  freshwaters.  For  the
evaluation  of  treatment-conformity,  the  Commission  therefore  considers  that  unless
scientific proof to the contrary can be put forward for certain bodies of water, at least
phosphorus should be treated to combat the eutrophication of freshwaters and nitrogen
to combat the eutrophication of coastal waters and estuaries. The most recent studies,
however, show that, in freshwaters as well as marine water, nitrogen and phosphorus
can both be limiting factors, either together or in turn, depending on the algae species
and the time of year, and that it is often necessary to reduce both nutrients.
In  addition  to  measures,  in  relation  to  individual  treatment  works,  a  number  of
Member  States  have  taken  measures  to  reduce  phosphorus  in  detergents.  These
measures have undoubtedly a significant contribution to reduce loading.

France and Germany have not provided the information requested by the Commission
regarding the conformity of agglomerations affected by sensitive areas.

Luxembourg  and  the  Netherlands  have  pointed  out  that  they  have  not  checked  the
conformity of the treatment of waste water in each agglomeration concerned, but, as
allowed  under  Article 5(4)  of  the  Directive,  have  considered  the  total  percentage  of
reduction  of  the  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  load  throughout  their  territory.  However,
these two Member States indicate that, on 31 December  1998, they had not attained
the  75%  reduction  in  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  required  by  the  Directive.  Germany
also  notified  the  Commission,  in  January  2001,  that  it  intended  to  make  use  of  the
option of an overall assessment of the level of reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus
for  all  German  agglomerations  in  sensitive  areas.  Of  the  13  Member  States  which
have provided sufficient information about the agglomerations which they consider to
be affected by sensitive areas, only Denmark and Austria seem, in the Commission's
view, to be almost in conformity with the Directive. In the case of Denmark, only two
agglomerations  were  not  in  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  on
31 December  1998.  In  the  case  of  Austria,  a  single  agglomeration  was  not  in
conformity.  All  other  Member  States  clearly  seem  to  be  not  in  conformity  with  this
deadline.  Most  of  the  Member  States  plan  to  achieve  conformity  between  1999
and 2005.

18

It was also considered that Belgium should provide for tertiary treatment in all agglomerations
of more than 10 000 p.e., although the Walloon Region has not officially decided to do this.

13

                                                
Agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e. affected by a sensitive area (SA) and organic loads - Situation on 31/12/1998

Member States

AGGLOMERATIONS CONCERNED

IN CONFORMITY

NOT IN CONFORMITY

Number

SA load

Total load

Number

Load

Number

Load

Of
agglom.

BELGIUM

DENMARK

B

DK

189

125

(p.e.)

(p.e.)

% 1

of agglom.

%

(p.e.)

%

of agglom.

%

(p.e.)

%

7 801 350

9 164 000

85.1%

12

6.3%

468 081

6.0%

177

93.7% 7 333 268 94.0%

6 876 605

8 393 000

81.9%

123

98.4%

6 848 167 99.6%

2

1.6%

28 439

0.4%

GERMANY

D

1685

109 831 358

141 458 400

77.6%

881 400

10 811 000

8.2%

646 000

10 811 000

6.0%

4

4

12.1%

123 396 14.0%

25.0%

122 740 19.0%

5 973 306

74 439 000

8.0%

35

29.2%

1 433 593 24.0%

GREECE2

GREECE 3

SPAIN

FRANCE

GR

GR

E

F

IRELAND

IRL

ITALY

LUXEMBOURG4

I

L

33

16

120

267

11

51

11

17 868 530

70 510 000

25.3%

237 000

3 918 000

6.0%

3 211 968

95 460 196

3.4%

764 500

914 000

83.6%

NETHERLANDS4 NL

263

15 473 498

17 218 000

89.9%

7

16

-

-

63.6%

135 000 57.0%

31.4%

1 316 907 41.0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

14

29

12

85

4

35

-

-

87.9%

758 004 86.0%

75.0%

523 260 81.0%

70.8% 4 539 713 76.0%

36.4%

102 000 43.0%

68.6% 1 895 061 59.0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

Member States

AGGLOMERATIONS CONCERNED

IN CONFORMITY

NOT IN CONFORMITY

Number

SA load

Total load

Number

Load

Number

Load

Of
agglom.

25

27

85

144

212

AUSTRIA

PORTUGAL

FINLAND

SWEDEN

O

P

FI

S

UNITED KINGDOM UK

(p.e.)

(p.e.)

% 1

of agglom.

%

(p.e.)

%

of agglom.

%

(p.e.)

%

1 871 885

18 569 000

10.0%

1 333 517

16 742 000

8.0%

4 352 317

4 550 000

95.7%

7 263 240

7 496 000

96.9%

13 386 805

76 528 000

17.6%

24

5

11

34

19

96.0%

1 791 885 95.7%

18.5%

256 000 19.2%

12.9%

478 360 11.0%

1

22

74

4.0%

80 000

4.3%

81.5% 1 077 517 80.8%

87.1% 3 873 957 89.0%

23.6%

2 451 910 33.8%

110

76.4% 4 811 330 66.2%

9.0%

1 536 902 11.5%

150

70.7% 10 180 629 76.0%

TOTAL

3 247

197 127 279

556 170 596

35.4%

(1) Percentage in relation to the total organic load of the Member State

(2) First version

(3) Second version

(4) Luxembourg and the Netherlands applied to Article 5.4 of the Directive, which relieves from the provisions for individual treatment plants with more than 10.000 p.e. according to Article 5.2 and 5.3, if it can be shown, that
the minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load entering a treatment plant in that area is at least 75% for total phosphorus and 75% for total nitrogen.

15

5.

LESS SENSITIVE AREAS

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

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

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

In  1999,  Portugal  requested  a  derogation  for  the  agglomeration  of  the  Estoril  Coast
(720 000 p.e.) near Lisbon. This case must be decided in 2001. In December 2000, the United
Kingdom sent the Commission studies as required under Article 6(2) concerning the Scottish
agglomerations of Stornoway (53 000 p.e.) and Lerwick (30 000 p.e.). Spain has not requested
any derogation. In these circumstances, the Commission believes that, apart from these three
agglomerations, all EU agglomerations of more than 15 000 p.e. must have at least secondary
treatment since 31 December 2000, including those which discharge their effluent into waters
identified as less sensitive.

6.

TREATMENT SITUATION ON 31 DECEMBER 1998 IN EU CITIES

Apart  from  evaluating  the  situation  with  regard  to  conformity  on  31 December 1998,  the
Commission  wished  to  provide  EU  citizens  with  a  “snapshot”  of  the  level  of  treatment  of
urban  waste  water  in  all  major  european  cities  on  that  date  for  information  and  to  ensure
transparency.

16

The  Commission  requested  this  information  by  letter  of  22  March  2000.  The  maps  below
show the information received from the Member States. Only Germany and France19 have not
responded to the Commission’s request. Each  major  urban  centre  is  described  in  terms  of  a
single overall level of treatment, even if the urban centre consists of several agglomerations20
within  the  meaning  of  the  Directive.  The  Commission  has  provided  the  information  in  this
way for ease of understanding by the citizen. Only Italy has provided names which in  many
cases do not correspond to the name of the main city concerned.

The  situation  for  527  cities  with  a  population  equivalent  of  more  than  150  000  on
31 December 199821 was as follows:

- 78 had secondary + full tertiary treatment (blue dots on the maps);

-  221  had  full  secondary  treatment,  or  full  secondary  +  incomplete  tertiary  treatment  (green
dots);

- 57 had incomplete secondary treatment, or primary treatment for all or part of their effluent
(yellow dots);

- 37 had no treatment at all (red dots);

- for 134, the Commission has not received full information (orange dots).

It  is  important  to  point  out  that  most  of  the  37  cities  which  had  no  treatment  at  all  on
31 December 1998 and the 57 others which had incomplete treatment have made plans for the
necessary investments to remedy this unsatisfactory situation. In February 2001, some of this
work  was  already  completed,  however  in  many  of  the  major  cities  there  will  be  delays
between 5 and 10 years.

7.

SITUATION IN EACH MEMBER STATE

7.1.

Belgium

In  Belgium,  the  implementation  of  the  Directive  is  the  responsibility  of  the  three  Regions:
Flanders, Wallonia, and Region of Brussels-Capital.

7.1.1.

Identification of sensitive areas

In  1992  and  1995,  Flanders  identified  all  of  its  waters,  including  its  coastal  waters,  as
sensitive.  In  1994,  the  Region  of  Brussels-Capital  also  identified  the  Senne  River,  which
flows  through  it,  as  sensitive.  In  1995,  Wallonia  identified  certain  stretches  of  its  rivers  as
sensitive,  mainly  to  provide  protection  for  the  abstraction  of  drinking  water.  In  doing  so,
Wallonia  has  not  taken  account  of  the  fact  that  its  waters  pass  into  Flanders,  whose  waters
have been identified as sensitive, and then reach the North Sea, the coastal waters of which are

19

20

21

For  France,  the  Commission  used  the  data  published  by  the  Réseau  National  de  Données  sur  l'Eau  -
(RNDE), which present the situation in 1996, together with updated data for a number of cities.
An  agglomeration,  as  defined  in  the  Directive,  means  an  area  where  the  population  and/or  economic
activities are sufficiently concentrated for urban wastewater to be collected and conducted to an urban
wastewater treatment plant or to a final discharge point.
Situation in 1996 in the case of France, 2000 in the case of Spain.

17

                                                
also designated as sensitive. In June 2000, the Walloon authorities announced their intention
to consider all of their territory as sensitive for the above reasons. However, the Commission
had not received formal notification of this identification by the date of 15 February 2001.

7.1.2.

Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas.

The conformity of agglomerations in sensitive areas has been evaluated by taking into account
the 189 Belgian agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000, including
those in the Walloon Region for which the obligation of stringent treatment has not yet passed
into law. The results, summarised in the table below, show that on 31 December 1998,  only
6%  of  agglomerations  complied  with  the  obligations  of  the  Directive.  The  Flemish  Region
and the Region of Brussels-Capital plan to be in conformity in 2004-2005. The delay is likely
to be longer in the Walloon Region because of the volume of investment needed.

B

NUMBER

% LOAD (p.e.)

%

AGGLOMERATIONS AFFECTED

189

7.801.350

BY SA

AGGLOMERATIONS

12

6.3%

468 081

6.0%

IN CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

AGGLOMERATIONS NOT

177

93.7%

7 333 268

94.0%

IN CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

7.1.3.

Treatment in cities

On 31 December 1998, the cities in Flanders had secondary-level treatment, but they should
have  tertiary  treatment.  The  situation  is  different  in  Wallonia:  while  Mons  has  tertiary
treatment,  Charleroi  and  Liège  do  not  have  any  treatment  at  all  for  a  large  part  of  their
population.  On  31 December 1998,  the  City  of  Brussels  did  not  have  any  waste  water
treatment at all. The first treatment plant to be constructed has been treating one third of waste
water at secondary level since the autumn 2000, i.e. below the level required by the Directive.
The  second  treatment  plant  in  Brussels  is  at  the  planning  stage  and  will  not  be  operational
before 2004-2005.

7.2.

Denmark

7.2.1.

Identification of sensitive areas

Denmark  has  decided,  as  allowed  under  Article 5(8)  of  the  Directive,  to  apply  stringent
treatment (tertiary treatment of nitrogen and phosphorus) over all of its territory. It is therefore
not required to identify sensitive areas for the purposes of the Directive.

18

7.2.2.

Agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e.

Denmark  has  125  agglomerations  with  a  population  equivalent  of  more  than  10  000.  The
Danish authorities have notified the Commission that 123 of them had a stringent collecting
and treatment system (secondary treatment + tertiary treatment of nitrogen and phosphorus) on
31 December 1998. Only the agglomerations of Aså and Tange  were not in  conformity with
the  Directive  on  that  date.  Denmark  is  the  Member  State  with  the  best  performance  in  this
area and is very close to full conformity for all agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e. in its
territory.

DK

NUMBER

% LOAD (p.e.)

%

AGGLOMERATIONS

125

6 876 605

OF MORE THAN 10.000 p.e.

AGGLOMERATIONS IN

123

98.4%

6 848 167

99.6%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

AGGLOMERATIONS NOT IN

2

1.6%

28 439

0.4%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

7.2.3.

Treatment in cities

Five Danish towns and cities have a population equivalent of more than 150 000. These are:
Aalborg, Arhus, Fredericia, Copenhagen and Odense. As stated above, these  five  towns and
cities have full tertiary treatment of nitrogen and phosphorus.

7.3.

Germany

7.3.1.

Identification of sensitive areas

In  Germany,  there  are  sixteen  regions  responsible  for  implementing  the  Directive  and  they
have  had  to  identify  their  sensitive  areas.  The  identification  shows  that  the  regions  have
decided to provide agglomerations situated on the catchment areas of the North Sea and  the
Baltic  with  rigorous  (tertiary)  treatment.22  Bavaria  and  Baden-Württemberg  have  taken  the
same decision for agglomerations situated in the catchment areas of Lake Constance, some of
the  Bavarian  lakes  and  the  Upper  Danube.  Only  the  main  part  of  the  Danube  river  basin
situated in Germany is not considered to be a catchment area of a sensitive area.

22

None of the territory of Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt is shown as a catchment area of a sensitive area on
the maps because the decision taken in these two regions was late (July 2000).

19

                                                
7.3.2.

Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas.

The  German  authorities  have  provided  a  list  of  1 685  agglomerations  with  a  population
equivalent of more than 10 000 situated in the catchment areas of sensitive areas, representing
a population equivalent of 110 million and 78% of the population equivalent covered by the
Directive in Germany.23 They have also stated that all these agglomerations had a collecting
system  conforming  to  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  on  31 December 1998.  However,  they
have  not  provided  any  information  about  the  conformity  of  treatment  on  that  date.  The
Commission  therefore  does  not  have  any  information  to  assess  the  level  of  treatment  or
Germany’s conformity with the deadline of 31 December 1998. In a letter to the Commission
in  January  2001,  the  German  authorities  stated  that  they  had  finally  decided  to  assess
conformity  not  by  individual  agglomeration,  but,  as  provided  for  in  Article 5(4)  of  the
Directive,  by  taking  account  of  the  total  percentage  of  reduction  of  the  nitrogen  and
phosphorus load in all catchment areas of sensitive areas.

7.3.3.

Treatment in cities

Germany has not sent the Commission a situation report on treatment in cities. In a letter to
the Commission in January 2001, Germany merely described the situation for about 10 out of
nearly 129 cities with a population equivalent of more than 150 000 in the country.

7.4.

Greece

7.4.1.

Identification of sensitive areas

Greece  was  very  late  in  identifying  its  sensitive  areas  in  August 1999,  five  and  a  half  years
after  the  deadline  in  the  Directive,  and  after  the  deadline  of  31 December 1998  for
implementing the measures needed for their protection. 34 lakes, rivers, estuaries and coastal
bodies  of  water  have  thus  been  designated  as  sensitive  on  the  basis  of  eutrophication.  The
consultant who carried out the verification study for the Commission in 2000 concluded that
16  other  bodies  of  water  (coastal,  lakes  and  rivers)  should  also  have  been  identified  as
sensitive on the basis of eutrophication and the protection of water intended for drinking water
supply. In particular, the study shows that the lower part of the Saronic Gulf, which receives
the  effluent  from  Athens,  and  the  Gulf  of  Thessaloniki,  which  receives  Thessaloniki’s
effluent, should have been identified as sensitive in terms of eutrophication. The identification
of sensitive areas in Greece will be subject to further discussion with the Greek authorities and
the Commission.

7.4.2.

Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas.

According to the first letter from the Greek authorities in June 2000, 33 agglomerations with a
population  equivalent  of  more  than  10  000  are  situated  in  the  catchment  area  of  a  sensitive
area  and  required  tertiary  treatment  on  31  December  1998.  In  a  second  letter  dated
January 2001,  the  authorities  specified  that  there  are,  in  fact  only  16  agglomerations  to  be
taken into account since the size of the agglomerations initially listed had been overestimated
following  local  government  reorganisation.  In  both  cases,  it  seems  that  the  Greek
agglomerations requiring tertiary treatment account, in terms of organic load, for only 6 to 8%
of  the  Greek  agglomerations  covered  by  the  Directive.  The  level  of  conformity  on

23

These figures do not include any of the territory of Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt.

20

                                                
31 December 1998 was also low since, according to the Commission’s evaluation, only 4 out
of  the  16  (or  33)  agglomerations  were  in  conformity,  these  being  Livadia,  Karpenisi,
Komotoni and Arta.

7.4.2.1. First version

GR

NUMBER

% LOAD (p.e.)

%

AGGLOMERATIONS

33

881 400

AFFECTED BY SA

AGGLOMERATIONS IN

4

12.1%

123 396

14.0%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

AGGLOMERATIONS NOT IN

29

87.9%

758 004

86.0%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

7.4.2.2.. Second version

GR

NUMBER

% LOAD (p.e.)

%

AGGLOMERATIONS

16

646 000

AFFECTED BY SA

AGGLOMERATIONS IN

4

25.0%

122 740

19.0%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

AGGLOMERATIONS NOT IN

12

75.0%

523 260

81.0%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

Furthermore,  the  Greek  authorities  provided  information  about  the  same  agglomerations
affected by sensitive areas on 31 December 2000. The situation has progressed satisfactorily
since ten agglomerations were considered to be in conformity on that date.

7.4.3.

Treatment in cities.

Greece  has  six  cities  with  a  population  equivalent  of  more  than  150  000:  Athens,
Thessaloniki,  Iraklion,  Elefsina  Aspropyrgos,  Metamorphosis  and  Patra.  Athens  and
Thessaloniki themselves have a population equivalent of more than four million, nearly half
the Greek population.

On 31 December 1998, Iraklion and Metamorphosis had secondary treatment, Athens primary
treatment, Thessaloniki incomplete secondary  treatment  and Patra and  Elefsina Aspropyrgos
no treatment at all. By 31 December 2000, the situation had improved in Thessaloniki, which
brought in full secondary treatment followed by treatment of nitrogen at the end of that year.
Projects are in progress in Patra, Elefsina Aspropyrgos and Athens. The Patra treatment plant
is expected to be operational in 2001. For the agglomeration of Athens, it was decided in 2000
to construct a secondary treatment plant with nitrogen treatment.

21

7.5.

Spain

7.5.1.

Identification of sensitive areas

In Spain, the list of sensitive areas corresponding to “inter-community”  bodies of water,  i.e.
those where several regions are affected, was drawn up for the whole country by Regulation of
25 May 1998.  Furthermore,  the  identification  of  sensitive  areas  within  a  region,  known  as
“intra-community”  sensitive  areas,  is  the  responsibility  of  the  regional  authorities.  The
documents from Spain therefore refer to the identification of sensitive areas by some regional
authorities, in particular in Catalonia, Galicia and the Balearic Islands, but the specific areas
have not been officially notified to the Commission Only Andalusia has  officially identified
sensitive areas and less sensitive areas, by Decree in March 1999, but Spain included only two
of  the  sensitive  areas  identified  by  Andalusia  in  1999  in  the  documents  it  sent  in
November 2000. Spain has applied the three criteria in the Directive for the identification of
sensitive areas: combating eutrophication, the protection of waters intended for the production
of drinking water and the protection of bathing waters.

The January 2000 report which verifies the sensitive areas identified in Spain shows there are
44  additional  bodies  of  water  which  should  have  been  identified  as  sensitive  in  terms  of
eutrophication.  These  are  essentially  freshwater  catchments  as  well  as  coastal  waters  and
estuaries  in  Andalusia,  Asturia,  the  Balearic  Islands,  Cantabria,  Galicia  and  the  Basque
country.

7.5.2.

Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas.

The documents sent  to the  Commission  by  the  Spanish authorities showed that 120 Spanish
agglomerations felt they required tertiary treatment for the protection of sensitive areas. These
agglomerations represent only 8% of the pollution load affected by the Directive in Spain.

The  list  did  not  include  agglomeration  discharges  into  the  44  above  mentioned  potentially
sensitive  water  bodies.  In  addition,  the  list  did  not  include  many  agglomerations  situated  in
the  catchment  areas  of  potentially  sensitive  areas.  For  example,  the  downstream  part  of  the
Ebro in Catalonia is listed as sensitive in the documents from Spain, but agglomerations in the
other regions situated upstream in the river basin do not have tertiary treatment. The same is
true of the catchment areas of the rivers Guadalquivir, Guadiana and Júcar, Tagus and Douro.
The  Commission  therefore  believes  that,  given  the  numbers  of  water  bodies  needing
protection  and  their  catchment  areas,  a  large  number  of  Spanish  agglomerations  should  be
provided with tertiary treatment.

The type of tertiary treatment required by the Spanish authorities for the 120 agglomerations
listed is treatment of nitrogen, phosphorus and microbiological pollution or a combination of
these. 35 of the 120 agglomerations are considered to be in conformity with the provisions of
the Directive on 31 December 1998.

22

E

NUMBER

% LOAD (p.e.)

%

AGGLOMERATIONS

120

5 973 306

AFFECTED BY SA

AGGLOMERATIONS IN

35

29,2%

1 433 593

24.0%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

AGGLOMERATIONS NOT IN

85

70,8%

4 539 713

76.0%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

7.5.3.

Treatment in cities

In November 2000, Spain described the situation in its cities in 2000, but not on the date of
31 December 1998.

In  2000,  the  situation  in  the  72  Spanish  cities  with  a  population  equivalent  of  more  than
150 000 is as follows:

-  8  have  tertiary  treatment:  Alméria,  Bilbao,  Calvia,  Oviedo,  Valladolid,  Vitoria-Gasteiz,
Xirivella and Zaragossa.

- 39 have full secondary treatment, including Madrid, Seville and Valencia.

-  18  have  incomplete  secondary  treatment  or  primary  treatment.  These  include  Barcelona,
where the situation is  highly unsatisfactory.  Half the city, a  population  equivalent  of  almost
1.7 million,  has  primary  treatment  and  the  other  half  discharges  its  effluent  into  the  sea
completely untreated.

- 7 do not treat their waste water at all: La Coruña, Alginet, Cadiz, Donostia-San Sebastian,
Gijon, Logroño and Tui.

The Spanish authorities have indicated that construction  work  is in  progress  for most  of  the
cities  without  treatment  or  where  treatment  is  inadequate,  such  as  Alginet,  San  Sebastian,
Logroño  and  Barcelona,  and  that  these  cities  should  be  in  conformity  in  two  or  three  years'
time. In the case of other cities without treatment or with inadequate treatment, the treatment
plants are either planned or contracts for their construction are being awarded.

23

7.5.4.

Less sensitive areas

Spain is one of three Member States, together with Portugal and the United Kingdom, which
have identified coastal waters as less sensitive. Spain believes that discharges of waste water
treated  at  primary  level  only  into  these  less  sensitive  areas  will  not  adversely  affect  the
environment. In Spain, the regions are responsible for the identification of less sensitive areas.
Since  1997,  Spain  has  been  identifying  such  less  sensitive  areas  along  the  coasts  of  the
Mediterranean  and  the  Atlantic  and  in  the  Canary  Islands.  However,  only  the  region  of
Andalusia  has  officially  identified  less  sensitive  areas  along  the  whole  of  its  coastline  by
Decree  of  March 199924.  In  November  2000,  the  Spanish  national  authorities  notified  the
Commission that, after consultations with the regions, only the Canary Islands have other less
sensitive  areas,  which  are  themselves  being  examined.  However,  the  Commission  has  not
been  informed  that  Article 3(2)  of  the  Decree  issued  by  the  region  of  Andalusia  in
March 1999 and identifying less sensitive areas has been revoked.

As indicated in Chapter 5 of this report, the Commission challenges a large number of the less
sensitive areas identified in the Canary Islands and Andalusia since it believes that discharges
treated at primary level only may affect the quality of numerous bodies of bathing waters in
these  two  regions.  In  addition,  the  Commission  believes  that,  when  identifying  its  less
sensitive areas, Andalusia did not take account of the fact that discharges may affect nearby
bodies  of  water  designated  as  sensitive  in  Andalusia  itself  as  well  as  in  the  Algarve  in
Portugal.  In  general  terms,  the  Commission  is  of  the  view,  as  stated  in  Chapter 5,  that  the
waters  of  the  Mediterranean  do  not  meet  the  criteria  laid  down  in  the  Directive  for  less
sensitive areas due to their hydrodynamic features.

Spain has not sent any request to the Commission for a derogation for treatment less stringent
than  secondary  treatment  before  discharge  into  a  less  sensitive  area.  The  Commission
therefore believes that all Spanish agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than
15 000  must  have  at  least  secondary  treatment  since  31 December 2000,  including  those
which discharge their effluent into areas identified as less sensitive by the Spanish authorities.

7.6.

France

7.6.1.

Identification of sensitive areas

France  officially  drew  up  its  first  list  of  sensitive  areas  in  November 1994  using  the  three
criteria given in the Directive. It reviewed the list in August 1999, adding a number of other
sensitive areas. The map below takes account of this revision. The French authorities have not
indicated, as requested by the Commission, the criterion or criteria used for the identification
of each body of water as sensitive.

24

The  less  sensitive  areas  identified  by  the  Andalusian  authorities  by  Decree  of  2  March  1999  are  the
following:
- from the mouth of the Guadiana to the Cape of Trafalgar, the fringe between the outer territorial sea
limit and the line half a nautical mile from the low line.
-  from  the  Cap  of  Trafalgar  until  the  limit  of  the  independent  Community  of  Murcia,  the  boarder
between the external limit of the territorial sea and the line, situated half a nautical mile from the low
line.

24

                                                
They have also not made any distinction between bodies of water which are polluted or likely
to be  polluted  and  the  catchment  areas  of  these  bodies  of  water,  where  protection  measures
must also be taken. They have designated the two types of areas as "sensitive". Consequently,
the  Commission  concludes  France's  aims  as  regards  the  protection  of  sensitive  areas  are
difficult to understand.

Furthermore,  the  study  carried  out  by  the  Commission  in  1999  to  check  the  information
submitted shows additional bodies of water which should have been identified as sensitive in
terms  of  eutrophication.  These  are  the  freshwater  and  coastal  water  bodies  of  the  Artois-
Picardy basin, the Bay of the Seine and its downstream section, rivers and  coastal  waters  in
Brittany, streams in the Vendée, the river Vistre and the lagoon Etang de Thau.

7.6.2.

Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas

The  French  authorities  have  not  provided  the  information  requested  by  the  Commission  by
letter of 23 April 1999 and 22 March 2000. They only sent, in December 2000, a map of the
sensitive  areas  identified  in  1994,  indicating  281  agglomerations  located  in  those  areas.  An
attached  list  shows  that  151 agglomerations  were  and  130  were  not  in  conformity  with  the
provisions  of  the  Directive  on  31 December 1998.  In  a  memo  accompanying  the  list,  the
French authorities specify that these agglomerations should achieve conformity in two to three
years' time.

According  to  an  evaluation  made  by  the  Commission  using  data  of  the  Réseau  National  de
Données sur l'Eau (RNDE), the agglomerations affected by sensitive areas represent 25% of
the total load of the French agglomerations covered by the Directive. Most French cities are
outside the sensitive areas identified by France.

However, on  the  basis  of  the  verification  referred  to  above  to  check  the  sensitive  areas,  the
Commission  believes  that  cities  such  as  Lille  and  Paris  should  have  tertiary  treatment  of
nitrogen  and  phosphorus  to  reduce  the  eutrophication  of  the  freshwaters  and  marine  waters
situated downstream of their discharges.

In  a  circular  published  in  a  French  magazine  in  April  1999,  the  French  Minister  for  the
Environment  and Regional Planning stated that only  38% of the agglomerations affected  by
sensitive  areas  would  meet  the  deadline  of  31  December  1998,  27%  would  be  one  to  three
years behind and 35% more than four years late.

7.6.3.

Treatment in cities.

France  has  not  replied  to  the  Commission's  request  about  the  situation  in  cities  with  a
population equivalent of more than 150 000.

According  to  the  RNDE  and  other  information  gathered  by  the  Commission,  France  has
61 cities  with  more  than  150 000 p.e.  Cities  such  as  Angers,  Besancon,  Cholet,  Colmar,
Douai,  Metz,  Nantes  and  Royan  have  tertiary  treatment.  Many  others  have  full  secondary
treatment.  However,  some  large  cities  such  as  Lille,  Marseille  and  Bordeaux  have  very
inadequate treatment (primary or very incomplete secondary treatment).

25

7.7.

Ireland

7.7.1.

Identification of sensitive areas

In  1994,  Ireland  identified  four  lakes  as  sensitive  in  terms  of  eutrophication:  Lough  Derg,
Lough  Leane,  Lough  Oughter  and  Lough  Ree,  and  six  river  sections:  River  Boyne,  River
Camlin, River Castlebar, River Liffey, River Nenagh and River Tullamore.

The  Commission's  study  carried  out  in  1999  shows  that  the  Irish  authorities  have  not
identified any estuaries or coastal water bodies as sensitive. It also shows that 14 coastal areas
and  estuaries,  including  Dublin  Bay,  and  the  estuaries  and  port  area  of  Cork  suffer  from
problems  of  eutrophication  and  should  have  been  identified  as  sensitive.  The  study  also
includes six rivers (Proules,  Dodder, Tolka,  Cavan, Brosna and  Blackwater)  and  three  lakes
(Muckno, Monalty and Ennell) which should have been identified as sensitive.

Ireland has not revised the list of sensitive areas as required by the Directive.

7.7.2.

Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas

The  Irish  authorities  have  introduced  tertiary  treatment  for  the  reduction  of  phosphorus  in
11 agglomerations  affected  by  identified  sensitive  areas.  These  11  agglomerations  represent
only 6% of the organic load of the Irish agglomerations affected by the Directive.

The Commission believes that tertiary treatment should be much more extensive in Ireland, in
particular the tertiary treatment of nitrogen and in some cases of phosphorus in cities such as
Dublin or Cork to combat the eutrophication of coastal waters and estuaries.

Of  the  11  agglomerations  considered  by  Ireland  to  be  provided  with  tertiary  treatment  of
phosphorus:

- 7 are regarded as in conformity with the provisions of the Directive on 31 December 1998:
Athlone, Castlebar, Killarney, Mullingar, Nenagh, Roscrea and Tullamore.

- the remaining 4 - Cavan, Longford, Navan and Osberstwon - were not in conformity on 31
December 1998, but the Irish authorities have  indicated  that  they  would  be  in  conformity  at
the latest in 2001.

IRL

NUMBER

% LOAD (p.e.)

%

AGGLOMERATIONS

11

 237 000

AFFECTED BY SA

AGGLOMERATIONS IN

 7

63.6%

130 000

57.0%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

AGGLOMERATIONS NOT IN

4

36.4%

102 000

43.0%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

26

7.7.3.

Treatment in cities

Ireland has three cities with a population equivalent of more than 150 000.

- Dundalk (180 000 p.e.) did not have any treatment on 31 December 1998, but a secondary
treatment plant was expected to become operational at the end of 2000.

-  Cork  (302  000  p.e.)  also  did  not  have  any  treatment  plant  for  waste  water  on
31 December 1998.  Secondary  treatment  is  planned  for  the  end  of  2003.  In  view  of  the
eutrophication  of  the  coastal  waters  and  estuaries  in  this  location,  the  Commission  believes
that the city of Cork should introduce tertiary treatment of nitrogen and phosphorus.

- Dublin (1 437 000 p.e.) had only primary treatment for 1 000 000 p.e. on 31 December 1998.
Secondary  treatment  is  planned  for  2002.  The  Commission  believes  there  should  also  be
tertiary treatment, at least of nitrogen, to combat eutrophication in Dublin Bay.

7.8.

Italy

7.8.1.

Identification of sensitive areas

In May 1999, Italy identified a number of sensitive areas in its Legislative Decree transposing
the Directive into national law. Lakes at less than 1 000 metres above sea level and the related
rivers  over  a  distance  of  10  km  from  the  coastline  have  thus  been  identified.  The  map  and
tables enclosed with the information sent by Italy to the Commission in January  2000  show
seven lakes as sensitive: Iseo, Garlate Olginate, Como, Lugano, Maggiore, Trasimeno and San
Giovanni-Fiume  Naro.  The  lagoon  area  of  Ortobello,  on  the  Mediterranean  coast,  has  also
been identified, as have the following areas of the Adriatic coast: the coastal area of the north-
western Adriatic, from the mouth of the Adige to Pesaro, and the related rivers over a distance
of  10  km  from  the  coastline,  the  lagoon  areas  of  Ravenna  and  Piallassa-Baiona,  the  Venice
lagoon, the Po delta, as well as the Commaccio valleys and the brackish lakes. The wetlands
identified in the Ramsar Convention25 have also been identified as sensitive. The criteria used
are the three given in the Directive.

In January 2001, the Italian authorities sent the Commission a new list of 187 sensitive areas,
stating that no agglomeration of more than 10 000 p.e. was affected by them. The Commission
would point out that the agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e. affected by sensitive areas
are not  only those which discharge their  effluent  directly into  these  sensitive  areas,  but  also
those which are situated in their catchment areas and contribute to the pollution of these areas.
The  Commission  would  also  point  out  that  there  is  no  point  in  identifying  sensitive  areas
under the Directive if no agglomeration of more than 10 000 p.e. is affected.

In 2000, the Commission had the sensitive areas identified by Italy in May 1999 checked. The
check covered the combating of eutrophication and the protection of waters for the abstraction
of drinking  water  against  nitrates.  According  to  this  check,  the  following  areas  should  have
been identified as sensitive  by the  Italian  authorities:  Lakes  Garda  and  Idro,26  the  following
tributaries  of  the  Po:  Sarca-Minco,  Oglio,  Adda,  Lambro-Olona-Meridion  and  Ticino,  the
River  Arno  downstream  of  Florence  and  its  tributary  the  Greve,  the  Gulf  of  Castelmarre  in
Sicily and the coastal waters of the northern Adriatic.

25

26

International Convention on Wetlands.
These two lakes appear in the list of 187 sensitive areas sent by the Italian authorities in January 2001.

27

                                                
7.8.2.

Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas

According  to  the  information  sent  by  the  Italian  authorities  in  January  2000,  only
51 agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000 require tertiary treatment
of effluent to  protect sensitive areas. These represent only 3% of the organic load of all  the
Italian agglomerations covered by the Directive.

The Commission believes that the Italian authorities have failed to take proper account of the
requirement  of  stringent  (tertiary)  treatment  for  agglomerations  of  more  than  10  000  p.e.
which are situated in the relevant catchment areas of sensitive areas and which contribute to
the pollution of those areas. This shortcoming is particularly serious for the protection of lakes
and the protection of the Po delta and the adjacent coastal waters, which have been identified
as sensitive. For the protection of these waters, Italy has not taken account of discharges more
than 10 km from the coastline. According to the Commission, the agglomerations situated in
all  the  catchment  areas  which  contribute  to  the  pollution  of  these  waters,  such  as  the
agglomerations of Milan and Turin in the catchment areas of the Po, which contribute to the
pollution  of  the  Po  delta  and  the  adjacent  coastal  waters,  should  be  provided  with  adequate
tertiary treatment.

Furthermore,  the  agglomerations  affected  by  the  potentially  sensitive  areas  listed  in  the
Commission's  study,  such  as  the  city  of  Florence,  should  also  be  provided  with  stringent
(tertiary) treatment.

With regard to the 51 agglomerations which are affected by sensitive  areas  according to the
Italian authorities, the information sent by these authorities in January 2000 and January 2001
is not enough to evaluate conformity on 31 December 1998. In particular, the dates on which
conformity  was  achieved  are  not  stated  for  a  large  number  of  these  agglomerations.  On  the
basis of the information given, the Commission has calculated that 16 agglomerations were in
conformity  with  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  on  31  December  1998.  In  their  letter  of
5 January 2001, the Italian authorities put the number at 43.

I

NUMBER

% LOAD (p.e.)

%

AGGLOMERATIONS

51

3 211 968

AFFECTED BY SA

AGGLOMERATIONS IN

16

31.4%

1 316 907

41.0%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

AGGLOMERATIONS NOT IN

35

68.6%

1 895 061

59.0%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.9827

27

Or insufficient information provided.

28

                                                
7.8.3.

Treatment in cities

Italy  has  72  cities  with  a  population  equivalent  of  more  than  150  000.  According  to  the
information  sent  by  the  Italian  authorities  in  January  2001,  the  situation  with  regard  to  the
treatment of waste water from these cities on 31 December 1998 was as follows:

-  30  cities,  including  Bari,  Bergamo,  Brescia,  Livorno,  Messina,  Palermo,  Parma,  Ravenna,
Rome and Verona, had tertiary treatment.

- 29, including Bologna,  Cagliari, Catania,  Genoa,  Modena,  Monza,  Naples,  Padua,  Rimini,
Turin  and  Venice,  had  full  secondary  treatment.  In  the  case  of  Turin,  tertiary  treatment  of
nitrogen  is  planned  for  2001.  Adequate  tertiary  treatment  is  not  planned  for  cities  such  as
Padua or Venice, which do contribute to the pollution of sensitive areas.

- 3 cities, Florence, Reggio Calabria and Trieste, had no treatment for part of their effluent. In
Florence, it  is planned to  have  full  secondary  treatment  by  the  end  of  2001,  but  not  tertiary
treatment for the reduction of nitrogen, which the Commission believes is necessary to protect
the River Arno. In Reggio Calabria, full secondary treatment was achieved by the end of 2000.
There  is  a  tertiary  treatment  project  for  Trieste,  but  the  operational  date  has  not  yet  been
stated.

- 7 cities, Foce Sarno, Imperia Foce Impero, Medio Sarno, Merano, Milan, Misterbianco and
Taranto, had no treatment plants on 31 December 1998. Taranto and Merano introduced full
tertiary  treatment  in  2000  and,  according  to  the  information  provided,  the  others  should
achieve conformity by 2004 at the latest.

- the information provided is insufficient in the case of Como, Salerno and Rosolina-Donada-
Cantarina.

7.9.

Luxembourg

7.9.1.

Identification of sensitive areas

Luxembourg has decided to implement stringent treatment (tertiary treatment of nitrogen and
phosphorus)  over  all  its  territory  in  accordance  with  Article  5(8)  of  the  Directive.  It  is
therefore not required to identify sensitive areas for the purposes of the Directive.

7.9.2.

Agglomerations

Luxembourg  has  11  agglomerations  with  a  population  equivalent  of  more  than  10  000.  On
31 December  1998  the  situation  as  regards  the  conformity  of  these  agglomerations  with  the
provisions of the Directive was as follows:

-  3  agglomerations  were 
in  conformity:  Mamer,  Pétange  and  Uebersyren.  These
3 agglomerations  represent  15%  of  the  organic  load  of  Luxembourg  agglomerations  with
more than 10 000 p.e.

- 8 agglomerations were therefore not in conformity: Bettembourg, Bleesbruck, Differdange,
Echternach,  Esch-Schifflange,  Luxembourg-Beggen,  Luxembourg-Bonnevoie  and  Mersch.
They all had secondary treatment on that date, but no treatment of nitrogen, three of them had
no treatment of phosphorus.

29

Luxembourg  proposes  to  achieve  conformity  for  all  of  these  agglomerations  by  2005  at  the
latest.

Luxembourg  has  also  decided  to  apply,  for  the  time  being,  the  option  provided  for  in
Article 5(4)  of  the  Directive  of  not  verifying  the  conformity  of  treatment  for  each
agglomeration, but of considering the percentage reduction of the load entering all treatment
plants.  The  percentage  of  reduction  must  in  overall  terms  be  at  least  75%  for  total  nitrogen
and  for  total  phosphorus,  taking  account  of  all  agglomerations  which  must  have  treatment
plants  and  not  only  those  with  more  than  10  000  p.e.  This  percentage  has  not  yet  been
achieved, at least not in the case of nitrogen.

Luxembourg  has  stated  that,  since  it  has  taken  this  option,  the  requirements  for  discharges
during  the  construction  or  any  substantial  modification  of  a  new  treatment  plant  are  at  the
moment the values specified in the Directive, but that when the percentage of 75% is achieved
for nitrogen and phosphorus, less stringent values may be laid down.

7.9.3.

Treatment in cities

Only the city of Luxembourg (360 000 p.e.) exceeds 150 000 p.e. It has secondary treatment
followed  by  tertiary  treatment  of  phosphorus.  The  tertiary  treatment  of  nitrogen  and
phosphorus, as required by the Directive, is planned for 2005.

7.10.

The Netherlands

7.10.1.

Identification of sensitive areas

The Netherlands has decided to implement stringent treatments (tertiary treatment of nitrogen
and  phosphorus)  over  all  its  territory  in  accordance  with  Article  5(8)  of  the  Directive.  The
Netherlands  is  therefore  not  required  to  identify  sensitive  areas  for  the  purposes  of  the
Directive.

7.10.2. Agglomerations

The  Netherlands  has  decided  to  apply  Article  5(4)  of  the  Directive.  Consequently,  the
requirements  of  the  Directive  that  each  treatment  plant  must  be  provided  with  tertiary
treatment do not apply to the Netherlands. The Dutch authorities must show that the minimum
percentage of reduction of the overall load entering all the country's treatment plants, and not
only those for more than 10 000 p.e., is at least 75% for total phosphorus and at least 75% for
total nitrogen. In the information sent to the Commission, the Dutch authorities state that, on
31 December 1998, the minimum rate of 75% had been achieved for phosphorus, but not for
nitrogen. The rate of reduction of nitrogen on that date was 60%.

The  Netherlands  points  out  on  the  subject  that,  of  the  27  "competent  water  authorities",
7 which  account  for  54  treatment  plants  of  more  than  10  000  p.e.,  were  in  compliance  on
31 December 1998 with the minimum 75% reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus, but that the
20 other water authorities, which account for 209 treatment stations, were in compliance with
this figure for phosphorus but not for nitrogen.

Conformity with the provisions of Article 5(4) of the Directive must be considered in overall
terms,  and  not  by  regional  water  authority.  The  Commission  therefore  believes  that,  on
31 December 1998, discharges of urban wastewater in the Netherlands were not in conformity
with the Directive.

30

According  to  the  information  supplied  by  the  Dutch  authorities,  these  discharges  should
achieve conformity in 2005.

7.10.3. Treatment in cities

The  Netherlands  has  23  cities  with  a  population  equivalent  of  more  than  150  000.  On
31 December 1998, only the city of Haarlem had secondary treatment followed by full tertiary
treatment of nitrogen and phosphorus. The 22 others, including Amsterdam, Eindhoven, The
Hague and Rotterdam, had secondary treatment following by tertiary treatment of phosphorus.
Of these 22, only Arnhem and Rotterdam also had partial treatment of nitrogen on that date.

As stated above, the Netherlands plan to achieve conformity with the Directive in 2005.

7.11.

Austria

7.11.1.

Identification of sensitive areas

Austria did not believe that any water body in its territory corresponded to the criteria for the
identification of sensitive areas. It confirmed this position in 1998, informing the Commission
that the revision procedure required by the Directive had not resulted in the identification of
any water body with the characteristics of a sensitive area.

The study carried out at the Commission’s instigation in 1999 has revealed three rivers which
should have been identified as sensitive due to the risk of eutrophication. These are the rivers
March, Antiesen and Donaukanal. In January and February 2001, the Austrian authorities sent
the Commission additional information on the monitoring of the quality of these rivers and the
criteria used  in  Austria  to  evaluate  eutrophication.  These  documents  are  being  examined  by
the Commission.

7.11.2. Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas

13 Austrian agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000 are situated in
the  Austrian  part  of  the  catchment  area  of  the  Rhine  and  one  agglomeration  of  more  than
10 000 p.e. (Elbe catchment area) in the Austrian part of the catchment area of the Elbe. These
two  rivers  flow  into  the  coastal  waters  of  the  North  Sea  and  the  Baltic,  which  are
eutrophicated and identified as sensitive. In addition, 11 Austrian agglomerations are situated
in the catchment areas, which feed German lakes, which are also identified as sensitive.

The Austrian authorities have called for the introduction of adequate tertiary treatment in 24
of these 25 agglomerations, even if, in its memorandum to the Commission in January 2001,
Austria does not accept that its agglomerations contribute the pollution of the coastal waters
of the North Sea and the Baltic.

Only  the  agglomeration  of  Bregenz-Kennelbach,  in  the  catchment  area  of  the  Rhine,  is  not
considered by the Commission to be in conformity with the provisions of the Directive on the
protection of sensitive areas. This agglomeration did not have tertiary treatment of nitrogen on
31  December  1998.  According  to  the  information  provided  by  the  Austrian  authorities,  the
relevant work is in progress.

31

O

NUMBER

% LOAD (p.e.)

%

AGGLOMERATIONS

25

1 871 885

AFFECTED BY SA

AGGLOMERATIONS IN

24

96%

1 791 885

96%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

AGGLOMERATIONS NOT IN

1

4%

80 000

4%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

7.11.3. Treatment in cities

Austria has 20 cities with a population equivalent of more than 150 000.

-  10  of  them,  Bregenz,  Dornbirn,  Feldkirch,  Hohenems,  Innsbruck,  Lenzing,  Salzburg,
treatment  on
Schwaz,  St  Pölten  and  Steyermühl,  already  had  stringent  (tertiary) 
31 December 1998.

- The ten others, Graz, Klagenfurt, Krems, Linz, Pöls, Raum Gratkorn, Villach, Welser Heide,
Vienna and Vienna Neustadt, had full secondary treatment on that date. In a memorandum to
the Commission in January 2001, the Austrian authorities indicated that tertiary treatment of
nitrogen and phosphorus was planned for these cities, although there is no obligation to do so
under the Directive.

7.12.

Portugal

7.12.1.

Identification of sensitive areas

In June 1997, Portugal officially identified 41 water bodies as sensitive. The criteria applied
were  the  combating  of  eutrophication  and  the  need  for  tertiary  treatment  of  microbiological
pollution, in particular for the protection of bathing waters.

The study to check the sensitive areas identified, which was carried out in 1999-2000 at the
Commission's instigation, shows that four additional water bodies should have been identified
as sensitive. Because of eutrophication, these are the part of the Tagus estuary known as Cala
doNorte and the Miranda dam in the catchment area of the Douro, near the Spanish frontier.
To  protect  these  two  areas,  which  are  identified  in  the  study  as  potentially  sensitive,  the
Commission  believes  that  adequate  stringent  (tertiary)  treatment  measures  should  be  taken
over all of the catchment area of the Tagus and its estuary, in particular in Lisbon, and in the
catchment  area  of  the  Douro.  The  other  two  water  bodies  referred  to  in  this  study,  in
connection with the protection of waters intended for the abstraction of drinking water, are at
Marachão,  on  the  Cávado  river  and  Ponte  Canas,  near  Lisbon.  The  measures  which  their
protection would involve are geographically much more limited.

32

7.12.2. Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas

In October 1999, the Portuguese authorities sent the Commission a list of 27 agglomerations
of more than  10.000 p.e.  situated  in  the  catchment  areas  of  the  sensitive  areas  identified  by
Portugal.28  These  agglomerations  represent  only  8%  of  the  total  load  of  the  Portuguese
agglomerations  affected  by  the  Directive.  The  tertiary  treatment  required  is  the  treatment  of
nitrogen, phosphorus, microbiological pollution or a combination thereof. It should be noted
that the tertiary treatment provided (treatment of nitrogen and/or phosphorus) in some of these
agglomerations  to  combat  eutrophication  does  not  correspond  to  the  Commission’s
interpretation, as explained in the third paragraph of Chapter 4 of this report. It should also be
pointed out that Portugal has provided tertiary treatment of microbiological pollution in 24 of
the  27  agglomerations  affected  by  sensitive  areas,  treatment  of  nitrogen  in  17  of  them  and
treatment of phosphorus in 4.

On 31 December 1998, five of the 27 agglomerations were in conformity with the provisions
of the Directive. These are: Faro, Olhão Nascente, Olhão Poente, Tavira and Amarante. The
Portuguese authorities propose to achieve conformity for the other agglomerations in 2003 at
the latest.

P

NUMBER

% LOAD (p.e.)

%

AGGLOMERATIONS

27

1 333 517

AFFECTED BY SA

AGGLOMERATIONS IN

5

18.5%

256 000

19.2%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

AGGLOMERATIONS NOT IN

22

81.5%

1 077 517

80.8%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

7.12.3. Treatment in cities

Portugal has 14 cities with a population equivalent of more than 150 000.

On 31 December 1998, the situation with regard to the treatment of waste water in these cities
was as follows:

- Faro, Sistema de Alcanena and Vilamoura had tertiary treatment;

- Loures/Frielas and São João de Talha had secondary treatment;

- Aveiro and Lisbon had incomplete secondary treatment;

28

For several of the sensitive areas in Portugal, there is no agglomeration of more than 10 000 p.e. in the
corresponding catchment  areas.  The  Commission  would  point  out  that  there  is  no  point  in  identifying
areas as sensitive if no stringent treatment measure is to be taken, under Article 5 of the Directive, in the
relevant catchment areas.

33

                                                
- Barreiro, Costa do Estoril, Cova da Beira, Matosinhos, Porto, Setúbal and Vila Nova de Gaia
had no treatment at all.

Projects or work are in progress in ten of these fourteen cities. Portugal has announced that the
planned treatment plants will be operational in 2005 at the latest.

7.12.4. Less sensitive areas

In  1997,  the  Portuguese  national  authorities  identified  all  of  their  coastal  waters,  except  the
waters of the Algarve, as less sensitive.  The regional  authorities of  the  Azores  and  Madeira
consider all their coastal waters to be less sensitive.29

As  stated  in  Chapter  5  of  this  report,  the  Commission  believes  that  some  of  the  areas
identified  by  the  Portuguese  authorities  do  not  fulfil  the  criteria  set  out  in  the  Directive,  in
particular  in  view  of  the  risk  of  contamination  of  a  large  number  of  bathing  waters  and
shellfish waters.

In  1999,  Portugal  requested  a  derogation  for  the  agglomeration  of  Costa  do  Estoril
(720 000 p.e.) near Lisbon. This will be the subject of a Commission decision in 2001.

Apart from  this agglomeration, the Commission  believes that  all Portuguese agglomerations
of  more  than  15  000  p.e.  should  have  at  least  secondary  treatment  on  31  December  2000,
including  those  which  discharge  into  the  less  sensitive  areas  identified  by  the  Portuguese
authorities.

7.13.

Finland

7.13.1.

Identification of sensitive areas

Finland has decided to implement stringent (tertiary) treatment over all its territory pursuant to
Article  5(8)  of  the  Directive.  It  is  therefore  not  required  to  identify  sensitive  areas  for  the
purposes of the Directive.

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

According to  the  information  sent  to  the  Commission,  the  Finnish  authorities  have  required
the tertiary treatment of phosphorus for all agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e., but not
tertiary  treatment  of  nitrogen.  In  a  memorandum  to  the  Commission  in  February  2001,  the
Finnish authorities justified this approach by saying that, when the Directive was transposed
into Finnish law in 1994, scientists were unanimous in considering phosphorus to be the main
cause of the eutrophication of Finnish freshwaters and the coastal waters of the Baltic.

29

In January 1996, the Portuguese authorities sent the decisions of the autonomous regions of the Azores
and Madeira to the Commission, to consider all their coastal waters as less sensitive.

34

                                                
The  Commission  challenges  this  interpretation.  Scientific  documents  published  in  1995
and 1996,30 which refer to earlier observations and articles, show, even then, the importance
of both nitrogen and phosphorus discharges as regards eutrophication of the Baltic and state
that,  depending  on  local  conditions,  phosphorus  seems  to  be  the  cause  of  eutrophication  in
some  parts  of  the  sea  and  nitrogen  in  others.  In  a  memorandum  to  the  Commission  in
February  2001,  the  Finnish  authorities  also  point  out  that,  after  1995-1996,  it  become  clear
that, apart from phosphorus, nitrogen could also be causing the eutrophication of certain parts
of the Baltic.

It  is  also  important  to  note  that  discharges  to  one  part  of  the  Baltic  will  be  carried  to  other
parts of the sea where they are likely to have an adverse effect on the environment. Given this
situation, the Commission believes that tertiary treatment of both nitrogen and phosphorus is
essential  under  the  Directive  in  all  agglomerations  of  more  than  10  000  p.e.  situated  in  the
catchment  areas  which  flow  in  the  Baltic.  It  also  believes  that  the  Finnish  authorities  have
failed  to  show  that  the  elimination  of  nitrogen  will  not  have  any  impact  on  the  level  of
eutrophication in the Baltic.

On  this  basis,  the  evaluation  carried  out  by  the  Commission  shows  that  only  11  of  the
85 agglomerations  of  more  than  10  000  p.e.  in  Finland  complied  with  the  provisions  of  the
Directive on 31 December 1998.

The  Finnish  authorities  have  announced  their  intention  to  improve  the  treatment  of  effluent
from  these  agglomerations  in  the  next  few  years,  in  particular  by  considering  the  tertiary
treatment of nitrogen.

FI

NUMBER

% LOAD (p.e.)

%

AGGLOMERATIONS

85

4 352 317

AFFECTED BY SA

AGGLOMERATIONS IN

11

12.9%

478 360

11.0%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

AGGLOMERATIONS NOT IN

74

87.1%

3 873 957

89.0%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

30

Nitrogen  and  phosphorus  as  production  limiting  factors  in  the  estuarine  waters  of  the  eastern  Gulf  of
Finland, in Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol 129: 283-294, 1995.
Third Periodic Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment of the Baltic, 1989-1993, Executive
Summary, Baltic Environment Proceedings No 64 A, Helsinki Commission, Baltic Marine Environment
Protection Commission, 1996.

35

                                                
7.13.3. Treatment in cities

Finland has six cities with a population equivalent of more than 150 000. These are: Espoo,
Helsinki, Jyväskylä, Lahti, Tampere and Turku. At the end of 1998, all of them were provided
with  secondary  treatment  and  tertiary  treatment  of  phosphorus.  However,  the  Commission
believes the tertiary treatment of nitrogen is lacking in the six cities situated in the catchment
area of the Baltic.

7.14.

Sweden

7.14.1.

Identification of sensitive areas

In  1994,  Sweden  identified  all  of  its  waters  as  sensitive  areas.  In  June  1998,  Sweden
confirmed  this  identification  to  the  Commission,  indicating  that  the  criterion  applied  was
eutrophication  and  that  the  type  of  tertiary  treatment  required  depends  on  the  water  bodies
concerned.

7.14.2 Agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e.

Sweden believes that tertiary treatment of phosphorus is necessary in all its agglomerations of
more  than  10  000  p.e.  to  combat  eutrophication  and  the  risk  of  the  eutrophication  of  these
freshwaters, estuaries and coastal waters.

Sweden has  also indicated that the  coastal waters  of  the  North  Sea  and  the  Baltic,  from  the
Norwegian border to the municipality of Norrtälje, including the coastal waters to the east of
the  island  of  Öland  and  around  the  island  of  Gottland,  were  sensitive  to  discharges  of
nitrogen.

The Swedish authorities therefore believe that discharges from  agglomerations  of  more  than
10 000 p.e. which reach the Baltic to the north of the municipality of Norrtälje do not require
tertiary  treatment  of  nitrogen.  They  also  believe  that  discharges  of  nitrogen  from  other
agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e. in the central part of the country, to the south, do not
contribute  to  the  eutrophication  of  coastal  waters  as  there  is  sufficient  natural  retention  of
nitrogen  during  the  transfer  to  the  catchment  area  between  the  point  of  emission  of  the
pollutant load and the sea.

For  the  reasons  explained  in  the  Chapter  on  Finland,  the  Commission  does  not  agree  with
Sweden that certain discharges of nitrogen do not contribute to eutrophication. It believes that,
since discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus are both responsible for the appearance of marine
eutrophication and discharges to a coastal area are carried to other adjacent coastal areas, all
Swedish agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e. should have been provided with treatment
of  nitrogen  by  31  December  1998.  In  addition,  the  Commission  believes  that,  for  the
agglomerations  situated  in  the  south,  central  part,  discharges  of  nitrogen  contribute  to  the
pollution of the sensitive areas, even allowing for the partial natural retention of nitrogen in
the catchment areas.

The  Commission  therefore  believes  that,  out  of  144  Swedish  agglomerations  of  more  than
10 000  p.e.,  only  34  which  had  installed  secondary  treatment  followed  by  full  tertiary
treatment  of  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  by  31  December  1998  are  in  conformity  with  the
Directive.  These  34  agglomerations  which  are  in  conformity  represent  34%  of  the  load  of
Swedish agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e.

36

S

NUMBER

% LOAD (p.e.)

%

AGGLOMERATIONS

144

7 263 240

AFFECTED BY SA

AGGLOMERATIONS IN

34

23.6%

2 451 910

33.8%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

AGGLOMERATIONS NOT IN

110

76.4%

4 811 330

66.2%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

7.14.3 Treatment in cities

Sweden has seven cities with a population equivalent of more than 150 000.

-  Four  of  them,  Stockholm,  Kristianstad,  Malmö  and  Helsingborg,  had  secondary  treatment
followed  by  tertiary  treatment  of  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  on  31  December  1998
(1 September 1999 in the case of Malmö).

- The three others, Gothenburg, Lidingö and Lingkoping, had secondary treatment and tertiary
treatment  of  phosphorus  on  that  date.  The  latter  three  have  planned  to  add  the  treatment  of
nitrogen.

7.15.

United Kingdom

7.15.1.

Identification of sensitive areas

The United Kingdom carried out an initial identification of sensitive areas in 1994 and 1995
based  on  eutrophication.  In  this  way,  33  freshwater  bodies  were  identified  in  England  and
Wales,  three  in  Scotland  and  two  in  Northern  Ireland.  In  1998,  again  with  reference  to
eutrophication,  47  further  water  bodies  were  identified  in  England  and  Wales  and  three
extensions to previously identified water bodies. The Scottish authorities in 2000 announced
the identification of the Ythan estuary as a sensitive area in terms of eutrophication. Lastly, in
February  1997,  three  English  rivers  were  identified  as  sensitive  with  regard  to  protection
against nitrates in waters intended for the abstraction of drinking water.

The sensitive areas identified in Northern Ireland have not yet been reviewed.

The  verification  study  carried  out  in  1999  at  the  Commission’s  request  shows  a  certain
number  of  additional  water  bodies  which  should  have  been  identified  as  sensitive.  It  shows
that  a  number  of  estuaries  and  coastal  waters,  in  particular  the  estuaries  of  the  Thames,  the
Wash, the Humber, the Deben and Colne, the waters of Southampton and the coastal waters of
North Wales,  north-western England and  south-western Scotland  do not meet the  criteria  of
the Directive with regard to the risk of eutrophication.

37

Another  verification  study  carried  out  in  2000  for  Northern  Ireland  shows  the  following
coastal waters which also should have been identified as sensitive. Bann Estuary, Carlingford
Lough, Belfast Lough and Lough Foyle.

Furthermore, the Commission believes that the  United Kingdom  should also have identified
bathing waters and shellfish waters as sensitive given the fact that some of these waters are
known  to  be  polluted  by  discharges  of  urban  waste  waters  and  the  need  for  the  tertiary
treatment  of  the  microbiological  pollution  contained  in  these  discharges  in  order  to  comply
with Community legislation.

7.15.2. Agglomerations affected by sensitive areas

According  to  the  information  supplied  by  the  UK  authorities,  207  agglomerations  of  more
than 10 000 p.e. are affected by the sensitive areas which have been identified by the United
Kingdom and should therefore be provided with tertiary treatment. These represent an organic
load of 13 386 805 p.e.

For  the  purposes  of  evaluating  the  conformity  of  these  agglomerations,  the  Commission
believes  that  only  19  were  in  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  on
31 December 1998.  This  evaluation  has,  in  particular,  taken  account  of  the  fact  that  a  large
number  of  these  agglomerations  are  not  only  situated  in  the  catchment  areas  of  freshwater
bodies  which  have  been  identified  as  sensitive  in  terms  of  eutrophication  and  which,
according  to  the  UK  authorities,  require  tertiary  treatment  of  phosphorus,  but  also  in  the
catchment areas of coastal waters and estuaries which the Commission believes should have
been  identified  as  sensitive.  The  Commission  therefore  considers  that  these  agglomerations
require additional tertiary treatment of nitrogen to protect estuaries and coastal waters.

A  total  of  150  agglomerations  are  therefore  not  in  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  the
Directive according to the Commission.

Furthermore,  the  Commission  considers  that  43  agglomerations  have  up  to  2004  to  achieve
conformity  with  the  Directive.  These  are  the  agglomerations  affected  by  the  sensitive  areas
identified  by  the  United  Kingdom  during  the  1998  revision,  which  could  not  be  identified
initially.

Lastly,  it  should  be  pointed  out  that  this  evaluation  of  agglomerations  affected  by  sensitive
areas  identified  by  the  United  Kingdom  does  not  take  account  of  all  the  agglomerations
situated in the catchment areas of water bodies which the Commission believes should have
been identified as sensitive. The Commission therefore considers that agglomerations such as
London, Leeds, Hull and Southampton should have been provided with tertiary treatment by
31 December 1998.  These  agglomerations  are  not  included  in  the  evaluation  summarised  in
the following table.

38

UK

NUMBER

% LOAD (p.e.)

%

AGGLOMERATIONS

212

13 386 805

AFFECTED BY SA

AGGLOMERATIONS IN

19

9.0%

1 536 902

11.5%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

AGGLOMERATIONS NOT IN

150

70.7% 10 180 629

76.0%

CONFORMITY ON 31.12.98

7.15.3. Treatment in cities

According  to  the  information  supplied  by  the  UK  authorities  in  January 2001  and  the
Commission’s estimate, the UK has 97 towns and cities with a population equivalent of more
than 150 000.

On  31  December  1998,  the  situation  with  regard  to  the  treatment  of  waste  water  in  these
towns and cities was as follows:

- 2 had secondary treatment following by full tertiary treatment: Milton Keynes and Coventry.

-  61  had  full  secondary  treatment  or  partial  tertiary  treatment.  As  stated  above,  the
Commission  believes  that  many  of  these  towns  and  cities,  such  as  London,  should  have
tertiary treatment to combat the eutrophication of coastal waters and estuaries.

-  12  had  incomplete  secondary  treatment  or  primary  treatment  (Aberdeen,  Glasgow,
Edinburgh,  Newcastle  upon  Thyne,  Liverpool,  Great  Yarmouth,  Cardiff,  Bristol,  Sandown,
Worthing, Gillingham, Eastbourne ).

-  11  did  not  treat  their  effluent  (Dundee,  Sunderland/Whitburn,  Middlesborough,  Hull,
Bedington, Port Talbot, Torbay, Portsmouth, Brighton, Hastings, Dover/Folkesstone).

- The information is incomplete for the 11 other towns and cities.

7.15.4. Less sensitive areas

Initially,  in  1994  and  1995,  the  United  Kingdom  identified  49  coastal  water  bodies  and
estuaries as less sensitive in England, 9 in Wales, 24 in Scotland and 3 in Northern Ireland, for
the  purpose  of  discharging  urban  waste  water  with  less  than  secondary  treatment.  After
several  decisions  on  the  part  of  the  UK  authorities,  in  1998  and  2000,  to  withdraw  a  large
number of the less sensitive areas, there are now, in February 2001, five less sensitive areas in
the UK: three in Scotland, Lerwick, Strang (Kirkwall) and the Minch (Stornoway), and two in
Northern Ireland, Bangor and Portrush/Portstewart.

As stated in Chapter 5 of this report, in December 2000 the Commission received studies on
the  discharges  from  the  Scottish  agglomerations  of  Stornoway  and  Lerwick  into  two  less
sensitive areas. These studies are being evaluated.

39

The Commission believes that other agglomerations of more than 15 000 p.e. which discharge
their  effluent  into  less  sensitive  areas  should  have  had  secondary  treatment  since
31 December 2000.

8.

INFRINGEMENT PROCEDURES

Pursuant  to  Article  226  of  the  consolidated  version  of  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European
Community,  the  Commission  may  open  an  infringement  procedure  against  Member  States
which have failed to meet their obligations under the Directive.

At present (June 2001) nine Member States have an ongoing infringement procedure. In sum
there  are  14  ongoing  infringement  procedures  in  the  field  of  the  Urban  Waste  Water
Treatment  Directive  and  further  procedures  are  being  prepared.  In  the  case  of  Belgium,
France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Spain, and United Kingdom a reasoned opinion has already
been sent to Member States.

In  particular,  in  the  case  of  Belgium  (C-236/99)  judgement  has  already  taken  place  on  the
6.7.2000, as Brussels is still missing a treatment plant for two thirds of its waste water load.
With regard to Italy/Milan (C-396/00) - Milan counting about 2 700 000 inhabitants, has no
treatment plant at all - the case is pending before court.

The reasons for non-compliance on the above cases are as follows:

Belgium:

Infringement of Article 3, 5 and 17 for too late identification of sensitive areas and therefore
non-compliance with the provisions for sensitive areas / incomplete implementation program.

France:

Infringement of Article 5 for failing to identify sensitive areas and therefore non-compliance
with the provisions for sensitive areas.

Germany:

Infringement  of  Article  5  and  15  for  incomplete  identification  of  sensitive  areas  and
legislation not being in conformity with the Directive.

Greece:

Infringement of Article 3 and 5 for no, respectively, insufficient treatment in sensitive areas in
the region of Thriassion and Athens.

Ireland:

Infringement of Article 3, 5, 14, and 19 for failing to identify sensitive areas and not carrying
out a review of sensitive areas / for failing to adopt legislation.

Italy (Milan):

Infringement of Article 5 for failing to identify sensitive areas and  non-compliance with the
provisions in sensitive areas.

40

Spain:

Infringement of Article 5 for failing to identify sensitive areas and therefore non-compliance
with the provisions in sensitive areas.

United Kingdom:

Infringement  of  Article  5  and  6  for  failing  to  identify  sensitive  areas,  and  in  particular
according to the criteria of Annex IIA / for failing to identify less sensitive areas in accordance
to Annex IIB / for not carrying out a review of identification of those areas.

9.

FORTHCOMING TASKS FOR THE COMMISSION

At the beginning of 2001,  the  Commission started the process of  verifying  compliance with
the  provisions  of  the  Directive  as  regards  the  deadline  of  31  December  2000.  By  that  date,
agglomerations of more than 15 000 p.e. which do not discharge their effluent into sensitive
areas  or  their  catchment  areas  should  have  been  provided  with  a  collecting  system  and
secondary  treatment.  Furthermore,  biodegradable  industrial  waste  water  from  plants  in  the
food-processing  sectors  listed  in  the  Directive  producing  a  pollution  load  of  more  than
4 000 p.e.  and  discharged  directly  into  receiving  waters  should  have  complied  with  the
discharge requirements laid down in the prior regulations or specific authorities.

The Commission  has  also  started  verifying  the  results  of  the  monitoring  of  discharges  from
the agglomerations affected by the deadline of 31 December 1998.

It  will  present  the  results  of  these  checks  in  the  next  report  on  the  implementation  of  the
Directive.

In addition, the Commission is concerned about the implementation situation as described in
this report and would encourage Member States to speed up the investment needed to comply
with the Directive.

Infringement  procedures,  financial  aid  and  bringing  pressure  to  bear  on  decision-makers  by
increasing  public  awareness  are  the  means  by  which  the  Commission  will  continue  to
encourage progress.

(cid:1)  The situation will be monitored and infringement procedures will be opened in respect of
any  failure  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  Directive.  This  will  be  done  if  the
Member  States  do  not  provide  the  Commission  with  the  information  it  needs  to  verify
compliance  with  the  deadlines  and  if  they  do  not  provide  the  general  public  with  the
information  provided  in  the  Directive  to  ensure  transparency,  in  particular  the  situation
reports provided for in Article 16 of the Directive.

(cid:1)  The  authorisation  and  payment  of  Community  aid  under  the  Structural  Funds  and  the
Cohesion Fund are dependent on strict compliance with the requirements of the Directive,
in  particular  as  regards  the  level  of  treatment  of  waste  water  and  the  operation  of  plants
once work has been completed.

41

(cid:1)  Greater attention must be focused on decision-makers and on local and regional authorities
and  organisations  in  order  to  raise  awareness  and  to  encourage  them  to  act  in  a  manner
which  will  enhance  compliance  with  the  Directive  at  their  level.  This  can  be  done  by
increasing  public  awareness,  by  acting  through  the  communication  networks  between
decision-makers  in  towns  and  cities  and  by  means  of  bilateral  meetings  between  the
Member States and the Commission to which regional and local representatives are invited.

The  Fifth  Framework  Programme 
for  Research,  Technological  Development  and
Demonstration  (1998-2002)  has  promoted  research  on  the  subject  of  urban  waste  water
treatment  within  the  activity  of  the  Key  Action  “Sustainable  management  and  quality  of
water“. In particular, research projects have been launched - among others - on sewage sludge
minimisation,  on  new  processes  for  nitrogen  removal,  on  simplified  processes  (constructed
wetlands) for small/medium communities and for tourist areas, on the online control systems
for  optimising  waste  water  treatment.  Information  on  the  on-going  research  projects  can  be
obtained from the Commission - DG Research - Unit I/3 eesd@cec.eu.int, and directly from
the web site http://www.cordis.lu/eesd/kal/home.html.

It  is  also  essential  for  technical  assistance  to  be  given  to  small  and  medium-sized
agglomerations to help them achieve compliance with the Directive by the deadline of 2005.
The  municipalities  and  local  authorities  involved,  which  are  responsible  for  making  the
investment needed, are often less well structured, organised and equipped than cities when it
comes to choosing the sewage treatment plants which meet their requirements and to having
them  built.  The  Commission  wishes  to  increase  the  support  it  gives  for  the  development  of
treatment  technology  suitable  for  small  and  medium-sized  agglomerations,  in  particular  by
providing  financial  assistance  through  LIFE-Environment  for  innovative  and  demonstration
activities  and  by  publishing  a  thematic  guide  on  the  subject  in  2001  and  organising  a
programme of conferences targeted at those who decide on investments.

Lastly,  more  help  needs  to  be  given  to  the  candidate  countries  for  accession  to  the  EU  to
achieve  compliance  with  the  Directive.  This  is  justified  since  the  current  standard  of
collecting  and  waste  water  treatment  systems  in  these  countries  is  generally  very  poor.  The
Commission is obviously aware of the considerable cost which complying with the Directive
means  for  these  countries.  This  cost  is  increased  by  the  fact  that  discharges  from
agglomerations in most of these countries will require very stringent treatment since they will
reach seas which are very sensitive to eutrophication: the North Sea, the Baltic, the Adriatic
and  the  Black  Sea.  The  candidate  countries  have  all  asked  for  a  transitional  period  for  the
implementation  of  the  Directive.  In  the  coming  years,  the  Commission  must  continue  to
support  technical  assistance  schemes,  in  particular  twinning  schemes  between  the  Member
States  and  the  candidate  countries  in  order  to  provide  them  with  the  technical  and
administrative  assistance  they  need  to  adopt  Community  rules.  Community  assistance  will
also continue to be provided, in particular through ISPA, for the investment needed.

10.

CONCLUSION

The  information  provided  by  the  Member  States  for  the  Commission’s  verification  of  the
situation on 31 December 1998 confirms that considerable efforts have been made to achieve
compliance with the Directive. These efforts have already led to significant improvements in
the quality of a large number of European rivers and lakes.

42

The Council Directive  concerning  urban  waste  water  treatment  is  a  key  piece  on  legislation
affecting  the  quality  of  water  in  the  European  Union.  Its  provisions  requiring  major
infrastructure measures, therefore cause significant investments for Member States.
Member  States  obligations/deadlines  in  terms  of  treatment  works  became  effective  as
from 1998 with important implementation deadlines in 2000 and 2005.
DG  Environment  is  working  closely  with  EEA  to  obtain  monitoring  information,  to  follow
trends  on  water  quality  and  to  assess  environmental  impact  of  the  Directive.  EEA  reports
indicate  that  where  efforts  have  been  made  to  implement  the  directive  the  result  was  a
significant  improvement  of  water  quality  of  many  European  rivers  and  lakes.  It  is  expected
that the Directive will have further significant impact upon water quality in the EU.

However, the verification has revealed major shortcomings in most of the Member States as
regards compliance with the obligations of the Directive, chiefly in two respects:

(cid:1)  For  a  large  number  of  agglomerations,  sometimes  very  large  ones  such  as  London  and
Paris, the level of treatment required for waste water has been underestimated. Many of the
Member States have not recognised the sensitive nature of the aquatic environments which
receive waste water. Apart from a failure to identify properly the sensitive nature of waters
close to the point at which effluent is discharged, some of the Member States have ignored
the  fact  that  the  pollutants  contained  in  waste  water  which  has  not  been  properly  treated
could  migrate  via  the  river  basin  into  the  marine  environment.  They  have  therefore  not
provided  for  the  necessary  treatment  measures  to  tackle  the  problem  of  the  pollution  of
estuaries or downstream stretches of rivers caused by cities often situated far upstream in
the  river  basin  or  to  reduce  the  overall  problems  of  marine  eutrophication  which  are
increased by all discharges from river basins which flow directly or indirectly into marine
waters. The North Sea, the Baltic and the Adriatic are therefore severely eutrophicated, but
some of the Member States have not taken all necessary measures to reduce the pollution.

(cid:1)  Major  delays  in  implementing  the  Directive  have  been  found  in  most  of  the  Member
States. Taking the 3 247 agglomerations in which Member States have decided to provide
tertiary treatment out of a total of some 20 000 agglomerations affected by the Directive,
only  Denmark  and  Austria  were 
to  conformity  on
31 December 1998.  However,  it  is  important  to  note  that  the  situation  can  change  very
quickly  and  that  most  of  the  Member  States  have  plans  to  achieve  conformity  in  these
agglomerations over the next few years.

in  a  situation  very  close 

Furthermore, verification of the situation on 31 December 1998 shows that a large number of
the  527  cities  with  a  population  equivalent  of  more  than  150 000  did  have  a  sufficient
standard  of  treatment  on  that  date  to  meet  the  protection  objectives  laid  down  by  the
Directive.  However,  37  of  them,  including  Brighton,  Brussels,  Cork,  Milan,  Porto  and  its
environs and San Sebastian were discharging all of their waste water untreated into the natural
environment  on  that  date.  57  others,  including  Aberdeen,  Athens,  Barcelona,  Dublin,
Florence, Liège and Marseille were also discharging a large part of their effluent untreated on
that date or had a very clearly insufficient level of treatment in place. Here too, the situation is
changing rapidly and some of these cities made the necessary investments in 1999 and 2000,
or plan to complete work soon.

43

Many  of  the  Member  States  seemed  reluctant  to  provide  the  information  requested  by  the
Commission. The information requested in April 1999 and March 2000 arrived very late, in
some  cases  more  than  a  year  late.  Moreover,  Germany  and  France  have  not  provided  any
information  about  the  situation  with  regard  to  the  treatment  of  urban  wastewater  on
31 December 1998.

The Commission is still verifying conformity with the obligations imposed by the Directive,
in  particular  as  regards  the  second  deadline  of  31 December 2000.  This  further  verification
should confirm that substantial progress has been made by the Member States in complying
with the Directive.

It is important to remember that Community aid under the Structural Funds and the Cohesion
Fund may be allocated for the investment required to comply with the Directive.

The  Commission  also  intends  to  increase  its  support  to  small  and  medium-sized
agglomerations  affected  by  the  deadline  of  31  December  2005  as  well  as  to  the  candidate
countries, for which the implementation of the Directive represents a major challenge.

44