Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Implementation of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998
Date: 2004-04-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: urban area, wastewater, water treatment

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 23.4.2004 
COM(2004) 248 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 
THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

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

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

4.1. 

5. 

6. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 9 

THE MAIN OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THE DIRECTIVE AND THE 
DEADLINES ............................................................................................................. 11 

IDENTIFICATION OF SENSITIVE AREAS .......................................................... 13 

Situation AT 1 January 2002 of Agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas ... 17 

Treatment performance in agglomerations affected by sensitive areas (Monitoring 
information) ............................................................................................................... 20 

Situation on 31 December 2000 of agglomerations discharging into “normal areas”22 

Agglomerations affected by the deadlines 1998 and 2000 ........................................ 24 

6.1.  Waste water treatment................................................................................................ 24 

6.2.  Waste water collection ............................................................................................... 24 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

LESS SENSITIVE AREAS ....................................................................................... 28 

Waste water treatment in eu cities at 1 january 2002................................................. 29 

industrial waste water Discharged directly into receiving waters (Article 13).......... 31 

Destination of sludge from treatment plants .............................................................. 32 

Situation in each Member State ................................................................................. 34 

11.1.  Belgium ...................................................................................................................... 34 

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

11.1.2.  Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas............... 34 

11.1.2.1. Treatment level........................................................................................................... 34 

11.1.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas................................. 35 

11.1.3.  Collecting systems ..................................................................................................... 35 

11.1.4.  Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e............................................................................... 36 

11.1.5.  Industrial waste water (Article 13)............................................................................. 36 

11.1.6.  Sewage Sludge ........................................................................................................... 37 

11.2.  Denmark..................................................................................................................... 38 

11.2.1.  Identification of sensitive areas.................................................................................. 38 

11.2.2.  Agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e................................................................... 38 

11.2.2.1. Treatment level........................................................................................................... 38 

2 

 
 
  
 
11.2.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) ............................................................. 39 

11.2.3.  Collecting systems ..................................................................................................... 39 

11.2.4.  Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e............................................................................... 40 

11.2.5.  Industrial waste water (Article 13)............................................................................. 40 

11.2.6.  Sewage Sludge ........................................................................................................... 40 

11.3.  Germany..................................................................................................................... 41 

11.3.1.  Identification of sensitive areas.................................................................................. 41 

11.3.2.  Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitve areas ................ 41 

11.3.2.1. Treatment level........................................................................................................... 41 

11.3.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas................................. 41 

11.3.3.  Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” – situation 
at 31 December 2000 ................................................................................................. 42 

11.3.4.  Collecting systems ..................................................................................................... 42 

11.3.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas..................... 42 

11.3.4.2. Collecting system in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” ..................... 43 

11.3.5.  Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e............................................................................... 43 

11.3.6.  Industrial waste water (Article 13)............................................................................. 43 

11.3.7.  Sewage Sludge ........................................................................................................... 44 

11.4.  Greece ........................................................................................................................ 45 

11.4.1.  Identification of sensitive areas.................................................................................. 45 

11.4.2.  Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas............... 45 

11.4.2.1. Treatment level........................................................................................................... 46 

11.4.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas................................. 47 

11.4.3.  Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” – situation 
at 31 December 2000 ................................................................................................. 48 

11.4.4.  Collecting systems ..................................................................................................... 49 

11.4.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas..................... 49 

11.4.4.2. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas”.................... 49 

11.4.5.  Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e............................................................................... 50 

11.4.6.  Industrial waste water (Article 13)............................................................................. 51 

3 

 
 
  
 
11.4.7.  Sewage Sludge ........................................................................................................... 51 

11.5. 

Spain........................................................................................................................... 52 

11.5.1.  Identification of sensitive areas.................................................................................. 52 

11.5.2.  Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas............... 52 

11.5.2.1. Treatment level........................................................................................................... 52 

11.5.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas................................. 53 

11.5.3.  Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” – situation 
at 31 December 2000 ................................................................................................. 53 

11.5.4.  Collecting systems ..................................................................................................... 53 

11.5.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas..................... 53 

11.5.4.2. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas”.................... 54 

11.5.5.  Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e............................................................................... 54 

11.5.6.  Less sensitive areas .................................................................................................... 55 

11.5.7.  Industrial waste water (Article 13)............................................................................. 56 

11.5.8.  Sewage Sludge ........................................................................................................... 57 

11.6. 

France......................................................................................................................... 57 

11.6.1.  Identification of sensitive areas.................................................................................. 57 

11.6.2.  Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas............... 57 

11.6.2.1. Treatment level........................................................................................................... 57 

11.6.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas................................. 58 

11.6.3.  Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” – situation 
at 31 December 2000 ................................................................................................. 58 

11.6.4.  Collecting systems ..................................................................................................... 59 

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

1994............................................................................................................................ 59 

11.6.4.2. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas”.................... 59 

11.6.5.  Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e............................................................................... 60 

11.6.6.  Industrial waste water (Article 13)............................................................................. 61 

11.6.7.  Sewage sludge............................................................................................................ 62 

11.7. 

Ireland ........................................................................................................................ 62 

11.7.1.  Identification of sensitive areas.................................................................................. 62 

4 

 
 
  
 
11.7.2.  Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas............... 62 

11.7.2.1. Treatment level........................................................................................................... 63 

11.7.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas................................. 64 

11.7.3.  Treatment in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” – situation at 31 

December 2000 .......................................................................................................... 65 

11.7.4.  Collecting systems ..................................................................................................... 66 

11.7.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas..................... 66 

11.7.4.2. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas”.................... 66 

11.7.5.  Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e............................................................................... 66 

11.7.6.  Industrial waste water (Article 13)............................................................................. 67 

11.7.7.  Sewage Sludge ........................................................................................................... 67 

11.8. 

Italy ............................................................................................................................ 68 

11.8.1.  Identification of sensitive areas.................................................................................. 68 

11.8.2.  Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas............... 68 

11.8.2.1. Treatment level........................................................................................................... 69 

11.8.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas................................. 69 

11.8.3.  Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” – situation 
at 31 December 2000 ................................................................................................. 70 

11.8.4.  Collecting systems ..................................................................................................... 71 

11.8.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas..................... 71 

11.8.4.2. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas”.................... 71 

11.8.5.  Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e............................................................................... 72 

11.8.6.  Industrial waste water (Article 13)............................................................................. 74 

11.8.7.  Sewage Sludge ........................................................................................................... 74 

11.9. 

Luxembourg ............................................................................................................... 75 

11.9.1.  Identification of sensitive areas.................................................................................. 75 

11.9.2.  Agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e................................................................... 75 

11.9.2.1. Treatment level........................................................................................................... 75 

11.9.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) ............................................................. 76 

11.9.3.  Collecting systems ..................................................................................................... 76 

5 

 
 
  
 
11.9.4.  Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e............................................................................... 76 

11.9.5.  Industrial waste water (Article 13)............................................................................. 76 

11.9.6.  Sewage Sludge ........................................................................................................... 76 

11.10.  The Netherlands ......................................................................................................... 77 

11.10.1. Identification of sensitive areas.................................................................................. 77 

11.10.2. Agglomerations .......................................................................................................... 77 

11.10.2.1.  Treatment level..................................................................................................... 77 

11.10.2.2.  Treatment performance (monitoring results) ....................................................... 77 

11.10.3. Collecting systems ..................................................................................................... 78 

11.10.4. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e............................................................................... 78 

11.10.5. Industrial waste water (Article 13)............................................................................. 78 

11.10.6. Sewage Sludge ........................................................................................................... 79 

11.11.  Austria ........................................................................................................................ 79 

11.11.1. Identification of sensitive areas.................................................................................. 79 

11.11.2. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas............... 80 

11.11.2.1.  Treatment level..................................................................................................... 80 

11.11.2.2.  Treatment performance (monitoring results) ....................................................... 80 

11.11.3. Treatment in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” – situation at 31 

December 2000 .......................................................................................................... 81 

11.11.4. Collecting systems ..................................................................................................... 82 

11.11.4.1.  Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas or their 

catchments identified by other Member States .......................................................... 82 

11.11.4.2.  Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas”.............. 82 

11.11.5. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e............................................................................... 82 

11.11.6. Industrial waste water (Article 13)............................................................................. 83 

11.11.7. Sewage Sludge ........................................................................................................... 83 

11.12.  Portugal ...................................................................................................................... 84 

11.12.1. Identification of sensitive areas.................................................................................. 84 

11.12.2. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas............... 84 

11.12.2.1.  Treatment level..................................................................................................... 84 

6 

 
 
  
 
11.12.2.2.  Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas ........................... 85 

11.12.3. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” - situation 

at 31 December 2000 ................................................................................................. 85 

11.12.4. Collecting systems ..................................................................................................... 86 

11.12.4.1.  Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas............... 86 

11.12.4.2.  Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas”.............. 86 

11.12.5. Treatment in cities >150 000 p.e................................................................................ 86 

11.12.6. Less sensitive areas .................................................................................................... 87 

11.12.7. Industrial waste water (Article 13)............................................................................. 88 

11.12.8. Sewage Sludge ........................................................................................................... 88 

11.13.  Finland ....................................................................................................................... 88 

11.13.1. Identification of sensitive areas.................................................................................. 88 

11.13.2. Agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e................................................................... 89 

11.13.2.1.  Treatment level..................................................................................................... 89 

11.13.2.2.  Treatment performance (monitoring results) ....................................................... 90 

11.13.3. Collecting systems ..................................................................................................... 91 

11.13.4. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e............................................................................... 91 

11.13.5. Industrial waste water (Article 13)............................................................................. 91 

11.13.6. Sewage Sludge ........................................................................................................... 92 

11.14.  Sweden ....................................................................................................................... 92 

11.14.1. Identification of sensitive areas.................................................................................. 92 

11.14.2. Agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e................................................................... 92 

11.14.2.1.  Treatment level..................................................................................................... 92 

11.14.2.2.  Treatment performance (monitoring results) ....................................................... 93 

11.14.3. Collecting systems ..................................................................................................... 93 

11.14.4. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e............................................................................... 94 

11.14.5. Industrial waste water (Article 13)............................................................................. 94 

11.14.6. Sewage Sludge ........................................................................................................... 94 

11.15.  United Kingdom......................................................................................................... 95 

11.15.1. Identification of sensitive areas.................................................................................. 95 

7 

 
 
  
 
11.15.2. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas............... 96 

11.15.2.1.  Treatment level..................................................................................................... 97 

11.15.2.2.  Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas ........................... 97 

11.15.3. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” - situation 

at 31 December 2000 ................................................................................................. 98 

11.15.4. Collecting systems ..................................................................................................... 99 

11.15.4.1.  Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas............... 99 

11.15.4.2.  Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” - situation 
at 31 December 2000 ................................................................................................. 99 

11.15.5. Treatment in cities > 150 000 p.e............................................................................... 99 

11.15.6. Less sensitive areas .................................................................................................. 100 

11.15.7. Industrial waste water (Article 13)........................................................................... 100 

11.15.8. Sewage sludge.......................................................................................................... 101 

12. 

13. 

14. 

INFRINGEMENT PROCEDURES......................................................................... 102 

FORTHCOMING TASKS FOR THE COMMISSION........................................... 105 

Summary and Conclusion: ....................................................................................... 106 

8 

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

The  second  Commission  report4  gave  details  of  the  identification  of  sensitive  areas  and  the 
measures  implemented  by  the  Member  States  in  relation  to  the  deadline  of  31  December 
1998.  By  this  date,  Member  States  were  required  to  ensure  inter  alia,  that  waste  water 
treatment facilities were available for all agglomerations with a population equivalent above 
10 000 where the effluent was being discharged into a sensitive area. The report was based on 
the replies submitted by the Member States and a study5 prepared by the Commission services 
in  relation  to  sensitive  areas.  For  that  report  only  13  of  the  Member  States  provided  all  the 
information  requested  by  the  Commission  in  relation  to  waste  water  treatment  in  sensitive 
areas. 

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

The present report presents the measures implemented by the Member States in relation to the 
deadline of 31 December 2000. In addition, it presents the improvements having taken place 
by  2002  concerning  agglomerations  discharging  into  sensitive  areas  and  subject  to  the 
deadline  of  31  December  1998.  Beyond  the  updated  situation  of  waste  water  treatment 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

6 

COM (1998) 775 final, 15.1.1999 
OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40 
OJ L 67, 7.3.1998, p. 29 
COM (2001) 685 final, 21.11.2001 
”Verification  of  Vulnerable  Zones  under  the  Nitrates  Directive  and  Sensitive  Areas  under  the  Urban 
Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive”,  Environmental  Resource  Management,  between  March  1999  and 
June 2000. Also called ERM-Reports. 
A “normal area” is an area, which is neither identified as sensitive area (Article 5 and Annex II A of 
Council  Directive  91/271/EEC),  nor  as  less  sensitive  area  (Article  6  and  Annex  II  B  of  Council 
Directive  91/271/EEC).  Urban  waste  water,  which  is  discharged  into  such  an  area,  shall  before 
discharge  be  subject  to  secondary  treatment  or  an  equivalent  treatment  (Article  4)  or  an  appropriate 
treatment (Article 7). 

9 

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

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

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

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

10 

 
 
  
 
2. 

THE  MAIN  OBLIGATIONS  IMPOSED  BY  THE  DIRECTIVE  AND  THE 
DEADLINES 

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

•  31  December  1998:  the  deadline  by  which  a  stringent  collecting  and  treatment  system 
(secondary7  +  tertiary8  treatment  or  so-called  more  stringent  treatment  according  to 
Article 5)  must  be  provided  in  all  agglomerations  with  a  population  equivalent9  (p.e.)  of 
more than 10 000 where the effluent is discharged into a sensitive area. The results of the 
Commission’s  verification  of  conformity  with  this  deadline  are  set  out  in  the  second 
Commission report. The improved situation up to 2002 is set out in the present report. 

•  31 December 2000: the deadline by which a secondary treatment10 and collecting system 
must be provided in all agglomerations of more than 15 000 p.e. where the effluent is not 
discharged  into  a  sensitive  area.  This  deadline  also  applies  to  biodegradable  industrial 
waste-water  from  plants  in  the  food-processing  sector  which  discharged  directly  into 
receiving  waters.  By  that  date,  waste  water  of  the  concerned  industrial  sectors  had  to 
respect  prior  regulations  and/or  specific  authorisations  before  discharge  into  receiving 
waters. The results  of  the Commission’s  verification with this deadline  are  set out  in the 
present report. 

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

7 

8 

9 

10 

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  nitrogen 
(nitrification-denitrification) and/or phosphorus and/or any other pollutant which affects the quality or a 
specific use of the water, such as 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. 

11 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 

 
 
  
 
notified the Commission of any measures taken to prohibit the disposal of sludge to surface 
waters. 

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

3. 

IDENTIFICATION OF SENSITIVE AREAS 

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

These criteria refer to three groups of sensitive areas:  

•  freshwater  bodies,  estuaries  and  coastal  waters  which  are  eutrophic11  or  which  may 

become eutrophic if protective action is not taken; 

•  surface  freshwaters  intended  for  the  abstraction  of  drinking  water  which  contain  or  are 

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

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

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

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

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. 

13 

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

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

Eight other Member States - Germany, Spain, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and the 
United Kingdom12 - have identified certain water bodies in their territory as sensitive areas. 
These areas were initially identified, with a greater or lesser degree of delay, between 1994 
and 1999.  

Some Member States, such as Spain, France and Italy, consider that agglomerations situated 
in the catchment areas of sensitive areas should not necessarily be subject to more stringent 
(tertiary)  treatment13.  On  this  point,  the  Commission’s  position  is  that  the  nitrates  and 
phosphates, the pollutants in urban waste water which contribute to eutrophication and hence 
to the designation of an area as being sensitive are highly persistent. This means that if these 
pollutants are not removed in the sewage works, they will enter the river and be carried down 
the  catchment  to  the  sensitive  area  where  they  will  contribute  to  the  on-going  nutrient 
enrichment.  Therefore,  the  Commission  considers  that  failure  to  provide  more  stringent 
treatment in agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e. situated in the catchment of a sensitive 
area , constitutes a failure to comply with the Directive. This failure is particularly marked in 
the  following  countries:  Spain,  which  has  not  provided  for  any  advanced  treatment  in  the 
catchment areas of rivers identified as sensitive in their downstream section, such as the Ebro 
or the Guadalquivir; Italy, in particular for the catchment area of the Po, the delta and - highly 
eutrophicated - adjacent coastal waters. Furthermore the Commission has concerns regarding 
the  manner  in  which  the  United  Kingdom  interprets  and  implements  the  provisions  of  the 
directive in regard to the catchment areas of sensitive areas. 

The Member States, which have decided not to introduce an advanced standard of treatment 
throughout their territory, must ensure that their list of sensitive areas is revised at least every 
four  years.  The  list  should  therefore  have  been  revised  by  31 December 1997,  again  by 
31 December 2001,  and  so  on.  Between  1998  and  2000,  the  Commission  employed  a 
consultant  to  verify  the  sensitive  areas  identified  by  the  above  ten  Member  States.14  This 
study reveals shortcomings in the sensitive areas identified by them,15 identifying other areas 

12 

13 

14 

15 

The maps attached show, in dark green, the water bodies identified by Member States as sensitive and, 
in lighter green, the catchment areas or parts of the catchment areas in which the Member States have 
decided  to  apply  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  relating  to  the  protection  of  sensitive  areas.  The 
territories  where  Member  States  apply  more  stringent  treatment  according  to  Article  5(8)  are  also 
shown in light green. 
The parts of catchment areas not taken into account by these Member States are shown on the maps in 
pink, like the catchment areas of those areas which should have been identified as sensitive due to the 
Commission’s opinion (see footnote 16). 
ERM reports between March 1999 and June 2000 (see also footnote 5). 
The water bodies which, in the view of the Commission, should have been identified as sensitive are 
shown in dark pink on the maps (=potentially sensitive areas). The corresponding catchment areas, in 
which advanced (tertiary) treatment of urban discharges should have been provided, are shown in pink 
(see also footnote 14). 

14 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
which  were  potentially  sensitive  because  of  eutrophication,  and  the  high  concentration  of 
nitrates in surface waters intended for drinking water supply. The study highlighted the fact 
that  a  large  number  of  Member  States  had  not  taken  sufficient  account  of  the  degree  of 
eutrophication of their waters. The areas concerned are the North Sea (from the coastal waters 
of  northern  France  to  Sweden),  the  Baltic  and  the  Adriatic;  all  of  them  have  extensive 
eutrophication problems. At present, the Commission is carrying out a review of the study for 
certain Member States. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The  Commission  very  much  appreciates  the  measures  undertaken  by  the  Member  States  in 
terms  of  further  designation  of  sensitive  areas.  However,  despite  the  significant  progress  of 
the  last  few  years,  Spain,  Greece,  France,  Ireland,  Italy,  Portugal  and  the  United  Kingdom 
have,  in  the  Commission’s  view,  still  not  taken  all  the  measures  needed  for  discharges  of 
urban  waste  water,  which  contribute  to  eutrophication  along  the  coasts  of  the  Atlantic,  the 

15 

 
 
  
 
English Channel, the North Sea, the Irish Sea and the Mediterranean. The Commission also 
believes  that  France,  Italy,  Finland,  Sweden  and  the  United  Kingdom  should  do  more  to 
reduce the level of nitrates and phosphates in waste water entering sensitive areas. 

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

16 

 
 
  
 
4. 

SITUATION  AT  1  JANUARY  2002  OF  AGGLOMERATIONS  DISCHARGING  INTO 
SENSITIVE AREAS  

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

With regard to the type of required tertiary treatment to reduce or prevent the eutrophication 
of receiving waters, the Commission believes that discharges of both nitrogen and phosphorus 
cause  eutrophication,  whether  in  freshwaters,  marine  waters  or  estuaries.  It  has  been 
scientifically  established  that  the  main  causes  of  eutrophication  are  nitrogen,  in  the  case  of 
coastal  waters,  and  phosphorus  in  the  case  of  freshwaters.  However,  scientific  studies  also 
show  that  in  freshwaters,  as  well  as  marine  waters,  bothnitrogen  and  phosphorus  can  be 
limiting factors, either together or in turn, depending on the algal species and the time of the 
year. It therefore is often necessary to reduce both nutrients. For the evaluation of treatment 
conformity the Commission  considers  that  unless  scientific  proof to the contrary can be put 
forward  for  certain  water  bodies,  at  least  phosphorus  should  be  treated  to  combat 
eutrophication of fresh waters, and at least nitrogen to combat eutrophication of coastal waters 
and estuaries. Frequently, the organic design capacity of many treatment plants seemed to be 
too  small  for  a  sufficient  waste  water  treatment  of  the  total  nominal  load  generated  by  the 
agglomerations.  In  cases  where  the  organic  design  capacity  was  even  less  than  80%  of  the 
total nominal load of the agglomerations, the Commission regarded these agglomerations as 
not complying with the Directive, as it believes that under such conditions either the treatment 
plants were overloaded or the waste water not entirely collected by the sewerage system. By 
the  beginning  of  2002,  Belgium,  Denmark,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands,  Austria,  Finland, 
Sweden  and  Germany  were  in  principle  requiring  stringent  treatment  levels  for  a  very  high 
percentage of the total waste water load. Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and the UK, foresaw 
more  stringent  waste  water  treatment  to  protect  sensitive  areas  for  less  than  10%  of  their 
waste water load. France and Ireland foresaw about 24% and 86% respectively16. 

16 

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

17 

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

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

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

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

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

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

18 

 
 
  
 
Table 4-1: Waste water treatment in agglomerations affected by sensitive areas and organic loads –  
Situation at 1 January 2002 

Agglomerations concerned 
Load [p.e.] 

Complying treatment level 

Number 

Load [p.e.] 

%2  

Number 

Non complying treatment level 
Load [p.e.] 

%2  

Articles 
applied1 

5(8) 

5(4) 

5(8), 5(4)4 

5(8), 5(4) 

5(8)5 

5(8) 

Member State 

Belgium 
Denmark 

Germany3 

Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 

Netherlands3 

Austria 
Portugal 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom
Total 
MS not applying 
Article 5(4) 

Number 
186 
127 

17 
113 
348 
28 
49 
11 

394 

25 
27 
87 
134 
90 
5 495 

1 242 

3 859 

124 876 488 

_ 

8 952 516 
6 698 384 

609 400 
5 740 260 
16 728 379 
3 362 856 
3 024 094 
804 500 

1 851 885 
1 372 700 
6 377 300 
7 672 670 
6 221 177 
210 199 600 

69 416 121 

72 
122 

8 
34 
143 
12 
28 
3 

2 566 050 
6 429 418 

_ 

241 400 
1 407 984 
6 086 935 
269 478 
2 165 493 
108 500 

25 
5 
7 
74 
26 

- 

1 851 885 
148 500 
429 600 
5 629 760 
1 782 241 

- 

29 
96 
P-reduction 90 %, 
N-reduction 74 % 
40 
25 
36 
8 
72 
14 
P-reduction 79 %, 
N-reduction 66 % 
100 
11 
7 
73 
29 

- 

114 
5 

9 
79 
205 
16 
16 
8 

0 
22 
80 
60 
64 

_ 

_ 

- 

559 

29 117 244 

42 

678 

15 906 991 

_ 

_ 

6 386 466 
268 966 

_ 

368 000 
4 332 276 
10 641 444 
3 093 378 
661 748 
696 000 

_ 

0 
1 224 200 
5 947 700 
2 042 910 
4 438 936 
- 

40 102 024 

71 
4 

60 
75 
64 
92 
22 
86 

0 
90 
93 
27 
71 

58 

_ 

_ 

- 

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

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

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

3 Germany did not include the waste water load of their entire territory, but only the load of agglomerations above 2 000 p.e. In Germany the load of agglomerations below 2 000 p.e. 
represents about 2% of the entire waste water load produced.  
4 Luxembourg applies Article 5(4), but wishes to be evaluated according to Article 5(2) and 5(3) until it achieves full compliance with Article 5(4). 

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

19 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.1. 

Treatment  performance 
(Monitoring information) 

in  agglomerations  affected  by  sensitive  areas 

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

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

20 

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

Member State 

Belgium 
Denmark 

Germany2 

Greece 
Spain3 
France3 
Ireland 
Italy 

Luxembourg2 

Netherlands2 

Áustria 
Portugal 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Total 
MS not applying 
Article 5(4) 

Agglomerations concerned 
Number 
153
127

7 401 169
6 698 384

Load [p.e.] 

3859

124 876 488

Number 
44
126

Complying monitoring 
Load [p.e.] 

%1 

Number 

Non complying monitoring 

Load [p.e.]  %1 
78
1

5 764 469
36 502

- 

- 
- 

2

6
18

3

20
3
11
57
22

609 400
5 740 260
16 728 379
286 399
2863257

804 500

15 906 991

- 

1 871 885
1 345 784
6 781 700
7 672 670
6 150 957
205 899 060

- 

17
113
348
11
39

11

394

25
27
85
134
90
5 443

719

1 636 700
6 661 882

- 

62 400

- 
- 
119 748
1 218 280

108 500

- 

1 483 665
53 000
675 500
4 898 360
1 654 160

- 

22
99

P: 90 % 
N: 74 % 
10

- 
- 

42
43
13
(P: 74 % 
N: 30 %) 
P: 79 % 
N: 66 % 

79
4
10
64
27

44

- 

- 

- 
- 

- 

109 
1 

15 

5 
21 

8 

5 
24 
74 
77 
68 

- 

547 000
- 
- 
166 651
1 644 977

696 000

- 

388 220
1 292 784
6 106 200
2 774 310
4 496 797

- 

- 

- 
- 

- 

- 

90

58
57

87

21
96
90
36
73

56

42 486105

312

18 572 195

407 

23 913 910

1 Percentage in relation to the total organic load affected in the Member State 
2  Germany,  Luxembourg  and  the  Netherlands  apply  Article  5(4)  of  the  Directive,  whereas  Luxembourg  wishes  to  be 
evaluated according to Article 5(2) until it achieves full compliance. 
3 France and Spain did not deliver any information on the treatment performance of plants.  

21 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. 

SITUATION  ON  31  DECEMBER  2000  OF  AGGLOMERATIONS  DISCHARGING  INTO 
“NORMAL AREAS” 

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

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

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

22 

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

Member State 

Belgium2 
Denmark2 
Germany 
Greece3 
Greece4 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg2 
Netherlands2 
Austria 
Portugal 
Finland2 
Sweden2 
United Kingdom 
Total 

Number 
- 
- 

126 
90 
77 
458 
486 
28 
630 

181 
94 

- 
- 

- 
- 

618 
2 698 

Total 

Load [p.e.] 

- 
- 

8 264 830 
9 081 100 
8 317 800 
53 862 365 
42 548 060 
3 901 479 
55 142 105 
- 
- 
15 189 287 
8 455 900 

- 
- 
65 980 345 
261 662 171 

Number 
- 
- 

126 
55 
52 
245 
307 
13 
312 

Complying secondary treatment 
Load [p.e.] 
- 
- 
8 264 830 
4 307 100 
4 040 300 
33 307 446 
29 042 277 
706 032 
28 764 701 
- 
- 
15 189 287 
3 149 200 
- 
- 
58 816 918 
181 280 991 

181 
45 

551 
1 832 

- 
- 

- 
- 

Non complying treatment 

Load [%]1 
- 
- 

Number 
- 
- 

Load [p.e.] 
- 
- 

100 
47 
49 
62 
68 
18 
52 

100 
37 

89 
69 

- 
- 

- 
- 

0 
35 
25 
213 
179 
15 
318 

0 
49 

67 
866 

- 
- 

- 
- 

0 
4 774 000 
4 277 500 
20 554 919 
13 505 783 
3 195 447 
26 377 404 

- 
- 

0 
5 306 700 
- 
- 
7 163 427 
80 381 180 

Load [%]1 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

0 
53 
51 
38 
32 
82 
48 

0 
63 

11 
31 

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

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

Applied Article 5(8) 

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

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

23 

 
 
 
 
 
6. 

AGGLOMERATIONS AFFECTED BY THE DEADLINES 1998 AND 2000 

6.1.  Waste water treatment  

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

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

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

6.2.  Waste water collection 

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

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

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

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

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

24 

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

Member State 

Population 
(1 000 hab. in 
the year 2000) 

Total 

No. 

Load [p.e.] 

No. 

Normal areas  
(31/12/2000) 
Load [p.e.]  %1  

10 239 

5 330 

186 

127 

8 952 516 

6 698 384 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Sensitive areas  
(1/1/2002) 
Load [p.e.]  %1 

8 952 516  100.0 

6 698 384  100.0 

No. 

186 

127 

Belgium2 
Denmark2 
Germany 
Greece3 
Greece4 
Spain 

France 
Ireland5 
Italy 
Luxembourg2 
Netherlands2 
Austria 

Portugal 
Finland2 
Sweden2 
United Kingdom 

82 164 

3 985 

133 141 318 

126

8 264 830 

6.2 

3859 

124 876 488 

93.8 

10 543 

10 543 

39 442 

59 226 

3 777 

57 680 

436 

15 864 

8 103 

9 998 

5 171 

8 861 

59 623 

123 

94 

571 

834 

44 

679 

11 

394 

206 

121 

87 

134 

708 

9 081 100 

91.2 

9 962 500 

8 927 200 

59 602 625 

59 276 439 

4 672 287 

90

77

458

486

28

8 317 800 

53 862 365 

42 548 060 

3 901 479 

58 166 199 

630

55 142 105 

804 500 

15 906 991 

- 

- 

- 

- 

17 041 172 

181

15 189 287 

9 828 600 

94

8 455 900 

6 377 300 

7 672 670 

- 

- 

- 

- 

93.2 

90.4 

71.8 

83.5 

94.8 

89.1 

86.0 

72 201 522 

618

65 980 345 

91.4 

33 

17 

113 

348 

28 

49 

11 

881 400 

609 400 

5 740 260 

16 728 379 

3 362 856 

3 024 094 

8.8 

6.8 

9.6 

28.2 

72.0 

5.2 

804 500  100.0 

394 

15 906 991  100.0 

25 

27 

87 

134 

90 

1 851 885 

1 372 700 

10.9 

14.0 

6 377 300  100.0 

7 672 670  100.0 

6 221 177 

8.6 

Total 

376 457 

8 181 

469 269 723 

2 698 261 662 171 

55.8 

5 495 

210 199 600 

44.8 

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

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

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

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

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

25 

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

No. 

Load [p.e.] 

Number in 
conformity 

- 
- 

- 
- 

Load in 
conformi
ty [%] 
- 
- 

No. 

Load [p.e.] 

Total 

Number in 
conformity 

Load in 
conformi
ty [%] 

186
127

8 952 516
6 698 384

72 (39 %)
122 (96 %)

8 264 830 

126 (100 %)

100

3 985 133 141 318

- 

- 

Sensitive areas 

Normal areas 

Member State 

Belgium1 
Denmark1 

Germany2 
Greece4 
Greece5 
Spain 
France 
Ireland6 
Italy 
Luxembourg1,2 

Netherlands1,2 
Austria3 
Portugal 
Finland1 
Sweden1 
United Kingdom 
Total 
MS not applying Article 5(4) 

No. 

Load [p.e.] 

Number in 
conformity 

186 
127 

8 952 516
6 698 384

72 (39 %)
122 (96 %)

3 859  124 876 488

- 

33 
17 
113 
348 
28 
49 
11 

881400
609 400
5 740 260
16 728 379
3 362 856
3024 094
804 500

4 (12 %)
8 (47 %)
34 (30 %)
143 (41 %)
12 (43 %)
28 (57 %)
3 (27 %)

394 

15 906 991

- 

25 
27 
87 
134 
90 

1 851 885
1 372 700
6 377 300
7 672 670
6 221 177
5 495  210 199 600
69 416 121
1 242 

25 (100 %)
5 (19 %)
7 (8 %)
74 (55 %)
26 (29 %)

- 

559 (45 %)

Load in 
conformity 
[%]  

29
96
N-red.: 90 % 
P-red.: 74 % 
14
40
25
36
8
77
13
N-red.: 79 % 
P-red.: 66 % 
100
11
7
73
29
79
42

- 
- 

126

90
77
458
486
28
630
- 

- 

181
94

9 081 100 
8 317 800 
53 862 365 
42 548 060 
3 901 479 
55 142 105 
- 

- 

55 (61 %)
52(68 %)
245 (53 %)
307 (63 %)
13 (46 %)
312 (50 %)

- 

- 

15 189 287 
8 455 900 

181 (100 %)
45 (48 %)

- 
- 
618

- 
- 
65 980 345 
2 698 261 662 171 
2 572 253 397 341 

- 
- 

551 (89 %)
1 829 (68 %)
1 703 (66 %)

47
49
62
68
18
52

- 

- 

- 
- 

100
37

89
70
70

123 
94
571
834
44
679
11

9 962 500
8 927 200
59 602 625
59 276 439
4 672 287
57 969 346
804 500

59 (48 %)
60 (64 %)
279 (49 %)
450 (54 %)
17 (39 %)
340 (50 %)
3 (27 %)

394

15 906 991

- 

- 

206
121
87
134
708

17 041 172
9 828 600
6 377 300
7 672 670
72 201 522
 8181 469 269 723
3 802 320 221 414

206 (100 %)
50 (41 %)
7 (8 %)
74 (55 %)
577 (81 %)

- 
2 254 (59 %)

29 
96 

44 
48 
58 
59 
9 
53 
13 

100 
34 
7 
73 
84 
75 
64 

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

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

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

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

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

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

26 

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

Sensitive areas  
1 January 2002 

Normal areas  
31 December 2000 

Total 

Member State 

Belgium1 
Denmark1 
Germany2 
Greece4 
Greece5 
Spain 
France 
Ireland6 
Italy 
Luxembourg1,2 
Netherlands1,2 
Austria3 
Portugal 
Finland1 
Sweden1 
United Kingdom 
Total 

No 

Load [p.e.] 

No in 
conformity 

% of load in 
conformity 

No 

Load [p.e.] 

No in 
conformity 

186 
127 
1 748 
17 
17 
113 
348 
28 
49 
11 
256 
25 
27 
87 
134 
90 
3 246 

8 952 516 
6 698 384 
118 825 715 
609 400 
609 400 
5 740 260 
16 728 379 
3 362 856 
3 024 094 
804 500 
15 265 763 
1 851 885 
1 372 700 
6 377 300 
7 672 670 
6 150 957 
203 437 379 

48 (26 %)
127 (100 %)
1 748 (100 %)
14 (82 %)
14 (82 %)
62 (55 %)
202 (58 %)
27(96 %)
16 (33 %)
11 (100 %)
256 (100 %)
25 (100 %)
22 (81 (%)
73 (84 %)
134 (100 %)
90 (100 %)
2 855 (88 %)

22
100
100
74
74
46
60
100
47
100
100
100
82
96
100
100

- 
- 
126
90
77
458
486
28
630
- 
- 
181
94
- 
- 
618
91 2 698

- 
- 

8 264 830
9 081 100
8 317 800
53 862 365
42 548 060
3 901 479
55 142 105
- 
- 
15 189 287
8 455 900

- 
- 
65 980 345
261 662 171

- 
- 

126 (100 %)
40 (44 %)
49 (64 %)
430 (94 %)
168 (35 %)
28 (100 %)
241 (38 %)

- 
- 

181 (100 %)
69 (73 %)
- 
- 

618 (100 %)
1 910 (71 %)

% of load 
in 
conformity 
- 
- 

No 

Load [p.e.] 

No in 
conformity 

% of load in 
conformity 

100
78
87
92
57
100
36

186
127
1874
107
94
571
834
44
679
11
256
206
121
87
134
708
77 5 932

100
79

100 

- 
- 

- 
- 

8 952 516
6 698 384
127 090 545
9 690 500
8 927 200
59 602 625
59 276 439
4 672 287
58 166 199
804 500
15 265 763
17 041 172
9 828 600
6 377 300
7 672 670
72 131 302
462 507 502

48 (26 %)
127 (100 %)
1 874 (100 %)
54 (50 %)
63 (67 %)
492 (86 %)
370 (44 %)
43 (98 %)
257 (38 %)
11 (100 %)
256 (100 %)
206 (100 %)
91 (75 %)
73 (84 %)
134 (100 %)
708 (100 %)
4 753 (80 %)

22 
100 
100 
78 
86 
87 
58 
100 
37 
100 
100 
100 
79 
96 
100 
100 
83 

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

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

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

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

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

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

27 

 
 
 
 
 
7. 

LESS SENSITIVE AREAS 

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

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

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

In  1999,  Portugal  requested  a  derogation  for  the  agglomeration  of  the  Estoril  Coast 
(720 000 p.e.) near Lisbon. The derogation was granted by the Commission in October 200117 
and foresees a re-evaluation during the year 2006. 

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

Spain has not requested any derogation.  

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

17 

OJ L 269, 10.10.2001, p. 14 

28 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
8. 

WASTE WATER TREATMENT IN EU CITIES AT 1 JANUARY 2002 

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

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

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

In “normal” areas: 

309 cities discharged their effluents into “normal areas” of which  

•  232 provide at least secondary treatment, 

•  67 cities have not yet provided secondary treatment.  

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

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

–  Ireland: Cork 

–  Portugal: Cova da Beira, Vila Nova da Gaia 

29 

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

Suances, Tui 

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

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

In sensitive areas: 

247 cities discharged their effluent into sensitive areas of which  

•  155 were equipped with complete more stringent treatment, 

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

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

–  Belgium: Pepinster 

–  Portugal: Barreiro 

–  Spain: Alginet 

–  Ireland: Waterford 

•  For one city the provided information was insufficient 

In  comparison  with  1998  (see  second  Commission  report),  the  treatment  situation  in  major 
EU  cities  had  improved  significantly  by  2002.  The  number  of  cities  fully  providing  more 
stringent treatment increased from 78 to 20518. The number of cities without any waste water 
treatment  in  place  decreased  from  37  to  26,  and  the  number  of  cities  for  which  insufficient 
information was available decreased from 134 to 11. 

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

18 

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

30 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
9. 

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

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

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

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

Industrial Sector 

B  DK 

D 

EL  E 

F 

IRL

I 

L  NL  A 

P  FIN S  UK

Milk-processing 

Manufacture of fruit and vegetable 
products 

Manufacture and bottling of soft 
drinks 

Potato-processing 

Meat industry 

Breweries 

Production of alcohol and alcoholic 
beverages 

90 

85 

89 

91 

86 

99 

49 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

100 

100

7 

100

59  100

93 

100

89  100 100 100

100 

100

58  100

100 

100

- 

100

- 

- 

- 

100

79 

100

69  100

75  100

100 

100

92  100

100 

100

73  100

- 

- 

100

100

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Manufacture of animal feed from 
plant products 

100 

- 

- 

Manufacture of gelatine and glue 
from hides, skin and bones 

Malt-houses 

61 

63 

- 

- 

100 

100 

Fish-processing industry 

0 

100 

100 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

100

- 

100

- 

- 

100

84  100

100 100

- 

100

0 

- 

100 100

- 

- 

- 

- 

100  100  71  100 100

44 

100  100  99  100

- 

100

- 

100  100 

- 

- 

- 

100  100  100  100 100 100

100  100  94 

- 

- 

- 

92 

100 100

100 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

100 

- 

- 

100 

- 

- 

93  100

- 

100

- 

100

- 

100

- 

100 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

100

100

100

28 

100  100 

Total 

87  100 

97 

100

68  100

81  100

100  100  94  100 100

86 

At the end of 2000, 2 576 plants with a total load of about 59 million p.e. were affected by 
Article 1319. About 91 % of the load complied with the Directive. 

19 

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

31 

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

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

10. 

DESTINATION OF SLUDGE FROM TREATMENT PLANTS 

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

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

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

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

•  Sludge incineration almost doubled from 1992 to 2000. 

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

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

32 

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

60%

50%

40%

e
s
u
f
o
%

30%

20%

10%

Surface Water
Reuse
Landfill
Incineration
Not Specified

0%

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

Year

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

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

Disposal in 
thousands of 
tonnes of 
dry matter 
per year 

Re-use 

Landfill 

Incineration 

Surface Water 

15

32

25

0

B 

DK 

D  EL**  E**  F** 

IRL 

L 

NL 

A 

P** 

S 

FIN  UK  Total % 

45

18

17

1

0

0

0

9

17

0

12

0

6

0

0

0

1

7

84

920

6

578

507

36

230

90

360

77

64

37

106

116

90

588 3.139

41

71

76

60

192 1.270

10

460

0

0

74

57

0

0

0

195

151

0

0

0

86

0

0

0

0

0

30

0

0

0

237 1.153

0

69

113 1.343

19

Not Specified 

19

25

690

0

398

Total 

91

156 2300

96 1069

904

38

336

315

177

222

150 1130 6992

100

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

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

33 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
11. 

SITUATION IN EACH MEMBER STATE 

11.1.  Belgium 

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

11.1.1.  Identification of sensitive areas 

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

11.1.2.  Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

11.1.2.1. Treatment level 

In January 2002 Belgium had 186 agglomerations with a nominal load of more than 10 000 
p.e., 112 were situated in Flanders20, two in Brussels Capital and 72 in Wallonia. 

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

In at least 25 of the agglomerations with more stringent treatment, the organic design capacity 
of  the  treatment  plants  seemed  to  be  too  small  for  a  sufficient  waste  water  treatment  of  the 
concerned  agglomerations21.  These  agglomerations  should,  according  to  the  Commission’s 
opinion, be subject to a capacity upgrading. 

In total, 72 agglomerations with more than 10 000 p.e. were complying with the provisions of 
the Directive, 114 agglomerations, representing 71.3 % of the total concerned load were not 

20 

21 

Five of the Flemish agglomerations (Heusden, Poperinge, Olsene, Knokke, Ledegem) reported in 1998 
became  smaller  than  10 000 p.e.  due  to  reduced  industrial  activities,  the  connection  of  parts  of 
agglomerations  to  other  agglomerations  as  well  as  the  optimisation  of  available  data  on  inhabitants. 
Therefore  they  were  not  longer  taken  into  account.  Furthermore,  the  names  of  nine  Flemish 
agglomerations have been changed, this has to be taken into consideration in a comparison of previous 
and recent data. 
Antwerpen-Zuid,  Beerse,  Beersel,  Brasschaat,  Duffel,  Edegem,  Gent,  Hamme,  Hove,  Kalmthout, 
Koersel,  Lanaken,  Lede,  Leuven,  Mechelen  -  Noord,  Mol,  Morkhoven,  Overpelt,  Pulderbos,  Schilde, 
Sint-Truiden, Tessenderlo, Turnhout, Zelzate and Zwalm. As to the latest information of 01 September 
2003,  the  Flemish  Region  stated  that  the  Commission  report  took  into  account  the  reported  organic 
design  capacity  of  treatment  plants,  but  not  the  hydraulic  design  capacity,  according  to  which  the 
monitoring data comply with the Directive. The Flemish authorities also confirmed that for the above 
24 agglomerations treatment works are being upgraded.  

34 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
complying,  either  because  no  treatment  facilities  or  because  insufficient  treatment  capacity 
was installed. 

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

Belgium 

01/01/2002 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

but missing treatment steps  

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Not in compliance* 

In compliance 

Treatment level in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. –  

Article 5 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

186 

114 

21 

25 

114 

72 

100.0 

8 952 516 

100.0 

61.3 

11.3 

13.4 

61.3 

38.7 

4 692 650 

1 404 000 

1 070 800 

6 386 466 

2 566 050 

52.4 

15.7 

12.0 

71.3 

28.7 

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

11.1.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas 

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

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

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

Belgium 

31/12/1999 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Monitoring in compliance (Member State) 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Monitoring in compliance (EC) 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

11.1.3.  Collecting systems  

Treatment performance in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

153

100.0 

96

27

44

10

44

10

109

44

62.7 

17.6 

28.8 

6.5 

28.8 

6.5 

71.2 

28.8 

7 401 169 

4 217 900 

1 176 500 

1 636 700 

515 900 

1 636 700 

515 900 

5 764 469 

1 636 700 

100.0 

57.0 

15.9 

22.1 

7.0 

22.1 

7.0 

77.9 

22.1 

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

35 

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

Belgium 

01/01/2002 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. - Article 3 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

186 

138 

48 

100.0 

74.2 

25.8 

8 952 516 

6 943 712 

2 008 804 

100.0 

77.6 

22.4 

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

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

•  At  the  beginning  of  2002  only  two  cities  were  equipped  with  more  stringent  treatment 

(secondary treatment plus nitrogen and phosphorus removal): Oostende and Mons. 

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

•  Five cities provided secondary treatment: Aiseau-Presles, Antwerpen, Brugge and Deurne 

and Wavre (165 000 p.e.). 

•  Four  cities  had  no  treatment  at  all  for  major  parts  of  their  population:  Brussels  (1.1  mio 

p.e.), Charleroi (380 000 p.e.), Liège (737 500 p.e.) and Pepinster22(170 000 p.e.). 

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

11.1.5.  Industrial waste water (Article 13) 

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

22 

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

36 

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

Belgium - Industrial sector 

Total organic load of 
industrial waste water 
from plants with respect 
to Article 13 [p.e.] 

Number of 
plants 

Total organic load 
respecting 
conditions under 
Article 13 at 31 
December 2000 
[p.e.] 

% 

Date of full 
compliance 

Milk-processing 

Manufacture of fruit and vegetable 
products 

Manufacture  and  bottling  of  soft 
drinks 

Potato-processing 

Meat industry 

Breweries 

Production of alcohol and alcoholic 
beverages 

Manufacture  of  animal  feed  from 
plant products 

Manufacture of gelatin and of glue 
from hides, skin and bones 

Malt-houses 

Fish-processing industry 

Total 

11.1.6.  Sewage Sludge 

517 600 

1 160 500 

193 700 

258 100 

411 400 

605 500 

20 600 

6 600 

167 500 

113 800 

8 400 

20 

19 

6 

10 

21 

13 

2 

1 

2 

4 

1 

467 700 

90 

by 31/12/2000 

980 900 

85 

by 31/12/2000 

172 100 

89 

by 31/12/2000 

235 000 

355 300 

599 400 

91 

86 

99 

by 31/12/2000 

by 31/12/2000 

by 31/12/2000 

10 000 

49 

by 31/12/2000 

6 600 

100 

by 31/12/2000 

102 400 

61 

by 31/12/2000 

71 200 

63 

by 31/12/2000 

0 

0 

by 31/12/2000 

3 463 700 

99 

3 000 600 

87 

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

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

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

37 

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

Flanders - Sewage Sludge (1999) 
Sludge production total 
Agriculture 
Landfill 
Incineration 
Other 

Wallonia - Sewage Sludge (1999) 
Sludge production total 
Agriculture 
Landfill 
Incineration 
Other 

11.2.  Denmark 

Tons DS 

% 

73 490 
5 270 
24 300 
25 020 
18 900 

100 
7 
33 
34 
26 

Tons DS 

% 

17 968 
9 505 
8 067 
369 
0  

100 
53 
45 
2 
0 

11.2.1.  Identification of sensitive areas 

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

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

11.2.2.1. Treatment level 

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

According  to  updated  information,  Denmark  had  127  agglomerations  with  a  population 
equivalent  of  more  than  10.00023.  All  agglomerations  provided  more  stringent  treatment 
(phosphorus and nitrogen removal) at that date. However, in a number of agglomerations the 
organic  design  capacity  of  the  treatment  plants  seemed  to  be  too  small  for  a  sufficient 
treatment  of  the  waste  water  generated  in  the  concerned  agglomerations.  In  at  least  five 
agglomerations (Attrup, Sindal, Tårnby, Thisted and Tysinge) the organic design capacity of 
the plants was less than 80% of the total nominal load of the agglomerations. As each of the 
concerned  plants  reached  the  required  emission  standards  in  1999,  Denmark  was  of  the 
opinion that a capacity upgrading of the concerned plants is not necessary. The Commission 
believed  that  under  the  given  conditions,  either  the  treatment  plants  were  overloaded  or  the 
waste  water  was  not  entirely  collected  by  the  collecting  systems.  Both  shortcomings  would 

23 

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

38 

 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
finally  require  a  capacity  upgrading  of  the  concerned  plants.  Finally  in  September  2003, 
Denmark  informed  that  the  nominal  loads  reported  for  these  agglomerations  were  incorrect 
and that all the plants were therefore in conformity.  

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

Denmark 

01/01/2002 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

but missing treatment steps 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Treatment level in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. – Article 5 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

127 

127 

0 

5 

5 

100.0 

100.0 

0.0 

3.9 

3.9 

6 698 384 

100.0 

6 698 384 

100.0 

0 

268 966 

0.0 

4.0 

268 966 

4.0 

122 

96.1 

6 429 418 

96.0 

11.2.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) 

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

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

Denmark 

31/12/1999 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Monitoring in compliance (Member State) 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Monitoring in compliance (EC) 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

11.2.3.  Collecting systems 

Treatment performance in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

127 

100.0 

127 

100.0 

5 

3.9 

126 

99.2 

5 

3.9 

126 

99.2 

5 

1 

3.9 

0.8 

6 698 384 

6 698 384 

268 966 

6 661 882 

268 966 

6 661 882 

268 966 

36 502 

100.0 

100.0 

4.0 

99.5 

4.0 

99.5 

4.0 

0.5 

126 

99.2 

6 661 882 

99.5 

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

39 

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

Denmark 

01/01/2002 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. – Article 3 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

127 

0 

127 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

6 698 384 

0 

6 698 384 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

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

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

11.2.5.  Industrial waste water (Article 13) 

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

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

Denmark - Industrial sector 

Total organic load 
of industrial waste 
water treatment 
plants with respect 
to Article 13  

[p.e.] 

Number of 
plants 

Total organic load 
respecting conditions 
under Article 13 at 31 
December 2000 [p.e.]

% 

Date of full 
compliance 

Fish-processing industry 

Total 

38 358  

38 358  

3 

3 

38 358  

38 358  

100 

before 31/12/2000

100 

11.2.6.  Sewage Sludge 

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

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

Denmark - Sewage Sludge (1999) 

Sludge total production 

Agriculture 

Landfill 

Incineration 

Other 

Tons DS 

155 621 

84 466 

36 313 

9 845 

24 997 

% 

100 

54 

23 

6 

16 

40 

 
 
  
 
  
11.3.  Germany 

11.3.1.  Identification of sensitive areas 

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

11.3.2.  Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitve areas 

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

11.3.2.1. Treatment level 

Regarding  the  waste  water  treatment  situation  at  the  beginning  of  January 2002,  Germany 
provided information on 1 748 agglomerations24 with more than 10 000 p.e. discharging into 
sensitive areas. The total nominal load of these treatment plants was 118 825 715 p.e.25  

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

11.3.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas 

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

24 

25 

Germany  defined  the  catchment  area  of  an  urban  waste  water  treatment  plant  as  an  agglomeration. 
Therefore,  in  general,  one  agglomeration  is  served  by  one  treatment  plant.  Only  in  Sachsen  several 
settlements  can  be  served  by  one  single  treatment  plant,  being  regarded  as  individual  agglomerations 
and  not  as  one  combined  agglomeration.  The  latter  case  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  Commission’s 
interpretation of the term agglomeration.  
Germany defined the nominal load of an agglomeration by the organic design capacity of the concerned 
treatment  plant.  However,  in  the  context  of  monitoring  data/compliance-verification  with  Article  5.4, 
Germany assumed all treatment plants being well designed, and calculated the nominal load being about 
80%  of  the  design  capacity.  Therefore,  these  data  do  no  seem  to  show  the  real  size  of  the 
agglomerations  and  use  to  capacity  of  plants.  They  are  also  not  directly  comparable  with  the  size  of 
agglomeration provided in other contexts (e.g. data on 1999). 

41 

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

For the year 1999 Germany sent additional monitoring results for 1 785 agglomerations with 
more  than  10 000 p.e.  discharging  into  sensitive  areas.  The  total  nominal  load  of  these 
agglomerations  was  95 043 770  p.e.and  the  total  organic  design  capacity:  120 548 115  p.e. 
(see  footnote  25).  82.2 %  of  the  nominal  load  of  these  agglomerations  complied  with  the 
Directive.  17.8 %  of  the  total  nominal  load  was  not  yet  in  compliance.  According  to  the 
Commission’s assessment the design capacity of at least 24 plants were considered to be too 
small for a sufficient treatment of the entire load of the connected agglomerations and should 
be subject to a size upgrading26 

11.3.3.  Waste  water  treatment  in  agglomerations  discharging  into  “normal  areas”  – 

situation at 31 December 2000 

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

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

Germany 

Agglomerations > 15 000 p.e. – Article 4 

31/12/2000 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

11.3.4.  Collecting systems 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

126 

100.0 

8 264 830 

100.0 

0 

0.0 

0 

0.0 

126 

100.0 

8 264 830 

100.0 

11.3.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

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

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

Germany 

Agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. - Article 3 

01/01/2002 

Total 

Collecting system not in compliance 

Collecting system in compliance 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

1 748

0

1 748

100.0

0.0

100.0

118 825 715

0

118 825 715

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

26 

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

42 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
11.3.4.2. Collecting system in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” 

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

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

Germany 

Agglomerations > 15 000 p.e. - Article 3 

31/12/2000 

Total 

Collecting system not in compliance 

Collecting system in compliance 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

126

0

126

100.0

0.0

100.0

8 264 830

100.0 

0

0.0 

8 264 830

100.0 

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

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

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

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

11.3.6.  Industrial waste water (Article 13) 

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

43 

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

 Germany - Industrial sector  

Milk-processing 

Manufacture of fruit and vegetable products 

Manufacture and bottling of soft drinks 

Potato-processing 

Meat industry 

Breweries 

Production of alcohol and alcoholic beverages 

Manufacture  of  gelatine  and  of  glue  from
hides, skin and bones 

Malt-houses 

Fish-processing industry 

Total 

11.3.7.  Sewage Sludge 

Total organic load 
of industrial waste 
water from plants 
with respect to 
Article 13 [p.e.] 

Number 
of plants

Total organic load 
respecting conditions 
under Article 13 [p.e.] 
at 31 December 2000 

% 

Date of full 
compliance 

 798 500 

 413 120 

 146 500 

 693 000 

 440 443 

 793 100 

 8 800 

 124 160 

 86 300 

 21 233 

25

10

8

7

20

11

1

3

6

1

 798 500 

100 before 31/12/2000

 383 120 

93

31/12/2001 

 146 500 

100 Before 31/12/2000

 693 000 

100 Before 31/12/2000

 347 510 

79

31/12/2001 

 793 100 

100 Before 31.12.2000

 8 800 

100 Before 31/12/2000

 124 160 

100 Before 31/12/2000

 86 300 

 21 233 

100 Before 31/12/2000

100 Before 31/12/2000

3 525 156 

92

3 402 223 

97

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

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

Germany - Sewage Sludge (2000) 

Sludge production total 

Agriculture 

Landfill 

Incineration 

Other 

Tons DS 

2 300 000 

% 

100 

920 000 

230 000 

460 000 

690 000 

40 

10 

20 

30 

44 

 
 
  
 
  
11.4.  Greece 

11.4.1.  Identification of sensitive areas 

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

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

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

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

11.4.2.  Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

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

Previously  Greece  reported  33  agglomerations  discharging  into  sensitive  areas,  then  revised 
its approach on agglomerations, which led finally to only 17 agglomerations discharging into 
sensitive  areas  and  therefore  requiring  more  stringent  treatment.  For  16  agglomerations27, 
which  were  still  evaluated  in  the  second  Commission  report,  Greece  pointed  out  that  they 
were no longer considered to have a population equivalent of more than 10 000 p.e. One of 
those  agglomerations  (Preveza)  discharges  into  a  non  sensitive  area  according  to  recent 
information from Greece. 

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

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

27 

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

45 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
11.4.2.1. Treatment level 

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

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

•  Arta: provided secondary treatment followed by nitrogen removal, but phosphorus 

removal was missing28. 

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

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

•  Elefsina Aspropyrgos: had no waste water treatment plant29 in place. 

•  Grevena: had no waste water treatment plant30 in place. 

•  Kilkis: had no waste water treatment plant31 in place. 

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

•  Serres:  had  secondary  treatment  nitrogen  removal,  but  phosphorus  removal  was 

missing 

•  Theva: had no waste water treatment plant at 1 January 200232 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

Note from Greek authorities: The competent authority applied for funding for the purpose of upgrading 
the plant both in terms of capacity and treatment in order to provide phosphorus removal. 
Note  from  Greek  authorities:  The  Thriassio  waste  water  treatment  plant  called  for  tender  in  August 
2001 and the technical offers are still under evaluation. 
Note from Greek authorities: The waste water treatment plant of Grevena is under call for tender, since 
it has been recently financed by the Cohesion Fund and national funds. According to the timetable the 
plant shall be ready for operation 18 months after the nomination of the contractor. 
Note from Greek authorities: The waste water treatment plant of Kilkis has recently been funded and 
the  technical  documents  are  under  preparation.  The  specifications  will  provide  for  nitrogen  removal, 
and biological and chemical phosphorus removal. 
Note  from  Greek  authorities:  The  waste  water  treatment  plant  of  Theva  will  start  operating  by  June 
2002.  New  environmental  terms  have  been  published  prohibiting  any  waste  water  discharge  into 
Viotikos Kifissos. The treated sewage from the plant will be reused for agricultural purposes. 

46 

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

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

Greece 

01/01/2002 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

but missing treatment steps 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Treatment level in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. –  

Article 5 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

17 

10 

2 

0 

9 

8 

100.0 

609 400 

100.0 

58.8 

11.8 

0.0 

52.9 

47.1 

343 400 

56.4 

102 000 

16.7 

0 

0.0 

368 000 

60.4 

241 400 

39.6 

11.4.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas 

For 1999, the Greek authorities reported on the treatment performance of 17 agglomerations 
each with a nominal load of more than 10 000 p.e. discharging into sensitive areas. Only six 
of  these  agglomerations  provided  more  stringent  waste  water  treatment33.  The  required 
treatment  efficiency  was  only  achieved  in  the  agglomerations  of  Komotini  and  Lefkada. 
89.9%  of  the  waste  water  load  being  discharged  into  sensitive  areas  did  not  receive  the 
necessary waste water treatment. 

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

Greece 

31/12/1999 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Monitoring in compliance (Member State) 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Monitoring in compliance (EC) 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Treatment performance  

in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e.  

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

17 

100.0 

6 

0 

2 

0 

2 

0 

15 

2 

35.3 

0.0 

11.8 

0.0 

11.8 

0.0 

88.2 

11.8 

609 400 

214 400 

0 

62 400 

0 

62 400 

0 

547 000 

62 400 

100.0 

35.2 

0.0 

10.2 

0.0 

10.2 

0.0 

89.8 

10.2 

33 

Arta, Komotini, Livadia, Ptolemaida, Levkada and Agrinio. 

47 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
11.4.3.  Waste  water  treatment  in  agglomerations  discharging  into  “normal  areas”  – 

situation at 31 December 2000 

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

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

•  The review of the Greek authorities of 2003 included five agglomerations34, which are now 

considered to have more than 15 000 p.e. 

•  For 36 additional agglomerations new figures of the nominal loads were provided, in most 

cases the revised nominal load of the agglomeration was less than in the past. 

•  The  agglomeration  Agrinio  was  considered  to  discharge  into  a  sensitive  area.  However, 

Greece provided no information on the treatment performance. 

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

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

The  evaluation  presented  below  is  based  on  the  initial  data  provided  by  Greece  on  the 
situation in “normal areas” in 2001, and on the review undertaken by Greece in 200335.  

34 

35 

Messarias  Thiras  (20 000 p.e.  existing  collecting  system  and  secondary  treatment),  Argostoli 
(18 000 p.e.,  existing  collecting  system  and  secondary  treatment),  Chrysoupoli  (16 000 p.e.,  no 
collecting  system,  no  complying  treatment),  Malia  (15 000 p.e.,  no  collecting  system,  no  complying 
treatment) and Porou-Galata (15 000 p.e., no collecting system, no complying treatment). 
Evaluation a): This evaluation includes those agglomerations reported by Greece on the deadline of 31 
12  2000  during  the  year  2001,  except  the  agglomeration  Agrinio  (considered  as  agglomeration 
discharging  into  a  sensitive  area  -  see  section  11.4.2).  The  change  of  nominal  loads  in  2003  is  not 
considered  in  this  evaluation.  It  recognizes  that  the  UWWTP  of  Megara  was  not  in  conformity  on 
31.12.2000. The results are demonstrated in Table 11- 18. 
Evaluation b): This is the evaluation after the review undertaken by the Greek authorities in 2003. The 
evaluation  considers  all  the  above  mentioned  corrections  presented  to  the  Commission  in  May  2003. 
The results are demonstrated in Table 11-19. 

48 

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

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

Table 11-18: Treatment level in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” –  
Evaluation a35 

Greece 

31/12/2000 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 15 000 p.e. - Article 4 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

90 

35 

55 

100.0 

38.9 

61.1 

9 081 100 

4 774 000 

4 307 100 

100.0 

52.6 

47.4 

Table 11-19: Treatment level in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” –  
Evaluation b on the basis of a review undertaken by Greece in 200335 

Greece 

31/12/2000 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

11.4.4.  Collecting systems 

Agglomerations > 15 000 p.e. - Article 4 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

77 

25 

52 

100.0 

36.0 

68.0 

8 317 800 

100.0 

4 277 500 

4 040 300 

51.0 

49.0 

11.4.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

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

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

Greece 

01/01/2002 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. - Article 3 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

17 

3 

14 

100.0 

17.6 

82.4 

609 400 

160 000 

449 400 

100.0 

26.3 

73.7 

11.4.4.2. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” 

On the basis of the information delivered by Greece at the request of the Commission in 2001, 
the collecting systems of 50 agglomerations out of 90 discharging into “normal areas” were 

49 

 
 
  
 
not  in  conformity  with  Article  3  of  the  Directive  at  31  December  2000.  Two  of  the 
agglomerations without a complying collecting system were Iraklion (164 000 p.e.) and parts 
of Thessaloniki (tourist zone with 130 000 p.e.).  

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

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

Table  11-21:  Collecting  systems  in  agglomerations  discharging  into  “normal  areas”  – 
Evaluation a35 

Greece 

31/12/2000 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 15 000 p.e. - Article 3 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

90 

50 

40 

100.0 

55.6 

44.4 

9 081 100 

100.0 

1 967 500 

7 113 600 

21.7 

78.3 

Table  11-22:  Collecting  systems  in  agglomerations  discharging  into  “normal  areas”  –  
Evaluation b on the basis of a review undertaken by Greece in 200335 

Greece 

31/12/2000 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 15 000 p.e. - Article 3 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

77 

28 

49 

100 

36 

64 

8 317 800 

1 093 800 

7 224 000 

100 

13 

87 

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

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

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

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

50 

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

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

•  Iraklion is situated in a “normal area” and provides full secondary treatment followed by 

nitrogen removal. 

•  Thessaloniki  discharges  into  a  sensitive  area  that  was  designated  in  April  2002  and 

provides secondary treatment followed by nitrogen removal. 

•  Metamorphosis  and  Patra  are  situated  in  a  “normal  area”  and  provide  full  secondary 

treatment followed by nitrogen removal. 

11.4.6.  Industrial waste water (Article 13) 

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

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

Greece – Industrial sector  

Milk-processing 

Manufacture  of  fruit  and  vegetable
products 

Manufacture and bottling of soft drinks 

Potato-processing 

Meat industry 

Breweries 

Production  of  alcohol  and  alcoholic 
beverages 

Total organic load of 
industrial waste water 
from plants with respect 
to Article 13 [p.e.] 

Number 
of plants

Total organic load 
respecting conditions 
under Article 13 at 31 
December 2000 [p.e.] 

[%] 

Date of full 
compliance 

410 167 

2 626 567 

77 550 

32 292 

146 149 

112 500 

77 267 

10 

28 

3 

2 

4 

2 

3 

410 167  100 

31/12/2000 

2 626 567  100 

31/12/2000 

77 550  100 

31/12/2000 

32 292  100 

31/12/2000 

146 149  100 

31/12/2000 

112 500  100 

31/12/2000 

77 267  100 

31/12/2000 

Total 

3 482 492 

52 

3 482 492  100 

31/12/2000 

11.4.7.  Sewage Sludge 

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

51 

 
 
  
 
11.5. 

Spain 

11.5.1.  Identification of sensitive areas 

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

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

11.5.2.  Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

A number of agglomerations, which were reported to the Commission when compiling in its 
second report were no longer reported by the Spanish authorities in the information submitted 
for the present report. Some agglomerations have apparently dropped below the threshold of 
10 000 p.e. and for this reason were not taken into account any longer36. Some agglomerations 
were  merged  and  some,  according  to  the  Spanish  authorities,  no  longer  discharged  into 
sensitive  areas.  One  such  case  is  Santa  Pola  (125  000  p.e.),  which  does  not  even  provide 
biological treatment. 

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

11.5.2.1. Treatment level 

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

36 

37 

Muro (< 10 000 p.e.), Sant Bartelomeu del Grau (only industrial waste water), Campo Criptana (merged 
with  Alcázar  de  San  Juan),  Colindres  and  Laredo  (both  merged  with  Santona,  Cuenca  Baja  del  río 
Asón). 
In  May/September  2003,  the  Spanish  authorities  provided  updated  data  in  the  frame  of  monitoring 
information which will be considered in the future evaluations. 

52 

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

Spain 

01/01/2002 

Total 

Treatment level in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. –  

Article 5 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

113 

100.0 

5 740 260 

100.0 

More stringent treatment 

but missing treatment steps 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

n.a.* 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

* n.a.: no information available 

57 

23 

79 

34 

50.4 

20.4 

n.a.* 

69.9 

30.1 

2 315 967 

907 983 

n.a.* 

4 332 276 

1 407 984 

40.3 

15.8 

n.a.* 

75.5 

24.5 

11.5.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas 

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

11.5.3.  Waste  water  treatment  in  agglomerations  discharging  into  “normal  areas”  – 

situation at 31 December 2000 

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

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

Spain 

31/12/2000 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

11.5.4.  Collecting systems 

Agglomerations > 15 000 p.e. - Article 4 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

458 

213 

245 

100.0 

46.5 

53.5 

53 862 365 

20 554 919 

33 307 446 

100.0 

38.2 

61.8 

11.5.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

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

53 

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

Spain 

01/01/2002 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. - Article 3 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

113

51

62

100.0 

45.1 

54.9 

5 740 260 

3 126 560 

2 613 700 

100.0 

54.5 

45.5 

11.5.4.2. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” 

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

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

Spain 

31/12/2000 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 15 000 p.e. - Article 3 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

458 

28 

430 

100.0 

6.1 

93.9 

53 862 365 

4 348 128 

49 514 237 

100.0 

8.1 

91.9 

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

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

Six  cities  (Alginet,  Benidorm,  Calvia,  Castellón  de  la  Plana,  Colmenar  Viejo  and  Palma  de 
Mallorca)  were  located  in  sensitive  areas  and  should  therefore  be  equipped  with  more 
advanced  treatment.  However,  only  Calvia  (Santa  Ponça)  was  provided  with  more  stringent 
treatment  (elimination  of  nitrogen  and  phosphorus).  The  other  5  cities  did  not  fulfil  this 
requirement and, therefore, did not comply with the Directive38. Alginet (180 000 p.e.) did not 
have any treatment at all. 

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

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

38 

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

54 

 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
•  36 had secondary treatment39, including Cordoba (505 000 p.e.), Madrid (6.0 mio 
p.e.),  Malaga  (978  400  p.e.),  Murcia  (833  000  p.e.)  and  Sevilla  (1.28  mio  p.e.), 
Vallaloid (715 300 p.e.) 

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

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

In  the  opinion  of  the  Commission,  many  of  the  Spanish  “normal  areas”  are  in  fact 
suffering from eutrophication problems or belong to the catchment area of sensitive 
areas.  This  means  that  the  cities  and  agglomerations  discharging  into  those  areas 
should  provide  more  stringent  waste  water  treatment.  Among  them  are  cities  with 
more  than  one  million  population  equivalents,  such  as  Barcelona,  Madrid,  Sevilla, 
and  other  big  cities  such  as  Cordoba  and  Granada.  For  many  further  cities  and 
agglomerations the Commission currently does not have the detailed information, as 
to which of them are actually discharging into so-called potentially sensitive areas. 

Two cities, reported for the second Commission report, were not mentioned anymore as their 
waste water load was reported to be below 150 000 p.e.40

11.5.6.  Less sensitive areas 

Since 1997 Spain has identified less sensitive areas along the coasts of the Mediterranean and 
the Atlantic, and the Canary Islands in several steps. The region of Andalusia has officially 
identified  less  sensitive  areas  along  its  whole  coastline  by  the  Decree  of  March  1999.  In 
November  2000,  the  Spanish  national  authorities  notified  the  Commission  that,  after 
consultation with the regions, only the Canary Islands will have less sensitive areas. However, 
the  Commission  still  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. 

In February 2002, in a communication to the Commission, the Spanish authorities announced 
that  the  Canary  Islands  will  be  identified  as  less  sensitive  areas  after  the  approval  of  the 
hydrological plan of the Canary Islands. 

In July 2001 Spain notified the entire coastal zone of the autonomous community of Cantabria 
as  a  less  sensitive  area,  with  the  exception  of  the  Bay  of  Santander,  which  is  regarded  by 

39 

40 

Albacete, Badajoz, Benalmadena, Burgos, Cordoba, Elche / Elx, Elda, Estepona, Gandia, Huelva, Jaen, 
Jerez  de  la  Frontera,  La  Llagosta,  Las  Palmas  de  Gran  Canaria,  Logroño,  Madrid,  Malaga,  Marbella, 
Mataro,  Montcada  i  Reixac,  Murcia,  Ontinyent,  Palencia,  Palomares  del  Rio,  Pamplona,  Sabadell, 
Salou, San Fernando de Henares, Sant Feliu de Llobregat, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Sevilla, Tarragona, 
Terrassa, Torrevieja, Valladolid, Viladecans, 
Lorca  (298 000 p.e.  -  now  57 000 p.e.  due  to  disconnection  of  a  large  industry)  and  Velilla  de  San 
Antonio (163 378 p.e. - now 145 400 p.e.). 

55 

 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
Spain  as  a  “normal”  area.  According  to  the  Commission’s  opinion  the  bay  of  Santander  is 
suffering from eutrophication and should have been identified as a sensitive area.  

The Commission challenges the less sensitive areas identified in Andalusia, Cantabria and the 
Canary Islands, since it believes that discharges treated at primary level only may affect the 
quality  of  numerous  bathing  waters  in  these  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 opinion, 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. 

According to the directive, if Member States wish to allow treatment levels less severe than 
secondary  treatment  they  should  submit  an  official  request  for  a  derogation  to  the 
Commission. Spain has not submitted any such request. The Commission is therefore of the 
opinion  that  all  Spanish  agglomerations  with  a  population  equivalent  of  more  than  15 000 
must  have  at  least  secondary  treatment  from  31  December  2000,  including  those  which 
discharge  their  effluent  into  areas  which  the  Spanish  authorities  have  identified  as  less 
sensitive. 

11.5.7.  Industrial waste water (Article 13) 

In  Spain  155  industrial  plants  with  a  total  organic  load  of  9 915 785  p.e  are  affected  by 
Article 13 of the Directive. 68 % of the organic load is in compliance.  

The  fish-processing  and  the  milk-processing  industries  are  the  two  sectors  with  the  most 
significant shortcomings.  

The  date  on  which  the  industrial  plants  for  all  sectors  will  be  in  full  compliance  has  been 
announced as 31 December 2005. 

Table 11-28: Industrial waste water with respect to Article 13 of the Directive 

Spain – Industrial sector  

Milk-processing 
Manufacture  of  fruit  and  vegetable 
products 
Manufacture  and  bottling  of  soft
drinks 
Meat industry 
Breweries 
Production  of  alcohol  and  alcoholic
beverages 
Malt-houses 
Fish-processing industry 
Total 

Total organic load of 
industrial waste water 
from plants with 
respect to Article 13 
[p.e.] 

Number of 
plants 

Total organic load 
respecting conditions 
under Article 13 at 31 
December 2000 [p.e.] 

% 

Date of full 
compliance 

1 013 015 

1 049 694 

21 981 

1 474 296 
529 085 

5 713 413 

11 571 
102 730 
9 915 785 

18

50

2

32
6

36

2
9
155

73 421 

933 346 

12 644 

1 023 135 
485 421 

4 183 781 

11 571 
0 
6 723 319 

7 

89 

58 

69 
92 

73 

100 
0 
68 

31/12/05 

31/12/05 

31/12/05 

31/12/05 
31/12/05 

31/12/05 

31/12/05 
31/12/05 

56 

 
 
  
 
  
11.5.8.  Sewage Sludge 

No information about sewage sludge was available. As referred to elsewhere in the report, the 
Commission  is  concerned  that  Spain  continues  the  practice  of  dumping  sewage  sludge  into 
surface waters. 

11.6. 

France 

11.6.1.  Identification of sensitive areas 

France identified sensitive areas in 1994 and reviewed its identification in 1999, classifying a 
number of further sensitive areas (see second Commission report). However, the study carried 
out  by  the  Commission  in  1999  showed  that  a  number  of  additional  sensitive  areas  should 
have  been  identified  in  terms  of  eutrophication.  France  still  has  not  designated  these  areas, 
which include the freshwaters and coastal waters of the Artois-Picardie basin, the Bay of the 
Seine and its downstream river sections, rivers and coastal waters in Brittany, the river Vistre 
and the lagoon Etang de Thau. The identification of these areas is subject to an infringement 
procedure before Court. 

11.6.2.  Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

The  provision  of  data  by  the  French  authorities  was  not  satisfactory.  Information  was 
submitted  with  long  delays,  or  it  was  incomplete  or  completely  absent.  For  example,  The 
Commission is still awaiting a response to a request for monitoring data on plants discharging 
into  sensitive  areas  made  in  December  2000.  France  has  not  published  situation  reports  as 
required  under  Article  16  of  the  Directive.  These  issues  are  subject  to  an  ongoing 
infringement procedure. 

After  repeated  requests  from  the  Commission,  the  French  authorities  provided  on 
5th September  2003,  information  about  the  treatment  requirements  for  the  waste  water 
discharged  into  sensitive  areas.  The  Commission  took  this  information  into  account  in  the 
evaluation presented below, but has not had the opportunity to completely verify this data. 

France  provided  certain  information  on  348  agglomerations  discharging  into  sensitive  areas 
and  identified  as  such  in  1994,  and  on  50  agglomerations  being  additionally  identified  as 
sensitive in 1999. According to Article 5(7) of the Directive, the latter have, to be equipped 
with  more  stringent  treatment  at  the  latest  by  2006;  therefore  they  were  currently  evaluated 
under “normal areas”. However, it has to be pointed out that among those 50 agglomerations 
were  also  a  number  of  agglomerations,  which  -  according  to  the  Commission’s  opinion  - 
should  have  been  identified  as  sensitive  areas  in  1994,  and  therefore  applying  tertiary 
treatment  already  as  from  the  end  of  1998,  e.g.  Compiegne,  Corbeil,  Etampes,  Evry, 
Beauvais. 

11.6.2.1. Treatment level 

Out of the 348 agglomerations 143 agglomerations were complying with the Directive. They 
represented 36.4 % of the load of the concerned agglomerations. 

205 agglomerations were not in conformity (63.6 % of the load). These included a number of 
big cities such as Strasbourg, Mulhouse (Sausheim) or Montpellier. 147 of them did not have 

57 

 
 
  
 
any kind of more advanced treatment facilities, 50 were partially, but insufficiently equipped 
with more stringent treatment facilities.  

The organic design capacity of the treatment plants in 13 agglomerations seemed too small to 
be  able  to  sufficiently  treat  the  waste  water  of  the  concerned  agglomeration.  The 
agglomerations  where  the  design  capacity  was  80  %  or  less  than  of  the  size  of  the  entire 
agglomeration  were  for  example  Angouleme  (in  total  seven  treatment  plants),  Briey, 
Guenange,  Louhans,  Lunel,  Malansac,  Niedernai,  Pleucadeuc,  Rambouillet,  Ribauville, 
Thonon, Trois Ponts, Vallee De L'orne.  

Table  11-29:  Treatment  level  of  agglomerations  discharging  into  sensitive  areas, 
designated in 1994 

France 

01/01/2002 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

but missing treatment steps 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Not in Compliance* 

In Compliance 

Treatment level in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. –  

Article 5 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

348 

201 

50 

13 

205 

143 

100.0 

16 728 379 

100.0 

57.8 

14.4 

3.7 

58.9 

41.1 

8 611 268 

1 950 939 

805 994 

10 641 444 

6 086 935 

51.5 

11.7 

4.8 

63.6 

36.4 

*Including incomplete more stringent treatment and insufficient treatment capacity of plants, taking into account possible overlaps of both 
shortcomings 

11.6.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas 

France  did  not  provide  information  on  the  treatment  performance  of  plants  discharging  into 
sensitive areas (monitoring data for the year 1999), which was requested by the Commission 
on  the  basis  of  Article  15  of  the  Directive.  The  issue  is  subject  to  the  above  mentioned 
infringement procedure on reporting issues. 

11.6.3.  Waste  water  treatment  in  agglomerations  discharging  into  “normal  areas”  – 

situation at 31 December 2000 

At  the  end  of  2000,  France  had  486  agglomerations  above  15 000 p.e  discharging  into 
“normal  areas”.  They  currently  include  also those  agglomerations  above  15  000  p.e.,  which 
discharge  into  areas  which  were  designated  as  sensitive  areas  later  in  1999,  and  which 
currently need not yet comply with more stringent treatment requirements.  

In  addition,  the  evaluation  currently  also  includes  the  agglomerations  which  discharge  into 
potentially  sensitive  areas,  areas  which  -  in  the  Commission’s  opinion  –  should  have  been 
identified  by  France  as  sensitive  in  1994  and  provide  already  subject  to  more  stringent 
treatment, and which are also subject to the above-mentioned infringement case before Court. 
Paris is one of these agglomerations. 

307  agglomerations,  representing  68  %  of  the  concerned  load  of  the  above  486 
agglomerations complied with the Directive, deadline 31 December 2000. 179 agglomerations 
had not yet been equipped with secondary treatment. 

58 

 
 
  
 
Table 11-30: Treatment level of agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” 

France 

31/12/2000 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

11.6.4.  Collecting systems 

Agglomerations > 15 000 p.e. – Article 4 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

486

179

307

100.0

36.8

63.2

42 548 060 

13 505 783 

29 042 277 

100.0 

31.7 

68.3 

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

1994 

According  to  the  available  information,  the  collecting  system  of  at  least  69  agglomerations 
discharging into sensitive areas was not completed. These agglomerations represented 18.9 % 
of the load of the concerned agglomerations. For 77 agglomerations (20.7 % of the load) no 
information was available whether a complying collecting system was in place by 1 January 
2002. 

Table  11-31:  Collecting  systems  of  agglomerations  discharging  into  sensitive  areas 
designated in 1994 

France 

01/01/2002 

Total 

No information available 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. - Article 3 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

348 

100.0 

77 

69 

202 

22.1 

19.8 

58.0 

16 728 379 

3 458 774 

3 168 123 

10 101 482 

% 

100.0 

20.7 

18.9 

60.4 

11.6.4.2. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” 

At  least  69  agglomerations  with  a  nominal  load  of  more  than  15 000 p.e.  did  not  provide  a 
complying  collecting  system  by  31  December  2000.  These  agglomerations  represented 
15.8 %  of  the  concerned  load  in  “normal  areas”.  For  249  additional  agglomerations 
insufficient information was provided to assess the conformity of the collecting systems. 

Table 11-32: Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” 

France 

31/12/2000 

Total 

No evaluation possible 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 15 000 p.e. – Article 3 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

486

249

69

168

100.0

51.2

14.2

34.6

42 548 060 

100.0

11 613 713 

6 740 323 

24 194 024 

27.3

15.8

56.9

59 

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

France provided information on 60 cities with a population equivalent of more than 150 000: 

•  29  cities  were  situated  in  sensitive  areas  and  should  therefore  have  been  equipped  with 
more  stringent  treatment  (secondary  treatment  followed  by  nitrogen  and/or  phosphorus 
and/or other treatment): 

•  Eleven  cities  were  equipped  with  all  required  treatment  steps:  Aix  en  Provence, 
Angouleme, Besancon, Calais, Colmar, Lagny-sur-Marne, Metz, Orleans, Rennes, 
Thonon and Tours. 

•  17  cities  were  equipped  with  secondary  treatment  and/or  incomplete  more 
stringent  treatment  only:  Amiens,  Boulogne  sur  Mer,  Caen,  Clermont-Ferrand, 
Dijon,  Dunkerque,  Evry,  Le-Havre,  Melun,  Montpellier,  Mulhouse,  Nancy, 
Reims, Rodez, St-Etienne, Strasbourg and Troyes. 

•  Arcachon had primary treatment only. 

•  8  cities  were  located  in  potentially  sensitive  areas  and  therefore,  in  to  the  Commission’s 

opinion, should have been equipped with more stringent treatment by 1998: 

•  Paris,  Zone  Centrale:  (10.0  mio.  p.e.)  had  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  elimination 
only  for  parts  of  its  population.  According  to  the  RNDE  and  other  information 
gathered  by  the  Commission  in  the  past  few  years,  Paris  included  in  total  four 
agglomerations with an entire population equivalent of 13.7 mio. On the basis of 
the  information  provided  by  the  French  authorities,  the  Commission  could  not 
understand why Paris has 3.7 mio population equivalents less than in the past and 
did  not  find  any  indication  that  this  waste  water  load  was  taken  into  account 
within other agglomerations41. 

•  Rouen: had secondary treatment followed by nitrogen and phosphorus removal 

•  Lille:  provided  nitrogen  elimination  for  parts  of  its  population  only  (the 

agglomeration Wattrelos - 450 000 p.e. - had primary treatment only) 

•  Cergy: provided partial nitrogen elimination 

•  Douai  and  Bonneuil-en-France:  had  secondary  treatment  followed  by  nitrogen 

elimination 

•  Versailles and Nimes had secondary treatment. 

•  23  cities  were  located  in  “normal  areas”  and  should  have  been  equipped  with  at  least 

secondary treatment: 

41 

On  the  5  September  2003  the  French  authorities  informed  that  the  13,5  million  p.e.  were  based  on  a 
fiscal evaluation in order to calculate taxes and overestimate the reality. 

60 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
•  Four  of  them  had  even  more  stringent  treatment  (nitrogen  and/or  phosphorus 

removal): Angers, Annecy, Limoges and Nantes 

•  Nine  cities  had  secondary  treatment:  Antibes,  Brest,  Chambery,  Grenoble,  La 

Rochelle, Nice, Royan, Toulon and Toulouse 

•  Eight cities had primary treatment only: Bordeaux (conformity planned by 2006), 
Cannes  (conformity  planned  by  2006),  Frejus-St-Raphael  (date  of  conformity 
unknown), Lyon (conformity planned by 2006), Marseille (conformity planned by 
2005),  Pau  (conformity  planned  by  2003),  Perpignan  (conformity  planned  by 
2005), Valence (conformity planned by 2002) 

•  Two cities had no treatment or preliminary treatment only: Le Mans (completion 
of  secondary  treatment  not  before  2004)  and  Quimper  (secondary  treatment  not 
before 2003) 

11.6.6.  Industrial waste water (Article 13) 

According  to  the  information  provided  by  the  French  authorities,  all  discharges  from 
industrial branches falling under Article 13 of the Directive fulfilled the requirements of the 
Directive.  Nevertheless,  no  information  on  the  total  organic  load  of  these  discharges  was 
provided42. 

Table 11-33: Industrial waste water with respect to Article 13 

France – Industrial sector 

Milk-processing 

Manufacture of fruit and vegetable products 

Manufacture and bottling of soft drinks 

Potato-processing 

industry 

Meat 
industry) 

Breweries 

(including  Fish-processing

Production of alcohol and alcoholic beverages 

Manufacture  of  animal 
products 

feed 

from  plant

Manufacture  of  gelatine  and  of  glue  from
hides, skin and bones 

Malt-houses 

Total 

Total organic load 
of industrial waste 
water from plants 
with respect to 
Article 13  
[p.e.] 

Number of 
plants 

Total organic load 
respecting 
conditions under 
Article 13 at 31 
December 2000 
[p.e.]  

171 

205 

64  

9 

510 

64 

233 

439 

2 

45 

% 

Date of full 
compliance

100.0 

03/03/1999 

100.0 

03/03/1999 

100.0 

03/03/1999 

100.0 

03/03/1999 

100.0 

03/03/1999 

100.0 

03/03/1999 

100.0 

03/03/1999 

100.0 

03/03/1999 

100.0 

03/03/1999 

100.0 

03/03/1999 

1 742 

100.0 

42 

France did not deliver information, because the Directive does not set out details on the definition of the 
total organic load.  

61 

 
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                 
11.6.7.  Sewage sludge 

France  provided  information  on  sludge  production  and  the  re-use  of  sludge  in  agriculture. 
Information about other re-use or disposal routes of sewage sludge was not available. In the 
year  2001  the  quantity  of  produced  sludge  was  913  159  t  dry  substance  (DS).  56%  was  re-
used in agriculture. 

Table  11-34:  Agricultural  re-use  of  sewage  sludge  produced  in  waste  water  treatment 
plants 

France – Sewage Sludge 

Total 

Agriculture 

11.7. 

Ireland 

2000 

2001 

Tons DS 

% 

Tons DS 

% 

904 342 

506 505 

100 

56 

913 159 

508 203 

100 

56 

11.7.1.  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. 

In  2001  the  Irish  authorities  revised43  their  sensitive  areas  and  identified  26  additional 
sensitive  areas44.  Among  these  were  Lough  Muckno,  Lough  Monalty  and  Lough  Ennel  and 
rivers  like  Proules,  Brosna  and  others.  In  addition,  Ireland  also  identified  a  number  of 
estuaries. Many areas, requested by the Commission for identification as sensitive areas were 
included in this review, in particular lakes and rivers. However, the Irish authorities have still 
not  yet  designated  certain  areas  such  as  Cork  Harbour,  Boyne,  Lady’s  Island  and 
Garavogue/Sligo, which suffer - according to the Commission’s opinion - from eutrophication 
problems.  The  non-designation  of  these  areas  is  part  of  on-going  infringement  procedures. 
The identification of some rivers and estuaries still requires further clarification. 

11.7.2.  Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

Ireland  has  eleven  agglomerations  with  more  than  10 000 p.e.  discharging  into  sensitive 
areas45, which were designated in 1994.  

Due  to  the  review  of  sensitive  areas  in  2001,  16  additional  agglomerations46  each  with  a 
population equivalent of more than 10 000, were allocated to sensitive areas.  

43 
44 

45 

S.I. No.254 of 2001 
River  Blackwater  (Monaghan),  River  Brosna  (d/s  Mullingar),  River  Cavan,  River  Proules,  River 
Barrow,  River  Triogue,  River  Nore,  River  Hind,  River  Suir,  Little  Brosna  River,  River  Blackwater 
(Munster),  Lough  Ennell  (Westmeath),  Lough  Muckno  (Monaghan),  Lough  Monalty  (Monaghan), 
Broadmeadow Estuary (Inner), Liffey Estuary, Slaney Estuary, Barrow Estuary, Suir Estuary (Upper), 
Bandon  Estuary,  Lee  Estuary  Upper  (Tralee),  Feale  Estuary  Upper,  Cashen/Feale  Estuary,  Killybegs 
Harbour, Castletown Estuary, Blackwater Estuary 
Athlone,  Castlebar,  Cavan,  Killarney,  Longford,  Mullingar,  Naas  /  Osberstown,  Navan,  Nenagh, 
Roscrea, Tullamore 

62 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
The Irish authorities are of the opinion that due to Article 5(7) of the Directive no obligation 
of  more  stringent  treatment  is  necessary  in  agglomerations  discharging  into  the  new 
designated sensitive areas before 2008. However, the Commission is of the opinion that the 
agglomerations  in  those  areas,  which  were  already  considered  to  be  eutrophic  by  the 
Commission  in  former  years,  and  requested  to  be  identified  as  such  by  the  Commission  in 
2000, should have been equipped with more stringent treatment already by 1998. These areas 
are the subject of an ongoing infraction procedure; Ireland’s recently received comments are 
under evaluation. 

11.7.2.1. Treatment level 

Since Ireland designated additional water bodies as sensitive in 2001 taking into account also 
their catchment areas, the number of concerned agglomerations with a population equivalent 
of more than 10 000 increased from eleven (1998) to 28 (2001). 

In 2002, ten out of the eleven agglomerations located in those areas, which were identified in 
1994,  were  equipped  with  the  required  phosphorus  removal  facilities.  Only  Longford 
(16 000 p.e.)  had  secondary  treatment  alone,  and  is  still  to  be  upgraded  in  terms  of 
phosphorus  removal47.  Despite  its  existing  nutrient  removal  facilities,  the  agglomeration 
Osberstown  was  not  considered  to  be  conform  with  the  Directive,  because  its  treatment 
capacity (40 000 p.e.) seemed too small for a sufficient waste water treatment compared with 
the  total  nominal  load  of  the  agglomeration  (97 651 p.e.).  According  to  the  Commission’s 
opinion the treatment plant of Osberstown has to be subject to a capacity upgrading48. 

The situation in the agglomerations in the sensitive areas, which were designated in 2001, but 
should  -  according  to  the  Commissions  opinion  -  have  been  designated  in  1994,  was  as 
follows: 

•  Five  agglomerations  had  more  stringent  treatment  of  phosphorus:  Portlaoise,  Monaghan, 
Leixlip,  Carrickmacross  and  Clonmel.  The  agglomerations  Portlaoise  (discharging  into 
River  Barrow)  and  Clonmel  (discharging  into  the  River  Suir)  require  also  nitrogen 
removal. 

•  Four agglomerations had secondary treatment: Dundalk, Carlow, Kilkenny and Swords 

•  Dublin - Howth Outfall (505 969 p.e.)49 had pre-liminary treatment only 

46 

47 

48 

49 

Monaghan,  Carrickmacross,  Athy,  Carlow,  Portlaoise,  Kilkenny,  Clonmel,  Thurles,  Fermoy,  Swords, 
Dublin (Ringsend), Leixlip, Wexford, Waterford, Tralee and Dundalk 
In  a  comment  of  22  September  2003,  Ireland  informed  that  the  information  is  wrong  and  Longford 
provides  phosphorus  removal  since  2001  being  in  compliance  with  the  Directive.  This  information 
could not be included in the evaluation anymore, but will be considered in future. 
According to a comment of 22 September 2003, Osberstown has already been upgraded to 80 000 p.e 
by May 2000, now providing phosphorus removal and a complying treatment performance. 
In  the  Committee  Meeting  of  1  September  2003,  the  Irish  authorities  informed  that  from  September 
2002,  Dublin  Howth  Outfall  and  Dublin  Ringsend  Discharge  will  be  regarded  as  a  single 
agglomeration. In a comment of 22 September 2003, the Irish authorities raised that the drainage system 
of Dublin - Howth Outfall is designed that way that it does not discharge into a sensitive area. 

63 

 
 
  
 
                                                                                                                                                         
•  Seven  agglomerations  did  not  have  any  waste  water  treatment  at  all:  Dublin  -  Ringsend 
Discharge  (1.8  mio.  p.e.),  Athy  (12 379 p.e.),  Fermoy  (12 960 p.e.),  Tralee  (41 680 p.e.), 
Wexford (17 000 p.e.), Waterford (154 000 p.e.), and Thurles (10 600 p.e.). 

This  shows  that  1450  of  the  16  concerned  agglomerations  discharging  into  sensitive  areas, 
which  were  designated  in  2001,  but  which,  according  to  the  Commissions  opinion  -  should 
have had more stringent treatment of nitrogen and/or phosphorus already by the end of 1998, 
were still not in conformity with the Directive. In total, these agglomerations represent a total 
nominal load of about three million population equivalents. 

Table 11-35: Treatment level of agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

Ireland 

01/01/2002 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

but missing treatment steps 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Treatment level in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. –  

Article 5 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

28 

15 

2 

1 

100.0 

53.6 

7.1 

3.6 

3 362 856 

100.0 

419 129 

12.5 

52 000 

97 651 

1.5 

2.9 

Not in compliance* 

16 

57.1 

3 093 378 

92.0 

In compliance 

269 478 
*Including the agglomeration Osberstown, which had a treatment capacity for only 41% for its total load. 

42.9 

12 

8.0 

11.7.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas 

Six of the eleven agglomerations with more than 10 000 p.e. discharging into sensitive areas 
existing  in  1999,  had  a  complying  treatment  performance  in  that  year,  which  represented 
41.8% of the load. In total, the treatment performance of five agglomerations51 (58.2% of the 
waste water load), including Solely Longford, which had secondary treatment only, were not 
in conformity with the provisions of the Directive. 

50 

51 

Portlaoise (N-removal missing), Clonmel (N-removal missing), Dundalk (secondary treatment), Carlow 
(secondary  treatment),  Kilkenny  (secondary  treatment),  Swords  (secondary  treatment),  Dublin-Howth 
Outfall  (primary  treatment),  Dublin-Ringsend  (no  treatment),  Athy  (no  treatment),  Fermoy  (no 
treatment),  Tralee  (no  treatment),  Wexford  (no  treatment),  Waterford  (no  treatment),  Thurles  (no 
treatment). In the before mentioned comment of 22 September 2003, the Irish authorities raised that the 
agglomerations  Athey,  Fermoy  Tralee  and  Thurles  provided  secondary  treatment  before  the  end  of 
1998. 
Osberstown,  Longford,  Navan,  Roscrea,  Castlebar  (was  considered  as  not  in  conformity  as  total 
phosphorus was not monitored in 1999). According to a comment of 22 September 2003, Osberstown 
has been upgraded to 80 000 p.e by May  2000, now providing phosphorus removal and a complying 
treatment performance. 

64 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
Table 11-36: Treatment performance in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas, 
designated in 1994 

Ireland 

31/12/1999 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Monitoring in compliance (Member State) 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Monitoring in compliance (EC) 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Treatment performance in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

11 

10 

1 

6 

0 

6 

0 

5 

6 

100.0 

90.9 

9.1 

54.5 

0 

54.5 

0 

45.5 

54.5 

286 399 

270 399 

97 651 

119 748 

0 

119 748 

0 

166 651 

119 748 

100.0 

94.4 

34.1 

41.8 

0 

41.8 

0 

58.2 

41.8 

11.7.3.  Treatment  in  agglomerations  discharging  into  “normal  areas”  –  situation  at 

31 December 2000 

At the end of 2000, Ireland had 28 agglomerations above 15 000 p.e., which discharged into 
“normal  areas”.  Previously  Ireland  had  sent  a  list  of  35  agglomerations  with  more  than 
15 000 p.e.,  but  seven  agglomerations52  were  actually  discharging  into  sensitive  areas  and 
therefore allocated to those. 

13  of  those  28  agglomerations  were  equipped  with  at  least  secondary  treatment. 
15 agglomerations  did  not  have  secondary  treatment  (including  major  parts  of  Cork  and 
Dublin),  which  represented  81.9  %  of  the  total  load  of  waste  water  of  agglomerations  over 
15 000 p.e. in “normal areas”. 

Some  of  the  agglomerations  like  Cork  Harbour  and  Dublin  discharged  into  water  bodies 
suffering from eutrophication and in the Commission’s opinion should have been subject to 
classification  as  a  sensitive  area  in  1994  and  provided  more  stringent  treatment  since  1998 
(see above). 

Table 11-37: Treatment level of agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” 

Ireland 

31/12/2000 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 15 000 p.e. – Article 4 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

28

15

13

100.0 

53.6 

46.4 

3 901 479 

100.0 

3 195 447 

706 032 

81.9 

18.1 

52 

Athlone, Castlebar, Killarney, Longford, Mullingar, Navan and Osberstown,  

65 

 
 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
11.7.4.  Collecting systems 

11.7.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

Most  agglomerations  identified  by  Ireland  in  1994  and  2001,  were  already  equipped  with  a 
complying  collecting  system,  only  the  agglomerations  Athey,  Tralee  and  Waterford  did  not 
yet comply. 53 

Table  11-38:  Collecting  systems  in  agglomerations  discharging  into  sensitive  areas, 
designated in 1994 and 2001 

Ireland 

01/01/2002 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. - Article 3 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

28 

3 

25 

100.0 

10.7 

89.3 

3 362 856 

100.0 

208 059 

3 154 797 

6.2 

93.8 

11.7.4.2. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” 

According to additional information sent in April 2003, at 31 December 2000 the collecting 
system  of  all  28  Irish  agglomerations  with  a  nominal  load  of  more  than  15 000 p.e. 
discharging into “normal areas” was in conformity with the Directive. 

Table 11-39: Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” 

Ireland 

31/12/2000 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 15 000 p.e. – Article 3 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.]

% 

28 

0 

28 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

3 901 479 

0 

3 901 479 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

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

Ireland has four cities with a population equivalent of more than 150 000: 

•  Dundalk  (180 000  p.e.)  completed  its  secondary  treatment  in  2000.  It  is  situated  in  a 

sensitive area (Castletown Estuary) designated in 2001. 

•  Dublin (2 300 000 p.e.) had only primary treatment for parts of its population on 1 January 
2002. It is also situated in a sensitive area, which was designated in 2001 (Liffey Estuary). 
At  present  both  secondary  treatment  facilities  and  nitrogen  removal  facilities  are  being 
commissioned. 

53 

According to the Irish comment of 22 September 2003, Athey, Tralee and Waterford had a complying 
collecting system. 

66 

 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
•  Waterford  (154 000  p.e.)  discharges  into  the  Suir  Estuary.  The  city  had  no  waste  water 
treatment  at  the  beginning  of  January  2002.  The  completion  of  secondary  treatment  is 
foreseen at the end of 2004. 

•  Cork  (328 000  p.e.)  did  not  have  any  waste  water  treatment  in  January  2002.  Secondary 
treatment is planned by the end of 2003. In view of the eutrophication of the coastal waters 
and estuaries in this location, the Commission believes that Ireland should have identified 
these areas as a sensitive area, and the city of Cork should have provided more stringent 
treatment (nitrogen and phosphorus) since 1998. 

The  Commission  appreciates  the  identification  of  the  three  above-mentioned  estuaries  as 
sensitive areas by Ireland in 2001. However, according to the Commission’s findings in terms 
of  eutrophication  of  these  areas,  including  Cork  Harbour,  these  should  have  been  identified 
already  at  the  initial  identification  in  1994.  For  this  reason  the  cities  Dundalk,  Dublin  and 
Waterford  in  the  Commission’s  opinion,  should  have  provided  more  stringent  treatment 
(nitrogen and phosphorus removal) already since 1998. The same applies to Cork, but Ireland 
has  not  yet  identified  Cork  Harbour  as  sensitive.  Ireland  believes  that  the  above  mentioned 
three cities fall under Article 5.7 of the Directive and do not require more stringent treatment 
before  2008,  as  they  have  been  identified  in  2001.  Cork  Harbour,  according  to  Ireland’s 
interpretation,  does  not  require  identification  as  a  sensitive  area  at  all,  and  therefore  needs 
only biological treatment. All concerned cities are subject to an ongoing infraction case. 

11.7.6.  Industrial waste water (Article 13) 

Ireland  has  38  industrial  plants  with  a  total  organic  load  of  2 784 317  p.e.  The  milk-
processing sector provided conformity for only 59 % of its load. Prosecution cases and work 
programmes are ongoing in those plants which did not respect the required conditions. 

Table 11-40: Industrial waste water with respect to Article 13 of the Directive 

Ireland - Industrial sector  

Milk-processing 

Total organic 
load of 
industrial waste 
water plants 
from plants with 
respect to 
Article 13 [p.e.] 

835 716  

Manufacture of fruit and vegetable products 

1 028 600  

Meat industry 

Manufacture  of  gelatine  and  of  glue  from 
hides, skin and bones 

Fish-processing industry 

Total 

11.7.7.  Sewage Sludge 

650 968  

141 833  

127 200  

2 784 317  

Number 
of plants 

Total organic 
load respecting 
conditions 
under Article 
13 at 31 
December 2000 
[p.e.] 

% 

Date of full 
compliance 

7 

2 

26 

2 

1 

38 

492 696  

59 

31/12/2002 

1 024 160  

100 

31/12/2002 

487 977  

119 338  

75 

84 

31/12/2002 

31/12/2002 

127 200  

100 

31/12/2000 

2 251 371  

81 

31/12/2002 

In the year 1999 the quantity of produced sewage sludge was 37 595 t DS coming from urban 
waste  water  treatment  plants  with  more  than  500  p.e.  23 %  of  it  was  reused  in  agriculture, 
45 % was deposited on landfills 1 % was reused or disposed of in other ways. Although the 

67 

 
 
  
 
 
discharge of sewage sludge into the marine environment is forbidden (Article 14 of Directive 
91/271/EEC; Irish Sea Act, 1981), 31 % of the sewage sludge was still disposed of at the sea 
throughout 1999. According to the recent information of 2003 all sewage sludge, which was 
previously disposed of at the sea has been treated and used in agriculture since 1999. 

Table  11-41:  Re-use  and  disposal  of  sewerage  sludge  produced  in  waste  water 
treatments plants 

Ireland - Sewage Sludge (1999) 

Tons DS 

[%] 

Sludge total production 

Agriculture 

Landfill 

Incineration 

Marine 

Other or unspecified 

11.8. 

Italy 

37 595 

8 734 

16 753 

0 

11 763 

345 

100% 

23% 

45% 

0% 

31% 

1% 

11.8.1.  Identification of sensitive areas 

Italy  identified  sensitive  areas  in  1999,  among  them  seven  lakes  and  parts  of  the  Adriatic 
coast.  In  2001,  Italy  sent  a  revised  map  showing  a  number  of  additional  sensitive  water 
bodies,  but  has  not  yet  sent  an  official  notification  of  these  areas.  The  additional 
identifications also did not include the areas, which - according to the Commission’s opinion - 
should have been identified as sensitive due to eutrophication (ERM-study, 1999).  

In the Court Judgement of 25 April 2002 concerning the absence of waste water treatment of 
the city of Milano, the European Court of Justice stated that direct and indirect discharges into 
a sensitive area have to be subject to more stringent waste water treatment. The Commission 
would like to point out that this is relevant for all sensitive areas. The Italian authorities have 
not  yet  taken  into  account  the  relevant  waste  water  discharges  in  catchments  draining  into 
sensitive areas. This is the subject of a further infringement procedure. 

11.8.2.  Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

For  2002,  Italy  did  not  send  any  updated  information  on  agglomerations  above  10 000 p.e. 
discharging into sensitive areas. More recent information was only delivered on the treatment 
performance  in  1999,  which  did  not  include  all  relevant  agglomerations54.  Therefore,  both 
data sources were taken into account for the assessment presented below. Italy did not clarify 
the data inconsistencies before the finalisation of the Commission’s report. 

54 

For  example,  agglomerations  such  as  Ballabio,  Bosisio  Parini,  Brenta,  Cernobbio,  Galbiate,  Lipomo, 
Maslianico,  Oggiono,  Olginate  and  Tavernerio  representing  in  total  350  000  p.e.,  were  no  longer 
reported. 

68 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
11.8.2.1. Treatment level 

Based  on  the  above-mentioned  criteria,  4955  agglomerations  with  more  than  10 000 p.e. 
discharging into sensitive areas existed in Italy at the beginning of 2002; 28 agglomerations, 
representing  71.6  %  of  that  load,  were  complying.  In  1156  agglomerations  providing  more 
stringent  treatment,  at  least  one  of  the  required  treatment  steps  (nitrogen  and/or  phosphorus 
removal  and/or  any  other  treatment)  was  missing.  For  five  agglomerations  no  precise 
information on the sort of more stringent treatment was available. 

A number of agglomerations seemed to be significantly overloaded and, therefore, according 
to the Commission’s opinion, should be subject to a capacity upgrading. This was the case for 
example  for  Arcisate,  Colico,  Laveno  Monbello,  Lovere  -  Costa  Volpino,  Luino  and 
Travedona Monate. 

Table 11-42: Treatment level of agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

Italy 

01/01/2002 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

But missing treatment steps

But insufficient treatment capacity

No information available (total) 

Not in compliance* 

In compliance 

Treatment level in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

49 

46 

11 

6 

5 

16 

28 

100.0 

3 024 094 

100.0 

93.9 

22.4 

12.2 

10.2 

32.7 

57.1 

2 981 667 

490 073 

220 925 

196 853 

661 748 

2 165 493 

98.6 

16.2 

7.3 

6.5 

21.9 

71.6 

* Including incomplete more stringent treatment and insufficient treatment capacity of plants, taking into account possible overlaps of both 
shortcomings (e.g. Arcisate) 

11.8.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas 

Italy provided information on the treatment performance in 1999 for 39 agglomerations with 
more  than  10 000 p.e.  situated  in  sensitive  areas.  According  to  the  Commission’s 
interpretation,  the  treatment  performance  of  18  agglomerations  was  complying,  21 
agglomerations,  which  represented  54.4 %  of  the  reported  load,  did  not  comply  with  the 
provisions of the Directive. 

55 

56 

39  agglomerations  were  reported  by  Italy  in  the  context  of  monitoring  information  of  1999,  for  ten 
agglomerations the relevant information was taken from previous data sources of 1998. 
Arcisate,  Bellaria-Igea  Marina,  Cattolica,  Coriano,  Lido  di  Classe,  Marina  di  Ravenna,  Misano 
Adriatico,  Orbetello-Orbetello  Scalo,  Rosolina  Mare,  Rosolina-Donada-Contarina  and  Savignano  sul 
Rubicone 

69 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
Table 11-43: Treatment performance in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

Italy 

31/12/1999 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Monitoring in compliance (Member State)* 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Monitoring in compliance (EC)* 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Treatment performance in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e.  

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

39 

39 

6 

32 

5 

18 

4 

21 

18 

100.0 

100.0 

15.4 

82.1 

12.8 

46.2 

10.3 

53.8 

46.2 

2 863 257 

2 863 257 

220 925 

2 459 313 

193 539 

1 218 280 

144 289 

1 644 977 

1 218 280 

100.0 

100.0 

7.7 

85.9 

6.8 

42.5 

5.0 

57.5 

42.5 

* The discrepancies in the evaluation come from different interpretations between Italy and the Commission which nutrient 
parameters have to be removed for the protection of the Adriatic Sea. Certain Italian regions believe that nitrogen removal is 
not necessary.  

11.8.3.  Waste  water  treatment  in  agglomerations  discharging  into  “normal  areas”  – 

situation at 31 December 2000 

Italy  provided  information  on  632  agglomerations  with  more  than  15 000 p.e.  in  “normal 
areas”. However, according to the Commission Como and Venezia, discharge into sensitive 
areas.  Therefore,  these  two  agglomerations  were  allocated  to  sensitive  areas  and  were  not 
considered in the following assessment. 

According to the Commission’s evaluation57, 312 agglomerations out of 630 were complying 
with  the  Directive  by  31  December  2000.  318  agglomerations,  representing  47.8  %  of  the 
reported load discharged into “normal” areas, were not complying.  

The Commission would like to point out that a high number of the agglomerations discharged 
their waste water into potentially sensitive areas, areas which - according to the Commission’s 
findings - should not only provide secondary treatment, but  more stringent treatment due to 
the  eutrophication  of  the  affected  receiving  waters.  Furthermore,  it  seemed  that  the  Italian 
authorities did not report all relevant agglomerations, as for example Cagliari (Sardinia) was 
not reported. 

57 

Italy  assessed  the  compliance  of  its  agglomerations  by  applying  an  internal  system,  including  the 
classes ‘conforme’, ‘parzialmente conforme’, ‘conforme con riserva’ ‘non conforme’. According to the 
Commission’s criteria only the class ‘conforme’ was regarded as complying with the requirements of 
the Directive. 

70 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
Table 11-44: Treatment level in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” 

Italy 

31/12/2000 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

11.8.4.  Collecting systems 

Agglomerations > 15 000 p.e. - Article 4 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.]

% 

630 

318 

312 

100.0 

55 142 105 

50.5 

49.5 

26 377 404 

28 764 701 

100.0 

47.8 

52.2 

11.8.4.1. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

Out  of  49  agglomerations  with  more  than  10 000  p.e.  in  sensitive  areas,  16  had  already 
complied  with  Article  3  of  the  Directive  by  1998.  According  to  the  Commission’s 
interpretation,  33  agglomerations  did  not  seem  to  be  equipped  with  a  complying  collecting 
system. 

Table 11-45: Collecting systems in agglomeration discharging into sensitive areas 

Italy 

01/01/2002 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. in sensitive areas – Article 3 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

49 

33 

16 

100.0 

67.3 

32.7 

3 024 094 

1 593 903 

1 430 191 

100.0 

52.7 

47.3 

11.8.4.2. Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” 

According to the Commission’s opinion58, in “normal areas”, 359 of 632 agglomerations with 
more than 15 000 p.e. were not equipped with a complying collecting system by 31 December 
2000.  The  latter  included  some  large  cities  such  as  Rome  (3 166 445 p.e.),  Milan 
(2 545 000 p.e.),  Torino 
(952 000 p.e.),  Bari 
(936 480 p.e.) or Napoli (800 000). For 30 agglomerations no data were available in order to 
assess conformity. 

(1 153 000 p.e.),  Valle  del  Chiampo 

58 

Italy assessed the compliance of the collecting systems by distinguishing different classes: “Conforme”: 
90 % or more of the agglomeration provide a sewer system; “Parzialmente conforme”: Less than 90 % 
of the agglomeration provides a sewer system; “Conforme con riserva”: The agglomeration provides a 
sewer system, but the percentage of population equivalents served is not known; “Non conforme”: The 
agglomeration is not equipped with a sewer system; “Data non disponibile“: No information available. 
According to the Commission’s criteria only the class “conforme” could be regarded as in compliance 
with the requirements of the Directive. 

71 

 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
Table 11-46: Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” 

Italy 

31/12/2000 

Total 

No  evaluation  possible  due  to  missing 
information 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 15 000 p.e. - Article 3 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

630 

30 

359 

241 

100.0 

55 142 105 

100.0 

4.8 

57.0 

38.3 

2 802 676 

32 244 037 

20 095 392 

5.1 

58.5 

36.4 

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

Since Italy did not provide any updated information on the waste water treatment situation in 
big  cities  of  more  than  150  000  p.e.  at  31  January 2002,  the  Commission  used  the  relevant 
information of previous years and assumed that no further significant changes took place by 
2002.  It  seemed  that  Italy  had  also  included  agglomerations  in  the  sense  of  the  Directive 
amongst its large cities.  

On this basis, the situation regarding waste water treatment of 92 cities can be presented as 
follows: 

•  Seven cities were situated in a sensitive area and should provide more stringent treatment: 
Cagliari,  Como,  Venezia,  Rimini,  Rimini-S.Giustina,  Ravenna  and  Rosolina-Donada-
Contarina.  According  to  the  available  information  only  Como,  Ravenna,  Rimini  and 
Rimini-S.Giustina provided complete more stringent treatment. Venezia had nitrogen and 
phosphorus  removal  for  a  part  of  its  population  only,  and  Cagliari59  provided  secondary 
treatment alone. The situation of Rosolina-Donada-Contarina was unclear60. 

•  48 cities were situated in potentially sensitive areas, and should therefore, according in the 
Commission’s  opinion,  provide  more  stringent  treatment.  However,  only  the  cities 
Bergamo,  Bolzano,  Brescia,  Parma,  Peschiera,  Pescia,  San  Miniato  and  Verona  were 
equipped  with  more  stringent  treatment.  Caronno  Pertusella,  Ranica  and  Santa  Corce 
Sull'Arno also had more stringent treatment already by 1998, but were no longer reported 
by Italy after that time. 

The situation for the remaining cities in potentially sensitive areas was as follows: 

•  Milano (2 545 000 p.e.) still did not have any treatment of its waste water. In this 
context  the  European  Court  of  Justice  condemned  Italy  on  26  April  2002.  The 
Italian  authorities  announced  that  three  waste  water  treatment  plants  are  under 
construction which will be finished at the latest by the end of 2004. 

59 

60 

The city Cagliari was reported to be equipped with secondary treatment already in 1998, but no longer 
mentioned in later information. 
According  to  the  second  Commission  report  the  population  equivalent  of  the  city  Rosolina-Donada-
Contarina was 400 000, according to the monitoring data of 1999, the city had only 27 000 p.e. 

72 

 
 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
•  29 cities had secondary treatment or partial more stringent treatment.61 

•  Four  cities  had  primary  treatment  or  partial  secondary  treatment:  Trieste,  Busto 

Arsizio, Rho and Firenze. 

•  For  three  cities  the  situation  was  unclear:  Carpi  Correggio,  Fuceccio  and 

Tolomezzo62. 

•  37 cities with a population equivalent of more than 150 000 were located in “normal areas” 

and should therefore be equipped with at least secondary treatment. 

•  17  cities  were  complying  with  this  requirement:  Livorno  and  Palermo  had  even 
more  stringent  treatment,  Porto  Torres,  San  Benedetto  del  Tronto,  Pescara, 
Caserta,  Melito  di  Napoli,  Orta  di  Atella,  Scalea,  Catanzaro,  Reggio  di  Calabria 
and  Sassari  provided  secondary  treatment.  According  to  previous  information, 
also  Acerra,  Area  Casertana,  Area  Nolana,  Foce  Regi  lagni  and  Frosinone 
provided  secondary  treatment,  but  were  no  longer  included  in  more  recent 
information. 

•  Eleven  cities  in  “normal  areas”  had  primary  treatment  or  partial  secondary 
treatment  only:  Genova,  Massa,  Lucca,  Rome,  Latina,  Taranto,  Maglie,  Rende, 
Lamezia Terme, Messina, Catania63 

•  Four further cities also were not equipped with complete secondary treatment, for 
which the provided treatment level, if any, was not evident: L’Aquila (secondary 
treatment  not  before  2004),  Foggia  (secondary  treatment  not  before  2003),  Bari 
(secondary treatment not before 2003) and Lecce (secondary treatment not before 
2003).  

•  Napoli’s situation was unclear.64  

•  Foce  Sarno,  Imperia  Foce  Imperia,  Medio  Sarno  and  Misterbianco  still  do  not 

have any waste water treatment. 

61 

62 

63 

64 

Merano, Trento, Udine, Cervignano del Friuli, Cartigliano, Chiampo, Lignano, Montebello Vicentino, 
Padova, Monza, Cinisello, Varese, Magenta, Pavia, Torino, Reggio Emilia, Modena, Ferrara, Bologna, 
Lugo,  Pescia,  Prato  and  Andria.  For  the  second  Commission  report  also  Bassa  Friulana,  Capannori 
Porcari, Milano Niguarda, Milano/Peschiera/Borromeo, Pero-Milano, Robecco and San Colombano al 
lambro were said to be equipped with secondary treatment by 1998, but were no longer reported after 
that time. 
For the second Commission report, Carpi Correggio and Fuceccio were reported to be already equipped 
with more stringent treatment by 1998, but in later information the treatment level was not confirmed 
and the reported load was significantly smaller. Tolmezzo will be equipped with secondary treatment 
but not before 2004, and the current waste water treatment, if any, was not indicated. 
According  to  previous  information,  Catania  had  1 000 000 p.e.  and  secondary  treatment  by  1998, 
according  to  recent  information  (2000)  it  had  350 000 p.e.  and  was  only  partly  complying  with 
secondary treatment. 
Due  to  previous  information,  Napoi  had  4 488 068 p.e  and  secondary  treatment,  according  to  more 
recent information (2000) the load was 800 000 p.e. and secondary treatment not completed by 2000. 

73 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
The Italian authorities did not clarify the above-mentioned discrepancies in their data before 
the finalization of the report. 

11.8.6.  Industrial waste water (Article 13) 

In Italy, all 151 industrial plants falling under Article 13 of the Directive representing a total 
organic load of 19 497 700 p.e. complied already before 31 December 2000. 

Table 11-47: Industrial waste water with respect to Article 13 of the Directive 

Italy - Industrial sector 

Milk-processing 

Manufacture of fruit and vegetable 
products 

Potato-processing 

Meat industry 

Breweries 

Production 
alcoholic beverages 

of 

alcohol 

and 

Manufacture  of  animal  feed  from 
plant products 

Manufacture  of  gelatine  and  of 
glue from hides, skin and bones 

Malt-houses 

Fish-processing industry 

Total organic load 
of industrial waste 
water from plants 
with respect to 
Article 13 [p.e.] 

Number of 
plants 

Total organic load 
respecting conditions 
under Article 13 
[p.e.] at 31 December 
2000 

% 

Date of full 
compliance 

4 970 749

11 135 099

326 667

1 155 636

92 925

1 671 667

97 107

23 718

12 000

12 003

39

58

1

26

2

15

4

2

1

3

4 970 749 

100 

11 135 099 

100 

326 667 

100 

1 155 636 

100 

92 925 

100 

1 671 667 

100 

97 107 

100 

23 718 

100 

12 000 

100 

12 003 

100 

Before 
31/12/2000 

Before 
31/12/2000 

Before 
31/12/2000 

Before 
31/12/2000 

Before 
31/12/2000 

Before 
31/12/2000 

Before 
31/12/2000 

Before 
31/12/2000 

Before 
31/12/2000 

Before 
31/12/2000 

Total 

19 497 571

151

19 497 571 

100 

11.8.7.  Sewage Sludge 

The  available  information  on  sewage  sludge  was  incomplete  (source  situation  report 
according to Article 16 of the Directive).  

74 

 
 
  
 
  
11.9.  Luxembourg 

11.9.1.  Identification of sensitive areas 

Luxembourg  has  decided  to  implement  more  stringent  treatment  over  all  its  territory 
according  to  Article  5(8)  of  the  Directive.  It  is  therefore  not  required  to  identify  sensitive 
areas. Luxembourg applies this option for the elimination of nitrogen and phosphorus.  

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

11.9.2.1. Treatment level 

Luxembourg has decided to apply the option of Article 5(4) of the Directive and consider the 
percentage  reduction  in  the  overall  load  entering  its  treatment  plants.  The  percentage  of 
reduction in the overall load entering all the country’s treatment plants has therefore to be at 
least 75% for phosphorus and at least 75% for nitrogen. However, until Article 5(4) is fully 
implemented,  Luxembourg  verifies  the  conformity  for  each  agglomeration/treatment  plant 
separately.  

Luxembourg has eleven agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000. In 
1998,  when  the  deadline  of  the  Directive  for  sensitive  areas  expired,  only  three  of  these 
agglomerations were in conformity. This situation has not yet changed.  

In 2002, still eight of the eleven agglomerations were not in conformity with the provisions of 
the Directive because of missing treatment steps in terms of tertiary treatment:  

Bettembourg,  Diekirch,  Luxembourg-Beggen,  Luxembourg-Bonnevoie  and  Schifflange 
provided  secondary  treatment  followed  by  phosphorus  removal,  Differdange,  Echternach, 
Mersch provided secondary only. These agglomerations represent 86.5% of the waste water 
load of Luxembourg’s agglomerations. 

Luxembourg  has  announced  its  intention  to  achieve  conformity  for  these  agglomerations  at 
the latest by 2005. 

Table 11-48: Treatment level of agglomerations >10 000 p.e. 

Luxembourg 

01/01/2002 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

but missing treatment steps 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Treatment level in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. – Article 5 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

11 

100.0 

804 500 

100.0 

8 

5 

0 

8 

3 

72.7 

45.4 

0.0 

72.7 

27.3 

708 500 

600 000 

0 

696 000 

108 500 

88.1 

74.6 

0.0 

86.5 

13.5 

75 

 
 
  
 
11.9.2.2. Treatment performance (monitoring results) 

The  required  minimum  reduction  of  75  %  for  both  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  has  not  been 
achieved  in  recent  years.  The  monitoring  data  of  1999  showed  that  the  percentage  of 
phosphorus reduction was 74 %, but the nitrogen reduction reached only 30 %. 

11.9.3.  Collecting systems 

The  collecting  system  of  each  of  the  11  agglomerations  with  more  than  10 000 p.e.  was  in 
conformity with Article 3 of the Directive by 1998. 

Table 11-49: Collecting systems in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. 

Luxembourg 

01/01/2002 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. - Article 3 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

11 

0 

11 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

804 500 

100.0 

0 

0.0 

804 500 

100.0 

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

The  only  city  of  the  Grand  Duchy  of  Luxembourg,  which  exceeds  150 000  p.e.,  is 
Luxembourg  (360 000 p.e.).  Its  two  waste  water  treatment  plants  provide  phosphorus 
elimination only. The required nitrogen elimination is planned for 2005. 

11.9.5.  Industrial waste water (Article 13) 

Luxembourg does not have any industrial waste water discharges, which fall under Article 13 
of the Directive. 

11.9.6.  Sewage Sludge 

In 1999 the quantity of sewage sludge produced in Denmark was 6 800 t DS. 83.8 % of it was 
reused in agriculture, 4.6 % was deposited on landfills and 11.6 % was reused or disposed of 
in other ways. 

Table 11-50: Re-use and disposal of sludge produced in waste water treatment plants 

Luxembourg - Sewage Sludge (1999) 

Tons DS 

Sludge total production 

Agriculture 

Landfill 

Other 

6 800 

5 698 

313 

789 

% 

100 

83.8 

4.6 

11.6 

76 

 
 
  
 
11.10.  The Netherlands 

11.10.1. Identification of sensitive areas 

The Netherlands decided to implement more stringent treatment (elimination of nitrogen and 
phosphorus) over all its territory according to Article 5(8) of the Directive. The Netherlands is 
therefore not required to identify sensitive areas for the purposes of the Directive. 

11.10.2. Agglomerations 

11.10.2.1. 

Treatment level  

The Netherlands decided to apply Article 5(4) of the Directive, consequently, the requirement 
of  the  Directive  that  each  treatment  plant  of  more  than  10 000  p.e.  has  to  provide  more 
advanced treatment does not apply to the Netherlands. However, the Dutch authorities must 
show that the minimum percentage of reduction in the overall load entering all the country’s 
waste water treatment plants is at least 75 % for total phosphorus and at least 75 % for total 
nitrogen (see chapter 11.10.2.2). 

The required 75 % reduction of phosphorus was already achieved in 1998. The Netherlands 
reported  that  even  77.4  %  reduction  of  P  was  achieved  in  1999,  and  78.6  %  in  2000.  The 
required  rate  of  nitrogen  reduction,  however,  has  not  yet  been  reached.  In  1999,  63.6  % 
nitrogen reduction was achieved and in 2000, 65.8 %.  

The Dutch authorities stated that seven water authorities, operating 61 waste water treatment 
plants,  reached  an  elimination  rate  of  nitrogen  of  at  least  75  %.  The  nominal  load  of  these 
water  authorities  represented  17  %  of  the  total  nominal  load.  In  addition,  116  urban  waste 
water  treatment  plants  representing  36  %  of  the  total  nominal  load  of  the  reported 
agglomerations, reached the required elimination target of 75 % nitrogen reduction.  

In the course of its evaluation the Commission found that, according to the data provided the 
organic design capacity of at least 26 agglomerations seemed to be too small for a sufficient 
waste  water  treatment.  This  included  the  agglomerations  of  Woerden  (nominal  load 
72 000 p.e.,  organic  design  capacity  56 970 p.e.)  and  Noordoostpolder  (nominal  load 
72 000 p.e., organic design capacity 57 600 p.e.), which were said by the Dutch authorities to 
be upgraded including their collecting systems. 

11.10.2.2. 

Treatment performance (monitoring results) 

To  show  compliance  with  Article  5.4  of  the  Directive,  the  Dutch  authorities  provided 
monitoring  information  of  1999  on  394  agglomerations  with  a  total  nominal  load  of 
15 906 991  p.e.  According  to  this  information  all  agglomerations  achieved  a  percentage  of 
phosphorus reduction of at least 75 % (77.4 % of the total nominal load). The percentage of 
nitrogen reduction was 63.6 % at that time. 

However,  for  the  Commission  it  was  not  evident,  whether  the  total  nominal  load  of 
15 906 991 p.e. represented the load of the entire country, in particular, as the total nominal 
load of agglomerations published in the second Commission  report, which  had received the 
Dutch  authorities’  approval,  was  17 218 000 p.e.  In  2003,  the  Netherlands  stated  that  the 

77 

 
 
  
 
previous  information  was  not  correct,  as  it  included  the  load  of  industrial  waste  water 
discharged directly into surface waters.  

11.10.3. Collecting systems 

All  Dutch  agglomerations  with  a  total  nominal  load  of  more  than  10 000 p.e.  were  already 
equipped with a complying collecting system by 31 December 1998. This included also those 
five agglomerations which were reported in 1999 for the first time (see section 11.10.2.1). 

Table 11-51: Collecting systems 

The Netherlands 

01/01/2002 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. - Article 3 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

256 

100.0 

15 265 763 

100.0 

0 

0.0 

0 

0.0 

256 

100.0 

15 265 763 

100.0 

The  Dutch  authorities  stated  that  in  2000  only  1.8  %  of  all  households  in  the  Netherlands 
were  not  served  by  a  collecting  system.  All  existing  collecting  systems  were  connected  to 
treatment plants providing at least secondary treatment. 

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

The  Netherlands  has  21  cities  with  a  population  equivalent  of  more  than  150 000.  Only  the 
city of Haarlem provided both, nitrogen and phosphorus removal. One of the two urban waste 
water treatment plants65 serving the city of Arnhem and two of the five plants66 serving the 
city  of  Rotterdam  provided  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  removal  as  well.  The  remaining  cities 
were equipped with secondary treatment followed by phosphorus removal. 

11.10.5. Industrial waste water (Article 13) 

17 Dutch industrial plants, representing a total organic load of 2 096 400 p.e. were affected by 
Article 13.  100  %  of  the  total  organic  load  respected  the  provisions  of  Article  13  already 
before 31 December 2000. 

65 

66 

Arnhem:  Nieuwgraaf:  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  removal,  organic  design  capacity  270 000 p.e. 
(representing 71% of the total organic design capacity). 
Cap ad Ijssel-Groenedijk: nitrogen and phosphorus removal, organic design capacity 63 000 p.e.; Cap 
ad  Ijssel-Kralingsveer:  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  removal,  organic  design  capacity  324 000 p.e.  (both 
representing in sum 41% of the total organic design capacity)  

78 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
Table 11-52: Industrial waste water with respect to Article 13 of the Directive 

The  Netherlands  –  Industrial 
sector  

Total organic load of 
industrial waste water 
plants from plants 
with respect to Article 
13 [p.e.] 

Number of 
plants 

Total organic load 
respecting 
conditions under 
Article 13 at 31 
December 2000 
[p.e.] 

% 

Date of full 
compliance 

Milk-processing 

Manufacture  of  fruit  and  vegetable 
products 

47 500 

126 000 

1 

2 

47 500 

100 

31/12/1985

126 000 

100 

31/12/1980

Potato-processing 

Meat industry 

Breweries 

Manufacture of gelatine and of glue 
from hides, skin and bones 

1 380 000 

10 

1 380 000 

100 

31/12/1991

45 000 

450 000 

47 900 

1 

2 

1 

45 000 

100 

31/12/1978

450 000 

100 

31/12/1980

47 900 

100 

31/12/1978

Total 

2 096 400 

17 

2 096 400 

100 

11.10.6. Sewage Sludge 

In 2000 the quantity of produced sewage sludge was 336 000 t DS. No sludge was reused in 
agriculture,  19 %  was  deposited  on  landfills,  58 %  incinerated  and  23 %  was  reused  or 
disposed of in other ways.  

Table 11-53: Re-use and disposal of sludge produced waste water treatment plants 

The Netherlands – Sewage Sludge (2000) 

Tons DS 

[%] 

Sludge total production 

336 000 

100 

Agriculture 

Landfill 

Incineration 

Other reuse 

11.11.  Austria 

0 

64 000 

195 000 

77 000 

0 

19 

58 

23 

11.11.1. Identification of sensitive areas 

In 1996 Austria found that no water body in its territory corresponded to the criteria for the 
identification of sensitive areas of the Directive. This position was confirmed in its review of 
sensitive  areas  in  1998.  Due  to  the  Commission’s  verification  study  of  1999,  however,  two 
rivers should have been identified as sensitive due to the risk of eutrophication. The Austrian 
authorities  showed  that  in  those  areas  all  measures  concerning  waste  water  treatment,  even 
beyond the requirements  of  the  Directive, had already been undertaken. At the end  of 2002 
Austria  decided  to  apply  Article  5.8  of  the  Directive  and  to  implement  officially  more 
stringent  treatment  over  its  entire  territory.  It  is  therefore  not  required  to  identify  sensitive 
areas for the purpose of the Directive. 

79 

 
 
  
 
  
11.11.2. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

11.11.2.1. 

Treatment level 

Even  though  Austria  did  not  designate  sensitive  areas,  the  Austrian  authorities  reported  on 
account of Article 5.5 of the Directive on waste water treatment in the catchment areas of the 
River Rhine, River Elbe and the Bavarian lakes designated as sensitive areas by Germany. 

In  Austria  a  total  of  25  agglomerations  with  a  population  equivalent  of  more  than  10 000 
discharged into sensitive areas or into the catchment areas of the above-mentioned sensitive 
areas. 13 of these agglomerations discharged into the catchment area of the River Rhine (via 
Lake  Constance),  one  agglomeration  discharged  into  the  Elbe  catchment,  and  eleven  into 
tributaries  of  the  sensitive  areas  of  the  Bavarian  Lakes.  These  25  agglomerations  shall  be 
subject to more stringent treatment according to Article 5(5) of the Directive.  

By 1 January 2002, each of these agglomerations was equipped with more stringent treatment 
(elimination of both nitrogen and phosphorus). Hence, all agglomerations were in compliance 
with the provisions of the Directive. 

Table 11-54: Treatment level of agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas or their 
catchments identified by other Member States 

Austria 

01/01/2002 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

but missing treatment steps 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Treatment level in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. – Article 5 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

25 

25 

0 

0 

0 

25 

100.0 

100.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1 851 885 

1 851 885 

0 

0 

0 

100.0 

100.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

100.0 

1 851 885 

100.0 

11.11.2.2. 

Treatment performance (monitoring results) 

The Austrian authorities provided monitoring data on the above mentioned 25 agglomerations 
for the year 2000. According to the Commission’s opinion, at least the elimination of nitrogen 
is  required  for  waste  water  discharges  into  the  catchment  area  of  the  North  Sea.  For  waste 
water discharges into the Bavarian lakes, at least the elimination of phosphorus is foreseen.  

Due to insufficient treatment performance in the year 2000, five agglomerations were not in 
conformity  with  the  above  described  treatment  requirements.  They  represent  20.7 %  of  the 
total  load  of  the  concerned  agglomerations.  Concerning  these  five  agglomerations,  the 
Austrian authorities made the following comments: 

•  Going  (phosphorus  removal  required)  was  not  in  conformity  in  2000  due  to  technical 
problems in the first half of that year. This problem has already been solved. In the year 
2001 the elimination rate of phosphorus was 86 % (0.78 mg/l). 

•  Hohenems (nitrogen removal required): Due to old technologies it was not possible to meet 
the requirements of the Directive. The plant is being upgraded with newer technologies. 

80 

 
 
  
 
 
•  Bregenz  (nitrogen  removal  required)  did  not  provide  denitrification  facilities  by  the  year 

2000. At present denitrification facilities are being built. 

•  Montafon  (nitrogen  removal  required)  provided  nitrogen  removal  facilities  since  2000. 
During  the  flood  events  of  August  2000  the  plant  was  damaged.  Therefore,  the 
requirements of the Directive could not be fulfilled. 

•  Walgau  (nitrogen  removal  required)  was  subject  to  an  optimisation  process  in  the  year 

2000. Therefore, the requirements of the Directive were not fulfilled in that year. 

Table 11-55: Treatment performance in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 
or their catchments identified by other Member States 

Austria 

31/12/2000 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Monitoring in compliance (Member State) 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Monitoring in compliance (EC) 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Treatment performance in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e.  

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

25 

25 

0 

20 

0 

20 

0 

5 

20 

100.0 

100.0 

0.0 

80.0 

0.0 

80.0 

0.0 

20.0 

80.0 

1 871 885 

1 871 885 

0 

1 483 665 

0 

1 483 665 

0 

388 220 

1 483 665 

100.0 

100.0 

0.0 

79.3 

0.0 

79.3 

0.0 

20.7 

79.3 

11.11.3. Treatment  in  agglomerations  discharging  into  “normal  areas”  –  situation  at 

31 December 2000 

In Austria 181 agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15 000 discharged 
into  “normal  areas”.  All  those  agglomerations  were  provided  with  at  least  secondary 
treatment, and therefore in conformity with Article 4 of the Directive. 

Table 11-56: Treatment level in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” 

Austria 

31/12/2000 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 15 000 p.e. – Article 4 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.]

% 

181 

0 

181 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

15 189 287 

100.0 

0 

0.0 

15 189 287 

100.0 

81 

 
 
  
 
 
11.11.4. Collecting systems 

11.11.4.1. 

Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas or their 

catchments identified by other Member States 

Each Austrian agglomeration, with more than 10 000 p.e. discharging into a sensitive area or 
its  catchment  of  an  other  Member  State,  was already  equipped  with  a  complying  collecting 
system by 31 December 1998. 

Table  11-57:  Collecting  systems  in  agglomerations  discharging  into  sensitive  areas  or 
their catchments identified by other Member States 

Austria 

01/01/2002 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. – Article 3 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.]

% 

25 

0 

25 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

1 851 885 

100.0 

0 

0.0 

1 851 885 

100.0 

11.11.4.2. 

Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” 

Each  Austrian  agglomeration  with  a  population equivalent  of  more  than  15 000  discharging 
into a “normal area” was provided with a complying collecting system by 31 December 2000, 
and therefore in conformity with Article 3 of the Directive. 

Table 11-58: Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” 

Austria 

31/12/2000 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 15 000 p.e. – Article 3 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.]

% 

181 

0 

181 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

15 189 287 

100.0 

0 

0.0 

15 189 287 

100.0 

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

Austria  reported  information  on  21  “cities”  with  a  population  equivalent  of  more  than 
150 000. However, due to Austria’s recent comments in 2003, actually only three cities with 
more  than  150 000 p.e.  exist67  (evaluations  of  the  Austrian  Central  Statistical  Office).  The 
Austrian authorities mentioned that the above 21 “cities” were in fact agglomerations, which 
in certain cases treated to a large extent industrial waste water and less so urban waste water. 
Some of these agglomerations served several municipalities and were therefore considered as 
one  single  agglomeration/city.  In  the  context  of  this  report  the  term  “city”  includes  all  the 
above mentioned cases. 

67 

Wien, Graz and Linz 

82 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
The situation in Austrian agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 150 000 
was as follows: 

•  Three cities (Hard/Hofsteig, Dornbirn and Feldkirch) were situated in the catchment of the 
sensitive area of the North Sea. In January 2002 these three agglomerations provided more 
stringent treatment of nitrogen and phosphorus. 

•  17 out of the remaining 18 cities discharging into a ‘normal area’ were also equipped with 
more stringent treatment removing nitrogen and/or phosphorus). Only Graz was equipped 
with  secondary  treatment,  only.  However,  more  stringent  treatment  is  planned  to  be 
operational by the year 2004. 

11.11.6. Industrial waste water (Article 13) 

Austria  reported  18  industrial  plants  falling  under  Article  13  of  the  Directive.  The  total 
organic  load  of  these  plants  was  1 788 900  p.e.  All  plants  were  in  compliance  with  the 
Directive before 2000. 

Table 11-59: Industrial waste water with respect to Article 13 of the Directive 

Total organic load of 
industrial waste water 
from plants with 
respect to Article 13 
[p.e.] 

Number of 
plants 

Total organic load 
respecting 
conditions under 
Article 13 at 31 
December 2000 
[p.e.] 

26 900 

110 000 

150 000 

1 446 600 

51 300 

4 100 

3 

1 

1 

5 

7 

1 

26 900 

110 000 

150 000 

1 446 600 

51 300 

4 100 

1 788 900 

18 

1 788 900 

% 

Date of full 
compliance 

before 
31/12/2000 
Before 
31/12/2000 
Before 
31/12/2000 
Before 
31/12/2000 
Before 
31/12/2000 
before 
31/12/2000 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

Austria – Industrial sector  

Milk-processing 

Manufacture  of  fruit  and  vegetable
products 
Manufacture  and  bottling  of  soft
drinks 

Potato-processing 

Meat industry 

Fish-processing industry 

Total 

11.11.7. Sewage Sludge 

In the year 2000 the quantity of produced sewage sludge in Austria was 314 806 t DS. 12 % 
of it was re-used in agriculture, 13 % was deposited in landfills, 48 % incinerated and 27 % 
was re-used or disposed of in other ways. 

Table 11-60: Re-use and disposal of sludge produced in waste water treatment plants 

Austria – Sewage Sludge (2001) 
Sludge total production 
Agriculture 
Landfill 
Incineration 
Other 

Tons DS 

% 

314 806 
37 315 
40 831 
151 044 
85 616 

100 
12 
13 
48 
27 

83 

 
 
  
 
  
 
11.12.  Portugal 

11.12.1. Identification of sensitive areas 

In June 1997, Portugal officially identified 41 water bodies as sensitive. The criteria applied 
were the combat of eutrophication and the need for the reduction of microbiological pollution 
for  the  protection  of  bathing  waters  as  well  as  the  protection  of  waters  for  human 
consumption. 

The Commission’s verification study on the identification of the sensitive areas carried out in 
1999-2000  indicated  that  four  additional  water  bodies  should  have  been  identified  as 
sensitive. Portugal  contests the  result  of the Commission’s study  and has presented detailed 
scientific  studies,  which  are  currently  under  evaluation  by  the  Commission.  At  present  the 
Commission  still  believes  that  these  areas  should  have  been  identified  as  sensitive.  In 
addition, Portugal has announced its intention to identify further sensitive areas, but so far the 
Commission has not received the official Portuguese notification. 

11.12.2. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

11.12.2.1. 

Treatment level 

At  1  January  2002,  Portugal  had  27  agglomerations  with  more  than  10 000 p.e.  discharging 
into sensitive areas. 

Only  6  of  the  reported  agglomerations  were  provided  with  the  required  more  stringent 
treatment  level  (secondary  treatment  followed  by  nitrogen  elimination  and/or  phosphorus 
elimination and/or microbiological treatment). Due to insufficient waste water treatment, 21 
agglomerations  were  not  in  conformity.  In  addition,  Faro’s  treatment  plants  seemed  to  be 
heavily  overloaded.  The  total  design  capacity  was  99 000 p.e.,  but  the  nominal  load  of  the 
agglomerations 155 000 p.e. Therefore the agglomerations of Faro were not considered as in 
conformity.  The  Portuguese  authorities  reported  that  the  treatment  plant  Faro-Noroeste  was 
going  to  be  enlarged.  In  total,  22  agglomerations  representing  89.2 %  of  the  total  nominal 
load, were not in conformity. 

Out of those non-complying agglomerations, the following did not yet have any waste water 
treatment at January 2002: Curia e Tamengos (20 000 p.e.), S. Pedro do Sul/Vouzela (15 000 
p.e.),  Bacia  da  Rib.  de  Caster  (18 000  p.e.),  Bacia  da  Rib.  de  Lage  (17 000  p.e.), 
Barreiro/Moita/Palhais (239 000 p.e.), Moita (48 100 p.e.), Seixal (80 000 p.e.) and Lamego 
(15 000 p.e.). 

Table 11-61: Treatment level of agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

Portugal 

01/01/2002 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

but missing treatment steps 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Treatment level in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. – Article 5 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

27 

6 

0 

1 

22 

5 

100.0 

22.2 

0.0 

3.7 

81.5 

18.5 

1 372 700 

100.0 

303 500 

0 

155 000 

1 224 200 

148 500 

22.1 

0.0 

11.3 

89.2 

10.8 

84 

 
 
  
 
11.12.2.2. 

Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas 

Only  three  of  the  27  affected  agglomerations  were  completely  in  conformity  with  the 
provisions of the Directive68. The 24 agglomerations which had had no complying treatment 
performance (or no treatment of their waste water at all) represented 96.1 % of the load of the 
concerned agglomerations. 

Table 11-62: Treatment performance in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

Portugal 

31/12/1999 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Monitoring in compliance (MS)* 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Monitoring in compliance (EC)* 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Treatment performance in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e.  

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

27 

100.0 

1 345 784 

100.0 

7 

1 

3 

0 

3 

0 

24 

3 

- 

25.9 

3.7 

11.1 

11.1 

- 

88.9 

11.1 

293 000 

155 000 

53 000 

0 

- 

53 000 

0 

1 292 784 

53 000 

21.8 

11.5 

3.9 

3.9 

- 

96.1 

3.9 

*Some of the treatment plants did not provide the required microbiological treatment and were therefore considered to have 
no "more stringent treatment". The monitoring data for BOD5 and COD of the plants were in conformity with the provisions
of the Directive. 

11.12.3. Waste  water  treatment  in  agglomerations  discharging  into  “normal  areas”  - 

situation at 31 December 2000 

As  at  31  December  2000,  94  agglomerations  with  a  population  equivalent  of  more  than 
15 000 discharged their effluents into “normal areas”, including less sensitive areas. Only 45 
were  provided  with  at  least  secondary  treatment.  62.8 %  of  the  total  nominal  load  of  the 
concerned agglomerations was not in conformity with Article 4 of the Directive. 

Table 11-63: Treatment level in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” 

Portugal 

31/12/2000 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 15 000 p.e. - Article 4 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

94 

49 

45 

100.0 

52.1 

47.9 

8 455 900 

5 306 700 

3 149 200 

100.0 

62.8 

37.2 

68 

Olhão Nascente, Quinta do Lago and Amarante 

85 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
11.12.4. Collecting systems 

11.12.4.1. 

Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

Based on the available data, five agglomerations still did not provide a complying collecting 
system  and,  therefore,  were  evaluated  as  being  not  in  compliance  with  Article  3  of  the 
Directive.  The  five  agglomerations  were:  Fuzeta  (no  information  available),  Feira-Bacia  da 
Rib.  de  Caster,  Feira-Bacia  da  Rib.  de  Lage,  Quinta  do  Conde  and  Armação  de 
Pera/Albufeira. 

Table 11-64: Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

Portugal 

01/01/2002 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. - Article 3 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

27 

5 

22 

100.0 

18.5 

81.5 

1 372 700 

100.0 

249 800 

1 122 900 

18.2 

81.8 

11.12.4.2. 

Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” 

At  31  December  2000,  25  of  the  94  agglomerations  with  more  than  15 000 p.e.  in  “normal 
areas”  were  not  in  conformity  with  Article  3  of  the  Directive.  The  list  of  agglomerations 
without a complying collecting system included large agglomerations such as Cova da Beira 
(160 000 p.e.) or Costa de Aveiro (315 000 p.e.). 

Table 11-65: Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” 

Portugal 

31/12/2000 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 15 000 p.e. - Article 3 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.]

% 

94 

25 

69 

100.0 

26.6 

73.4 

8 455 900 

100.0 

1 799 600 

6 656 300 

21.3 

78.7 

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

Portugal has 13 cities with a population equivalent of more than 150 000. On 1 January 2002, 
the waste water treatment situation in the 13 cities was as follows: 

•  Three cities were situated in sensitive areas:  

•  Faro,  which  provided  more  stringent  treatment  (microbiological  treatment). 
Aveiro  (315 000 p.e.)  had  primary  treatment  only69  and  Barreiro  (239 800 p.e.) 
had no treatment at all. 

69 

Portugal is of the opinion that Aveiro is to be considered as a city discharging into a less sensitive area 
(Atlantic coast). 

86 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
•  The  cities  Loures,  Cova  da  Beira  (Covilhã/Fundão)  and  Alcanena  discharged  into 
potentially sensitive areas, which means that they should, according to the Commission’s 
opinion,  be  provided  with  more  stringent  treatment  (secondary  treatment  followed  by 
nitrogen and/or phosphorus removal and/or any other treatment) as well: 

•  From  those  cities  only  Alcanena  was  equipped  with  full  and  more  stringent 
treatment, Loures had more stringent treatment for parts of its population only. 

•  Cova da Beira (160 000 p.e.) had no treatment at all. 

•  The remaining cities were situated in “normal areas” : 

•  However  some  of  them  were  also  equipped  with  tertiary  treatment.  Setúbal  and 
Vilamoura  (Quarteira).  Lisbon  and  Porto  were  partially  equipped  with  more 
stringent treatment. 

•  Two  cities/agglomerations  had  preliminary  or  primary  treatment  only:  Costa  do 
Estoril (720 000 p.e.) and Matosinhos (287 000 p.e.). For the Estoril coast, which 
is situated in a less sensitive area, a derogation was granted by the Commission in 
2001. For Matosinhos no derogation exists. 

•  Vila Nova de Gaia (200 000 p.e.) did not have any waste water treatment. 

11.12.6. Less sensitive areas 

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

In 2001, Portugal was granted a derogation according to Article 8(5) of the Directive for the 
agglomeration  of  Costa  do  Estoril  (720 000 p.e.)  near  Lisbon.  This  derogation  allows  less 
stringent  waste  water  treatment  than  biological  treatment  due  to  the  specific  hydrodynamic 
conditions of that coastal area and foresees a re-evaluation of the situation by the Commission 
in 200670. The agglomeration Costa de Estoril does not yet fulfil the provisions set out in the 
Commission Decision on the derogation. 

Concerning the other Portuguese coastal waters, Portugal announced it would revoke its less 
sensitive  areas,  except  those  of  the  Azores  and  Madeira.  However,  it  has  not  yet  done  so 
officially.  

The Commission does not agree to the current Portuguese identification of less sensitive as it 
believes that some of the areas do not fulfil the criteria set out in the Directive in view of the 
risk of the contamination of a large number of bathing waters and also shellfish waters. The 
Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  all  Portuguese  agglomerations  of  more  than  15 000 p.e., 
apart from the Estoril Coast, should have been provided with at least secondary treatment by 
31 December 2000, including those which discharge into the less sensitive areas identified by 

70 

Commission  Decision  of  8  October  2001  granting  Portugal  a  derogation  regarding  waste  water 
treatment for the agglomeration of the Estoril coast (2001/720/EC). OJ L 269/14, 10.10.2001. 

87 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
the Portuguese authorities. 

11.12.7. Industrial waste water (Article 13) 

In  Portugal,  92  industrial  plants  with  a  total  organic  load  of  3  479  201  p.e.  are  affected  by 
Article  13  of  the  Directive.  94 %  of  the  total  organic  load  was  already  in  compliance.  Full 
conformity with Article 13 was announced to be achieved by 31 December 2005. 

Table 11-66: Industrial waste water with respect to Article 13 of the Directive 

Portugal - Industrial sector  

Milk-processing 

Manufacture of fruit and vegetable 
products 

Manufacture  and  bottling  of  soft 
drinks 

Potato-processing 

Meat industry 

Breweries 

Production 
alcoholic beverages 

of 

alcohol 

and 

Malt-houses 

Fish-processing industry 

Total 

11.12.8. Sewage Sludge 

Total organic load of 
industrial waste water 
from plants with 
respect to Article 13 
[p.e.] 

Number of 
plants 

Total organic load 
respecting conditions 
under Article 13 at 31 
December 2000 [p.e.] 

% 

Date of full 
compliance 

494 017 

928 072 

6 000 

32 460 

675 149 

1 180 637 

141 958 

12 500 

8 408 

26 

16 

1 

1 

33 

4 

9 

1 

1 

349 867 

923 295 

71 

99 

31/12/2005

31/12/2004

6 000 

100 

31/12/1995

32 460 

634 283 

1 180 637 

100 

94 

100 

31/12/1994

31/12/2003

01/09/1999

131 978 

93 

31/12/2003

12 500 

8 408 

01/09/1999

31/12/1994

100 

100 

94 

3 479 201 

92 

3 279 428 

In  2000,  Portugal’s  sewage  sludge  production  was  177 456 t dry  substance  (DS).  No 
information on the re-use or disposal of sludge was available. 

11.13.  Finland 

11.13.1. Identification of sensitive areas 

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

According  to  the  second  implementation  report  of  the  Commission,  the  Finnish  authorities 
foresee the elimination of phosphorus for all agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e., but not 
the  elimination  of  nitrogen.  However,  as  phosphorus  and  nitrogen  are  the  cause  of  the 
eutrophication  in  the  Baltic,  the  Commission  still  believes  that  tertiary  treatment  of  both 
phosphorus  and  nitrogen  would  be  essential  in  agglomerations  of  more  than  10 000 p.e. 
discharging  into  the  catchment  area  of  the  Baltic.  The  information  provided  by  the  Finnish 
authorities on this issue is currently under evaluation. 

88 

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

11.13.2.1. 

Treatment level 

By  2002  all  87  agglomerations  reported  by  Finland  were  provided  with  more  stringent 
treatment, however, in most cases only in terms of phosphorus removal. On the basis of the 
above  raised  requirement  of  phosphorus  and  nitrogen  removal  in  all  agglomerations  with 
more 
the  Baltic,  only  eleven 
agglomerations were considered to be in conformity with the provisions of the Directive.  

than  10 000 p.e.  discharging 

the  catchment  of 

into 

Furthermore,  the  organic  design  capacity  of  at  least  39  agglomerations71  seemed  to  be  too 
small for a sufficient waste water treatment. This also concerned some large agglomerations 
such as Pori Luotsinmäki (nominal load: 222 000 p.e., organic design capacity: 167 000 p.e.), 
Helsinki (nominal load: 1 131 000 p.e., organic design capacity: 738 000 p.e.), and Tampere - 
Viinikanlahsi (nominal load: 463 000 p.e., organic design capacity: 242 000 p.e.). 

In addition, the information on Finland’s agglomerations and treatment plants was not totally 
consistent  with  i  with  the  information  provided  to  the  Commission  in  response  to  previous 
data requests.72. 

Table 11-67: Treatment level of agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. 

Finland 

01/01/2002 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

but missing treatment steps 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Not in compliance* 

In compliance 

Treatment level in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. –  

Article 5 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

87 

87 

76 

39 

76 

7 

100.0 

100.0 

87.4 

44.8 

87.4 

8.0 

6 377 300 

6 377 300 

5 730 700 

4 183 100 

5 730 700 

429 600 

100.0 

100.0 

89.9 

65.6 

89.9 

6.7 

*  Including  incomplete  more  stringent  treatment and  insufficient treatment  capacity  of  plants,  taking  into account possible 
overlaps of both shortcomings (relevant for 35 cases) 

71 

72 

Äänekoski,  Alavus  -  kp,  Espoo,  Haapavesi,  Helsinki,  Jyväskylä,  Kaarina,  Karis  -  Pinjainen,  Kemi, 
Kemijärvi  -  Kp,  Kempele,  Kokkola,  Kotka  -  Sunila,  Kouvola,  Kuusamo,  Lahti,  Laihia,  Lapinlahti, 
Lempäälä, Lieksa, Mäntsälä, Oulu, Paimio, Pargas, Pieksämäi, Pori Luotsinmäki, Porvoo - Hermansö, 
Riihimäki, Rovaniemi, Sahalahti, Siilinjärvi, Suonenjoki, Tampere - Rahola, Tampere - Viinikanlahsi, 
Ulvila,  Uusikaupunki,  Valkeakoski,  Varkaus,  Ylistaro.  Due  to  recent  information  of  the  Finnish 
authorities of July and September 2003, the design capacities provided to the Commission based on old 
data and are not reliable.  
Before  the  finalisation  of  the  report,  the  Finnish  authorities  did  not  clarify  the  significant  changes  in 
agglomerations  between  the  years  1998  and  2002:  On  one  hand  a  number  of  agglomerations  (13), 
which were reported in 1998, were not longer reported in 2002; as the load of the agglomerations was 
partly  not  comparable,  it  did  not  seem  to  be  a  question  of  naming  only.  On  the  other  hand,  15 
agglomerations  were  reported  additionally.  In  the  comment  of  July  and  September  2003,  the  Finish 
authorities explained most discrepancies in their data, and stated that they arrived due to the change in 
the calculating the nominal load and due to variations in industrial loads. However, this comment was 
received several months too late in order to be taken into account for this evaluation.  

89 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
11.13.2.2. 

Treatment performance (monitoring results) 

Finland  provided  information  on  monitoring  results  of  1999  for  85  agglomerations.  This 
information  did  not  include  any  information  on  nitrogen  removal,  as  the  Finnish  authorities 
believe that nitrogen  removal is  not  required for their waste water  discharges. According to 
the  Commission’s  opinion  both  phosphorus  and  nitrogen  removal  is  relevant  for  the  waste 
water  effluents  of  agglomerations  of  more  than  10 000 p.e.  discharging  into  the  catchment 
area  of 
interpretation,  74 
agglomerations  did  not  meet  the  required  treatment  efficiency  (nitrogen  and/or  phosphorus 
removal), and were regarded as not complying with the Directive. 

the  Baltic.  Therefore,  according 

the  Commission’s 

to 

Also the data of 1999, showed a number of discrepancies compared with the data provided for 
200273. 

Table 11-68: Treatment performance in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. 

Finland  

31/12/1999 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

But insufficient treatment capacity 

Monitoring in compliance (MS) 

But insufficient treatment capacity 

Monitoring in compliance (EC) 

But insufficient treatment capacity 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Treatment performance in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

85 

84 

36 

71 

29 

11 

3 

74 

11 

100.0 

6 781 700 

100.0 

98.8 

42.4 

83.5 

34.1 

12.9 

3.5 

87.1 

12.9 

6 757 100 

4 613 150 

5 442 050 

3 842 000 

675 500 

343 800 

6 106 200 

675 500 

99.6 

68.0 

80.2 

56.7 

10.0 

5.1 

90.0 

10.0 

73 

The  data  sent  by  the  Finnish  authorities  for  the  year  1999  (monitoring  data)  and  2002  (updated 
information on treatment levels) showed e.g. the following discrepancies: 
The  load  of  a  high  number  of  other  agglomerations  was  reported  to  be  less  in  2002  than  in  1999. 
Altogether the total nominal load reported in 2002 was 404 400 p.e. less than in 1999 (see also point 
1.1.2.1).  
The following nine agglomerations reported for the year 1999 were missing in the 2002 data: Kristiina, 
Kyrö, Mariehamn, Parainen, Pieksämäi, Pietarsaari, Säkylä, Tam-misaari and Ylivieska. 
On the other hand the following 12 agglomerations on the list for the year 2002 were not reported for 
the  year  1999:  Alavus  kp,  Ekenäs  Skeppsholmen,  Hanko  I  ke-skuspuhdistamo,  Ilmajoki  kk,  Karis 
Pinjainen,  Kemijärvi  Kp,  Nurmijärvi  Klaukkala,  Ou-tokumpu  kp,  Paimio,  Pargas,  Pieksämäi  and 
Pietarsaari. 
2  agglomerations  were  merged  between  1999  and  2002:  In  November  2001  the  UWWTP  of  Porvoo 
(Kokonniemi)  was  closed.  Since  this  time  its  waste  water  has  been  treated  in  Porvoo  (Hermansö). 
However,  the  entire  load  of  Porvoo  Hermansö  is  significantly  less  than  the  sum  of  both  former 
agglomerations.  
In the comment of July 2003, the Finish authorities explained most of the discrepancies in their data, 
see above footnote. 

90 

 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
11.13.3. Collecting systems 

In 2002, 73 collecting systems were reported by the Finnish authorities to be in compliance. 
For  the  following  14  agglomerations  in  2002  no  information  was  available  whether  the 
collecting  system  was  in  conformity  with  the  Directive  or  not,  even  though  the  Finnish 
authorities  regarded  all  collecting  systems  of  all  reported  agglomerations  as  already  in 
conformity  in  1998:  Alavus,  Ekenäs  -  Skeppsholmen,  Haapavesi,  Hanko,  Ilmajoki,  Karis  - 
Pinjainen,  Kemijärvi,  Lempäälä,  Lieksa,  Mäntsälä,  Nurmijärvi  -  Klaukkala,  Outokumpu, 
Pargas and Toholampi. 

Table 11-69: Collecting systems in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. 

Finland 

01/01/2002 

Total 

No information 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. – Article 3 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

87 

14 

73 

100.0 

16.1 

83.9 

6 377 300 

100.0 

269 200 

4.2 

6 108 100 

95.8 

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

At  1  January  2002,  Finland  had  eight  cities  with  a  population  equivalent  of  more  than 
150 000.  Each  of  these  cities  was  provided  with  more  advanced  treatment  in  terms  of 
phosphorus  removal:  Espoo,  Helsinki,  Jyväskylä,  Lahti,  Pori,  Rovaniemi,  Tampere,  Turku. 
The  Commission  believes  nitrogen  treatment  is  still  missing  for  these  cities  as  they  are 
situated in the catchment area of the Baltic.  

In addition, in the opinion of the Commission, the urban waste water treatment plants of all 
the  cities,  with  the  exception  of  Turku  had  a  design  capacity  which  was  too  small  for  a 
sufficient treatment of all the urban waste water generated. 

11.13.5. Industrial waste water (Article 13) 

As  regards  industrial  discharges  falling  under  Article  13,  Finland  reported  eleven  industrial 
plants with a total load of 409 930 p.e. All eleven plants complied with the Directive before 
31 December 2000. 

Table 11-70: Industrial waste water with respect to Article 13 of the Directive 

Finland - Industrial sector 

Total organic 
load of industrial 
waste water from 
plants with 
respect to Article 
13 [p.e.] 

Number 
of plants

Total organic 
load respecting 
conditions under 
Article 13 at 31 
December 2000 
[p.e.] 

% 

Date of full 
compliance 

Milk-processing 

Manufacture of fruit and vegetable products 

Potato-processing 

Production  of 
beverages 

alcohol 

and 

alcoholic

Manufacture  of  animal  feed  from  plant
products 

11 230 

14 100 

265 500 

6 000 

113 100 

1 

2 

5 

1 

2 

11 230 

14 100 

100  before 31/12/2000

100  Before 31/12/2000

265 500 

100  Before 31/12/2000

6 000 

100  Before 31/12/2000

113 100 

100  Before 31/12/2000

Total 

409 930 

11 

409 930 

100 

91 

 
 
  
 
 
 
11.13.6. Sewage Sludge 

As  regards  Finland,  no  information  on  sewage  sludge  was  available  (source:  Article  16 
situation report). 

11.14.  Sweden 

11.14.1. Identification of sensitive areas 

In  1994,  Sweden  identified  all  of  its  waters  as  a  sensitive  area.  In  June,  1998  Sweden 
confirmed  its  designation  to  the  Commission,  indicating  that  the  criterion  applied  was 
eutrophication,  and  that  the  type  of  more  stringent  treatment  depended  on  the  water  bodies 
concerned.  Sweden  stated  that  tertiary  treatment  of  phosphorus  was  necessary  in  all  its 
agglomerations  of  more  than  10  000  p.e.  to  combat  eutrophication  and  the  risk  of 
eutrophication of freshwaters, estuaries and coastal waters. However, it believes that only the 
North  Sea  and  the  Baltic  from  the  Norwegian  boarder  to  the  municipality  of  Norrtälje, 
including  coastal  waters  of  the  island  of  Öland  and  around  the  island  of  Gottland  were 
sensitive to nitrogen. The Commission believes that tertiary treatment of both phosphorus and 
nitrogen is essential under the Directive in all agglomerations above 10 000 p.e. situated in the 
catchment  areas,  which  flow  into  the  Baltic.  In  addition,  the  Commission  believes  that 
discharges  of  agglomerations  in  the  south,  central  part,  also  contribute  to  the  pollution  of 
those  sensitive  areas  (more  details  see  second  Commission  report).  The  Commission  is 
actively  pursuing  this  concern  and  evaluating  the  information  which  Sweden  sent  on  this 
matter. 

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

11.14.2.1. 

Treatment level 

Sweden  has  134  agglomerations  with  a  population  equivalent  of  more  than  10 000.  As  the 
waste  water  of  several  agglomerations74  is  treated  in  two  or  more  waste  water  treatment 
plants, the number of plants (143) differs from the number of the agglomerations (134). 

All 134 agglomerations were provided with more stringent treatment of phosphorus; nitrogen 
elimination  was  only  provided  for  74  agglomerations.  For  many  agglomerations  and/or 
treatment plants different loads were reported for the years 1998 and 1999. This was the case 
in large cities such as Falkenberg, Göteborg, Helsingborg, Kristianstadt, Malmö, but also in 
many other agglomerations. The Swedish authorities explained that these arose partly due to 
the  connection  or  disconnection  of  industrial  discharges,  and  partly  due  to  the  change  of 
approach for calculating the load of agglomerations.75 

As the Commission believes that 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 

74 
75 

Karlskrona, Ludvika, Malmö, Örnsköldsvik, Stockholm and Sundswall 
The  data  on  nominal  loads  of  agglomerations  provided  in  the  context  of  this  report  were  based  on 
measurements of incoming BOD loads, which are subject to frequent re-calculation. 

92 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
been  provided  with  nitrogen  removal  by  31  December  1998.  For  this  reason  60 
agglomerations were considered as not being in conformity with the Directive. 

Table 11-71: Treatment level of agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. 

Sweden 

01/01/2002 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

but missing treatment steps

but insufficient treatment capacity

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Treatment level in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. – Article 5 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

134 

134 

60 

0 

60 

74 

100.0 

100.0 

44.8 

0.0 

44.8 

55.2 

7 672 670 

100.0 

7 672 670 

100.0 

2 042 910 

26.6 

0 

0.0 

2 042 910 

26.6 

5 629 720 

73.4 

11.14.2.2. 

Treatment performance (monitoring results) 

In  1999,  the  monitoring  results  of  urban  waste  water  treatment  plants  of  57  agglomerations 
were in conformity with the requirements of the Directive. The remaining 77 agglomerations, 
which  made  36.2  %  of  the  total  nominal  load  of  the  concerned  agglomerations  were  not  in 
conformity, because of the missing nitrogen elimination or bad treatment performance in the 
year 1999. 

Table 11-72: Treatment performance of agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. 

Sweden 

31/12/1999 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Monitoring in compliance (Member State) 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Monitoring in compliance (EC) 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

11.14.3. Collecting systems 

Treatment performance in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e.  

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

134 

134 

0 

116 

0 

57 

0 

77 

57 

100.0 

100.0 

0.0 

86.6 

0.0 

42.5 

0.0 

57.5 

42.5 

7 672 670 

7 672 670 

0 

6 923 370 

0 

4 898 360 

0 

2 774 310 

4 898 360 

100.0 

100.0 

0.0 

90.2 

0.0 

63.8 

0.0 

36.2 

63.8 

All  Swedish  agglomerations  with  more  than  10 000 p.e.  were  already  equipped  with  a 
complying collecting system by 31 December 1998 and therefore in conformity with Article 3 
of the Directive. 

93 

 
 
  
 
 
Table 11-73: Collecting systems of agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. 

Sweden 

01/01/2002 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. - Article 3 

Number  

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

134 

0 

134 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

7 672 670 

100.0 

0 

0.0 

7 672 670 

100.0 

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

Sweden  has  eight  cities  with  more  than  150 000 p.e.  of  which  six  -  Göteborg,  Helsingborg, 
Lidingö,  Malmö,  Stockholm  and  Uppsala  -  were  equipped  with  more  stringent  treatment  of 
nitrogen and phosphorus removal. Linköping and Örebro provided phosphorus removal only. 

11.14.5. Industrial waste water (Article 13) 

Sweden  provided  information  on  seven  industrial  plants  with  a  total  organic  load  of 
1 855 000 p.e. being in compliance before 31 December 2000. 

Table 11-74: Industrial waste water with respect to Article 13 of the Directive 

Sweden - Industrial sector 

Milk-processing 

Potato-processing 

Breweries 

Fish-processing industry 

Total 

11.14.6. Sewage Sludge 

Total organic load 
of IWW from 
plants with respect 
to Article 13 [p.e.]

Number of 
plants 

Total organic load 
respecting conditions 
under Article 13 at 31 
December 2000 [p.e.]

% 

Date of full 
compliance 

210 000 

700 000 

200 000 

745 000 

1 855 000 

1 

2 

1 

3 

7 

210 000 

100 

before 31/12/2000

700 000 

100  Before 31/12/2000

200 000 

100 

before 31/12/2000

745 000 

100  Before 31/12/2000

1 855 000 

100 

According  to  the  Swedish  situation  report  of  Article  16  of  the  Directive,  the  quantity  of 
sewage  sludge  produced  in  2000  was  222  420  t  dry  substance  (DS).  21  %  was  reused  in 
agriculture, 32 % was used for landscape architecture (including coverage of landfills), 34 % 
was deposited in landfills and about 8 % was reused in other ways or stored temporary. No 
sewage sludge was incinerated. 

94 

 
 
  
 
 
Table 11-75: Re-use and disposal of sludge produced in waste water treatment plants 

Sweden - Sewage Sludge (2000) 

Tons DS 

% 

Sludge total production 

Agriculture 

Re-use in landscape architecture 

of which coverage of landfills

Landfill 

Incineration 

Temporary storage 

Other uses (partly quantities of temporary storage) 

Not defined disposal (the difference between the total 
amount of sewage sludge and the sum of the reported 
uses) 

11.15.  United Kingdom 

11.15.1. Identification of sensitive areas 

222 420 

100  

45 664 

70 459 

15 730 

76 344 

0 

17 440 

11 293 

1 219 

21  

32  

7  

34  

0  

8  

5  

1  

The United Kingdom carried out an initial identification of sensitive areas in 1994 and 1995 
based on eutrophication. In this context, 33 freshwater bodies were identified in England and 
Wales,  three  in  Scotland  and  two  in  Northern  Ireland.  In  1997,  1998  and  2000  51  further 
water  bodies  were  identified  in  England,  Wales  and  Scotland,  and  additionally  the 
geographical extent of three of the sensitive water bodies was extended. The concerned water 
bodies  were  identified  due  to  eutrophication,  but  partly  also  with  regard  to  the  protection 
against nitrates in waters for the abstraction of drinking water purposes. In the recent reviews 
of 2001 and 2002 further sensitive areas have been identified: 

•  In England: a further 32 water bodies with reference to eutrophication, five with regard to 
the  protection  against  nitrates  and  180  for  the  protection  of  bathing  waters.  In  total,  300 
sensitive areas have been identified in England 

•  In  Wales:  a  further  24  water  bodies  for  the  protection  of  bathing  waters,  five  due  to 

eutrophication. In total, 29 sensitive areas have been identified in Wales. 

•  In  Scotland:  a  further  nine  water  bodies  for the  protection  of  bathing  waters.  In  total,  13 

sensitive areas have been identified in Scotland. 

•  In Northern Ireland a further three water bodies with reference to eutrophication. In total, 

five sensitive areas have been identified in Northern Ireland. 

The  United  Kingdom  has  identified  347  sensitive  areas.  The  British  authorities  believe  that 
they  have,  as  required  in  the  Directive,  identified  water  body  areas  as  sensitive  where 
discharges from waste water treatment works serving agglomerations of greater than 10 000 
p.e. have caused or may cause the water body to become eutrophic, or, in the case of surface 
freshwater  used  for  drinking  water  supplies,  have  a  concentration  of  nitrate  above  the 
permitted  level.  The  British  authorities  stated  that,  once  a  water  body  is  identified,  more 

95 

 
 
  
 
stringent treatment is provided for indirect and direct discharges from relevant works in the 
catchment  of  these  areas,  which  contribute  to  their  pollution.  Furthermore,  the  British 
authorities  recorded  that  they  have  identified  sensitive  areas  where  more  than  secondary 
treatment is needed to fulfil requirements of the Bathing Water Directive. 

However,  the  British  authorities  also  pointed  out  that,  in  their  view,  the  hydrological 
catchment  is  not  significant,  as  only  the  impact  of  relevant  sewage  discharges  is  addressed 
under  the  Directive.  Therefore,  the  catchment  areas  of  sensitive  water  bodies  were  not 
considered as a sensitive area. 

The  Commission  does  not,  on  principal,  interpret  catchment  areas  of  sensitive  areas  as 
sensitive or eutrophic, and there is no need for an official identification  of  catchment areas. 
However,  according  to  Article  5(5)  of  the  Directive,  discharges  from  urban  waste  water 
treatment  plants  which  are  situated  in  the  relevant  catchment  areas  of  that  area,  and  which 
contribute  to  the  pollution  of  these  areas,  shall  be  subject  to  paragraphs  2,  3  and  4.  The 
Commission’s  position  is  that  at  least  all  agglomerations  with  more  than  10 000 p.e. 
discharging  into  a  catchment  of  a  sensitive  area  therefore  should  be  provided  with  more 
stringent treatment.  

On  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  by  the  UK  authorities,  the  Commission  is  unclear 
whether  all,  or  only  some,  of  the  agglomerations  above  10  000  p.e.  discharging  into  the 
catchment upstream of a sensitive area are required to apply more stringent treatment. 

In the opinion of the Commission there are a number of water bodies in the UK which should 
be  identified  as  sensitive  on  the  basis  of  their  eutrophic  character  or  the  risk  that  they  may 
become  eutrophic,  and  which  the  UK  authorities  have  not  yet  identified.  The  water  bodies 
concerned include the Thames, the Wash, the Humber, and the Deben and Colne estuaries, the 
waters  off  Southampton,  the  coastal  waters  of  North  Wales,  North-Western  England  and 
South-Western  Scotland..  The  non-designation  of  these  areas  is  the  subject  of  an  on-going 
infringement  procedure..  Furthermore,  the  Commission  believes  that  there  is  scientific 
evidence that the Bann Estuary, Carlingford Lough, the Outer Belfast Lough and Lough Foyle 
in Northern Ireland are eutrophic, and should have been identified as sensitive, which has not 
yet been done by the United Kingdom. 

11.15.2. Waste water treatment in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

The  British  authorities  provided  information  on  90  agglomerations  above  10 000 p.e. 
discharging  into  sensitive  areas.  These  agglomerations  are  only  those  which  are  affecting 
sensitive  areas  identified  in  1994,  and  represent  according  to  the  current  information,  about 
52 % of the load of agglomerations (>10 000 p.e.) discharging into sensitive areas identified 
in  1994  and  1998.  The  British  authorities  did  not  provide  data  for  agglomerations  affecting 
sensitive areas identified in 1997, 1998 and 2002, as these areas according to the Directive, 
need  not  meet  the  requirements  for  more  stringent  treatment  before  seven  years  after 
designation. 

96 

 
 
  
 
11.15.2.1. 

Treatment level 

According  to  the  Commission’s  opinion,  only  26  of  the  above  90  agglomerations  were 
equipped  with  all  required  treatment  steps  (nitrogen  and/or  phosphorus  removal)76.  The 
organic  design  capacity  of  at  least  eight  treatment  plants  with  more  stringent  treatment 
seemed  to  be  too  small  for  a  sufficient  treatment  of  all  the  waste  water  of  the  connected 
agglomeration. These treatment  plants, in the Commission’s opinion, should be subject to a 
capacity upgrading. In 2003 the British authorities advised that eight of these agglomerations 
are currently being upgraded or are to be upgraded77. 

The  British  authorities  themselves  consider  that  in  2002,  88  of  90  waste  water  treatment 
works discharging into sensitive areas and identified in 1994 provided the required treatment 
level  (98%),  depending  on  the  local  situation,  i.e.  phosphorus  and/or  nitrogen  removal. 
However, the Commission does not share this assessment. 

Table  11-76:  Treatment  level  of  agglomerations  discharging  into  sensitive  areas, 
designated in 1994 

United Kingdom 

01/01/2002 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

but missing treatment steps 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Not in compliance* 

In compliance 

Treatment level in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. – Article 5 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

90 

88 

61 

8 

64 

26 

100.0 

6 221 177 

100.0 

97.8 

67.8 

8.9 

71.1 

28.9 

6 197 077 

4 403 467 

346.827 

4 438 936 

1 782 241 

99.6 

70.8 

5.6 

71.4 

28.6 

*  Including  incomplete  more  stringent  treatment and  insufficient treatment  capacity  of  plants,  taking  into account possible 
overlaps  of  both  shortcomings  (in  the  case  of  the  UK  seven  plants  showed  both  gaps).  The  evaluation  also  includes  by 
mistake  Cleland  (nominal  load:  15  000  p.e.),  which  requires  phosphorus  removal  only  and  is  in  compliance  in  terms  of 
treatment level. The mistake will be corrected in future evaluations. 

11.15.2.2. 

Treatment performance (monitoring results) in sensitive areas 

In  1999  only  68  of  the  reported  90  agglomerations  with  more  than  10 000 p.e.  discharging 
into  sensitive  areas  provided  more  stringent  treatment78.  22  of  them  achieved  the  required 
treatment  efficiency  for  all  relevant  parameters.  68  agglomerations  were  -  according  to  the 
Commission’s  interpretation  -  not  in  compliance  with  the  Directive  in  terms  of  treatment 
performance in 1999. 

76 

77 
78 

The  Commission’s  evaluation  takes  into  account  discharges  into  the  catchment  areas  of  potentially 
sensitive areas, which in certain cases require nitrogen removal in addition to phosphorus removal. As 
regards the agglomeration Cleland in Scotland (15 000 pe) a mistake was found in the evaluation, which 
could not be corrected anymore for this report. However it will be considered in future evaluations. 
Ballymena, Banbridge, Bullays Hill, Moygasal, Seagoe, Tandragree and Tullagharley. 
20 Agglomerations have been upgraded between 1999 and 2002 to more stringent treatment in terms of 
phosphorus  but  not  yet  nitrogen  removal:  Arborfield,  Bicester,  Bracknell,  Camberley,  Chertsey, 
Cholsey, Fleet, Hartley Wintney, High Wycombe, Maidenhead, Pangbourne, Princes Risborough, Ross 
on Wye, Sandhurst, Silchester, Slough, Thame, Weybridge, Windsor and Wokingham. 

97 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
Table 11-77: Treatment performance in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas, 
designated in 1994 

United Kingdom 

Treatment performance in agglomerations > 10 000 p.e.  

31/12/1999 

Total 

More stringent treatment 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Monitoring in compliance (MemberState)* 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Monitoring in compliance (EC)* 

but insufficient treatment capacity 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.] 

% 

90 

68 

11 

58 

8 

22 

2 

68 

22 

100.0 

6 150 957 

100.0 

75.6 

12.2 

64.4 

8.9 

24.4 

2.2 

75.6 

24.4 

5 119 548 

372 647 

4 793 043 

273 785 

1 654 160 

27 260 

4 496 797 

1 654 160 

83.2 

6.1 

77.9 

4.5 

26.9 

0.4 

73.1 

26.9 

*  The  discrepancy  between  Member  States  and  Commission’s  interpretation  of  compliance  comes  from  the  different 
interpretation of which nutrient has to be removed (phosphorus alone or nitrogen in addition). The Commission’s evaluation 
includes the catchments of potentially sensitive areas. 

11.15.3. Waste  water  treatment  in  agglomerations  discharging  into  “normal  areas”  - 

situation at 31 December 2000 

The United Kingdom sent a list of 685 agglomerations with more than 15 000 p.e. It did not 
distinguish between agglomerations in sensitive areas and agglomerations in “normal areas”. 
For  the  below  evaluation  of  “normal  areas”,  the  list  was  therefore  reduced  by  those  67 
agglomerations which had also been reported under “sensitive areas” (identified in 1994 - see 
section  11.15.2).  These  685  agglomerations  also  include  those  agglomerations  which  are 
situated in so-called potentially sensitive areas. - Areas, which should have been identified as 
sensitive  according  to  the  Commission’s  opinion,  and  are  or  will  be  subject  to  Commission 
proceedings. 

By  31  December  2000,  the  United  Kingdom  had  618  (685  minus  67  see  para.  above) 
agglomerations  discharging  into  “normal  areas”  with  more  than  15 000 p.e.  67  of  these 
agglomerations did not provide secondary treatment, and were therefore not complying with 
Article 4. However, in total 89,2 % of the load was already complying with the Directive. In 
2003  the  British  authorities  advised  that  by  the  end  of  2002  compliance  had  increased  to 
almost 98 %, but did not provide any supporting data. 

Table 11-78: Treatment level of agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” 

United Kingdom 

31/12/2000 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 15 000 p.e. - Article 4 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.]

% 

618 

67 

551 

100.0 

65 980 345 

100.0 

10.8 

89.2 

7 163 427 

58 816 918 

10.9 

89.1 

98 

 
 
  
 
11.15.4. Collecting systems 

11.15.4.1. 

Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas 

At  1  January 2002  the  collecting  systems  of  the  90  agglomerations  for  which  data  was 
provided (see section 11.15.2) were complying with Article 3 of the Directive. 

Table  11-79:  Collecting  systems  in  agglomerations  discharging  into  sensitive  areas, 
designated in 1994 

United Kingdom 

01/01/2002 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 10 000 p.e. - Article 3 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.]

% 

90 

0 

90 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

6 221 177 

0 

6 221 177 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

11.15.4.2. 

Collecting  systems  in  agglomerations  discharging  into  “normal  areas”  - 

situation at 31 December 2000 

For  the  below  evaluation  of  collecting  systems  in  “normal  areas”  the  provided  of  685 
agglomerations,  was  reduced  by  67  agglomerations,  which  were  reported  under  sensitive 
areas as well. 

At  31  December  2000  all  agglomerations  with  more  than  15 000  p.e.  were  provided  with  a 
complying collecting system, and were therefore complying with Article 3 of the Directive. 

Table 11-80: Collecting systems in agglomerations discharging into “normal areas” 

United Kingdom 

31/12/2000 

Total 

Not in compliance 

In compliance 

Agglomerations > 15 000 p.e. - Article 3 

Number 

% 

Nominal load [p.e.]

% 

618 

0 

618 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

65 980 345 

0 

65 980 345 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

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

As at 1 January 2002 the United Kingdom had 89 cities with a population equivalent of more 
than 150 000: 

•  Ten of these cities were situated in sensitive areas and, therefore, should be equipped with 
more  stringent  treatment:  Coventry,  Milton  Keynes,  Bedford,  Corby,  Oxford,  Reading, 
Swindon,  Wellingborough,  Northampton  and  Rickmansworth.  However,  only  Coventry 
and  Milton  Keynes  were  provided  with  sufficiently  stringent  treatment.  The  remaining 
cities in sensitive areas failed to be in conformity because of the missing nitrogen removal. 

•  68  cities  reported  under  “normal  areas”  had  secondary  treatment.  Amongst  them  were 
London (10  mio. p.e.), Birmingham (2 mio. p.e.) and Glasgow (1.6 mio. p.e.). However, 
the Commission believes that many of these cities, such as London, should provide tertiary 

99 

 
 
  
 
 
treatment as they are discharging into an area which, in the Commission’s opinion, should 
have been identified as a sensitive area) 

•  Six cities had primary treatment or secondary treatment only for parts of its agglomeration: 
Cardiff (84 % of the load untreated, 16 % secondary treatment)), Dundee (34 % untreated, 
secondary  treatment  for  about  66  %  of  its  load,  treated  by  the  Tay  agglomeration), 
Eastburne (primary treatment only), Dover/Folkstone (primary treatment only), Worthing 
(primary treatment only) and Sandown (primary treatment only). 

•  Five  cities  did  not  have  any  waste  water 

treatment79:  Brighton,  Hastings, 

Kilmarnock/Irvine, Levenmouth and Torbay. 

The  British  authorities  advised  that  during  2002  the  following  cities  were  upgraded  to 
secondary  treatment:  Cardiff,  Eastburne,  Dover/Folkstone,  Kilmarnock/Irvine,  Levenmouth, 
Sandown and Worthing. 

11.15.6. Less sensitive areas 

In 1994 and 1995 the United Kingdom identified 49 coastal water bodies and estuaries as less 
sensitive  in  England,  nine  in  Wales,  24  in  Scotland  and  three  in  Northern  Ireland,  for  the 
purpose  of  discharging  urban  waste  water  with  less  than  secondary  treatment.  The  United 
Kingdom revoked the designation of its less sensitive areas step by step. Since July 2002, the 
United Kingdom has no” less sensitive areas”. 

11.15.7. Industrial waste water (Article 13) 

The  United  Kingdom  reported  99  industrial  plants  operating  with  a  total  organic  load  of 
6 273 037 p.e. In 2000, 86 % of the organic load was complying with Article 13. The date of 
full compliance is set for December 2003. 

79 

Due  to  recent  information  of  September  2003  the  British  authorities  stated  that  some  of  the 
agglomerations without any treatment at the beginning of 2002 improved in the meanwhile: Discharges 
from Brighton currently receive primary treatment, Hastings/Bexhill secondary treatment since March 
2003; 51 % of Torbay (covering Brixham, Paignton) received secondary treatment from August 2002, 
49 % (Torquay) is expected to have secondary treatment in March 2004.  

100 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
Table 11-81: Industrial waste water with respect to Article 13 of the Directive 

United Kingdom – Industrial sector  

Milk-processing 

Manufacture  of  fruit  and  vegetable 
products 

Potato-processing 

Meat industry 

Breweries 

Production  of  alcohol  and  alcoholic 
beverages 

Manufacture  of  animal  feed  from 
plant products 

Manufacture  of  gelatine  and  of  glue 
from hides, skin and bones 

Malt-houses 

Fish-processing industry 

Total 

11.15.8. Sewage sludge 

Total organic load of 
industrial waste water 
from plants with 
respect to Article 13 
[p.e.] 

Number of 
plants 

Total organic load 
respecting conditions 
under Article 13 at 
31December 2000 
[p.e.] 

% 

Date of full 
compliance

1 464 380  

1 144 564  

302 037  

623 348  

94 000  

1 930 727  

476 000  

13 315  

206 666  

18 000  

30 

9 

3 

18 

1 

23 

3 

1 

9 

2 

 644 880  

44 

12/2003 

1 144 564  

100 

12/2000 

302 037  

100 

12/2000 

573 348  

92 

12/2001 

94 000  

100 

09/1997 

1 930 727  

100 

12/2000 

476 000  

100 

12/2000 

13 315  

100 

12/2000 

206 666  

100 

12/2000 

5 000  

02/2001 

28 

86 

6 273 037  

99 

5 390 537  

In the year 2000 the quantity of produced sewage sludge was 1 130 066 t dry substance. 52 % 
of it was reused in agriculture, 17 % was deposited on landfills, 21 % incinerated and 10 % 
was reused or disposed of in other ways. 

Table 11-82: Re-use and disposal of sludge produced in waste water treatment plants 

United Kingdom - Sewage Sludge (2000) 

Total sludge production 

Agriculture 

Landfill 

Incineration 

Other 

Tons DS 

1 130 066 

587 634 

192 111 

237 314 

113 007 

% 

100 

52 

17 

21 

10 

101 

 
 
  
 
  
12. 

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. 

Since 1994, the Commission has sent 34 reasoned opinions in the framework of infringement 
procedures  under  Article  226  of  the  Treaty  in  which  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment 
Directive was involved, alone or with other directives. 15 cases (including European Court of 
Justice  cases  C-236/99  –  Belgium/Brussels,  C-161/95  –  Greece,  C-297/95  –  Germany,  and 
C-302/95 – Italy) were already closed due to an improvement of the implementation by the 
countries concerned.  

At 17 July 2003, 16 such infringement procedures against Member States were being pursued 
in  the  field  of  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive  exclusively.  In  a  further  three 
infringement procedures the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive was involved together 
with  other  Directives  such  as  the  Bathing  Water  Directive,  the  Shellfish  Water  Directive  or 
others. 

Two cases of the 16 ongoing cases have resulted in a condemnation by the European Court of 
Justice, against Italy/Milan (25 April 2002) and Spain (15 May 2003).  

As  of  17th  July  2003,  four  cases  were  pending  before  the  court,  namely  the  case  against 
Belgium including the city of Brussels, France, Greece, and Spain.  

For one case, against Greece/Athens, a court application has already been decided, but not yet 
lodged. Nine cases were at the stage of reasoned opinion (E, EL, F, IRE, I, NL, P, UK (2)).  

In addition 18 further cases had not yet reached the stage of reasoned opinion. 

It has to be underlined that the situation concerning infringement procedures is changing very 
quickly and the above picture on legal actions pursued presents only a snapshot at a specific 
date (17 July 2003). 

102 

 
 
  
 
Figure 12-1:  Notification of reasoned opinions sent by the European Commission in the 
1994-2001 period 

7

10

8

6

4

2

0

7

6

5

3

3

2

1

0

0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

The  Commission  initiated  the  ongoing  infringement  procedures  either  on  the  basis  of 
complaints by European citizens or on its own initiative. The “own initiative” cases concern 
mainly  significant  implementation  shortcomings  in  big  cities,  the  identification  of  sensitive 
areas  and  discharges  into  these  areas,  as  well  as  reporting  obligations.  Infringement 
procedures in relation to the deadline of 31 December 2000 which affects agglomerations in 
“normal areas” are currently under preparation. 

The  two  tables  below  summarise  the  situation  for  each  Member  State  regarding  the 
implementation process and the ongoing infringement procedures before court concerning the 
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive on July 2003. 

Table  12-1:  Status  of  infringement  procedures  in  relation  to  Council  Directive 
91/271/EEC  concerning  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment.  A-Cases  before  court,  Status 
17 July 2003 

MS 
B 

E 

E 

EL 

EL 

F 

I 

Number 
C-027/03 

C-419/01 

Breach 
Lack of infrastructure, Article 3 and 5 
Lack of implementation programmes, Article 17 
Identification of sensitive areas, Article 5  

C-416/02 

Lack of infrastructure in Vera, Almeria, Article 5 

C-119/02 

Lack of infrastructure in Elefsina 

2000/2014 

Lack of infrastructure in Athens 

C-280/02 

C-396/00 

Identification of sensitive areas 
Lack of infrastructure 
Lack of infrastructure, Article 4, 5 in Milano 

Status 
Court application 
23/01/2003 
Court judgement 
15/05/2003 
Court application 
19/11/2002 
Court application  
03/04/2002 
Court application 
not yet lodged 
Court application  
18/07/2001 
Court judgement 
25/04/2002 

103 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 12-2: Main obligations of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) and their implementation by Member States 
as of 17 July 2003 

Member State 

National legislation in place  
Implementation programmes 
communicated 
Identification of sensitive areas 
Identification of less sensitive areas 
(option) 
General compliance of waste water 
collection and treatment in sensitive 
areas (deadline 1998) 
Infringement procedure for failure to 
meet 1998 deadline in relation to an 
individual agglomeration 
Waste water collection and treatment 
in ‘normal’ areas (deadline 2000). 
Under evaluation 
Treatment performance of waste water 
treatment plans. Under evaluation 
Prior regulations or specific 
authorisations for industrial discharges 
Disposal of sewage sludge regulated 

Reporting obligations fulfilled 

B  DK  D 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 

EL  ES 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 

•+ 

•+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 
+ 

+ 

F 
+ 
+ 

+ 

IR 
+ 
+ 

+ 

I 
+ 
+ 

+ 

L 
+ 
+ 

NL  Ö 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 

•+ 

•+ 

•+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

P 
+ 
+ 

+ 
+ 

+ 

SF 
+ 
+ 

•+ 

S 
+ 
+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

UK 
+ 
+ 

+ 
+1 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

= exercise performed but not necessarily approved by the Commission  

+ 
• 
1 = UK has withdrawn all its less sensitive areas by 2002  

= whole territory identified as sensitive or application of more stringent treatment all over the territory (Art. 5.8) 

Shaded:  

Infringement procedure ongoing (beyond RO). This includes situations where an exercise has been performed incorrectly. 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13. 

FORTHCOMING TASKS FOR THE COMMISSION 

The  Commission  has  started  verifying  the  treatment  performance  of  plants  from  the 
agglomerations  affected  by  the  deadline  of 31  December  2000.  It  will  present  the  results  in 
the next implementation report of the Directive. 

In future, the Commission will also request updates of the information in the past collected in 
relation to the 1998 and 2000 deadlines, in order to follow the progress and improvements of 
the Directive’s implementation in the Member States. After 2005 it will verify the compliance 
of  small  and  medium  sized  agglomerations  with  more  than  2000  population  equivalents 
falling  under  the  deadline  of  31  December  2005.  The  Commission  will  also  verify  the 
implementation of the Directive in the new Member States. 

In co-operation with the Member States, the Commission established a waste water treatment 
database including all data related to the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment 
Directive. This database will facilitate reporting for the Member States and the Commission 
in future and help to provide a clear picture on waste water treatment in the European Union. 
The Commission will update and extend the database, if necessary.  

In addition, the reporting obligations under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive will, 
to the extent possible, be integrated  into  the reporting  requirements of the water framework 
directive as part of an initiative to develop a consolidated information and reporting system 
for all water legislation. 

Infringement procedures, conditional ties linked to the disbursement of EU regional funds and 
bringing pressure to bear on decision-makers by increasing public awareness will continue to 
be the tools by which the Commission will encourage progress on the implementation of the 
directive: 

•  The situation will be monitored and infringement procedures will be commenced 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. 

•  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 the work has been completed. In this context the Commission services have produced 
a guideline on the application of the Directive 91/271/EEC on urban waste water treatment 
and  finance  from  Structural  funds  which  refers  in  particular  to  the  application  in  the 
context  of  infringement  procedures.  The  guideline  was  sent  to  Member  States  during 
summer 2003. 

•  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. 

105 

 
 
  
 
It  is  also  essential,  that  technical  assistance  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 placed than large cities when it comes to choosing the 
appropriate  sewage  treatment  systems  and  having  them  built.  The  Commission  wishes  to 
increase  the  support  for  the  development  of  treatment  technology  suitable  for  small  and 
medium-sized  agglomerations.  This  process  has  already  been  started  by  work-shops  and  by 
publishing  a  thematic  guide  on  the  subject,  and  will  be  continued  by  similar  activities. 
Through  the  LIFE  programme  the  Commission  will  also  continue  to  support  pilot  and 
demonstration projects directed at the development of new technologies for the treatment of 
waste water. 

The Commission is aware of the considerable challenge faced by the acceding Member States 
for complying with the Directive. All the acceding states have asked for a transitional period 
for the implementation of the Directive. In the coming years, the Commission will continue to 
support  programmes,  to  provide  technical  and  administrative  assistance.  Support  will  also 
continue to be provided, in particular through ISPA, and in future through the Structural and 
the Cohesion Funds for the investment needed. 

14. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: 

Waste water treatment and water quality in European waters 

The North Sea, the Baltic and considerable parts of the Mediterranean Sea suffer from severe 
eutrophication  problems,  European  rivers  and  lakes  show  eutrophication  symptoms  up  to 
40%.  Besides  diffuse  pollution  coming  from  agricultural  sources,  urban  waste  water 
discharges are the second most important pollution source in terms of eutrophication of water 
bodies. Total  nitrogen coming  from urban waste water  sources  can  contribute up to 50% of 
the entire impact (EEA report no 4 “nutrients in European ecosystems”, 1999). 

Different pieces of EU environment legislation, the marine conventions and river conventions 
aim at combating the eutrophication problem of European waters.  

Since the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive has been in force for more than ten years, 
significant  efforts  to  reduce  pollution  have  already  been  undertaken.  Efforts  in  waste  water 
treatment,  therefore,  have  resulted  in  a  considerable  improvement  of  the  water  quality  in 
freshwaters.  For  example,  BOD5  levels  in  European  rivers  have  been  reduced  by  20-30% 
since  the  90s,  phosphorous  concentrations  have  declined  by  30-40%  and  ammonium 
concentrations  around  40%.  Despite  efforts  to  reduce  nitrogen  from  urban  waste  water,  the 
total nitrogen concentrations in European rivers have remained high. This reflects the nitrogen 
impact by agriculture, but also the still insufficient nitrogen removal by waste water treatment 
plants (EEA fact sheet “E8 – urban waste water treatment” and EEA “Environmental signals”, 
2002).  

The eutrophication of marine and coastal waters, therefore, still remains a severe problem. No 
positive  trend  of  “chlorophyll  a”  summer  concentrations,  as  an  indicator  for  eutrophication, 
was observed during the last 15 years until 2000 (EEA “Environmental signals”, 2002). 

106 

 
 
  
 
Improvements  and  continued  challenges  in  the  implementation  of  the  Urban  Waste 
Water Treatment Directive 

Since  1998,  when  the  first  major  deadline  had  expired,  considerable  efforts  have  been 
undertaken  by  Member  States  and  improvements  on  the  waste  water  treatment  sector  were 
achieved in many countries. 

•  Significant improvements have been reached, in particular, in terms of the identification 
of sensitive areas, requiring specific water protection for reasons such as eutrophication, 
but  also  bathing  water  zones,  etc.  Many  Member  States  have  been  less  restrictive  in 
identifying  sensitive  areas  than  in  the  past.  This  will  lead  to  a  positive  effect  on  water 
quality in the European Union in future. Member States currently consider that about 38% 
of the produced waste water load falling under the scope of the Directive is discharged into 
sensitive areas. However, a high number of areas considered by the Commission to suffer 
from eutrophication still have still not been identified by the Member States. Furthermore, 
some  Member  States  still  ignore  the  fact  that  waste  water  which  has  not  been  properly 
treated will be carried via the river basin and cause pollution in downstream river sections 
or marine waters. They have not, therefore, provided the necessary measures to tackle the 
problem of water pollution for a large number of agglomerations. Member States have also 
underestimated the necessary treatment requirements for large cities such as Paris, London, 
Madrid, Milan and others.   

Also certain improvements in terms of waste water infrastructure in sensitive areas and 
their  catchments  have  taken  place  in  many  Member  States.  Since  1998,  Denmark, 
Germany and Austria were already close to conformity or in conformity with the Directive. 
However,  apart  from  Germany  and  the  Netherlands,  which  apply  Article  5(4)  and  have 
already  achieved  a  good  level  of  compliance  by  2002,  still  only  about  42%  of  the 
agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas provided the required more stringent waste 
water  treatment;  58%  of  their  waste  water  was  discharged  without  receiving  sufficient 
treatment. 

The monitoring information on the performance of treatment plants 1999, showed that in 
the  Member  States  not  applying  Article  5(4)  the  real  performance  of  plants  was  not  in 
compliance in more than 50% of the evaluated agglomerations.   

Taking  into  account  waste  water  treatment  infrastructure  plus  insufficient  treatment 
performance of plants, one can assume that throughout the entire European Union it is still 
the case that more than 50% of the waste water discharged into sensitive areas, may not be 
treated sufficiently. 

•  The verification of the 2000 deadline relevant for larger agglomerations in “normal areas“, 
gave  a  considerably  better  picture  for  many  Member  States.  As  “normal”  areas  do  not 
require specific protection, only secondary treatment is required for waste water discharges 
into these areas. By the end of 2000, secondary treatment facilities have been put in place 
for about 69% of the waste water load produced in normal areas. Greece, Ireland and Italy 
provided  secondary  treatment  for  less  than  50%  of  the  waste  water  load  affected  by  the 
deadline.  

•  As regards waste water treatment in large EU cities, the Commission’s verification showed 
that the situation had significantly improved since 1998, and 387 of the 556 cities with a 
population equivalent of more than 150 000, provided a sufficient standard of waste water 

107 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
treatment  to  comply  with  the  Directive.  The  number  of  cities  without  any  waste  water 
treatment  decreased  from  37  to  25,  but  still  includes  large  cities  such  as  Donostia-San 
Sebastian, Cadiz, Cork, Milan, Barreiro, Brighton and others. 

•  Waste  water  collection  in  the  European  Union  currently  presents  the  following  picture. 
Member  States  reported  91%  and  77%  of  the  affected  agglomerations  in  sensitive  areas 
and “normal areas” respectively to be provided with complying collecting systems. Almost 
half  of  the  Member  States  reported  that  100%  of  the  agglomerations  in  sensitive  areas 
comply in terms of waste water collection. In Belgium, Spain and Italy less than 50% of 
the waste water load in sensitive areas was sufficiently collected. In “normal areas” only 
Italy showed a compliance rate of less than 50%. The Commission currently relies on the 
information  supplied  by  Member  States  and  has  not  verified 
information 
independently. 

this 

Considering  the  insufficient  waste  water  treatment  by  treatment  plants  and,  additionally, 
the  fact  that  a  high  percentage  of  waste  water  is  not  even  collected,  the  waste  water 
treatment situation in Europe is still very unsatisfactory.  

•  Waste water discharges from certain agro-food industry sectors falling under the scope of 
the  Directive,  represent  a  waste  water  load  of  about  59  million  population  equivalents. 
Member  States  reported  a  compliance  rate  of  the  industrial  discharges  of  68%  and  often 
100%.  Currently,  the  Commission  has  to  base  its  findings  on  the  Member  States 
information without having independently verified the situation on industrial discharges. 

•  As  increasing  waste  water  treatment  is  followed  by  increased  sewage  sludge  production 
and with it the problem of its disposal, the Commission wished to present a picture on the 
development of sludge production and its disposal. In 2000, the total amount of produced 
sewage sludge was seven million tonnes dry substance. No significant change of sludge re-
use  was  observed,  but  sludge  incineration  has  almost  doubled  since  1992.  However,  as 
20% of the sludge disposal routes could not be specified by the Member  States, the data 
did not allow any detailed analysis. 

•  The current EU soil policy is looking at soil in a comprehensive way. The issue on sludge 
spreading on land and, particular, the revision of the legislative sewage sludge proposal has 
therefore  been  integrated  and  will  further  be  dealt  with  in  the  ongoing  Soil  Thematic 
Strategy of the Commission. 

•  Member  States’  co-operation  with  the  Commission  in  terms  of  data  transmission  has 
improved  considerably.  However,  it  is  still  the  case  that  deadlines  are  not  respected  and 
that the data is incomplete and the data quality is often poor. In some cases, Member states 
have  simply  not  provided  the  requested  information.  The  Commission  will  continue  to 
work with the Member states in order to improve data transfer and reporting.  

Investments 

The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive represents the most cost intensive legislation in 
the environmental sector, due to its rigorous requirement for providing waste water treatment 
infrastructure  for  urban  areas.  As  it  is  not  obligatory  for  Member  States  to  provide 
information  on  investments,  the  data  received  by  the  Commission  were  not  sufficiently 
complete  to  be  presented  here..  However,  the  European  Commission  study  on  “investment 
and  employment  related  to  EU  policy  on  air,  water  and  waste”  (2000),  estimates  that  about 
152 billion Euro were invested for waste water infrastructure over the period 1990-2010. The 

108 

 
 
  
 
 
European  Commission  provides  support  for  the  implementation  of  the  Urban  Waste  Water 
Treatment Directive in Member States and Candidate States of about 5 billion Euro per year. 

Conclusion 

The  above  results  show  that,  despite  improvements  having  taken  place,  major  delays  in 
implementing the Directive still exist for most Member States. The Commission is concerned 
about the implementation situation as described in this report and would encourage Member 
States  to  speed  up  their  efforts  and  provide  the  investment  needed  to  comply  with  the 
Directive.  

Some  Member  States  have  shown,  namely  Denmark,  Germany,  Austria  and  with  certain 
restrictions also the Netherlands, that a successful implementation of the Urban Waste Water 
Treatment Directive is possible, leading to significant improvement of waters. 

The  Commission  will  continue  to  verify  conformity  with  the  obligations  imposed  by  the 
Directive,  in  particular  the  deadline  of  31  December  2005,  and  the  implementation  of  the 
Directive in the new Member States in the future.  

As waste water from urban resources represents one of the most significant pollution impacts 
on  the  aquatic  environment,  the  successful  implementation  of  the  Urban  Waste  Water 
Treatment Directive will significantly influence the implementation of the Water Framework 
Directive and future water quality in all EU Member States. 

For the Candidate countries, the Directive represents a particular challenge and many Member 
States still have to improve significantly. Therefore the implementation of the Directive will 
remain a significant challenge in most parts of Europe. In addition, waste water treatment, as 
well as waste water re-use in order to ensure human health and protect the environment will 
receive further importance due to increased floods and droughts as a consequence of climate 
change. 

109