Special Report No 3/2009#The effectiveness of Structural measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994-1999 and 2000-2006 programme periods
Date: 2009-03-19
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, EU programme, European Regional Development Fund, opinion of the Court of Auditors, project management, urban area, waste, waste management, wastewater, water treatment

T H E   W A S T E   W AT E R   A N D   S E W A G E   S L U D G E   F R O M   U R B A N 

AGGLOMERATIONS CAN AFFECT THE QUALITY OF EUROPE’S LAKES, 

RIVERS, COSTAL WATERS, GROUNDWATERS AND SOILS. AS A RESULT, 

THE EU HAS ADOPTED A SERIES OF DIRECTIVES AND HAS ALSO CO

FINANCED THE BUILDING OF URBAN WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS. 

IN THIS REPORT THE COURT ANALYSES WHETHER  EU COFINANCED 

TREATMENT PLANTS ACHIEVE AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE 

IN THE TREATMENT  OF WASTE WATER  AND WHETHER THE  SLUDGE 

PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS IS BEING USED APPROPRIATELY. THE ROLE 

OF THE COMMISSION IS ALSO EXAMINED.

Q

J

-

A

B

-

0

9

-

0

0

3

-

E

N

-

C

EUROPEAN COURT 
OF AUDITORS

4
3
8
0

1
3
8
1
N
S
S

I

9
0
0
2

3
o
N

t
r
o
p
e
R

l

a
i
c
e
p
S

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF STRUCTURAL 
MEASURES SPENDING ON WASTE WATER 
TREATMENT FOR THE 199499 AND 
200006 PROGRAMME PERIODS

ISBN 978-92-9207-250-6

EN

kg904920_EN_coverBT.indd   1

19/05/09   15:27:41

 
 
 
 
How to obtain EU publications

Publications for sale:

 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

 from your bookseller by quoting the title, publisher and/or ISBN number;

 by contacting one of our sales agents directly. You can obtain their contact 

details on the Internet (http://bookshop.europa.eu) or by sending a fax

to +352 2929-42758.

Free publications:

 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

 at the European Commission’s representations or delegations. You can obtain 

their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax

to +352 2929-42758.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

kg904920_EN_coverBT.indd   2

19/05/09   15:27:42

Special Report No 3  

 2009

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF 
STRUCTURAL MEASURES 
SPENDING ON WASTE WATER 
TREATMENT FOR THE 
199499 AND 200006 
PROGRAMME PERIODS

(pursuant to Article 248(4), second subparagraph, EC)

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   1

19/05/09   15:30:55

2

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-45410
Fax +352 4398-46430
E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu
Internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu

Special Report No 3  

 2009

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2009

ISBN 978-92-9207-250-6

© European Communities, 2009

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Belgium

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   2

19/05/09   15:30:56

CONTENTS

3

Paragraph

IX 

114 

14 
513 
14 

 GLOSSARY

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 INTRODUCTION

 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND
 EU GOVERNANCE AND COFINANCING
 COVERAGE RATE OF AGGLOMERATIONS BY WASTE WATER TREATMENT

1519 

 AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH

2056 

2028 

2021 
22 
23 
24 
2526 
2728 

2938 

2930 
3133 

34 
3536 
3738 

3956 

3940 
4145 
4648 
4956 

5766 

5860 
6163 
6466 

 OBSERVATIONS

  DO EU COFINANCED TREATMENT PLANTS ACHIEVE AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE 
IN THE TREATMENT OF WASTE WATER?

 BACKGROUND
 MOST OF THE TREATMENT PLANTS OPERATED AT AN APPROPRIATE CAPACITY…
 … BUT A NUMBER OF TREATMENT PLANTS OPERATED WELL BELOW CAPACITY…
 … AND ONE TREATMENT PLANT HAD INSUFFICIENT CAPACITY
 A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE TREATMENT PLANTS PRODUCED EFFLUENT MEETING EU REQUIREMENTS
 EFFLUENT QUALITY MONITORING: GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE DATA BUT SOME OPPORTUNITIES 
FOR IMPROVEMENT

 IS THE SLUDGE PRODUCED BY THE TREATMENT PLANTS BEING USED APPROPRIATELY?

 BACKGROUND
 TWO THIRDS OF THE TREATMENT PLANTS AUDITED DISPOSED OF THE SEWAGE SLUDGE IN ACCORDANCE 
WITH EU RECOMMENDED PRACTICES
 SATISFACTORY RESULTS AGAINST SEWAGE SLUDGE DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
 REVISION OF THE DIRECTIVE?
 SLUDGE DISPOSAL MONITORING: SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT AT OPERATING PLANTS 
AND MONITORING BODIES OF THE MEMBER STATES

 IS THE COMMISSION FULFILLING ITS ROLE?

 BACKGROUND
 NEED FOR CONSISTENCY IN PROJECT EXAMINATION
 NEED FOR BETTER MONITORING OF OUTCOMES
 MORE CONSIDERATION OF EU ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES REQUIRED

 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 WASTE WATER TREATMENT
 SEWAGE SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION

 ANNEX  URBAN WASTE WATER TREATMENT ENVIRONMENT

 REPLY OF THE COMMISSION

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   3

19/05/09   15:30:56

 
 
 
Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   4

19/05/09   15:30:56

GLOSSARY

5

Agglomeration: Area where the population and/or economic activities are sufficiently con-
centrated for urban waste water to be collected and conducted to an urban waste water 
treatment plant or to a final discharge point.

Cohesion Fund: Financial instrument designed to strengthen economic and social cohesion 
by financing environment and transport projects in Member States with a per capita GNP of 
less than 90 % of the Community average. The Cohesion Fund was originally implemented 
in Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Since 1 January 2004 Ireland has no longer been 
eligible.

Effectiveness: Measure of the relationship between the results obtained and the objectives 
set.

Effluent or discharged water: Treated waste water discharged into river basin receiving 
waters.

European Regional Development Fund (ERDF): Financial instrument designed to promote 
economic and social cohesion between the regions of the EU. ERDF interventions are mainly 
implemented through operational programmes encompassing a large number of projects.

Eutrophication: The enrichment of water by nutrients especially compounds of nitrogen 
and phosphorus, causing an accelerated growth of algae leading to the reduction of water 
oxygen  levels  and  to  the  disappearance  of  native  aquatic  plants,  fish  and  other  aquatic 
animal life.

Independent checks: Checks carried out by independent authorities (at national, regional 
or river basin level) in order to monitor the quality of the discharged water and the content 
of the sludge and of the soils where it is disposed.

Normal areas: Water body or section of water body not at risk of eutrophication.

Operational programme: A document approved by the Commission which takes the form 
of a coherent set of priorities comprising multiannual measures. The priorities may be imple-
mented through recourse to one or more Structural Funds, or, alternatively, to other financial 
instruments and the European Investment Bank.

Population equivalent (p.e.): Quantitative expression of the pollution load of waste water 
in terms of the number of ‘equivalent’ people that would create a waste of the same strength. 
One p.e. corresponds to the pollution load of sewage generated by one inhabitant.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   5

19/05/09   15:30:56

6

Precautionary principle: The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy might 
cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a 
scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would 
advocate taking the action. In some legal systems, such as the law of the European Union, 
the precautionary principle is also a general and compulsory principle of law.

Primary treatment: Mechanical phase involving the initial separation from waste water of 
large sewage particles.

Programme period: The multiannual framework within which Structural Funds and Cohe-
sion Fund expenditure is planned and implemented.

River basin: Area of land from which all surface run-off flows through a sequence of streams, 
rivers and, possibly, lakes into the sea at a single river mouth, estuary or delta.

Secondary treatment: Biological phase involving the treatment of waste water to eliminate 
biodegradable organic pollutants.

Self-checks:  Checks  carried  out  regularly  by  an  operator,  in  the  framework  of  the  daily 
operation of an urban waste water treatment plant, to monitor the quality of the discharged 
water and the content of the sludge.

Sensitive area: Water body or section of water body at risk of eutrophication. The appropri-
ate designation of sensitive areas is crucial as it dictates the type of waste water treatment 
that should be put in place to reduce eutrophication-inducing agents. In sensitive areas 
nitrogen and/or phosphorus should be removed.

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

Structural Measures: In the present report, interventions from the European Regional Devel-
opment Fund (ERDF) and from the Cohesion Fund.

Tertiary treatment: Biological/chemical phase applied were necessary to reduce the con-
centration levels of nutrients in treated waste waters prior to their discharge into receiving 
waters at risk of eutrophication.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   6

19/05/09   15:30:57

7

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive: Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 
concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40).

Urban Waste Water Treatment Plant: Infrastructure providing a series of treatment pro-
cesses aiming to reduce the level of pollution of urban agglomeration waste water received 
to an acceptable level before discharge into the receiving waters.

Water Framework Directive: Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of 
water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1).

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   7

19/05/09   15:30:57

8

EXECUTIVE 
REPLY OF THE 
SUMMARY
COMMISSION

I.
T h e   w a s t e   w a t e r   a n d   s e w a g e   s l u d g e   f r o m 
u r b a n   a g g l o m e r a t i o n s   c a n   a f f e c t   t h e   q u a l -
ity  of  Europe’s  lakes,  rivers,  coastal  waters, 
s o i l s   a n d   g r o u n d w a t e r s .   A s   a   r e s u l t   t h e   E U 
h a s   a d o p t e d   a   s e r i e s   o f   d i r e c t i v e s   a n d   h a s 
also co-financed the building of urban waste 
water treatment plants through the Cohesion 
Fund and the ERDF. This has improved signifi -
cantly the coverage rate of the urban popu-
lation served by waste water treatment.

II.
The Court’s audit focused on Cohesion Fund 
and ERDF funded plants for the 1994–99 and 
2000–06 programme periods, in Spain, Por-
tugal, Greece and Ireland, which represented 
the majority of the spending in this area. The 
a u d i t   c o n c l u s i o n s   p r e s e n t e d   i n   t h i s   r e p o r t 
are based on an examination of management 
and control systems at the Commission and 
on  an  assessment  of  the  performance  of  73 
treatment  plants.  In  addition,  the  disposal 
of sewage sludge produced as a by-product 
of waste water treatment and the role of the 
Commission in the area of waste water were 
also looked at.

III.
T h e   C o u r t   c o n c l u d e d   t h a t ,   i n   g e n e r a l , 
Structural Measures have contributed to an 
i m p r o v e m e n t   i n   w a s t e   w a t e r   t r e a t m e n t   i n 
the four Member States audited.

IV.
O v e r a l l ,   t r e a t m e n t   p l a n t s   c o - f i n a n c e d   b y 
S t r u c t u r a l   M e a s u r e s   w e r e   p e r f o r m i n g   a d e -
q u a t e l y .   H o w e v e r ,   s o m e   w e r e   f o u n d   t o   b e 
operating  below  capacity  and  in  a  minority 
of cases EU requirements were not met with 
regard to effluent quality.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   8

19/05/09   15:30:57

9

EXECUTIVE 
REPLY OF THE 
SUMMARY
COMMISSION

IX.
Furthermore,  the  Court  noted  that  there  is 
a need for a better monitoring of outcomes 
b y   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w h e n   e x a m i n i n g   f i n a l 
r e p o r t s   b e f o r e   a n y   p a y m e n t   o f   t h e   f u n d -
i n g   b a l a n c e .   A p p r o p r i a t e   f o l l o w - u p   a c t i o n 
s h o u l d   b e   t a k e n   w i t h   r e g a r d   t o   t h e   n o n -
p r o v i s i o n   o f   r e q u i r e d   i n f o r m a t i o n   o r   n o n -
achievement of anticipated results.

X.
Finally, the Court considered that maintain-
ing the good ecological status of water bod-
ies  requires  a  stronger  emphasis  on  the  EU 
e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p r i n c i p l e s   o f   ’ t h e   p o l l u t e r 
pays’ and pollution reduction at source.

V.
The Court found that more attention needed 
to be paid to ensuring that treatment plants 
a r e   a d e q u a t e l y   c o n n e c t e d   t o   t h e   s e w a g e 
network and that the industrial waste water 
received  by  plants  has  been  pre-treated  as 
required.

VI.
Concerning  sewage  sludge,  the  Court  con-
c l u d e d   t h a t   t h e   m a j o r i t y   o f   c o - f i n a n c e d 
treatment plants, in the four Member States 
a u d i t e d ,   d i s p o s e d   o f   s l u d g e   a c c o r d i n g   t o 
EU-encouraged methods of reuse; although 
a   m i n o r i t y   h a d   c h o s e n   l e s s   s u s t a i n a b l e 
n o n - r e u s e   m e t h o d s .   I n   a d d i t i o n   t h e   C o u r t 
identified some aspects with regard to moni-
t o r i n g   o f   s l u d g e   d i s p o s a l   w h i c h   c o u l d   b e 
improved.

VII.
The  current  Sewage  Sludge  Directive  dates 
f r o m   1 9 8 6   a n d   t h e r e f o r e   d o e s   n o t   c o n t a i n 
advances  in  the  field  made  since  then.  Any 
r e v i s i o n   o f   t h e   d i r e c t i v e   s h o u l d   t a k e   i n t o 
a c c o u n t   a l l   c o s t s   a n d   a l l   b e n e f i t s   o f   p r o -
p o s e d   n e w   m e a s u r e s   a n d   p o t e n t i a l   i m p a c t 
on other EU policies.

VIII.
As  regards  the  role  of  the  Commission,  the 
Court  is  of  the  opinion  that  there  could  be 
more consistency in its review of grant appli-
cations, which would be facilitated through 
the development of internal guidelines and 
checklists for use in the appraisal process.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   9

19/05/09   15:30:57

1  Article 174 of the consolidated 

version of the Treaty establishing 

the European Community 

(OJ C 325, 24.12.2002, p. 1). 

2  Council Directive 91/271/EEC. 

3  Article 14 of 

Directive 91/271/EEC. 

4  Council Directive 86/278/EEC. 

5  Directive 2000/60/EC of the 

Parliament and of the Council. 

INTRODUCTION

10

1. 

2. 

ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND

According to the Treaty, the Community shall contribute to preserving, 
protecting and improving the quality of the environment based on the 
precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action 
should  be  taken,  damage  should  be  rectified  at  source  and  that  the 
polluter pays 1.

Urban agglomerations’ waste water and sewage sludge can affect the 
q u a l i t y   o f   E u r o p e ’ s   l a k e s ,   r i v e r s ,   c o a s t a l   w a t e r s   a n d   g r o u n d w a t e r s , 
as well as its soils. The key relevant EU legislative instruments in the 
field are:

(a) 

2  r e q u i r i n g   M e m b e r 
t h e   U r b a n   W a s t e   W a t e r   T r e a t m e n t   D i r e c t i v e
S t a t e s   t o   e n s u r e   t h a t ,   b y   3 1   D e c e m b e r   2 0 0 0   o r   b y   3 1   D e c e m -
ber 2005 depending on the size of the agglomeration concerned, 
a l l   a g g l o m e r a t i o n s   b e   p r o v i d e d   w i t h   c o l l e c t i n g   s y s t e m s   f o r 
urban waste water which should be subject to at least secondary 
treatment  and  tertiary  treatment  in  the  case  of  sensitive  areas. 
Appropriate urban waste water treatment aims at monitoring and 
r e d u c i n g   t o   a c c e p t a b l e   l e v e l s   o r g a n i c   a n d   i n o r g a n i c   p o l l u t a n t s 
including those potentially causing the eutrophication of nearby 
water bodies or posing health risks for bathers frequenting these 
waters; the directive also provides for the reuse of sludge arising 
from waste water treatment 3;

(b) 

4  which  specifies  rules  for  the  sam-
the  Sewage  Sludge  Directive
pling  and  analysis  of  sludge  and  soil  and  sets  limits  for  concen-
trations  and  maximum  annual  quantities  of  heavy  metals  which 
may be introduced into soil. The directive aims at regulating and 
encouraging the use of sewage sludge in agriculture in such a way 
as to avoid harm to vegetation, animals or humans;

(c) 

5 which concerns the safeguarding 
the Water Framework Directive
and monitoring of the quality of river basin waters and their eco-
systems. This Directive required the establishment of classification 
systems and a monitoring network by 2006, the publication of river 
basin management plans in 2009 and, as a rule, the attainment of 
environmental objectives by 2015.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   10

19/05/09   15:30:57

 
 
11

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

A brief overview of the process of waste water treatment and sludge 
disposal is provided in a diagram entitled ‘Urban Waste Water Treat-
ment Environment’, together with accompanying explanations in the 
Annex.

6  Decision No 1600/2002/EC 

of the European Parliament and 

of the Council of 22 July 2002 

laying down the Sixth Community 

Environment Action Programme 

(OJ L 242, 10.9.2002, p. 1). 

According to the ‘Sixth Community Environment Action Programme’ 6, 
t h e   m a n a g e m e n t   o f   w a s t e   w a t e r   i s   a n   E U   p r i o r i t y   f o r   t h e   p e r i o d 
2002–12.

7  Article 5 of the consolidated 

version of the Treaty establishing 

the European Community says: 

‘only if and in so far as the 

objectives of the proposed action 

cannot be sufficiently achieved 

by the Member States and can 

therefore, by reason of the 

scale of effects of the proposed 

action, be better achieved by 

the Community’. 

EU GOVERNANCE AND COFINANCING

Environmental protection is an area of shared competence between the 
Member  States  and  the  Community,  and  therefore  any  action  taken 
b y   t h e   C o m m u n i t y   s h o u l d   b e   i n   a c c o r d a n c e   w i t h   t h e   p r i n c i p l e   o f 
subsidiarity 7.

Directives on the environment apply across the Union. Compliance with 
their provisions can require investment projects which vary according 
to the level of waste water treatment required by the environmental 
situation  of  the  water  bodies  where  the  effluent  is  discharged  and 
by  the  type  of  equipment  necessary  (pumping  stations,  sludge  dry-
e r s ,   e t c . ) .   T h e y   c a n   v a r y   f r o m   l e s s   t h a n   1 0   m i l l i o n   e u r o   f o r   a   s m a l l 
agglomeration to more than 200 million euro for a major urban centre, 
with  the  cost  per  capita  declining  with  the  size  of  the  plant  due  to 
economies of scale (see Textbox 1).

T E X T B O X   1

EXAMPLES OF CO-FINANCED PROJECTS VISITED BY THE COURT

In  Spain,  a  project  was  co-financed  by  the  Cohesion  Fund  to  serve  four  villages  with  a  population  of 
10 000 inhabitants. It included an urban waste water treatment plant providing secondary and tertiary level of 
treatment, 18 kilometres of pipes and six pumping stations. Th  e cost of the project was 5,5 million euro, with an 
EU grant of 4,3 million euro.

In Portugal, the cost of a new treatment plant co-fi nanced by the Cohesion Fund was 22,8 million euro. Th  is plant, 
designed to serve a population of 250 000 inhabitants with a secondary level of treatment and disinfection of the 
water, received an EU grant of 19,4 million euro.

In Greece, the Cohesion Fund co-fi nanced a substantial upgrading of a treatment plant for a city of 3,7 million 
inhabitants from that of simple primary to secondary and tertiary treatment. The cost of the project was 
202,2 million euro, with an EU grant of 135,0 million euro.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   11

19/05/09   15:30:57

 
 
 
 
12

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

Costs for the construction of treatment plants are eligible for Structural 
M e a s u r e s   a s s i s t a n c e .   I n   O b j e c t i v e   1   r e g i o n s   t h e   l e v e l   o f   g r a n t   m a y 
attain  85  % 8.  EU  financial  support  totalled  10,6  billion  euro  for  the 
2000–06 programme period 9, with four Member States (Spain, Portu-
gal, Greece and Ireland) accounting for more than 50 % of expenditure. 
A  total  of  13,9  billion  euro  is  allocated  for  the  2007–13  programme 
period, with the 12 new EU Member States accounting for 9,1 billion 
euro.

Two Directorates-General in the European Commission have a significant 
role in the approval and follow-up of waste water and sewage sludge 
treatment projects: Directorate-General for the Environment (DG ENV) 
and Directorate-General for Regional Policy (DG REGIO).

DG ENV is responsible for EU environmental policy in the field of waste 
water treatment. It is required to follow up the performance of treat-
ment plants in terms of the quality of water discharged and the dis-
p o s a l   o f   s l u d g e ,   a n d   a l s o   t o   l a u n c h   i n f r i n g e m e n t   p r o c e d u r e s   w h e n 
required.

DG REGIO is responsible for the EU budget in the area of regional policy 
through shared management with Member States. Treatment plants 
are co-financed under this policy through two financial instruments: 
the Cohesion Fund and the ERDF 10.

The Commission examines all applications in respect of Cohesion Fund 
projects  and  ERDF  major  projects 11  submitted  by  Member  States,  to 
ensure  that  they  have  been  completed  correctly  and  are  in  compli-
a n c e   w i t h   E U   d i r e c t i v e s .   G u i d a n c e   i n t e n d e d   t o   a i d   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 
w i t h   t h e i r   s u b m i s s i o n   o f   a p p l i c a t i o n s   f o r   a s s i s t a n c e   i s   p r o v i d e d   b y 
t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i n   i t s   ‘ G u i d e   t o   t h e   C o h e s i o n   F u n d   2 0 0 0 – 0 6 ’ .   D G 
REGIO’s  role  is  to  examine  the  quality  of  the  individual  projects  to 
be financed, consulting other Directorates-General as necessary (par-
ticularly DG ENV).

8  Objective 1 promotes the 

development and structural 

adjustment of regions whose 

development was lagging behind 

the average (per capita GDP less 

than 75 % of the EU average). 

Two thirds of Structural Fund 

operations were related to 

Objective 1 with almost 20 % 

of the Union’s total population 

concerned by this Objective. For 

the programme period 2000–06, 

the maximum rate of grant in 

these regions is 75 % for ERDF 

projects and 85 % for Cohesion 

Fund projects. 

9  Information is not available 

at the Commission for the 

programme period 1994–99 as 

data concerning the ERDF were, 

for that period, only available 

at Member State level. 

10 The co-financing of treatment 

plants was also approved for 

the candidate countries under 

the Pre-Accession Structural 

Instrument (ISPA). These projects 

were converted into Cohesion 

Fund projects at the time 

of the accession. 

11 For the 1994–99 programme 

period, ‘major projects’ were 

‘those the total cost of which 

taken into account in determining 

the amount of Community 

assistance is, as a general rule, 

greater than ECU 25 million for 

infrastructure investments or 

greater than ECU 15 million for 

productive investments’. For 

the 2000–06 programme period, 

the definition of ‘major projects’ 

covered projects ‘whose total cost 

taken into account in determining 

the contribution of the Funds 

exceeded 50 million euro’. For the 

period 2007–13, the threshold 

for environmental projects 

is 25 million euro. 

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   12

19/05/09   15:30:58

 
 
 
 
 
13

12 Council Regulation (EC) 

No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 

establishing a Cohesion Fund 

(OJ L 130, 25.5.1994, p. 1), 

as amended by Regulation (EC) 

No 1265/1999 (OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, 

p. 62). 

13 For the four Member States 

visited, more than 50 % of the 

financial resources necessary 

for implementing urban waste 

water treatment had been 

provided by the EU. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

The decision to co-finance a project establishes the amount granted and 
the conditions which must be satisfied. After completion of Cohesion 
Fund projects, in order to receive the balance of the grant, the benefi-
ciary must submit a final report describing the work carried out and 
providing an initial assessment as to whether the anticipated results 
have been achieved 12. For ERDF major projects, specific final reports 
a r e   n o t   r e q u i r e d   b y   t h e   r e g u l a t i o n   b u t   r e p o r t s   o n   t h e   o p e r a t i o n a l 
programmes  in  which  the  major  projects  are  included  must  contain 
a chapter providing separate information on them.

As regards the other ERDF projects, the Commission’s role is limited to 
the assessment and approval of the operational programmes, rather 
than individual projects.

COVERAGE RATE OF AGGLOMERATIONS BY WASTE 
WATER TREATMENT

Partly as a result of the entering into force of the Urban Waste Water 
Treatment Directive and the significant EU financial support 13, there 
h a s   b e e n   a   s i g n i f i c a n t   i n c r e a s e   i n   t h e   c o v e r a g e   r a t e   o f   t h e   u r b a n 
population  served  by  secondary  and  tertiary  treatment  capabilities 
(see  definition  in  the  Annex).  This  is  particularly  marked  in  the  four 
Member  States  who  received  more  than  50  %  of  EU  expenditure  for 
i m p l e m e n t i n g   u r b a n   w a s t e   w a t e r   t r e a t m e n t   f o r   t h e   2 0 0 0 – 0 6   p r o -
gramme period (Tables 1 and 2).

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   13

19/05/09   15:30:58

 
 
 
14

T A B L E   1

EVOLUTION OF PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION OF URBAN AGGLOMERATIONS 
SERVED BY TREATMENT PLANTS PROVIDING SECONDARY TREATMENT

Member State

Start of 1994–99
programme period

End of 2000–06
programme period

Ireland1

Spain2

Portugal3

Greece4

20 % (1994)

41 % (1995)

32 % (1994)

< 20 % (1994)

87 % (2006)

77 % (2005)

80 % (2006)

85 % (2005)

1  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — Office of Environmental Enforcement, 

Urban Waste Water Discharges in Ireland — Reports for the Years 2002–03 and 2004–05. 
2006 figures provided by Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

2  For 1995 data, report prepared according to Article 16 of the Urban Waste Water 

Treatment Directive, sent by Spain to the Commission (October 2004) and, for 2005, 
estimate received from the Ministry of the Environment.

3  Strategic Plan for Water and Waste Water Treatment (2007–13).

4  Ministry of Environment — Central Water Agency estimate.

T A B L E   2

EVOLUTION OF PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION OF URBAN AGGLOMERATIONS 
LOCATED IN SENSITIVE AREAS SERVED BY TREATMENT PLANTS PROVIDING 
SECONDARY AND TERTIARY TREATMENT

Member State

Start of 1994–99
programme period (1995)1

End of 2000–06
programme period

Ireland

Spain

Portugal

Greece

2 %

3 %

0 %

6 %

8 % (2006)2

84 % (2005)3

63 % (2005)4

55 % (2006)5

1  OECD Environmental Data (Compendium 2006).

2  For 2006, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and for 2009 the Department of 

Environment has estimated that the percentage will increase to 80 %.

3  Ministry of Environment.

4  Instituto da Água I. P. (INAG I. P.) has estimated that the percentage will increase to 78 % 

in 2008.

5  Ministry of Environment — Central Water Agency. The figure had increased to 97 % by 

2007.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   14

19/05/09   15:30:58

AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH

15

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

The main objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of Struc-
tural  Measures  spending  on  waste  water  treatment  for  the  1994–99 
and 2000–06 programme periods.

The Court addressed the following questions:

(a) 

Do EU co-financed treatment plants achieve an adequate perform-
ance in the treatment of waste water?

(b) 

I s   t h e   s l u d g e   p r o d u c e d   b y   t h e   t r e a t m e n t   p l a n t s   b e i n g   u s e d 
appropriately?

(c) 

Is the Commission fulfilling its role in relation to project selection, 
monitoring of outcomes through its analysis of final reports and 
promotion of environmental principles?

The audit was carried out at the European Commission and in four Mem-
ber States: Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland. The total Community 
e x p e n d i t u r e   o n   w a s t e   w a t e r   t r e a t m e n t   p r o j e c t s   f o r   t h e s e   M e m b e r 
States  was  5,2  billion  euro  for  the  programme  period  1994–99  and 
5,9 billion euro for the 2000–06 period. The audit was conducted from 
May 2007 to March 2008.

The audit was based on an assessment of the performance of a sample 
o f   7 3   o p e r a t i n g   t r e a t m e n t   p l a n t s   c o - f i n a n c e d   d u r i n g   t h e   r e l e v a n t 
programme periods.

Commission project approval, monitoring and follow-up procedures 
were  examined.  In  the  Member  States,  the  Court  interviewed  repre-
sentatives  from  the  various  local,  regional  and  national  authorities 
charged with the design, selection, operation and monitoring of treat-
m e n t   p l a n t s .   T h e   C o u r t   v i s i t e d   2 6   p r o j e c t s   ( T a b l e   3 ) ,   a c c o m p a n i e d 
b y   i n d e p e n d e n t   e x p e r t s   k n o w l e d g e a b l e   i n   t h e   a r e a s   o f   t r e a t m e n t 
p l a n t   o p e r a t i o n ,   m a i n t e n a n c e   a n d   c o n t r o l .   A   f u r t h e r   4 7   t r e a t m e n t 
plants were subject to desk checks. In order to identify and compare 
benchmarks and best practices in the field, a review of standards of 
some  non-EU  countries  was  undertaken  (USA,  Switzerland,  Canada, 
Australia and Japan).

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   15

19/05/09   15:30:58

 
 
 
 
 
16

T A B L E   3

WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS VISITED AS PART OF THE COURT’S AUDIT:
BY LOCATION AND FUNDING SOURCE

Spain

Portugal

Greece

Ireland

Total

Cohesion Fund

ERDF

Total

5

5

6

6

22

1

1

0

2

4

6

6

6

8

26

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   16

19/05/09   15:30:58

OBSERVATIONS

17

DO EU COFINANCED TREATMENT PLANTS 
ACHIEVE AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE 
IN THE TREATMENT OF WASTE WATER?

BACKGROUND

20. 

The purpose of the treatment of domestic and pre-treated industrial 
waters is to reduce pollutants to an acceptable level which can then 
be safely absorbed by the receiving water bodies. The quality of the 
effluent is monitored through the taking of water samples.

14 Two treatment plants operated 

at a capacity of 35 %, four at 

around 40 % and one at 45 %. 

21. 

The Court examined:

(a) 

w h e t h e r   t h e   t r e a t m e n t   p l a n t s   o p e r a t e d   a t   a n   a p p r o p r i a t e 
capacity;

(b) 

whether the quality of the effluent produced was acceptable;

(c) 

w h e t h e r   t h e   t r e a t m e n t   p l a n t s   w e r e   a d e q u a t e l y   m o n i t o r e d   w i t h 
regard to performance.

MOST OF THE TREATMENT PLANTS OPERATED 
AT AN APPROPRIATE CAPACITY…

22.  Of the treatment plants visited, 18 out of 26 were deemed to be operat-
ing  satisfactorily  with  regard  to  capacity,  having  an  utilisation  rate 
a b o v e   5 0   % .   I n   t h e s e   c a s e s ,   t h e r e   w a s   a n   a d e q u a t e   c o n n e c t i o n   o f 
households and industrial users to the treatment plant.

… BUT A NUMBER OF TREATMENT PLANTS OPERATED 
WELL BELOW CAPACITY…

23. 

Plants operating at less than 50 % capacity can be considered as being 
underutilised. In the Court’s sample, seven plants were operating as 
such and their underutilisation can be explained as follows 14:

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   17

19/05/09   15:30:59

 
 
 
 
18

(a) 

six of the seven cases of underutilisation resulted from problems 
in completing the network, with many households and industrial 
users remaining unconnected to the treatment plants despite the 
plants  being  five  years  or  more  in  operation.  As  a  result,  not  all 
of the waste water produced in the area was treated;

(b) 

the other plant was operating at lower than planned capacity due 
to the loss of local industries, which led to a drastic reduction in 
the quantity of water received for treatment.

15 Council Directive 91/271/EEC, 

Annex I, Tables 1 and 2 establish 

requirements for discharges 

concerning biochemical oxygen 

demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen 

demand (COD), total suspended 

solids (TSS) for normal areas, and 

in addition, for sensitive areas, 

total phosphorus (TP) and/or total 
nitrogen (TN) (see the Annex). 

… AND ONE TREATMENT PLANT HAD INSUFFICIENT CAPACITY

24.  One plant was operating at full capacity due to the unexpectedly rapid 
economic growth of the region concerned. As a result the treatment 
plant  did  not  have  enough  capacity  to  handle  its  waste  water  load 
a t   t h e   t i m e   o f   t h e   C o u r t ’ s   v i s i t .   E x p a n s i o n   w o r k s   f o r   t h i s   p l a n t   a r e 
planned for 2009–10, leaving it currently unable to properly treat all 
waste water received.

A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE TREATMENT PLANTS PRODUCED 
EFFLUENT MEETING EU REQUIREMENTS

25. 

The Court assessed the quality of the water discharged by the 73 treat-
ment  plants  selected  against  the  requirements  of  the  Urban  Waste 
Water Treatment Directive 15. The directive was in turn compared with 
regulations  in  existence  in  non-EU  countries  with  a  similar  level  of 
e c o n o m i c   a n d   s o c i a l   d e v e l o p m e n t .   I n   6 4   c a s e s   t h e   q u a l i t y   o f   t h e 
discharged  water  met  EU  requirements  and  Table  4  summarises  the 
results.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   18

19/05/09   15:30:59

 
 
19

T A B L E   4

PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT PLANTS IN THE AUDIT SAMPLE 
WITH REGARD TO EU EFFLUENT QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

Treatment plants 
audited

EU requirements 
clearly met

EU requirements 
borderline met

EU requirements 
not met

Spain

Ireland

Portugal

Greece

Total

%

19

18

18

18

73

9

12

8

12

41

7

5

6

5

23

3

1

4

1

9

100 %

56,2 %

31,5 %

12,3 %

P I C T U R E S   1  4

EXAMPLES OF TREATMENT PLANTS MEETING EU REQUIREMENTS

Picture 1: Psyttalia treatment plant — Greece

Picture 2: Febros treatment plant — Portugal

Picture 3: León treatment plant — Spain

Picture 4: Drogheda treatment plant — Ireland

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   19

19/05/09   15:30:59

20

26. 

As  presented  in  Table  4,  in  nine  cases  the  quality  of  the  discharged 
water did not meet EU requirements and the following problems were 
noted:

(a) 

industrial waste water should normally be pre-treated before being 
discharged into the municipal sewage system to avoid problems in 
the performance of the treatment plant. In four treatment plants 
not meeting EU requirements, the main problems were due to the 
reception by the plants of water from industrial sources which had 
not  been  fully  pre-treated  and  in  some  cases  the  operators  had 
not  been  informed  as  to  the  composition  of  the  industrial  waste 
water they were receiving (see Textbox 2);

(b) 

some  treatment  plants  were  being  operated  by  local  authorities 
lacking adequate resources and expertise and with no mechanisms 
in place to be informed of best practice;

(c) 

i n   o t h e r   c a s e s   p o o r   p e r f o r m a n c e   r e s u l t e d   f r o m   f a i l u r e   t o   a d e -
quately  remove  the  eutrophication-inducing  nutrients  due  to  a 
lack of appropriate nutrient removal equipment.

T E X T B O X   2

EXAMPLES OF INADEQUATE PRE-TREATMENT OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE WATER

In Spain, operators of two of the three treatment plants not meeting standards, noted in their ‘Monthly Operating 
Reports’ that industries were channelling untreated waste water to their plants which had an adverse impact on 
performance. For one of these two plants, 74 of the 93 self-checks carried out during 2006 deviated by more than 
100 % from the limits established in the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.

In Portugal, in two of the four treatment plants not meeting EU requirements, industries were discharging directly 
into the municipal sewage system without carrying out appropriate pre-treatment. Th  e situation was known to 
the operators and furthermore had been noted in the reports of the independent body charged with monitoring 
treatment plant performance.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   20

19/05/09   15:31:02

 
21

EFFLUENT QUALITY MONITORING: GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE 
PERFORMANCE DATA BUT SOME OPPORTUNITIES 
FOR IMPROVEMENT

27. 

Generally, for the 26 treatment plants visited, the self-checks carried 
o u t   b y   t h e   p l a n t   o p e r a t o r   w e r e   i n   a c c o r d a n c e   w i t h   t h e   s t a n d a r d s 
s e t   o u t   i n   t h e   U r b a n   W a s t e   W a t e r   T r e a t m e n t   D i r e c t i v e   w i t h   r e g a r d 
to  their  frequency  and  the  sampling  methods  used.  However,  some 
weaknesses were identified especially at smaller plants:

16 Annex I.D of 

the directive 91/271/EEC. 

17 Directive 86/278/EEC and 

Directive 91/271/EEC. 

(a) 

in one case, the frequency of the self-checks was insufficient (five 
self-checks were carried out in 2006 instead of the 12 required);

(b) 

in  three  cases  the  sampling  method  used  was  not  in  compliance 
w i t h   t h e   d i r e c t i v e   ( g r a b   s a m p l i n g   w a s   u s e d   w h i l e   t h e   d i r e c t i v e 
provides for 24h-composite or flow-proportional sampling).

28. 

During the audit a number of good practices were observed which were 
additional to the requirements of the directive:

(a) 

operators  in  treatment  plants  with  a  capacity  above  50  000  p.e. 
w e r e   p e r f o r m i n g   m o r e   s e l f - c h e c k s   t h a n   t h e   2 4   r e q u i r e d   b y   t h e 
directive 16. In the 14 such plants visited , the number of samples 
taken per year varied from 38 to 365;

(b) 

three  of  the  four  Member  States  visited  operate  a  system  of  dis-
charge  licences  establishing  the  discharged  water  requirements 
for each treatment plant (although some of the treatment plants 
visited  in  those  Member  States  were  operating  without  licences 
or with out of date licences). The fourth Member State launched 
its licensing system in 2008.

IS THE SLUDGE PRODUCED BY THE TREATMENT PLANTS 
BEING USED APPROPRIATELY?

BACKGROUND

29. 

The treatment of waste water results in the discharge of effluent and 
t h e   p r o d u c t i o n   o f   s e w a g e   s l u d g e .   T h e   E U   e n c o u r a g e s   i t s   u s e   a s   a 
f e r t i l i s e r 1 7,   a s   t r e a t e d   s e w a g e   s l u d g e   i s   a   g o o d   s o u r c e   o f   p h o s p h o -
rus, nitrogen and potasium. Such use of the sludge makes economic 
sense for the farmer, being a good use of available resources whilst at 
the same time being beneficial for the soil. However, sewage sludge 
may also contain harmful contaminants which have to be kept to an 
acceptable level for the sludge to be used or disposed of safely.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   21

19/05/09   15:31:02

 
 
 
22

18 Council Directive 75/442/EEC 

of 15 July 1975 on waste 

(OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39). 

30. 

The Court examined:

(a) 

whether the sludge was disposed of safely, with the EU encourag-
ing 18 its safe reuse in agriculture and energy generation through 
incineration, with disposal in municipal landfills being acceptable 
although recognised as being the least sustainable method;

(b) 

w h e t h e r   w h e n   u s e d   i n   a g r i c u l t u r e ,   t h e   s l u d g e   a n d   t h e   s o i l   h a d 
safe levels of certain substances considered hazardous;

(c) 

whether monitoring at operating plants and Member States pro-
vided adequate assurance that the sewage sludge was being dis-
posed of safely.

TWO THIRDS OF THE TREATMENT PLANTS AUDITED 
DISPOSED OF THE SEWAGE SLUDGE IN ACCORDANCE 
WITH EU RECOMMENDED PRACTICES

31.  Of the 73 treatment plants in the audit sample, of those following EU rec-
ommended reuse methods, 47 chose agriculture and one plant selected 
the generation of energy through incineration (see Table 5).

T A B L E   5

DISPOSAL OF THE SEWAGE SLUDGE PRODUCED BY THE TREATMENT PLANTS 
IN THE AUDIT SAMPLE

EU recommended 
reuse methods

Non-reuse methods

Land 
application

Inciner-
ation

Municipal 
landfi lls

Treatment 
plant
on-site

Other

Spain

Ireland

Portugal

Greece

Total

16

17

14

0

47

0

0

0

1

1

2

1

1

14

18

0

0

3

2

5

1

0

0

1

2

Total

19

18

18

18

73

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   22

19/05/09   15:31:02

 
 
23

32. 

Non-reuse methods were practised at the other 25 treatment plants for 
various reasons:

(a) 

although  Greece  is  currently  developing  a  national  plan  to  deal 
with the issue of sewage sludge disposal, at the time of the audit 
neither  national  nor  regional  plans  were  in  place  and  14  of  the 
18 Greek treatment plants audited disposed of their sewage sludge 
in municipal landfills;

(b) 

i n   G r e e c e   a n d   P o r t u g a l ,   s o m e   t r e a t m e n t   p l a n t s   d o   n o t   h a v e   a 
viable strategy for sludge disposal, particularly those municipally 
operated. This has led to on-site storage and, in one case, dump-
ing  in  an  abandoned  mine.  One  large  treatment  plant  in  Greece 
d i d   n o t   h a v e   a   v a l i d   c o n t r a c t   f o r   t h e   s l u d g e   d i s p o s a l   a n d ,   a s   a 
r e s u l t ,   1 3   4 5 0   t o n n e s   o f   s l u d g e   w e r e   e a c h   y e a r   s t o r e d   o n - s i t e 
(Picture 6).

P I C T U R E S   5  6

EXAMPLES OF DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE SLUDGE

Picture 5: EU-encouraged practice 
of reuse on agricultural lands

Picture 6: Poor practice: storage on-site 
at treatment plant visited

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   23

19/05/09   15:31:03

 
24

33. 

For the Member States visited, the Court’s review of data on the disposal 
of sewage sludge indicated that there had been a noticeable increase 
i n   r e u s e   o f   s e w a g e   s l u d g e   a s   e n c o u r a g e d   b y   t h e   E U   ( T a b l e   6   a n d 
Textbox 3).

T A B L E   6

EVOLUTION OF PERCENTAGE OF REUSE OF TREATMENT PLANT SEWAGE SLUDGE 
IN ACCORDANCE WITH EU RECOMMENDED PRACTICES1

Member State

Start of 1994–99 
programme period

End of 2000–06 
programme period

Reuse method

Ireland

Spain

Portugal

Greece

12 % / 15 % (1994)

76 % / 83 % (2005)

Agriculture/all land

46 % (1997)

30 % (1995)

0 % (1997)

66 % (2003)

42 % (2005)

0 % (2005) /
50 % (mid–07)2

Agriculture

Agriculture

Energy (incineration)

1  Reports on sewage sludge that Member States prepare according to Article 17 of the Sewage Sludge 

Directive.

2  Estimate. Ministry of Environment.

T E X T B O X   3

EXAMPLE OF HOW ONE MEMBER STATE ENCOURAGED EU RECOMMENDED PRACTICE

Th  e performance achieved by Ireland was attributable in part to its implementation of the Sewage Sludge Directive 
through the development and application of guidelines identifying best practice for sewage sludge treatment and 
disposal. One guideline focused on the preparation of eff ective sludge management plans for local authorities, 
whereas two others dealt with the safe disposal of sludge on agricultural lands, including a requirement for the 
use of a ‘Nutrient Management Plan’ for each farmer.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   24

19/05/09   15:31:04

 
25

34. 

35. 

SATISFACTORY RESULTS AGAINST SEWAGE SLUDGE 
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

For the treatment plants audited on-site in the three Member States 
a p p l y i n g   s l u d g e   t o   l a n d ,   l a b   t e s t s   c a r r i e d   o u t   o n   h e a v y   m e t a l   c o n -
c e n t r a t i o n s   i n   s e w a g e   s l u d g e   a n d   s o i l s ,   p r i o r   t o   t h e   a p p l i c a t i o n   o f 
the sludge, gave results which were in compliance with the maximum 
limits required by the Sewage Sludge Directive. Checks were carried 
out for other compounds, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 
although not required by the directive (see Textbox 4).

REVISION OF THE DIRECTIVE?

Although the Court found that the requirements of the Sewage Sludge 
Directive  were  being  satisfactorily  adhered  to,  as  the  current  direc-
tive  was  adopted  in  1986,  it  does  not  take  into  account  subsequent 
developments  in  techniques  and  methods  of  sludge  treatment  and 
d i s p o s a l .   F o r   e x a m p l e   t h e   d i r e c t i v e   d o e s   n o t   r e q u i r e   t e s t i n g   f o r 
o r g a n i c   c o n t a m i n a n t s   s u c h   a s   P C B s ,   o r   p a t h o g e n s   s u c h   a s   E .   c o l i , 
whereas  some  EU  Member  States  set  maximum  concentration  levels 
f o r   o r g a n i c   c o n t a m i n a n t s   i n   t h e i r   n a t i o n a l   r e g u l a t i o n s   a n d   c e r t a i n 
non-EU  countries  have  set  standards  aimed  at  reducing  the  harmful 
e f f e c t s   o f   p a t h o g e n s   i n   s l u d g e .   I n   a d d i t i o n ,   t h e r e   i s   n o   m e n t i o n   i n 
the directive of other popular land applications such as forestry.

T E X T B O X   4

EXAMPLES OF CHECKS FOR OTHER COMPOUNDS IN SEWAGE SLUDGE

In Ireland, three of eight treatment plants visited periodically tested for fl uoride, arsenic, selenium and magnesium. 
Some plants also tested polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

In Portugal, since 2006, sludge produced by treatment plants receiving industrial waters has to be checked for 
organic compounds and dioxins. Th  is had been carried out at four of the six treatment plants visited.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   25

19/05/09   15:31:04

 
 
26

36. 

37. 

If a revision is deemed necessary, it is likely that new limits for various 
substances would be more stringent than those found in the current 
directive. However, in other instances, there may be an opportunity, 
i n   t h e   l i g h t   o f   r e s e a r c h   c a r r i e d   o u t   s i n c e   t h e   a d o p t i o n   o f   t h e   1 9 8 6 
directive,  to  relax  certain  limits  which  were  thought  prudent  in  the 
p a s t .   T h e r e   m a y   a l s o   b e   a   n e e d   t o   i n s t i g a t e   t e s t s   f o r   c o n t a m i n a n t s 
not mentioned in the current directive.

SLUDGE DISPOSAL MONITORING: SOME OPPORTUNITIES 
FOR IMPROVEMENT AT OPERATING PLANTS AND MONITORING 
BODIES OF THE MEMBER STATES

The Court’s review of sludge quality testing and recording for the oper-
ating plants in the sample indicated that the frequency of sampling 
a n d   t h e   c h o i c e   o f   s a m p l i n g   m e t h o d   f o r   t h e   s e w a g e   s l u d g e   t e s t i n g 
were generally in accordance with the Sewage Sludge Directive, even 
if  some  weaknesses  were  identified  concerning  the  number  of  tests 
carried out.

38. 

In Member States, the Court noted that:

(a) 

a t   t h e   v a r i o u s   l e v e l s ,   t h e   a u t h o r i t y   r e s p o n s i b l e   f o r   m o n i t o r i n g 
s e w a g e   s l u d g e   w e r e   o f t e n   n o t   a b l e   t o   i n d i c a t e   t h e   q u a n t i t y   o f 
sludge produced, its content or how it was disposed of;

(b) 

as different units were sometimes responsible for monitoring agri-
cultural and non-agricultural sludge disposal separately, there was 
a lack of overview with regard to the situation of each treatment 
plant as a whole.

IS THE COMMISSION FULFILLING ITS ROLE?

BACKGROUND

39. 

The approval and follow-up of waste water treatment projects co-financed 
by the EU involves two Directorates-General of the European Commis-
sion:  DG  REGIO  and  DG  ENV.  For  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  ERDF  major 
projects, the Commission’s role in the appraisal of grant applications 
and  the  decision  process  relates  to  individual  projects,  whereas  for 
s m a l l e r   E R D F   p r o j e c t s ,   i t s   i n t e r v e n t i o n   i s   a t   t h e   l e v e l   o f   t h e   o p e r -
ational programme (paragraphs 8 to 13).

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   26

19/05/09   15:31:04

 
 
 
 
27

40. 

For Cohesion Fund and ERDF major projects, the Court examined whether 
the Commission:

(a) 

c h e c k e d   i n   a   c o n s i s t e n t   m a n n e r   t h e   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   i n f o r m a t i o n 
contained in the grant applications;

(b) 

r e v i e w e d   t h e   o u t c o m e s   a c h i e v e d   b y   a p p r o v e d   p r o j e c t s   b e f o r e 
paying the balance of the grant;

(c) 

ensured  that  Member  States  applied  the  EU  environmental  prin-
ciples that pollution should be reduced at source and the polluter 
should pay.

41. 

42. 

43. 

NEED FOR CONSISTENCY IN PROJECT EXAMINATION

For the Commission to ensure that all grant applicants are treated equally 
and  that  all  aspects  of  the  applications  are  covered,  an  appropriate 
and  systematically  applied  framework  including  internal  guidelines 
and  checklists  is  essential.  During  the  course  of  its  audit,  the  Court 
noted an absence of such guidelines and checklists.

The Commission’s Cohesion Fund 2000–06 Guide stipulated certain key 
d o c u m e n t s   a n d   i n f o r m a t i o n   w h i c h   h a d   t o   b e   i n c l u d e d   w i t h   g r a n t 
a p p l i c a t i o n s .   S u c h   i n f o r m a t i o n   w a s   n o t   a l w a y s   i n c l u d e d   w i t h   t h e 
applications  reviewed  by  the  Court  and  the  use  of  checklists  could 
have prevented this.

In  its  review  of  the  22  treatment  plants  visited  on  the  spot  and  co-
financed by the Cohesion Fund the Court noted:

(a) 

while  almost  all  applications  and  Commission  decisions  include 
t a r g e t s   f o r   t h e   q u a l i t y   o f   d i s c h a r g e d   w a t e r   a n d   t h e   v o l u m e   o f 
waste  water  to  be  treated,  they  contain  little  information  about 
t h e   n a t u r e   o f   s e w a g e   s l u d g e   d i s p o s a l   ( o n l y   i n d i c a t e d   i n   e i g h t 
applications  for  assistance  and  six  granting  decisions)  or  about 
the quality of sewage sludge (referred to in only two applications 
for assistance and one granting decision);

(b) 

an absence of quantified receiving water quality performance indi-
cators in almost all applications for assistance and corresponding 
Commission decisions (and this was confirmed by the findings of 
an ex post evaluation carried out for the Commission).

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   27

19/05/09   15:31:04

 
 
 
 
28

Indeed, the Court has noted that the assessment of whether projects have 
met their objectives can be affected by shortcomings in aid applica-
tions, in particular concerning anticipated effects and indicators 19.

19 The most recent examples 

were observed by the Court in 

its Special Report No 1/2008 

concerning the procedures for 

the preliminary examination and 

evaluation of major investment 

A more rigorous examination of projects at application stage could have 
identified and helped solve certain problems noted during the course 
of the audit:

projects for the 1994–99 and 

2000–06 programme periods 

(OJ C 81, 1.4.2008, p. 1). 

(a) 

inadequate treatment plant quality in sensitive areas due to a lack 
of appropriate nutrient removal equipment (paragraph 26);

(b) 

inadequate disposal of sludge, with some large treatment plants 
accumulating its sewage sludge on-site (paragraph 32).

NEED FOR BETTER MONITORING OF OUTCOMES

Before paying the balance of the grant of Cohesion Fund projects, a final 
report containing in particular an assessment of whether anticipated 
results have been achieved has to be submitted to the Commission. 
I f   t h e   f i n a l   r e p o r t   i s   n o t   s e n t   t o   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w i t h i n   1 8   m o n t h s 
of  the  final  date  in  the  granting  decision,  the  remaining  balance  of 
t h e   p a y m e n t   s h o u l d ,   a c c o r d i n g   t o   t h e   r e l e v a n t   E U   l e g i s l a t i o n ,   b e 
cancelled.

In its audit of the final reports of the 22 treatment plants co-financed 
b y   t h e   C o h e s i o n   F u n d   a n d   v i s i t e d   b y   t h e   C o u r t ,   i t   w a s   n o t e d   t h a t 
only six final reports provided data on the quality of the discharged 
w a t e r ,   o n l y   o n e   p r o v i d e d   d a t a   r e l a t e d   t o   m e a s u r e d   w a t e r   q u a l i t y 
improvement and only three indicated the method of sewage sludge 
disposal.

The Court concludes that the Commission is not in a position to properly 
e v a l u a t e   f i n a l   r e p o r t s   w i t h o u t   b e i n g   i n   p o s s e s s i o n   o f   f u n d a m e n t a l 
and key information such as referred to in paragraph 47. Given such 
lack  of  information,  suspension  or  cancellation  of  the  balance  of  a 
p a y m e n t   w i l l   o n l y   o c c u r   o n   t h e   n o n - s u b m i s s i o n   o f   a   r e p o r t ,   r a t h e r 
than following an assessment as to whether anticipated results have 
actually been achieved.

44. 

45. 

46. 

47. 

48. 

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   28

19/05/09   15:31:04

 
 
 
 
 
29

49. 

50. 

MORE CONSIDERATION OF EU ENVIRONMENTAL 
PRINCIPLES REQUIRED

Preserving the good ecological status of water bodies 20 requires not only 
the satisfactory treatment of waste water at individual plant level but 
a l s o   a p p l i c a t i o n   o f   t h e   E U   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p r i n c i p l e s   t h a t   p o l l u t i o n 
should be reduced at source and the polluter should pay.

A Commission report asserts 21 that two of the main sources of eutrophi-
cation of fresh waters by urban agglomerations are phosphate-based 
domestic laundry detergents and human metabolic waste. Concerns 
over the contribution of phosphate-based laundry detergents have led 
most Member States to move towards phosphate-free detergents.

51.  Other reports 22 conclude that the provision of tertiary treatment alone 
may  not  in  itself  be  sufficient  in  avoiding  eutrophication  without  a 
move away from phosphate-based detergents.

52. 

53. 

54. 

The Commission has studied the potential environmental benefits for 
Member States of such a move away from phosphate-based detergents 
and  concluded  that  24  of  the  25 23  studied  would  benefit  in  varying 
degrees 24. Amongst the factors taken into account for each Member 
S t a t e   w e r e   t h e   a n n u a l   c o n s u m p t i o n   o f   d e t e r g e n t   p h o s p h a t e s ,   t h e 
provision of tertiary water treatment and the extent of concern over 
eutrophication.

The Commission has recognised the need for appropriate action and in 
the  report  referred  to  in  paragraph  50,  it  stated  that  a  decision  on 
whether  restrictions  on  phosphates  in  detergents  would  be  taken  if 
justified  and  that  an  impact  assessment  and  eventual  presentation 
of a legislative proposal would follow if considered appropriate.

Concerning the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the Water Framework Directive 
r e q u i r e s   b y   2 0 1 0   t h e   a d o p t i o n   o f   w a t e r - p r i c i n g   p o l i c i e s   p r o v i d i n g 
i n c e n t i v e s   f o r   t h e   e f f i c i e n t   u s e   o f   w a t e r   r e s o u r c e s   a n d   r e c o v e r y   o f 
costs.

20 The good ecological status is 

defined in the Water Framework 

Directive based on three groups 

of elements: biological quality 

elements, hydromorphological 

quality elements and physico-

chemical quality elements 

(Article 2 and Annex V). 

21 Report from the Commission 

to the Council and the European 

Parliament pursuant to Article 16 

of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of 

the European Parliament and of 

the Council of 31 March 2004 on 

detergents, concerning the use 

of phosphates / COM(2007) 234 

final — Brussels, 4 May 2007. 

22 EU Environment Directorate — 

Final Report on Phosphates and 

Alternative Detergent Builders / 

WRc Ref: UC 4011 / June 2002 

pages 120, 121 and 125, 

UNDP/GEF report at Danube River 

and MARE/HELCOM project on 

the Baltic Sea area. 

23 Bulgaria and Romania were not 

taken into account in this study. 

24 The Commission reported 

that two of the countries which 

had received large amounts 

of assistance from the EU in 

support of waste water treatment 

investment, and which were 

visited in this audit, were less than 

50 % phosphate-free in laundry 

detergents. 

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   29

19/05/09   15:31:04

 
 
 
 
 
 
30

55.  When assessing a grant application, the Commission is required to verify 
compliance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle and this may influence 
t h e   r a t e   o f   a s s i s t a n c e   g r a n t e d 2 5.   H o w e v e r ,   n o   s p e c i f i c   b e n c h m a r k s 
are provided against which to assess the proposed tariff rates in the 
a p p l i c a t i o n .   T h e   C o u r t   n o t e d   t h a t   t a r i f f   r a t e s   w e r e   n e v e r   i n c l u d e d 
in  the  granting  decision  and  often  not  in  the  final  reports,  thereby 
making difficult an assessment of financial sustainability.

25 EC DG Regio ‘Cohesion Fund 

2000–06 Manual of Procedures’ 

(Version 2006–09) — page 21.

56. 

The Court’s review of the tariffs applied by the plants visited showed 
t h a t   g e n e r a l l y   t a r i f f s   a r e   t o o   l o w   t o   c o v e r   o p e r a t i n g   c o s t s   ( s e e 
Textbox 5).

T E X T B O X   5

EXAMPLES OF TARIFFS APPLIED BY THE TREATMENT PLANTS VISITED

Th  e tariff s applied by the treatment plants visited in Spain, Portugal and Greece varied signifi cantly (e.g. ranging 
for a quantity of water over 20 m3 from 0,079 euro/m3 to 1,17 euro/m3).

Ireland does not directly charge domestic users for their use of water and waste water services, though it does 
charge commercial and industrial users of water and waste water services.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   30

19/05/09   15:31:05

 
 
CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS

31

57. 

58. 

The overall conclusion of the Court is that Structural Measures have 
contributed to the improvement of waste water treatment in the four 
Member States audited.

WASTE WATER TREATMENT

As regards the performance of waste water treatment plants, the Court 
found that in general those plants co-financed by Structural Measures 
perform at an adequate level (paragraphs 22 and 25).

59. 

However:

(a) 

seven of the 26 plants were found to be operating below capacity 
d u e ,   i n   s i x   c a s e s ,   t o   a   f a i l u r e   t o   c o n n e c t   a l l   p o t e n t i a l   d o m e s t i c 
a n d   i n d u s t r i a l   u s e r s   t o   t h e   t r e a t m e n t   p l a n t s   a n d   i n   o n e   c a s e   t o 
the loss of local industries (paragraphs 23 and 24);

(b) 

the quality of the effluent did not meet EU requirements in nine 
out of 73 cases due to inadequately pre-treated industrial waste 
water being discharged into the sewage network, a lack of exper-
tise  on  the  part  of  some  local  authorities  and  a  lack  of  adequate 
equipment or technology in areas designated as sensitive (para-
graph 26).

60.

T H E   C O U R T   T H E R E F O R E   R E C O M M E N D S   T H A T :

(a) 

M e m b e r   S t a t e s   s h o u l d   e n s u r e   t h a t   s u f f i c i e n t   t h o u g h t   i s   g i v e n   t o 
the connection of newly constructed treatment plants to the sew-
age network;

(b) 

Member States should, in order to improve the quality of the water 
discharged, pay greater attention to the adequate pre-treatment of 
industrial waste water and to promote the sharing of best practice 
amongst operators.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   31

19/05/09   15:31:05

 
 
 
32

SEWAGE SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

61. 

As regards the plants’ treatment and disposal of sewage sludge, the Court 
found  that  two  thirds  of  the  treatment  plants  co-financed  by  Struc-
tural Measures reuse the sludge resulting from the treatment of waste 
water following methods recommended in EU directives, with almost 
all of them prefering its reuse on agricultural land (paragraph 31).

62. 

However:

(a) 

i n   2 5   o u t   o f   7 3   p l a n t s   u n s u s t a i n a b l e   n o n - r e u s e   m e t h o d s   w e r e 
found, such as on-site storage (paragraph 32);

(b) 

in three out of four Member States, for some plants, the relevant 
authorities were not able to indicate the quantity of sludge pro-
duced, its content or how it was disposed of (paragraph 38);

(c) 

a l t h o u g h   t h e   C o u r t   f o u n d   t h a t   t h e   r e q u i r e m e n t s   o f   t h e   S e w a g e 
Sludge Directive were being adhered to, developments in sludge 
treatment and disposal subsequent to 1986 are not taken account 
of in EU legislation, though some Member States apply more strin-
gent standards (paragraphs 35 and 36).

63.

T H E   C O U R T   T H E R E F O R E   R E C O M M E N D S   T H A T :

(a) 

Member States should, before submitting the project for co-finan-
cing, ensure that urban waste water treatment plants have a strat-
egy for the disposal of sewage sludge;

(b) 

Member States should ensure that their databases on sewage sludge 
contains information for each plant on the quantity of sludge pro-
duced, its content and method of disposal;

(c) 

the Commission should consider whether the time is now appropri-
ate  for  the  revision  of  the  Sewage  Sludge  Directive.  Any  revision 
should take into account the costs and benefits of proposing new 
measures  as  well  as  the  need  to  maintain  a  balance  with  other  EU 
policies.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   32

19/05/09   15:31:05

 
 
33

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION

64. 

As regards the role played by the Commission in relation to its approval 
and  follow  up  of  Cohesion  Fund  projects  and  ERDF  major  projects, 
the Court noted the following significant weaknesses:

(a) 

t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a p p r o v e d   p r o j e c t s   w h i c h   d i d   n o t   i n c l u d e   k e y 
information  in  the  application  for  assistance  as  required  by  the 
Guide to the Cohesion Fund (e.g. performance objectives in rela-
t i o n   t o   s l u d g e   d i s p o s a l   a n d   q u a l i t y   o f   r e c e i v i n g   w a t e r s ) .   S u c h 
information  facilitates  the  assessment  of  achieved  results  to  be 
included in the project final report (paragraphs 41 to 45);

(b) 

individual Cohesion Fund project final reports often do not contain 
results concerning the quality of the discharged water, the receiv-
ing  waters  and  the  quality  and  the  nature  of  the  disposal  of  the 
sewage sludge. Without such information the Commission is not 
in a position to carry out the necessary evaluation of final reports 
before payment of the final balance (paragraphs 46 to 48).

65. 

As regards the consideration given by the Commission relating to EU 
environmental principles, the Court noted the following:

(a) 

a   n u m b e r   o f   s t u d i e s   h a v e   i n d i c a t e d   p o s s i b l e   b e n e f i t s   o n   t h e 
e n v i r o n m e n t   t o   b e   g a i n e d   b y   m o v i n g   t o   n o n - p h o s p h a t e - b a s e d 
detergents.  Assessment  of  this  issue  should  continue  to  be  bal-
a n c e d ,   w i t h   a n   a d e q u a t e   c o m p o n e n t   o f   c o s t – b e n e f i t   a n a l y s i s 
(paragraphs 50 to 53);

(b) 

the Commission did not always take the ‘polluter-pays’ principle 
s u f f i c i e n t l y   i n t o   a c c o u n t ,   a s   t h e   C o u r t ’ s   r e v i e w   f o u n d   t h a t   t h e 
tariffs  applied  were  generally  too  low  to  cover  operating  costs. 
Furthermore, tariff rates were not often included in final reports, 
making difficult any assessment of financial sustainability (para-
graphs 54 to 56).

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   33

19/05/09   15:31:05

 
 
34

66.

T H E   C O U R T   T H E R E F O R E   R E C O M M E N D S 
T H A T   T H E   C O M M I S S I O N   S H O U L D :

(a) 

require  that  information  allowing  the  setting  of  performance  tar-
gets,  in  such  key  areas  as  quality  of  water  discharged,  quality  of 
receiving water bodies, volume of water to be treated and intended 
method of sludge disposal should be included in grant applications 
and systematically checked as part of the project appraisal process. 
The establishment of appropriate internal guidelines and checklists 
for use by desk officers would facilitate this;

(b) 

encourage Member States to assess the achievement of the antici-
pated results at project level as set out in the application for assist-
ance, noting that for the period 2007–13 no final report is required 
t o   b e   s u b m i t t e d   t o   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i n   r e s p e c t   o f   C o h e s i o n   F u n d 
projects and ERDF major projects;

(c) 

assess whether a further move away from phosphate-based deter-
g e n t s   i s   j u s t i f i a b l e   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   c o s t s   a n d   b e n e f i t s   t o   t h e   E U 
citizen;

(d) 

ensure that the financial sustainability of treatment plant projects 
is considered at the application approval stage and pertinent infor-
mation such as proposed tariffs is given due consideration.

This report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its 
meeting of 18 and 19 March 2009.

For the Court of Auditors

Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira
President

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   34

19/05/09   15:31:05

 
 
 
 
A N N E X

URBAN WASTE WATER TREATMENT ENVIRONMENT

35

(cid:14)
(cid:8)
(cid:5)
(cid:19)
(cid:14)
(cid:18)
(cid:5)
(cid:10)
(cid:14)
(cid:6)
(cid:23)

%
(cid:30)

(cid:20)
(cid:6)
(cid:25)
(cid:10)
(cid:18)
(cid:8)
(cid:10)
(cid:5)
(cid:14)
(cid:18)
(cid:7)
)
(cid:6)
(cid:9)
(cid:8)
(cid:18)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:23)
(cid:22)
(cid:18)
(cid:11)
(cid:19)
(cid:5)
(cid:21)
(cid:11)
(cid:31)
(cid:22)
(cid:18)
(cid:11)
(cid:29)
(cid:12)
(cid:12)
(cid:28)
(cid:20)
(cid:6)
(cid:25)
(cid:10)
(cid:18)
(cid:3)
(cid:14)
(cid:10)
(cid:5)
"

(cid:22)

(cid:3)

(cid:6)
(cid:16)
(

(cid:3)

(cid:22)

(cid:3)

(cid:23)
(cid:22)
(cid:18)
(cid:11)
(cid:29)
(cid:12)
(cid:12)
(cid:28)
(cid:20)
(cid:6)
(cid:14)
(cid:8)
(cid:5)
(cid:19)
(cid:14)
(cid:18)
(cid:5)
(cid:10)
(cid:14)
(cid:6)
(cid:25)
(cid:10)
(cid:18)
(cid:9)
(cid:8)
(cid:12)
(cid:11)
(cid:5)
(cid:27)

(cid:6)
(cid:16)
(cid:26)

(cid:17)

(cid:14)
(cid:12)
(cid:8)
(cid:8)
(cid:2)

(cid:16)
(cid:7)
(cid:10)
(cid:6)
(cid:5)
(cid:15)
(cid:14)

(cid:7)
(cid:10)
(cid:6)
(cid:11)
(cid:13)
(cid:10)
(cid:5)
(cid:11)
(cid:3)
(cid:12)
(cid:7)
(cid:3)
(cid:11)
(cid:10)
(cid:5)
(cid:8)
(cid:7)
(cid:11)
(cid:10)
(cid:9)
(cid:5)
(cid:8)
(cid:6)
(cid:5)
(cid:4)
(cid:3)
(cid:2)

(cid:7)

#
&
%
#

$

(cid:10)
(cid:5)
(cid:14)
(cid:18)

(cid:5)
(cid:14)
(cid:13)
(cid:18)

(cid:6)
(cid:9)
(cid:5)
(cid:14)
(cid:18)
(cid:5)
(cid:10)
"

(cid:6)
(cid:14)
(cid:8)
(cid:5)
(cid:3)
(cid:10)
(cid:14)
(cid:7)
+

(cid:22)

(cid:18)
,
(cid:12)
(cid:19)
(cid:5)
(cid:10)

(cid:6)

%
(cid:30)

(cid:14)
(cid:8)
(cid:5)
(cid:19)
(cid:14)
(cid:18)
(cid:5)
(cid:10)
(cid:14)

(cid:22)

(cid:22)

(cid:5)
(cid:29)
(cid:9)
(cid:7)
(cid:13)
(cid:6)
(cid:13)
(cid:13)
(cid:5)
(cid:11)
*
&

(cid:6)
(cid:14)
(cid:8)
(cid:5)
(cid:19)
(cid:14)
(cid:18)
(cid:5)
(cid:10)
(cid:14)
(cid:6)
(cid:25)
(cid:10)
(cid:18)
(cid:19)

(cid:3)
(cid:10)

(cid:2)

(cid:6)
(cid:16)
(cid:24)

(cid:3)

(cid:23)
(cid:22)
(cid:18)
(cid:11)
(cid:8)
(cid:18)
(cid:21)
(cid:11)
(cid:5)
(cid:19)

(cid:20)

(cid:3)

(cid:29)
(cid:8)
(cid:8)
(cid:5)
(cid:5)
(cid:10)
(cid:11)
(cid:27)

(cid:3)

(cid:6)
(cid:29)
(cid:8)
(cid:9)
(cid:8)
(cid:18)
(cid:13)
(cid:17)
(cid:5)
-

(cid:17)
(cid:5)
(cid:9)

(cid:6)

(cid:9)
(cid:8)
(cid:18)

(cid:29)
(cid:8)

(cid:3)
(cid:22)
(cid:3)

(cid:12)

(cid:6)
(cid:14)
(cid:8)
(cid:5)
(cid:19)
(cid:14)
(cid:18)
(cid:5)
(cid:10)
(cid:14)
(cid:17)
(cid:5)
(cid:10)
(cid:2)

(cid:6)
(cid:16)
(cid:15)

(cid:3)

(cid:23)
(cid:22)
(cid:18)
(cid:11)
(cid:8)
(cid:18)
(cid:21)
(cid:11)
(cid:5)
(cid:19)

(cid:20)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:18)
(cid:13)
(cid:12)
(cid:4)
(cid:13)
(cid:9)
(cid:6)
(cid:5)
(cid:10)
(cid:12)
’
(cid:5)
(cid:28)
(cid:6)
(cid:23)
(cid:29)
(cid:8)
(cid:25)
(cid:10)
(cid:9)
(cid:20)
(cid:6)
(cid:14)
(cid:8)
(cid:5)
(cid:19)
(cid:14)
(cid:18)
(cid:5)
(cid:10)
(cid:14)
(cid:6)
(cid:5)
(cid:29)
(cid:9)
(cid:7)
(cid:27)

(cid:22)

(cid:14)
(cid:10)
(cid:12)
(cid:4)
(cid:13)
(cid:8)
(cid:18)
(cid:10)
(cid:14)
(cid:6)
(cid:5)
(cid:29)
(cid:9)
(cid:7)
(cid:27)

(cid:22)

(cid:13)

(cid:22)
(cid:22)
(cid:3)
’
(cid:9)
(cid:8)
(cid:18)
(cid:22)
(cid:6)
(cid:8)
(cid:3)
(cid:6)
(cid:22)
(cid:18)
(cid:13)
(cid:12)
(cid:4)
(cid:13)
-

(cid:3)

(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:8)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:8)

#
&
%
#

$

(cid:6)
(cid:9)
(cid:5)
(cid:13)
(cid:7)
(cid:6)
(cid:25)
(cid:22)
(cid:10)
(cid:5)
(cid:4)
(cid:12)
(cid:10)
(cid:4)
(cid:19)

(cid:3)
(cid:6)
’
(cid:12)
(cid:6)
(cid:13)
’
’
(cid:12)
(cid:31)
(cid:8)
(cid:7)
#

(cid:10)
(cid:5)
,
(cid:3)
(cid:10)
(cid:6)
(cid:5)
(cid:21)
(cid:14)
(cid:6)
(cid:12)
(cid:14)
(cid:8)
(cid:3)
(cid:6)
(cid:13)
(cid:10)
(cid:5)
.

(cid:3)
(cid:22)
(cid:3)
(cid:14)
(cid:10)
(cid:5)
’

4
(cid:11)
(cid:12)
(cid:14)
(cid:13)
(cid:5)
,
3

(cid:3)

(cid:10)
(cid:5)
(cid:14)
(cid:18)

(cid:5)
(cid:14)
(cid:13)
(cid:18)

(cid:6)
(cid:9)
(cid:5)
(cid:14)
(cid:18)
(cid:5)
(cid:10)
(cid:14)
(cid:8)
(cid:30)

(cid:3)

(cid:5)
(cid:9)
(cid:13)
(cid:25)
(cid:10)
(cid:14)
(cid:8)
(cid:7)
(cid:12)
(cid:11)
(cid:6)
(cid:8)
(cid:3)
(cid:6)
(cid:5)
(cid:10)
(cid:7)
(cid:14)
(cid:22)
(cid:7)
(cid:11)
(cid:3)
(cid:10)
(cid:29)
(cid:18)
(cid:6)
(cid:8)
(cid:3)
(cid:6)
(cid:5)
(cid:13)
(cid:7)
(cid:5)
#

(cid:3)

(cid:8)
(cid:12)
(cid:3)
(cid:14)
(cid:18)
(cid:10)
(cid:5)
(cid:8)
(cid:11)
(cid:8)
(cid:3)
(cid:6)
(cid:8)
(cid:3)
(cid:6)
(cid:5)
(cid:13)
(cid:7)
(cid:5)
#

(cid:9)
(cid:5)

(cid:14)
(cid:11)
(cid:5)
(cid:8)
(cid:8)
(cid:12)
(cid:11)
(cid:6)
(cid:8)
(cid:12)
(cid:3)
(cid:14)
(cid:18)
(cid:10)
(cid:5)
(cid:19)
(cid:12)
(cid:29)
(cid:29)
1

(cid:22)

(cid:6)
2
(cid:9)
(cid:5)
(cid:14)
(cid:11)
(cid:5)
(cid:8)
(cid:8)
(cid:12)
(cid:11)
(cid:6)
(cid:14)
(cid:12)
(cid:8)
(cid:6)
(cid:8)
(cid:12)
(cid:3)
(cid:14)
(cid:18)
(cid:10)
(cid:5)
(cid:19)
(cid:12)
(cid:29)
(cid:29)
1

(cid:22)

(cid:10)
(cid:5)
,
(cid:3)
(cid:10)
(cid:6)
(cid:5)
(cid:21)
(cid:14)
(cid:6)
(cid:12)
(cid:14)
(cid:8)
(cid:3)
(cid:6)
(cid:25)
(cid:22)
(cid:14)
(cid:11)
(cid:5)
(cid:10)
(cid:3)
(cid:9)
(cid:6)
(cid:29)
(cid:8)
(cid:29)
(cid:10)
(cid:18)
(cid:21)
(cid:11)
(cid:13)
(cid:9)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:31)

(cid:9)
(cid:5)

(cid:14)

(cid:18)
(cid:5)
(cid:10)
(cid:14)

(cid:8)
(cid:30)

(cid:14)

(cid:6)
(cid:9)
(cid:5)
(cid:18)
(cid:5)
(cid:10)
(cid:14)
(cid:6)
(cid:25)

(cid:22)
(cid:22)

(cid:18)
(cid:3)
(cid:14)
(cid:10)
(cid:18)
(cid:4)

(cid:6)
(cid:10)
(cid:5)
(cid:14)
(cid:18)

(cid:5)

(cid:14)
(cid:13)
(cid:18)

(cid:6)
(cid:5)
(cid:21)

(cid:14)
(cid:6)

(cid:29)
(cid:8)
(cid:3)
(cid:10)
(cid:5)
(cid:14)
(cid:8)
(cid:5)

(cid:2)
"
!
!
(cid:30)

(cid:29)
(cid:8)

(cid:3)
(cid:14)
(cid:13)
(cid:5)
"

(cid:6)
(cid:22)
(cid:12)
(cid:10)
(cid:14)
(cid:8)
(cid:12)
0
(cid:6)
(cid:25)
(cid:14)
(cid:3)
(cid:22)

(cid:18)
(cid:7)
/

(cid:6)

(cid:21)
(cid:14)
(cid:3)

(cid:20)
(cid:6)
(cid:10)
(cid:5)
(cid:14)
(cid:18)

(cid:6)
(cid:5)
(cid:14)
(cid:13)
(cid:18)

(cid:3)

(cid:6)
(cid:29)
(cid:8)
(cid:29)
(cid:10)
(cid:18)
(cid:21)
(cid:11)
(cid:13)
-

(cid:3)

(cid:6)
(cid:5)
(cid:21)
(cid:14)
(cid:6)
(cid:12)

(cid:14)
(cid:6)
(cid:14)
(cid:8)
(cid:5)
(cid:19)
(cid:14)
(cid:18)
(cid:5)
(cid:10)
(cid:14)
(cid:17)
(cid:5)
(cid:10)
(cid:4)
(cid:6)
(cid:5)
(cid:14)
(cid:18)
(cid:7)
)
(cid:5)
(cid:9)
(cid:18)

(cid:23)

(cid:19)
(cid:5)
(cid:14)
(cid:13)
(cid:25)
(cid:13)
(cid:6)
(cid:5)
(cid:29)
(cid:18)

(cid:5)
(cid:13)
(cid:6)
(cid:22)
(cid:18)
(cid:4)
(cid:11)
(cid:8)
(cid:7)
(cid:19)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   35

19/05/09   15:31:06

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
36

A N N E X 

COMPLEMENTARY NOTES TO DIAGRAM

DIFFERENT WASTE WATER AND SEWAGE TREATMENT STAGES

W a s t e   w a t e r   i s   c o l l e c t e d   t h r o u g h   t h e   u r b a n   s e w a g e   p i p e   n e t w o r k 
and   pum pe d  t o  the   u rb an  w aste   w a te r  tr ea tme nt   pl an t  (UW WT P) , 
wh er e  i t under go e s se ve ral stages  o f tr ea t ment  befor e it s  dis c h arg e 
int o  the  w aterw ays  of t he   r i ve r  ba s i n.

Waste water pre-treatment

This mechanical phase involves the removal of the largest pieces of 
w a s t e   t h r o u g h   s c r e e n i n g   ( e . g .   p a p e r ,   p l a s t i c   . . . )   a s   w e l l   a s   o f   s a n d 
and   oi l  thr ou gh o th e r  pr oc e sses .

Waste water primary treatment

T h i s   m e c h a n i c a l   p h a s e   i n v o l v e s   t h e   i n i t i a l   s e p a r a t i o n   f r o m   w a s t e 
w a t e r   o f   l a r g e   s e w a g e   p a r t i c l e s ,   w h i c h   s e t t l e   a t   t h e   b o t t o m   o f   t h e 
t a n k .   T h e s e   p a r t i c l e s   a r e   t h e n   s c r a p e d   a n d   c h a n n e l l e d   a s   s e w a g e 
slu d ge  for   sub se que nt  tr ea tm e nt  an d r eus e .

Waste water secondary treatment

This biological phase involves the treatment of waste water to elimi-
nate  b i od eg rad ab le  or gani c  pol lut ant s , as  meas ur ed in  B O D5, CO D 
and   TSS   conc en trat io n le vels  (see  Q uali ty  Pa ra mete r s ).

T h e   m o s t   c o m m o n   t y p e   o f   s e c o n d a r y   t r e a t m e n t   i n v o l v e s   t h e   u s e 
of  pur i fying   m ic r o-o rg anis m s  wh ic h  br ea k  do wn   an d  co ns ume   th e 
biode g rad ab le se wag e  conte n t. T h is  i n t ur n  le ads  t o t he  s ep ara tio n 
and collection of sewage sludge similar to that described in the waste 
wate r  pr i mar y  tre atm e n t ph ase .

Waste water tertiary treatment

T h i s   b i o l o g i c a l / c h e m i c a l   p h a s e   i s   a p p l i e d   w h e r e   n e c e s s a r y ,   t o 
r e d u c e   t h e   c o n c e n t r a t i o n   l e v e l s   o f   n u t r i e n t s   i n   t r e a t e d   w a s t e 
w a t e r s   p r i o r   t o   t h e i r   d i s c h a r g e   i n t o   r i v e r   b a s i n   w a t e r w a y s   a t   r i s k 
of e utr o phi c atio n.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   36

19/05/09   15:31:09

37

E u t r o p h i c a t i o n   a r i s e s   f r o m   t h e   e x p l o s i v e   g r o w t h   o f   a l g a e   i n d u c e d 
by nutrients, which leads to the reduction of oxygen levels in water 
r e s u l t i n g   i n   t h e   d i s a p p e a r a n c e   o f   n a t i v e   m a r i n e   p l a n t s ,   f i s h   a n d 
oth er   ac quat ic  ani m al  life .

The two major eutrophication-inducing nutrients are phosphorus (in 
rela ti on   to  fr es h  wate r )  and  nitr o ge n  (i n r e la t io n  to  s al t  wate r s ).

Waste water quaternary treatment

This radiation phase is applied where necessary, to eliminate harm-
ful ba ct er ia (E .  c ol i) to  hum ans us ing nearb y waters , co mmonl y f or 
bathing. This treatment usually involves the disinfectment of treated 
sew ag e  usi ng  u ltr avio let li gh t.

Sewage sludge treatment

Sewag e   slud ge  i s  g e ne rally  d e w ate red  t o  a  20  %  w at er  con te n t  i n  a 
m u d   s t a t e   k n o w n   a s   ‘ b i o s l u d g e ’   a n d   c a n   b e   f u r t h e r   d r i e d   t o   a   1   % 
w a t e r   c o n t e n t   i n   a   d r y   p e l l e t   s t a t e   k n o w n   a s   ‘ b i o f e r t ’   p r i o r   s h i p -
ment  fo r  di sposal.

Biosludge and biofert may be reused in land applications, provided 
c o n t a m i n a n t   l e v e l s   a r e   n o t   e x c e e d e d .   I n   a d d i t i o n   b i o f e r t   m a y   b e 
reuse d  in  ene rg y g e ner ati on  th ough  i nci ner at i on .

The  SS D  als o  r eq ui r es   th e   pe r iodic   te s ti ng   of  ag ri cul tur al   s oi ls   f o r 
accep tab le hea vy  me tals co nce nt rat io ns  p ri or  t o t he a p pl icat io n of 
se wa ge  slud ge .

QUALITY CONTROL PARAMETERS MANDATED 
BY EU DIRECTIVES

Treated waste water (Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive)

T h e   f o l l o w i n g   p a r a m e t e r s   a r e   t e s t e d   i n   t r e a t e d   w a s t e   w a t e r   p r i o r 
leavi ng  the  UWWTP   fo r  d isc har ge   i nt o  t h e  re ce iv in g  wa ter s   of   th e 
river  b a si n :

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   37

19/05/09   15:31:09

38

Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)

Quantity of oxygen consumed by micro-organisms to eliminate bio-
d e g r a d a b l e   o r g a n i c   a n d   m i n e r a l   m a t t e r   c o n t a i n e d   i n   w a t e r .   B O D 5 
i s   c o n v e n t i o n a l l y   u s e d   t o   m e a s u r e   o x y g e n   c o n s u m p t i o n   i n   t e r m s 
of m g O2/ l  afte r  5  da ys. Th e h igher t he BOD5  v al ue,  t he  great er  t he 
c o n s u m p t i o n   o f   o x y g e n   b y   m i c r o - o r g a n i s m s   a n d   t h e   g r e a t e r   t h e 
pollu ti on .

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

Q u a n t i t y   o f   o x y g e n   c o n s u m e d   t o   o x i d i s e ,   b y   c h e m i c a l   m e a n s ,   t h e 
organic and mineral matter present in water. COD therefore includes 
b o t h   b i o d e g r a d a b l e   m a t t e r   c h a r a c t e r i s e d   b y   B O D 5   a n d   n o n - b i o -
d e g r a d a b l e   o x i d i s a b l e   m a t t e r .   T h i s   p a r a m e t e r   i s   a l s o   e x p r e s s e d   i n 
mg  O2/ l.

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Quantity of mineral and organic particles suspended in water which 
can be captured on a porosity filter. This parameter is also expressed 
in m g /l.

Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP)

Qua nti ty of eu tr ophi c ati on- i nd uci ng nut ri ent s  co nt ain e d in  wat er . 
This  par am eter   is  als o  e xpre ssed  in  mg/l .

Treated sewage sludge (Sewage Sludge Directive)

T h e   f o l l o w i n g   h e a v y   m e t a l s   a r e   t e s t e d   f o r   c o n c e n t r a t i o n   l e v e l s 
ex pr es sed  in  m g/ kg  o f d ry m att er  in  s ludge pr i or  to  a ppl ic ati on  on 
agric u ltur al  soils :

cad m i um ,  coppe r ,  ni ck e l,  le ad , zi nc , me rcury  a nd  ch romi um.

River basin water quality (Water Framework Directive)

T h e   E U   h a s   d e v e l o p e d   s o p h i s t i c a t e d   t e s t i n g   a n d   m o n i t o r i n g   c l a s -
sifications and monitoring systems allowing for categorising Mem-
b e r   S t a t e s ’   w a t e r s   i n t o   f i v e   e c o l o g i c a l   s t a t u s   l e v e l s ,   o f   w h i c h   t w o , 
g o o d   a n d   h i g h ,   a r e   a c c e p t a b l e   f o r   m e e t i n g   E U   c l e a n   w a t e r   p o l i c y 
obje ct i ves.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   38

19/05/09   15:31:09

39

REPLY OF THE 
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
COMMISSION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
III.
The Commission underlines that waste water 
t r e a t m e n t   w a s   a   k e y   i n v e s t m e n t   p r i o r i t y 
o f   t h e   C o h e s i o n   F u n d   a n d   t h e   E R D F   i n   t h e 
four audited Member States.

IV.
Underutilisation of some treatment plants is 
sometimes  caused  by  time  lags  in  the  con-
struction of the waste water systems, associ-
a t e d   w i t h   s i g n i f i c a n t   c h a n g e s   i n   e c o n o m i c 
activity that could not be foreseen. In addi-
tion, projects may include treatment of waste 
w a t e r   s o u r c e s   b e y o n d   t h e   r e q u i r e m e n t s   o f 
the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. 
In such cases, a future-oriented design of the 
t r e a t m e n t   p l a n t   c a n   b e   c o s t - e f f e c t i v e ,   b u t 
it  might  lead  temporarily  to  the  treatment 
plants operating below capacity.

V.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   i n v e s t m e n t s 
i n   t h i s   s e c t o r   n e e d   t o   r e l y   o n   a   l o n g - t e r m 
planning  at  local/regional  level,  and  finan-
cial  resources  should  include  the  Cohesion 
P o l i c y   f u n d s ,   b u t   t h e y   n e e d   t o   b e   c o m p l e -
mented by other sources.

VI.
Reuse of sewage sludge is in many cases lim-
ited by the quality of the sludge, geographi-
cal conditions or economic considerations.

VII.
The Commission is working on a revision of 
the  Sewage  Sludge  Directive,  based  on  the 
d e v e l o p m e n t   o f   a   c o m p r e h e n s i v e   i m p a c t 
a s s e s s m e n t   o f   o p t i o n s   a n d   t h e i r   c o s t s   a n d 
benefits.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   39

19/05/09   15:31:10

40

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

INTRODUCTION
2.
(c)
It should be noted that the provisions of the 
Water Framework Directive were not applic-
a b l e   f o r   t h e   a u d i t e d   p r o j e c t s   a n d   p e r i o d 
(1994–2006).

For  projects  prepared  after  2009,  they  will 
become applicable.

8.
The Commission recalls that Member States 
have the primary responsibility for the selec-
tion, implementation and monitoring of the 
projects.

9.
The Commission is regularly checking com-
pliance  with  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treat-
m e n t   D i r e c t i v e .   T h e   f o u r   I m p l e m e n t a t i o n 
R e p o r t s   i s s u e d   b y   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   b y   t h e 
end of 2007 list horizontal infringement pro-
cedures commenced against Member States, 
i n t e r   a l i a   a g a i n s t   t h e   a u d i t e d   s t a t e s ,   a n d 
judgments by the Court of Justice.

11–12.
F o r   t h e   2 0 0 7 – 1 3   p e r i o d ,   t h e   r e g u l a t i o n 
e n a b l e s   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   t o   a s s e s s   a n d 
approve only major projects (above 25 mil-
l i o n   e u r o   f o r   e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p r o j e c t s ) ,   c o -
financed by either the Cohesion Fund or the 
E R D F .   F o r   t h e s e   p r o j e c t s ,   t h e r e   w i l l   n o t   b e 
project  final  reports  to  be  approved  by  the 
Commission.

F o r   t h e   p e r i o d   a u d i t e d ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n 
examined the quality of individual projects 
s u b m i t t e d   b y   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   o n l y   f o r 
C o h e s i o n   F u n d   p r o j e c t s   a n d   m a j o r   E R D F 
projects.

VIII.
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h a v e   t h e   p r i m a r y   r e s p o n s i -
bility for the selection, implementation and 
monitoring of the co-financed projects.

For the period 2007–13, the Commission has 
developed  a  checklist  for  internal  use  dur-
i n g   m a j o r   w a t e r   a n d   w a s t e w a t e r   p r o j e c t s 
a p p r a i s a l ,   f o r   a s s e s s i n g   c o n s i s t e n c y   w i t h 
the  environmental  acquis  and  policy.  How-
e v e r ,   o n l y   m a j o r   p r o j e c t s   a r e   n o w   s u b j e c t 
t o   a   C o m m i s s i o n   d e c i s i o n   ( p r o j e c t s   i n   t h i s 
sector — above 25 million euro).

IX.
B e f o r e   p a y i n g   t h e   b a l a n c e   t o   a n y   C o h e -
sion Fund or major project the Commission 
endeavours  to  check  that  the  conditions  of 
funding have been fulfilled and where neces-
sary requests clarifications from the benefi-
ciary. The Commission will consider how best 
to achieve the Court’s recommendations.

F o r   p r o j e c t s   a p p r o v e d   d u r i n g   2 0 0 7 – 1 3 ,   i n 
t h e   w a s t e w a t e r   s e c t o r ,   a   s e r i e s   o f   o u t p u t 
indicators are included in the Commission’s 
decisions for co-financing (i.e. level of treat-
ment, capacity of the plant).

X.
D u r i n g   2 0 0 0 – 0 6 ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   m a d e 
e f f o r t s   i n   p r o m o t i n g   t h e   ‘ p o l l u t e r   p a y s ’ 
p r i n c i p l e ,   b y   i s s u i n g   a n   i n d i c a t i v e   p a p e r 
o n   t h e   a p p l i c a t i o n   o f   t h e   p r i n c i p l e   i n   t h e 
frame  of  Cohesion  Policy.  It  underlined  the 
i m p o r t a n c e   o f   t h i s   e l e m e n t   a n d   r e q u e s t e d 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   c o m m i t   t h e m s e l v e s   t o   a 
s t r e n g t h e n e d   a p p l i c a t i o n   o f   t h e   p r i n c i p l e . 
From 2010 onwards, the polluter pays prin -
ciple will become operational, under the pro-
visions of the Water Framework Directive.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   40

19/05/09   15:31:10

41

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

26.
The Commission takes note of the facts and 
w i l l   m a k e   f u r t h e r   e n q u i r i e s .   I t   u n d e r l i n e s , 
h o w e v e r ,   t h a t   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a r e   r e s p o n -
s i b l e   f o r   t h e   o p e r a t i o n   o f   t h e   t r e a t m e n t 
p l a n t s   a n d   t h e i r   c o m p l i a n c e   w i t h   C o m m u -
nity legislation.

(a)
I n d u s t r i a l   w a s t e   w a t e r s   p r e - t r e a t m e n t 
s h o u l d   i n d e e d   b e   i n   p l a c e   w h e n   t h e   u r b a n 
w a s t e   w a t e r   t r e a t m e n t   p l a n t   s t a r t s   o p e r a -
tion. Thus, at the application stage when the 
Commission examines the project, the bene-
f i c i a r y   s h o u l d   d e m o n s t r a t e   t h a t   i n d u s t r i a l 
waste waters are either correctly pre-treated 
or  subject  to  an  action  plan  for  solving  the 
matter.

The industrial wastewater discharges should 
also be subject to a permitting procedure, as 
enshrined  in  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treat-
ment Directive (Article 11).

(b)
Projects can include technical assistance to 
improve beneficiaries’ capacities.

(c)
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   b e e n   a c t i v e   i n   i m p l e -
m e n t i n g   t h e   r e q u i r e m e n t   f o r   n u t r i e n t 
removal, both by informing (letter to Mem-
b e r   S t a t e s   o f   3   J u l y   2 0 0 3 )   a n d   b y   u n d e r -
t a k i n g   l e g a l   i n f r i n g e m e n t   p r o c e d u r e s   ( f o r 
inadequate effluent quality from treatment 
plants and/or for inadequate designation of 
sensitive areas), leading to judgments by the 
C o u r t   o f   J u s t i c e   ( s e e   2 0 0 7   I m p l e m e n t a t i o n 
Report).

27.
(a)
The  Commission  has  requested  monitoring 
and  performance  data  on  treatment  plants 
f o r   t h e   f o r t h c o m i n g   f i f t h   I m p l e m e n t a t i o n 
Report for the Urban Waste Water Treatment 
Directive.

For  both  periods,  the  Commission’s  review 
of projects is based on socio-economic fac-
tors,  the  coherence  and  consistency  of  the 
p r o j e c t ,   t h e   d e g r e e   o f   m a t u r i t y   a n d   d e l i v -
e r a b i l i t y ,   u s i n g   t e c h n i q u e s   s u c h   a s   c o s t –
benefit analysis and internal rate of return. 
The Commission carries out the final evalu-
a t i o n   b a s e d   o n   t h e   f a c t   t h a t   t h e   p r o j e c t   i s 
operational  and  in  conformity  with  the  ini-
tial decision. The proper subsequent opera-
tion of the co-funded treatment plant is not 
in  the  scope  of  the  evaluation  of  Cohesion 
Policy  but  falls  under  the  general  Commu-
nity legislation.

OBSERVATIONS
23.
U n d e r u t i l i s a t i o n   o f   s o m e   t r e a t m e n t   p l a n t s 
i s   s o m e t i m e s   c a u s e d   b y   t i m e   l a g s   i n   t h e 
c o n s t r u c t i o n   o f   t h e   w a s t e   w a t e r   s y s t e m s , 
associated  with  significant  changes  in  eco-
n o m i c   a c t i v i t y   t h a t   c o u l d   n o t   b e   f o r e s e e n . 
In addition, projects may include treatment 
of waste water sources beyond the require-
m e n t s   o f   t h e   d i r e c t i v e .   I n   s u c h   c a s e s ,   a 
f u t u r e - o r i e n t e d   d e s i g n   o f   t h e   t r e a t m e n t 
plant can be cost-effective, but it might lead 
temporarily to the treatment plants operat-
ing below capacity.

The Commission agrees that investments in 
this sector need to rely on a long-term plan-
n i n g   a t   l o c a l / r e g i o n a l   l e v e l ,   a n d   f i n a n c i a l 
resources should include the Cohesion Pol-
icy  funds,  which  need  to  be  complemented 
by other sources.

24.
The  unexpected  growth  or  socio-economic 
changes in this specific region is among the 
risks affecting project development.

25.
O v e r a l l ,   t h e   c o - f u n d e d   w a s t e   w a t e r   t r e a t -
ment plants have led to an improvement of 
the management of the waste waters in the 
specific regions, and to a reduction of their 
impact on the environment.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   41

19/05/09   15:31:10

42

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

36.
T h e   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t   f o r   t h e   r e v i s i o n   o f 
t h e   S e w a g e   S l u d g e   D i r e c t i v e   h a s   t o   e x a m -
ine the environmental, economic and social 
risks  connected  with  the  land  spreading  of 
s e w a g e   s l u d g e .   T h e   t i g h t e n i n g   o f   e x i s t i n g 
limit values for heavy metals and the intro-
d u c t i o n   o f   f u r t h e r   l i m i t   v a l u e s   f o r   o r g a n i c 
and other contaminants are among the main 
options that will be considered.

39.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   r e f e r s   t o   i t s   r e p l i e s   g i v e n 
on points 8, 9 and 12.

41.
For the period 2007–13, the Commission has 
developed  a  checklist  for  internal  use  dur-
i n g   m a j o r   w a t e r   a n d   w a s t e   w a t e r   p r o j e c t s 
appraisal, for assessing consistency with the 
environmental acquis and policy.

42.
A   g u i d e   a s   w e l l   a s   a   c h e c k l i s t   f o r   m a j o r 
p r o j e c t s   i s   n o t   b i n d i n g   f o r   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 
but only indicative.

F o r   t h e   p e r i o d   2 0 0 7 – 1 3 ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n 
o r g a n i s e s   r e g u l a r   i n t e r n a l   t r a i n i n g   s e s -
sions on appraisal of water and waste water 
projects.

43.
(a)
For the period 2007–13, project beneficiaries 
are expected to present the final destination 
of  sludge  in  the  application,  which  implies 
a preliminary estimation of the sludge qual-
i t y   a n d   q u a n t i t y .   H o w e v e r ,   f o r   g r e e n f i e l d 
i n v e s t m e n t s ,   t h e   q u a l i t y   o f   s e w a g e   s l u d g e 
may not be known in detail.

32.
Reuse of sewage sludge is in many cases lim-
ited by the quality of the sludge, geographi-
cal conditions or economic considerations.

(a)
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   e x p l a i n s   t h e   d i s p o s a l   o f 
sewage  sludge  in  municipal  landfills  at  the 
time of the audit with the industries’ lack of 
i n t e r e s t   i n   r e u s i n g   s l u d g e ,   c o m b i n e d   w i t h 
public reactions.

(b)
For the large treatment plant in Greece the 
C o m m i s s i o n   c o - f i n a n c e s   a   p r o j e c t   o n   t h e 
e x t e n s i o n   a n d   c o m p l e t i o n   o f   t h i s   w a s t e 
water treatment plant. It comprises the con-
s t r u c t i o n   o f   a   s l u d g e   d r y i n g   u n i t   a n d   a i m s 
a t   f u r t h e r   u t i l i s a t i o n   o f   d r i e d   s l u d g e .   T h e 
p r o j e c t   w a s   a p p r o v e d   i n   2 0 0 6   a n d   w i l l   b e 
finalised end of 2009.

34.
A s   r e g a r d s   s e w a g e   s l u d g e   q u a l i t y   c h e c k s 
under the Sewage Sludge Directive, certain 
Member States have estalished lower maxi-
m u m   l i m i t s   t h a n   t h o s e   i n   t h e   d i r e c t i v e .   I t 
may be necessary to check additional param-
eters, depending on the types of waste water 
d i s c h a r g e d   i n t o   t h e   s e w e r   ( i . e .   i n d u s t r i a l 
waste water).

35.
The Commission is working on a revision of 
the 1986 Sewage Sludge Directive, based on 
the development of a comprehensive impact 
a s s e s s m e n t   o f   o p t i o n s   a n d   t h e i r   c o s t s   a n d 
benefits.

T h e   t e n t a t i v e   t i m i n g   i s :   p r e p a r a t i o n   o f   a n 
impact assessment for a possible legislative 
proposal in 2009; adoption of a possible legi-
slative proposal in 2010.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   42

19/05/09   15:31:10

43

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

48.
A   r e c e n t l y   i n t r o d u c e d   I T   t o o l   s h o u l d   m a k e 
the upcoming closure procedure easier and 
more transparent. A check is done on a case-
by-case basis, especially when a project has 
experienced difficulties. Suspension or can-
cellation of the balance of payment may also 
occur  following  the  reception  and  analysis 
of the final report by the Commission.

49.
The  Commission  refers  to  its  comments  on 
points 43(b) and 55.

53.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s   c u r r e n t l y   a s s e s s i n g   t h e 
need for a revision of the detergents legisla-
tion, based on the development of a compre-
h e n s i v e   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t   o f   o p t i o n s   a n d 
their costs and benefits.

55.
D u r i n g   2 0 0 0 – 0 6 ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   m a d e 
e f f o r t s   i n   p r o m o t i n g   t h e   ‘ p o l l u t e r   p a y s ’ 
principle, by issuing an indicative paper on 
the application of the principle and a guide 
on cost–benefit analysis (2002). These tools 
have asked Member States to commit them-
selves  to  a  strengthened  application  of  the 
‘polluter pays’ and cost-recovery principles. 
F r o m   2 0 1 0   o n w a r d s ,   t h e s e   p r i n c i p l e s   w i l l 
b e c o m e   o p e r a t i o n a l ,   u n d e r   t h e   p r o v i s i o n s 
of the Water Framework Directive.

(b)
F o r   t h e   a u d i t e d   p e r i o d   ( 1 9 9 4 – 2 0 0 6 ) ,   w a t e r 
quality performance indicators existed at EU 
l e v e l   o n l y   f o r   c e r t a i n   w a t e r s   ( i . e .   d r i n k i n g 
w a t e r   a b s t r a c t i o n ,   b a t h i n g   w a t e r s ) .   H e n c e 
t h e   i n d i c a t o r s   c o n t a i n e d   i n   t h e   G u i d e   t o 
Cohesion Fund 2000–06 could not be applied 
f o r   a l l   p r o j e c t s .   C o m p r e h e n s i v e   p e r f o r m -
ance  indicators  have  only  been  introduced 
t h r o u g h   t h e   W a t e r   F r a m e w o r k   D i r e c t i v e , 
w i t h   o b j e c t i v e s   t o   b e   d e f i n e d   b y   D e c e m -
b e r   2 0 0 9   a n d   t o   b e   a c h i e v e d ,   a s   a   r u l e ,   b y 
December 2015.

45.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   u n d e r l i n e s   t h a t   i t   n e i -
t h e r   h a s   t h e   l e g a l   b a s i s   n o r   t h e   n e c e s s a r y 
r e s o u r c e s   t o   g o   i n t o   m o r e   d e t a i l   w h e n 
assessing project applications.

(a)
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   i n   n u m e r o u s   c a s e s 
taken Member States to the Court of Justice, 
including  the  four  Member  States  audited, 
for  inadequate  effluent  quality  from  treat-
ment  plant  and/or  for  inadequate  designa-
tion of sensitive areas, and will continue to 
do so.

(b)
As regards the inadequate disposal of sludge 
at  a  large  plant  in  Greece,  the  Commission 
was aware of the problem and asked the rele-
vant  Member  State  to  work  out  a  solution, 
which was implemented with the support of 
the Commission (see point 32(b)).

47.
The Commission carries out the final evalu-
a t i o n   b a s e d   o n   t h e   f a c t   t h a t   t h e   p r o j e c t   i s 
operational  and  in  conformity  with  the  ini-
tial  decision.  The  proper  subsequent  oper-
a t i o n   o f   t h e   c o - f u n d e d   t r e a t m e n t   p l a n t   i s 
not  in  the  scope  of  the  evaluation  of  cohe-
s i o n   p o l i c y .   F u r t h e r m o r e ,   t h e r e   i s   n o   l e g a l 
requirement for Member States to routinely 
provide information regarding quality of the 
d i s c h a r g e d   w a t e r ,   o f   t h e   r e c e i v i n g   w a t e r s 
a n d   t h e   q u a l i t y   a n d   t h e   n a t u r e   o f   t h e   d i s -
posal of the sewage sludge.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   43

19/05/09   15:31:10

44

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

62.
(a)
Reuse of sewage sludge is in many cases lim-
ited by the quality of the sludge, geographi-
cal conditions or economic considerations.

63.
(a)
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   p r o j e c t s   i n 
this  sector  should  indicate  the  strategy  for 
t h e   s e w a g e   s l u d g e   m a n a g e m e n t .   F o r   n e w 
p r o j e c t s ,   s u b m i t t e d   d u r i n g   2 0 0 7 – 1 3 ,   t h i s 
element is being checked.

(b)
In 2007, Member States were asked to provide 
data  related  to  the  sewage  sludge  produc-
tion,  for  the  preparation  of  the  fifth  Imple-
mentation Report of the Urban Waste Water 
T r e a t m e n t   D i r e c t i v e .   T h e   r e q u i r e m e n t   t o 
r e p o r t   h a s   e n c o u r a g e d   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o 
establish national databases.

(c)
The Commission is working on a revision of 
the  Sewage  Sludge  Directive,  based  on  the 
d e v e l o p m e n t   o f   a   c o m p r e h e n s i v e   i m p a c t 
a s s e s s m e n t   o f   o p t i o n s   a n d   t h e i r   c o s t s   a n d 
benefits.

64.
The Commission recalls that Member States 
have the primary responsibility for the selec-
tion, implementation and monitoring of the 
projects.

(a)
The Commission has neither the legal basis 
n o r   t h e   n e c e s s a r y   r e s o u r c e s   t o   u n d e r t a k e 
a   d e t a i l e d   a s s e s s m e n t .   H o w e v e r ,   f o r   t h e 
p e r i o d   2 0 0 7 – 1 3 ,   t h e   a p p r a i s a l   o f   m a j o r 
projects has been streamlined, and without 
f u l f i l l i n g   m i n i m u m   r e q u i r e m e n t s ,   p r o j e c t s 
cannot  be  co-financed  (i.e.  information  on 
sludge management strategy). This is being 
addressed through the use of checklists and 
specific training.

CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS
59.
(a)
U n d e r u t i l i s a t i o n   o f   s o m e   t r e a t m e n t   p l a n t s 
i s   s o m e t i m e s   c a u s e d   b y   t i m e   l a g s   i n   t h e 
c o n s t r u c t i o n   o f   t h e   w a s t e   w a t e r   s y s t e m s , 
associated  with  significant  changes  in  eco-
n o m i c   a c t i v i t y   t h a t   c o u l d   n o t   b e   f o r e s e e n . 
In addition, projects may include treatment 
of waste water sources beyond the require-
m e n t s   o f   t h e   d i r e c t i v e .   I n   s u c h   c a s e s ,   a 
f u t u r e - o r i e n t e d   d e s i g n   o f   t h e   t r e a t m e n t 
plant can be cost-effective, but it might lead 
temporarily to the treatment plants operat-
ing below capacity.

(b)
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   u n d e r l i n e s   t h a t   M e m b e r 
States  are  responsible  for  the  operation  of 
the  treatment  plants  and  their  compliance 
w i t h   C o m m u n i t y   l e g i s l a t i o n .   T h e   C o m m i s -
s i o n   h a s   i n   n u m e r o u s   c a s e s   t a k e n   M e m b e r 
States to the Court of Justice, including the 
four Member States audited, for inadequate 
effluent quality from treatment plants and/
o r   f o r   i n a d e q u a t e   d e s i g n a t i o n   o f   s e n s i t i v e 
areas, and will continue to do so.

60.
(a)
The Commission agrees that investments in 
this sector need to rely on a long-term plan-
n i n g   a t   l o c a l / r e g i o n a l   l e v e l ,   a n d   f i n a n c i a l 
resources  should  include  the  cohesion  pol-
icy  funds,  which  need  to  be  complemented 
by other sources.

(b)
I n s t r u m e n t s   f o r   r e g u l a t i n g   t h e   i n d u s t r i a l 
w a s t e   w a t e r   d i s c h a r g e s   a r e   e n s h r i n e d   i n 
the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 
(Article 11), and should be applied by Mem-
ber States.

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   44

19/05/09   15:31:11

45

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

(c)
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s   c u r r e n t l y   a s s e s s i n g   t h e 
need for a revision of detergents legislation, 
based on the development of a comprehen-
sive impact assessment of options and their 
costs and benefits.

(d)
T h e   n e w   g u i d e   t o   c o s t – b e n e f i t   a n a l y s i s   o f 
investment  projects  (June  2008)  highlights 
the  central  role  of  the  ‘polluter  pays’  prin-
c i p l e   a s   w e l l   a s   t h e   t o t a l   c o s t   r e c o v e r y   f o r 
waste water projects. It is now supported by 
the legal requirements of the Water Frame-
work Directive and will lead to a better water 
pricing based on cost recovery by 2010.

(b)
In relation to the period 2007–13, under both 
the Cohesion Fund and the ERDF, only major 
u r b a n   w a s t e   w a t e r   t r e a t m e n t   p r o j e c t s   w i l l 
b e   s u b j e c t   t o   i n d i v i d u a l   C o m m i s s i o n   d e c i -
sions.  The  Commission  will  not,  in  general, 
have  the  same  level  of  detail  in  relation  to 
the implementation and finalisation of major 
projects as in the past.

65.
(b)
D u r i n g   2 0 0 0 – 0 6 ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   m a d e 
efforts in promoting the ‘polluter pays’ prin-
ciple, by issuing an indicative paper on the 
a p p l i c a t i o n   o f   t h e   p r i n c i p l e   a n d   u n d e r l i n -
ing its importance in the Guide to Cohesion 
P o l i c y .   T h e   g u i d e   t o   c o s t – b e n e f i t   a n a l y s i s 
(2002) provided also Member States with rel-
evant guidance to progress on cost recovery. 
H o w e v e r ,   s i n c e   t h o s e   g u i d a n c e s   w e r e   n o t 
l e g a l l y   b i n d i n g ,   i t   c o u l d   o n l y   a s k   M e m b e r 
States to commit themselves to a strength-
ened application of the principle.

66.
(a)
For the period 2007–13, the Commission has 
developed  a  checklist  for  internal  use  dur-
i n g   m a j o r   w a t e r   a n d   w a s t e   w a t e r   p r o j e c t s 
appraisal, for assessing consistency with the 
environmental  acquis  and  policy,  including 
among others the quality of the waters dis-
c h a r g e d ,   a n d   s l u d g e   m a n a g e m e n t .   A l s o ,   a 
n u m b e r   o f   o u t p u t   i n d i c a t o r s   a r e   i n c l u d e d 
in the individual project Commission’s deci-
sions (i.e. level of treatment, capacity of the 
plant).

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   45

19/05/09   15:31:11

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   46

19/05/09   15:31:11

47

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

European Court of Auditors

Special Report No 3/2009

The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2009 — 45 pp. — 21 x 29.7 cm

ISBN 978-92-9207-250-6

Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   47

19/05/09   15:31:11

kg904920_EN_insideBT.indd   48

19/05/09   15:31:11

How to obtain EU publications

Publications for sale:

• 

• 

• 

 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

 from your bookseller by quoting the title, publisher and/or ISBN number;

 by contacting one of our sales agents directly. You can obtain their contact 
details on the Internet (http://bookshop.europa.eu) or by sending a fax
to +352 2929-42758.

Free publications:

• 

• 

 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

 at the European Commission’s representations or delegations. You can obtain 
their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax
to +352 2929-42758.

kg904920_EN_coverBT.indd   2

19/05/09   15:27:42

Q
J
-
A
B
-
0
9
-
0
0
3
-
E
N

-
C

EUROPEAN COURT 

OF AUDITORS

4

3

8

0



1

3

8

1

N

S

S

I

T H E   W A S T E   W AT E R   A N D   S E W A G E   S L U D G E   F R O M   U R B A N 

AGGLOMERATIONS CAN AFFECT THE QUALITY OF EUROPE’S LAKES, 

RIVERS, COSTAL WATERS, GROUNDWATERS AND SOILS. AS A RESULT, 

THE EU HAS ADOPTED A SERIES OF DIRECTIVES AND HAS ALSO CO

FINANCED THE BUILDING OF URBAN WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS. 

IN THIS REPORT THE COURT ANALYSES WHETHER  EU COFINANCED 

TREATMENT PLANTS ACHIEVE AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE 

IN THE TREATMENT  OF WASTE WATER  AND WHETHER THE  SLUDGE 

PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS IS BEING USED APPROPRIATELY. THE ROLE 

OF THE COMMISSION IS ALSO EXAMINED.

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF STRUCTURAL 

MEASURES SPENDING ON WASTE WATER 

TREATMENT FOR THE 199499 AND 

200006 PROGRAMME PERIODS

ISBN 978-92-9207-250-6

kg904920_EN_coverBT.indd   1

19/05/09   15:27:41

9

0

0

2

3

o

N

t

r

o

p

e

R

l

a

i

c

e

p

S

EN