Water quality in the Danube river basin : progress in implementing the water framework directive but still some way to go. Special report No 23, 2015.
Date: 2016-02-15
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU Member State, audit, inland waters, pollution of waterways, report, water management, water pollution, water protection, watercourse

EN 

2015 

NO 23

Special Report  Water quality in the Danube  

river basin: progress in 
implementing the water 
framework directive but 
still some way to go

EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS

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

Tel. +352 4398-1

Email: eca-info@eca.europa.eu 
Internet: http://eca.europa.eu

Twitter: @EUAuditorsECA 
YouTube: EUAuditorsECA

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

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016

Print 
PDF 
EPUB 

ISBN 978-92-872-3753-8 
ISBN 978-92-872-3733-0 
ISBN 978-92-872-3737-8 

ISSN 1831-0834 
ISSN 1977-5679 
ISSN 1977-5679 

doi:10.2865/194691 
doi:10.2865/761364 
doi:10.2865/05208 

QJ-AB-15-023-EN-C
QJ-AB-15-023-EN-N
QJ-AB-15-023-EN-E

© European Union, 2016
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

For any use or reproduction of the map on p. 65, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder.

Printed in Luxembourg

EN 

2015 

NO 23

Special Report

Water quality in the Danube  
river basin: progress in 
implementing the water 
framework directive but still 
some way to go

(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)

Audit team

02

The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its performance and compliance audits of specific budgetary areas or 
management topics. The ECA selects and designs these audit tasks to be of maximum impact by considering the risks 
to performance or compliance, the level of income or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and 
public interest.

This performance audit was produced by Audit Chamber II — headed by ECA Member Henri Grethen — which specialises 
in structural policies, transport and energy spending areas. The audit was led by ECA Member George Pufan, supported 
by the head of his private office, Patrick Weldon, and Mircea Radulescu, attaché; Alain Vansilliette, head of unit; Marion 
Colonerus, team leader; Zuzana Gullova, Daniela Jinaru, Maria del Carmen Jimenez, Attila Horvay-Kovacs, Dana Moraru, 
Radka Papouskova and Ildiko Preiss, auditors.

From left to right: A. Vansilliette, M. Radulescu, M. d. C. Jimenez, G. Pufan, Z. Gullova, 
P. Weldon and A. Horvay-Kovacs.

Contents

03

Paragraph

Glossary

I – X 

Executive summary

1 – 15 

Introduction

16 – 21  Audit scope and approach

22 – 165  Observations

22 – 50  River basin management plans as a tool for achieving good water quality by 2015

26 – 27 

Little improvement in the ecological and chemical status of water bodies

28 – 32 

Identification of the pollution sources at water body level suffered from lack of comprehensive data

33 – 44  Measures identified in the river basin management plans are not sufficient to adequately address pollution 

sources

45 – 46  Significant number of water bodies exempted from the 2015 and 2021 deadlines

47 – 50  Close follow-up by the Commission but improvements depend on Member States’ willingness to act

51 – 98  Measures and instruments implemented by the Member States in order to reduce pollution caused 

by waste waters

52 – 82  Pollution from agglomerations: progress in the treatment of waste water but available instruments could 

be used to better effect

83 – 98  Pollution from industrial installations: difficulties in setting emission limits and weaknesses in enforcement

99 – 165  Measures and instruments implemented by the Member States in order to tackle diffuse pollution 

from agriculture

101 – 122  Member States not using all possibilities offered by the nitrates directive

123 – 132  Pesticide action plans suffer from shortcomings

133 – 144  The cross-compliance mechanism has impact but is not being fully exploited

145 – 157  The potential of rural development measures to address water quality issues is not being fully exploited

158 – 165  ‘Polluter pays’ principle only applied to a limited extent to diffuse pollution from agriculture

 
Contents

04

166 – 191 Conclusions and recommendations

Annex I  —  Danube river basin district overview

Annex II  —  Pollution of surface water bodies

Annex III  —  Emission limit values set by the urban waste water treatment directive

Annex IV  —  Water pollution charge: amount by pollutant (in euro/t)

Annex V  —  Emission limit values specified in national legal provisions

Reply of the Commission

 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary

05

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

Agricultural land: The land area of a country consists of agricultural land, forest land and other land. The 
agricultural land can be divided into arable land, land under permanent crops, permanent grassland and meadow 
and other area including kitchen gardens.

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5): Quantity of oxygen consumed by micro-organisms to eliminate 
biodegradable organic and mineral matter contained in water. BOD5 is conventionally used to measure oxygen 
consumption in terms of mg O2/l after 5 days. The higher the BOD5 value, the greater the consumption of oxygen by 
micro-organisms and the greater the pollution.

Chemical oxygen demand (COD): Quantity of oxygen consumed to oxidise, by chemical means, the organic and 
mineral matter present in water. COD therefore includes both biodegradable matter characterised by BOD5 and 
non-biodegradable oxidisable matter.

Chemical status of surface water: Expression of the quality of the waters reflecting the concentration of pollutants 
which should not exceed environmental quality standards established under the water framework directive 
(Annex IX). The directive currently identifies 45 pollutants (such as lead, nickel, cadmium, mercury, benzene).

Cohesion Fund: The Cohesion Fund aims at strengthening economic and social cohesion within the European 
Union by financing environment and transport projects in Member States with a per capita gross national product 
of less than 90 % of the EU average.

Cross-compliance: A mechanism under the EU’s common agricultural policy that ties direct payments to farmers 
and a number of rural development payments to compliance with a series of rules relating to the environment, 
food safety, animal and plant health and animal welfare and to maintaining agricultural land in good agricultural 
and environmental condition. Cross-compliance rules in the 2007-2013 programme period relate to 18 statutory 
management requirements (SMRs) and 15 standards for good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC). 
Non-compliance with these standards and requirements can lead to a reduction in payments made to the farmer in 
the context of the common agricultural policy.

Diffuse sources of pollution: Pollution caused by a variety of activities for which there is no specific point of 
discharge (see point sources of pollution). For example agriculture is a key source of diffuse pollution.

Direct payments: Payments granted directly to farmers under an income support scheme. Examples are the single 
payment scheme and the single area payment scheme.

Ecological status/potential of surface water: Expression of the quality of the structure and functioning of aquatic 
ecosystems. The status is assessed on the basis of the following quality elements: biological elements (fauna and 
flora), hydromorphological elements, chemical and physico-chemical elements, specific pollutants and some 
general elements (salinity, nutrient conditions, etc.). The potential rather than the status is assessed for water 
bodies which have been heavily modified in their physical structure to serve various uses such as navigation, flood 
protection, hydropower and agriculture. This is due to the fact that, in many cases, it is neither viable nor desirable 
from an economic point of view to abandon such uses and to remove the physical modifications.

Effluent: In the context of this report it means treated waste water discharged into water bodies.

Glossary

06

Emission limit values: The concentration and/or level of an emission, which may not be exceeded during any one 
or more periods of time. An emission is the direct or indirect release of substances from an installation into water.

European Regional Development Fund: The European Regional Development Fund aims at reinforcing economic 
and social cohesion within the European Union by redressing the main regional imbalances through financial 
support for the creation of infrastructure and productive job-creating investment, mainly for businesses.

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.

Ex ante conditionalities: In the context of the preparation of rural development programmes and of operational 
programmes receiving co-financing from the European Structural and Investment Funds in the 2014-2020 
programme period Member States have to assess whether pre-defined ex ante conditionalities are fulfilled. If not 
fulfilled, action plans need to be prepared to ensure fulfilment by 31.12.2016.

Good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC) standards: The obligation to maintain land in good 
agricultural and environmental condition refers to a range of standards related to soil protection, maintenance of 
soil organic matter and structure, avoiding the deterioration of habitats, and water management.

More stringent treatment/tertiary treatment of waste water: As required by the urban waste water treatment 
directive it is the biological/chemical phase applied where necessary to reduce the concentration levels of 
nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) in treated waste waters prior to their discharge into receiving waters at risk of 
eutrophication.

Operational programme: An operational programme sets out a Member State’s priorities and specific objectives 
and how the funding (EU and national public and private co-financing) will be used during a given period (generally 
seven years) to finance projects. These projects must contribute to achieving a certain number of objectives 
specified at the level of the priority axis of the operational programme. Programmes may be co-financed by each 
of the funds in the Cohesion area (i.e. European Regional Development Fund, Cohesion Fund and European Social 
Fund). An operational programme is prepared by the Member State and has to be approved by the Commission 
before any payments from the EU budget can be made. They can only be modified during the period covered if 
both parties agree.

Plant protection products: Products used to protect plants or crops from damaging influences such as weeds, 
diseases or insects.

Point sources of pollution: Pollution caused by a variety of activities for which there is a specific point of discharge 
(such as discharge by an urban or industrial waste water treatment plant).

Glossary

07

‘Polluter pays’ principle: Principle set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article 191(2)). 
For example with regard to waste water this implies that dischargers of waste waters should pay for the pollution 
caused (i.e. households pay for the treatment service via the waste water price, waste water treatment plants pay 
a pollution charge, etc.).

Population equivalent (p.e.): Quantitative expression of the pollution load of waste water in terms of the number 
of ‘equivalent’ people that would create that level of waste. One p.e. corresponds to the pollution load of sewage 
generated by one inhabitant and represents the organic biodegradable load having a 5-day biochemical oxygen 
demand of 60 g of oxygen per day.

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

Programme of measures: Part of the river basin management plan which sets out the measures that are necessary 
for water bodies to achieve good ecological and chemical status considering the characteristics of the river basin 
district.

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

Self-checks: In this report, (i) 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 waste water and the content of the 
sludge and (ii) checks carried out by industrial installations to monitor the quality of waste water discharged into 
a public sewage network.

Sensitive area: A water body must be designated by the Member States as a sensitive area if it falls into one of 
the following groups: (i) water body or section of water body at risk of eutrophication, (ii) water body intended for 
the abstraction of drinking water which could contain too big a concentration of nitrate and (iii) areas where more 
stringent treatment is necessary to fulfil Council directives. The appropriate 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.

Sewage network: Physical infrastructure, including pipes, pumps, screens, channels etc., used to convey sewage 
from its origin to the point of eventual treatment or disposal.

Statutory management requirements (SMRs): EU legislative standards in the field of the environment, food 
safety, animal and plant health and animal welfare.

Total suspended solids (TSSs): Quantity of mineral and organic particles suspended in water which can be 
captured on a porosity filter.

Glossary

08

Urban waste water treatment plant: Infrastructure providing a series of treatment processes aiming to reduce 
the level of pollution of urban agglomeration waste water received to an acceptable level before discharge into the 
receiving waters.

Vulnerable zone: Areas of land which drain into waters affected — or which could be affected — by pollution 
caused or induced by nitrates from agricultural sources. These areas contribute to the pollution. Member States 
have to establish action programmes for these zones.

Water body: A body of surface water means a discrete and significant element of surface water such as a lake, 
a reservoir, a stream, river or canal, part of a stream, river or canal, a transitional water or a stretch of coastal water. 
A body of groundwater means a distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers.

Waste water: Any water that has been adversely affected in quality. It is usually conveyed in a sewage network 
and treated at a waste water treatment plant. Treated waste water is discharged into receiving water via an effluent 
sewer. Waste water generated in areas without access to a public sewage network relies on individual systems, such 
as septic tanks.

Waste water discharge permit: Permits issued to dischargers of waste water in accordance with national legal 
provisions. The permits include inter alia the emission limit values to be respected for a number of parameters and 
pollutants.

Executive  
summary

09

I
Europe’s waters are affected by organic and nutri-
ent pollution as well as by pollution from chemical 
substances. Water pollution originates from various 
sources such as households, industrial installations 
and agriculture. The 2000 water framework directive 
harmonised the previously existing EU legislation in 
the field of water policy. The directive introduced the 
river basin management plan as a key implementation 
tool. The first plans were due in 2009 with updates 
required in December 2015.

V
The Court concludes that the implementation of the 
measures has led to little improvement in water qual-
ity. Member States exempted a significant number of 
water bodies from the 2015 and 2021 deadlines for 
reaching good status. However, progress on individual 
elements assessed for water quality may be masked 
due to the assessment methodology. The Court rec-
ommends that the Commission provides guidelines 
for a differentiated reporting on progress and that 
Member States provide clear and valid justifications 
when granting exemptions.

II
These plans have to provide information as to the 
water quality of the various water bodies, reasons for 
failure to achieve good ecological and chemical status 
and any necessary remedial measures. These measures 
are classified into ‘basic measures’, ‘other basic meas-
ures’ and ‘supplementary measures’.

III
The EU provides significant funding to achieve water 
policy objectives in particular for investments in the 
field of waste water (6.35 billion euro from the Euro -
pean Regional Development Fund/Cohesion Fund 
under the 2007-2013 programme period for nine 
Member States1 in the Danube river basin) and for 
compensating farmers taking up agri-environmental 
commitments (6.39 billion euro from the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development under the 
2007-2013 programme period for the same nine Mem-
ber States).

IV
The Court’s audit focused on four Member States in 
the Danube river basin (the Czech Republic, Hungary, 
Romania and Slovakia). The Court set out to answer 
the question: did the Member States’ implementation 
of the water framework directive lead to an improve-
ment in water quality?

1  Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Croatia, Hungary, Austria, 

Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia.

VI
Shortcomings in monitoring systems resulted in 
a lack of data both on the type and sources of pollu-
tion causing a water body to fail. The 2009 river basin 
management plans provided limited added value as 
Member States lacked ambition concerning the identi-
fication of measures to combat pollution. The meas-
ures focused on the implementation of existing EU 
directives (part of the ‘basic measures’). In that regard, 
there are either delays (this is the case for the urban 
waste water treatment directive) or the possibilities 
offered by the directives are not being fully exploited 
(this is the case for the nitrates directive where there 
is scope for further improvement of the requirements 
aiming to reduce nitrogen emissions).

VII
‘Other basic’ and ‘supplementary measures’ do not 
adequately cover all pollution issues. There is a lack of 
targeted measures for water bodies with unsatisfac-
tory quality status. In the field of waste water there is 
in particular a lack of indication of urban waste water 
treatment plants or industrial installations needing 
specific emission limits. In the field of agriculture, 
there is scope for Member States’ tightening up of 
some cross-compliance standards. In addition, limit-
ing the phosphorus application on land has not yet 
been considered. Furthermore, agricultural measures 
are mainly of a voluntary nature and do not all lead to 
direct improvement of water quality.

Executive summary 

10

VIII
The Court recommends that Member States improve 
their monitoring systems and the diagnosis of water 
pollution issues. This should allow for a better target-
ing of measures at water bodies with unsatisfactory 
water quality and the taking into account of pollution 
issues not appropriately dealt with so far. Better tar-
geting should also result in more effective measures 
and a reduction in implementation costs.

IX
The enforcement mechanisms in place are only par-
tially effective, which is either due to a low coverage 
or to penalties having a limited deterrent effect. The 
Court recommends that the Commission assesses 
how to best set binding criteria for Member States’ 
inspections on urban waste water treatment plants 
and industrial installations. Furthermore it recom-
mends that the Commission and the Member States 
in co operation should assess the effectiveness of 
the enforcement mechanisms in place in the field of 
agriculture.

X
The ‘polluter pays’ principle is only partially applied 
to diffuse pollution from agriculture. Urban waste 
water treatment plants and industrial installations 
pay a water pollution charge on their emissions but 
for a limited number of pollutants only. The charge 
amounts (by discharge in mg/l) vary significantly from 
one Member State to another and none of the river 
basin management plans refer to an assessment of 
their deterrent effect. The Court recommends that 
the Commission provides guidance on the possible 
methods for recovery of environmental damage costs 
in the field of diffuse pollution. It also recommends 
that Member States should assess the potential of eco-
nomic instruments (charges and taxes) for deterring 
the emission of pollutants.

Introduction

11

2  Directive 2000/60/EC of the 

European Parliament and 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).

3 

It relates to surface water 
bodies, groundwater bodies 
and protected areas. Water 
quality is expressed in terms of 
the ecological and chemical 
status of water bodies.

4  When Member States contain 
parts of different river basins 
within their territory (e.g. the 
Czech Republic has parts of its 
territory in the Danube river 
basin, parts in the Oder river 
basin and parts in the Elbe 
river basin), plans were 
required to be established for 
each of the parts (basin 
districts).

Water framework 
directive and river basin 
management plans

01 
The main aim of EU water policy is 
to ensure that a sufficient quantity 
of good quality water is available for 
 people’s needs and for the environ-
ment throughout the EU.

02 
In 2000, the European Parliament and 
the Council adopted the water frame-
work directive2, whose main objective 
is to achieve good water quality3 by 
2015. The directive also allows for time 
extensions (up to 2021 and 2027) as 
well as less stringent requirements 
with regard to the water quality under 
certain conditions.

03 
The directive is an overarching piece 
of legislation that harmonised the 
previously existing legislation in the 
field of water policy. Its approach to 
water management is based on the 
river  basin being considered as an eco -
logical and hydrological unit.

04 
The key tool for implementing the 
directive is the river basin manage-
ment plan. By December 2009, each 
Member State had to adopt such plans, 
including a programme of measures 
for each river basin district within its 
territory4. Updates of the river basin 
management plans had to be adopted 
by December 2015. Overall, there are 
42 international river basins (such as 
the Rhine and Danube river basins) 
in the EU and 172 national river basin 
management plans. The river basin 
management plans are not submitted 
to the Commission for approval.

05 
The measures to be included in the 
programme of measures are those that 
are necessary to achieve the objectives 
of the water framework directive for 
the individual water bodies identified. 
The water framework directive regards 
implementation of eleven directives as 
a minimum requirement (see Table 1 
for those of relevance for the current 
report). The measures to implement 
them are considered as ‘basic meas-
ures’ in the programme together with 
other compulsory measures included 
in the directive (see paragraph 33). The 
reporting in the context of the water 
framework directive (updates of river 
basin management plans and progress 
reporting) has not replaced the report-
ing necessary under the individual 
directives.

Introduction

12

1 EU directives whose implementation is considered as a minimum requirement
e
l
b
a
T

Importance for water quality

Legal base

Urban waste water treatment directive1

All agglomerations ≥ 2 000 population equivalent (p.e.) have to have collection systems in place, or use indi-
vidual or appropriate systems provided they achieve the same level of environmental protection.
Agglomerations ≥ 2 000 p.e. have to respect emission limits for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and 
chemical oxygen demand (COD).
Agglomerations above 10 000 p.e. in sensitive areas also have to respect emission limits for total nitrogen (Ntot) 
and/or total phosphorus (Ptot), except if a minimum reduction rate of Ntot and Ptot is achieved in the sensitive 
area as a whole.
In agglomerations below 2 000 p.e. where collection systems are in place, appropriate treatment needs to be 
ensured in case of discharge to fresh-water and estuaries.

Nitrates directive2

Member States have to monitor surface and ground waters and to designate nitrate-vulnerable zones. In order 
to reduce water pollution caused by nitrates Member States must adopt action programmes compulsory in 
nitrate-vulnerable zones. Moreover, Member States have to establish a code of good agricultural practice to be 
applied on the whole territory on a voluntary basis.

Integrated pollution prevention and con-
trol directive replaced by the industrial 
emissions directive3

The emission limit values included in the permits of industrial installations are to be based on the application 
of best available techniques, which are the most effective techniques to achieve a high level of environmental 
protection.

1 

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

2 

3 

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

 Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control 
(OJ L 24, 29.1.2008, p. 8) replaced by Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial 
emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17).

06 
Since 2001, 34 guidance documents 
covering several aspects of the direc-
tive’s implementation have been pro-
duced by the Commission in coopera-
tion with the Member States.

07 
While not mentioned in the water 
framework directive, there are fur-
ther pieces of EU legislation that play 
a role when it comes to water quality 
(see Table 2).

 
Introduction

13

2 Other EU directives and regulations playing a role with regard to water quality
e
l
b
a
T

Importance for water quality

Legal base

Regulation on detergents1

Pesticides directive2

Detergents contain an important pollutant: phosphorus.
Consumer laundry detergents and consumer automatic dishwasher detergents that exceed a specified 
quantity of phosphorus are not allowed to be placed on the market from 30 June 2013 and 1 July 2017 
respectively.

Member States had to adopt and communicate action plans to the Commission by 26 November 2012 
including measures to reduce the risk and impact of pesticide use on human health and the environment.

1 

 Regulation (EU) No 259/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 as 
regards the use of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in consumer laundry detergents and consumer automatic dishwasher 
detergents (OJ L 94, 30.3.2012, p. 16).

2 

 Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to 
achieve the sustainable use of pesticides (OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 71).

Cooperation in the 
Danube river basin

08 
The Danube river basin encompasses 
territory of 19 different countries, 
of which 11 are Member States (see 
map in Annex I). With an area of 
807 827 km2, it is the largest river basin 
district in the EU.

10 
The International Commission for the 
Protection of the Danube River was 
established in 1998 in order to imple-
ment the Danube River Protection 
Convention. Since the coming into 
force of the water framework direc-
tive, it also serves as a platform for the 
implementation of all transboundary 
aspects of the directive.

5 

14 countries have catchment 
areas greater than 2 000 km2 
(nine Member States and five 
non-member countries). These 
countries as well as the 
European Union are 
contracting parties to the 
convention.

11 
In 2011, the Council endorsed the 
EU strategy for the Danube Region 
presented by the Commission at its re-
quest. Among other issues it also deals 
with water quality.

09 
Cooperation in the Danube river basin 
started in 1985 and in 1998 the Dan-
ube River Protection Convention5 came 
into force. One of its objectives was to 
achieve ‘the goals of a sustainable and 
equitable water management, includ-
ing the conservation, improvement 
and the rational use of surface waters 
and ground water in the catchment 
area as far as possible’.

 
14

6  Danube river basin district 
management plan, final 
version dated 14.12.2009.

7 

2013 update of the Danube 
Basin analysis report, final 
version dated 18.10.2014.

Introduction

Main types and sources of 
pollution in the Danube 
river basin

12 
In addition to the national river basin 
management plans adopted by the 
Member States, the International 
Commission for the Protection of the 
Danube River published a river basin 
management plan for the whole of the 
Danube river basin6 in 2009. This plan 
and the 2013 update of the Danube 
Basin analysis report7 identified vari-
ous types of pollution of international 
importance which have an impact on 
water quality (see Table 3).

3 Types and sources of pollution in the Danube river basin
e
l
b
a
T

Types of pollution

Sources of the pollution

Organic pollution 
(non-toxic organic substances)

Nutrient pollution 
(nitrogen and phosphorus)

Hazardous substances1 pollution

Hydromorphological alterations

The key emitters of organic pollution are point sources: waste water from agglomerations (households) and 
from industrial installations and in particular collected but untreated waste water and waste water which is 
not appropriately treated.

The majority of the nutrient emissions come from diffuse sources (89 % for total nitrogen emissions and 
78 % for total phosphorus emissions2) such as emissions from agricultural fields (due to fertiliser or manure 
application3 and atmospheric deposition), soil erosion and surface run-off.

These toxic substances can be emitted from both point sources (urban and industrial waste water) and dif-
fuse sources (such as surface run-off, use of pesticides in agriculture, contaminated and mining sites).

These alterations lead to interruption of river and habitat continuity, disconnection of adjacent wetlands or 
floodplains and changes in the quantity and conditions of flow. They are caused mainly by hydropower instal-
lations, navigation works and flood protection infrastructure.

1 

 The water framework directive provides a list of so-called priority substances and other pollutants (initially 33, later increased to 45, sub-
stances or groups of substances) of which some are considered priority hazardous substances. Hazardous substances include for example 
pesticides, metals and pharmaceuticals.

2 

 Based on an estimation of long-term average (2000-2008) hydrological conditions in the Danube river basin.

3 

 Polluting substances (such as fertilisers) leach into surface or groundwater as a result of rainfall, soil infiltration and surface run-off.

Source: 2013 Update of the Danube Basin analysis report.

 
Introduction

15

EU instruments available 
for implementing EU 
water policy

commitments going beyond com-
pulsory legislation on a voluntary 
basis.

8 

In the 2007-2013 programme 
period there were 18 SMRs 
and 15 GAEC standards.

13 
The EU supports its water policy by 
providing financial resources and by 
legal and regulatory instruments. The 
main funding sources from the EU 
budget are:

—  the European Regional Develop-

ment Fund and the Cohesion Fund: 
the bulk of the funding allocated 
in the 2007-2013 programme 
period went to infrastructure 
projects in the field of waste water. 
Other fields of intervention where 
a positive impact on water quality 
is possible are integrated pollu-
tion prevention and control and 
rehabilitation of industrial and 
contaminated sites;

—  the European Agricultural Fund 

for Rural Development: a number 
of measures in the rural develop-
ment programmes can have either 
a direct or an indirect impact on 
water quality. Agri-environmental 
payments are an example of 
a measure that can have a direct 
impact. They are granted to farm-
ers who make agri-environmental 

14 
Table 4 shows the EU contribution al-
located to Member States having part 
or all of their territory in the Danube 
river basin.

15 
The main legal instrument used in 
addition to the directives and regula-
tions mentioned in Tables 1 and 2 is 
the cross-compliance mechanism. It 
ties direct payments made to farmers 
in the context of the common agricul-
tural policy and a number of payments 
under rural development programmes 
to (i) compliance with a series of rules 
relating to the environment, food 
safety, animal and plant health and 
animal welfare, the so-called statutory 
management requirements (SMRs) 
and (ii) maintaining agricultural land 
in good agricultural and environ-
mental condition, the so-called GAEC 
standards8. Non-compliance with 
these standards and requirements can 
lead to a reduction in the aid amount 
granted to a farmer.

4 EU contribution allocated for the 2007-2013 programme period (as of 31.12.2014)1
e
l
b
a
T

Amount in billion euro

Area of intervention

Funding source

European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund

Waste water

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

Agri-environmental payments

6.35

6.392

1  The amounts relate to the nine Member States that have more than 2 000 km2 of their territory in the Danube river basin.

2  For Germany the amount taken into account relates to the two regions that are in the Danube river basin (Baden-Württemberg and Bayern).

Source: For the European Regional Development Fund/Cohesion Fund: Commission database Infoview and for European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development: financial implementation reports 2014.

 
16

19 
The visits to the Member States were 
conducted between March 2013 and 
January 2014. The periods to which the 
various pieces of evidence collected 
relates are mentioned in the different 
sections of this report. Documentary 
reviews and analyses continued to 
be carried out after January 2014, in 
particular to take into account the up-
dates of the river basin management 
plans (published for consultation10 
starting in December 2014) and the 
new rural development programmes 
(2014-2020 programme period) ap-
proved in 2015.

20 
Water bodies can also be affected by 
hydrological and/or morpho logical 
alterations as well as other types of 
pollution that prevent them from 
achieving good water quality status. 
These were not within the scope of the 
audit.

21 
The Court has already published other 
special reports11 in related fields.

9  Part of the Czech Republic, 
a major part of Slovakia and 
the whole of Romania and 
Hungary are in the Danube 
river basin. The total area of 
these Member States 
(expressed in km2) represents 
around half (49.4 %) of the 
Danube river basin.

10  By December 2015 Member 
States had to adopt the 
second river basin 
management plans. According 
to the water framework 
directive, the draft river basin 
management plans are 
subject to a consultation 
procedure with the parties 
interested in the 
implementation of the 
directive.

11  Special Report No 8/2008 ‘Is 

cross-compliance an effective 
policy?’, Special Report 
No 7/2011 ‘Is agri-environment 
support well designed and 
managed?’, Special Report 
No 5/2011 ‘Single payment 
scheme (SPS): issues to be 
addressed to improve its 
sound financial management’, 
Special Report No 4/2014 
‘Integration of EU water policy 
objectives with the CAP: 
a partial success’ and Special 
Report No 2/2015 ‘EU funding 
of urban waste water 
treatment plants in the 
Danube river basin: further 
efforts needed in helping 
Member States to achieve EU 
waste water policy objectives’ 
(http://eca.europa.eu).

Audit scope  
and approach

16 
Through this audit the Court assessed 
whether the implementation of the 
water framework directive by the 
Member States led to an improvement 
in water quality.

17 
The audit focused on surface water 
quality in four Member States of the 
Danube river basin covering the upper, 
central and lower part of the basin: 
the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania 
and Slovakia9. It covered three main 
aspects: pollution from agglomera-
tions, from industrial installations and 
from agriculture.

18 
The Court addressed the following 
three questions:

(a)  Were the measures in the 2009 

river basin management plans well 
targeted and of a type and extent 
necessary to ensure the achieve-
ment of good water quality in 
2015?

(b)  Are the measures and instruments 
implemented by the Member 
States appropriate to reduce pollu-
tion by waste waters?

(c)  Are the measures and instruments 
implemented by the Member 
States appropriate to reduce dif-
fuse pollution from agriculture?

Observations

17

23 
The overall classification of the eco-
logical status is defined by the lowest 
observed individual quality element. 
Equally, the chemical status can be 
rated as ‘good’ only when the stand-
ards for all substances are complied 
with. This is known as the ‘one-out 
all-out’ rule. The application of such 
a rule may mask progress with regard 
to individual quality elements.

24 
A river basin management plan has to 
include information on the pollution 
sources that water bodies are subject 
to, on the status assessment and on 
the measures to be implemented to 
achieve good water quality as well as 
their total cost. The plans also have 
to provide justification for granting 
a water body an exemption from the 
deadlines for achieving good water 
quality (the first deadline being 2015, 
see paragraph 2).

12  According to Annex II of the 

water framework directive 
,Member States had to identify 
surface water bodies and 
groundwater bodies.

13  For water bodies which have 

been heavily modified in their 
physical structure to serve 
various uses such as 
navigation, flood protection, 
hydropower and agriculture, 
in many cases, it is neither 
viable nor desirable from an 
economic point of view to 
abandon such uses and to 
remove the physical 
modifications. Therefore, for 
the heavily modified water 
bodies it is not the status but 
the potential which has to be 
assessed following the 
directive.

14  For priority substances 

indicated in Annex X to the 
water framework directive, the 
environmental quality 
standards are set at EU level. 
For other substances it is up to 
the Member States to set 
environmental quality 
standards.

15  Member States had to select 

those pollutants considered of 
specific importance for the 
river basin concerned.

16  Concentration of a particular 

pollutant or group of 
pollutants in water, sediment 
or biota which should not be 
exceeded in order to protect 
human health and the 
environment.

River basin management 
plans as a tool for 
achieving good water 
quality by 2015

22 
According to the water framework 
directive Member States have to assess 
water quality using the results of their 
national water monitoring network. 
The assessment is made at water body 
level12 on the basis of the systems 
and methods defined by the Member 
States within the rules specified by the 
water framework directive. There are 
two components to assessing water 
quality:

—  the ecological status/potential13: 
Member States have to make the 
assessment by taking into account 
various factors, called ‘quality ele-
ments’: biological elements (such 
as aquatic flora and fish fauna), 
 hydromorphological elements and 
chemical and physico-chemical 
elements14. The latter include 
organic pollution (measured by the 
parameters biochemical oxygen 
demand (BOD5) and chemical 
oxygen demand (COD)), nutrient 
conditions and selected chemical 
substances15. The classification is 
made according to five categories: 
high, good, moderate, poor and 
bad;

—  the chemical status: Member 

States have to assess whether the 
environmental quality standards16 
for the substances defined by 
EU legislation were respected or 
not (i.e. 41 priority substances or 
groups of substances were to be 
evaluated for the 2009 river basin 
management plans). The classifi-
cation results in a score of either 
‘good’ or ‘fail’.

18

17  For the Czech Republic, which 
only has parts of its territory in 
the Danube river basin, 
reference is made to the river 
basin management plan for 
the Danube (and the plans for 
the sub-basins Dyje and 
Morava).

Little improvement in the 
ecological and chemical 
status of water bodies

26 
Figures 1 and 2 present the changes 
between the 2009 river basin manage-
ment plans17 and the 2015 draft plans, 
with regard to the ecological and 
chemical status of the surface water 
bodies in the four Member States 
visited.

Observations

25 
The Court examined whether:

—  surface water quality improved as 
a result of measures implemented 
by the Member States;

— 

in the 2009 river basin manage-
ment plans the pollution sources 
had been identified for each water 
body;

—  the measures identified in the 
2009 river basin management 
plans adequately address the iden-
tified pollution sources;

—  Member States aimed at achieving 
the 2015 deadline for the majority 
of their water bodies;

—  the Commission had taken any 

action in cases where it considered 
the 2009 river basin management 
plans as being inadequate.

the 2015 draft plans (expressed as % of total number of surface water bodies)

1 Ecological status/potential presented in the 2009 river basin management plans and 
e
r
u
g
i
F

2 % 1 %

100 %

2 %

2 %

3 %

2 %

9 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %

62 %

24 %

12 %

32 %

39 %

40 %

26 %

22%

30 %

9 %

22 %

26 %

38 %

13 %

39 %

33 %

34 %

59 %

64 %

63 %

36 %

55 %

Unclassiﬁed

Poor & bad

Moderate

Good & high

Czech Republic

Hungary

Romania

Slovakia

2009

2015

2009

2015

2009

2015

2009

2015

Source: Information provided by the Member States via WISE1 and the draft 2015 river basin management plans.

1  WISE (Water Information for Europe) provides a wide range of data and information on water issues collected by EU institutions.

 
Observations

19

draft plans (expressed as % of total number of surface water bodies)

2 Chemical status presented in the 2009 river basin management plans and the 2015 
e
r
u
g
i
F

100 %

5 %

3 %

2 %

7 %

2 %
6 %

31 %

67 %

49 %

51 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %

46 %

29 %

25 %

94 %

3 %3 %

93 %

92 %

95 %

97 %

Unknown

Fail

Good

Czech Republic

2009

2015

Hungary

Romania

Slovakia

2009

2015

2009

2015

2009

2015

Source: Information provided by the Member States via WISE and the draft 2015 river basin management plans.

27 
Based on the data included in the river 
basin management plans, the changes 
in water quality status do not appear 
to be significant and the 2015 deadline 
for achieving good status was not met. 
The bodies with ecological status/
potential that was ‘good or high’ only 
increased by a small percentage, with 
the biggest increase for the Czech 
Republic. For the chemical status, the 
situation deteriorated in the Czech 
Republic. Hungary managed to sig-
nificantly reduce the number of water 
bodies with unknown status, which 
explains the increase in the number of 
water bodies either having scores of 
‘good’ or ‘fail’ chemical status.

Identification of the 
pollution sources at water 
body level suffered from  
lack of comprehensive data

28 
Given a lack of monitoring data, Mem-
ber States partly based their status as-
sessment on indirect methods such as 
risk analysis and estimation, which has 
an impact on the degree of confidence 
with regard to the status classifica-
tion. While Romania and Slovakia have 
a high number of water bodies clas-
sified as ‘good’ and ‘high’ in the 2009 
plans (see Figures 1 and 2), the confi-
dence in the classification was low for 
a significant number of water bodies. 
The lower the degree of confidence 
in a status classification, the more dif-
ficult it is to identify the appropriate 
measures to remedy the situation.

 
20

18  This does not preclude that 

other information is available 
at Member State level but not 
presented in the river basin 
management plans.

19  These include (i) for point 

source discharges: 
a requirement for prior 
regulation or for prior 
authorisation, or registration 
based on general binding 
rules and (ii) for diffuse 
sources: measures to prevent 
or control the input of 
pollutants and (iii) measures 
deemed appropriate to 
recover the costs of water 
services.

Observations

29 
Also, the number of specific physico-
chemical substances assessed for the 
ecological status (see paragraph 22) 
varied significantly from one Member 
State to another (from four in Hungary 
to more than 80 in the Czech Repub-
lic) sometimes due to a lack of proper 
identification. This can lead to an 
overoptimistic classification of water 
bodies.

30 
Annex II presents the percentage of 
water bodies that were subject to pol-
lution from point and diffuse sources 
as well as the percentage of water 
bodies subject to organic enrichment, 
to nutrient enrichment and to contam-
ination by priority substances or other 
specific pollutants.

31 
The Court’s analysis showed that there 
were insufficiencies regarding the 
information by water body presented 
in the 2009 river basin management 
plans18: they do not always indicate 
whether organic pollution (BOD5 and 
COD), nutrients (nitrogen and phos-
phorus), physico-chemical and prior-
ity substances and pesticides pose 
a problem to the water quality of the 
body concerned.

32 
Equally the river basin management 
plans suffer from insufficiencies and 
difficulties regarding the information 
available by pollution source:

—  when it comes to point sources 

of pollution (such as urban waste 
water treatment plants and indus-
trial installations) there was a lack 
of data in particular with regard to 
the discharge of physico-chemical 
and priority substances. Most in-
formation was available for organic 
and nutrient emissions from urban 
waste water treatment plants;

—  when it comes to diffuse pollu-
tion the calculation of the share 
of the various sources (fertiliser 
use, erosion, atmospheric deposi-
tion, etc.) is difficult and therefore 
estimations were mainly based on 
statistical models;

—  when it comes to contaminated 

and waste disposal sites no quanti-
fied information on the impor-
tance of the source was available.

Measures identified in the 
river basin management 
plans are not sufficient to 
adequately address pollution 
sources

33 
According to the 2009 guidance docu-
ment No 21 for reporting under the 
water framework directive Member 
States had to present the measures 
in their river basin management plan 
according to three categories: ‘ba-
sic measures’ (measures required to 
implement EU Directives), ‘other basic 
measures’ (measures additionally intro-
duced by the Water Framework Direc-
tive19) and ‘supplementary measures’.

21

20  Due to the fact that in urban 
areas there are a lot of 
impervious surfaces, the water 
from rain falls or snow melts 
cannot soak into the ground 
and thus the water runs off, 
carrying all kind of pollutants.

21 

In Special Report No 2/2015 
(paragraphs 53 to 55) the 
Court noted that for overflows 
there is a general lack of 
information on their quantity 
and pollution parameters. 
Moreover, in the Czech 
Republic, Hungary and 
Romania there are no legal 
requirements for either an 
admissible number and 
volume of overflows or for 
a dilution ratio. In Slovakia 
such requirements exist and 
determine the required size of 
the overflow chambers. 
However, neither the volume 
nor the dilution ratio of the 
overflows has to be 
monitored.

Observations

34 
The 2009 river basin management 
plans of the four Member States gener-
ally lacked information on the achieve-
ments to be expected from the im-
plementation of the ‘basic measures’ 
and the resulting need for additional 
measures to achieve good status.

Pollution from agglomerations: 
measures in addition to the 
urban waste water treatment 
directive miss out some 
important aspects

35 
The ‘basic measure’ for tackling pollu-
tion from agglomerations is the imple-
mentation of the urban waste water 
treatment directive (see Table 1).

36 
With regard to ‘other basic’ and ’sup-
plementary measures’, the Court 
identified the following shortcomings 
in the 2009 river basin management 
plans of the four Member States:

—  for agglomerations below 2 000 
p.e. the river basin management 
plans of the Czech Republic, 
Hungary and Slovakia failed to 
indicate how many of these ag-
glomerations are of importance for 
water quality and thus would need 
specific measures;

—  the water quality situation of 

water bodies may require setting 
emission limits that go beyond 
the requirements of the urban 
waste water treatment directive 
(see Annex III). The review of the 
adequacy of emission limit values 
as defined in the national legal 
provisions was mentioned for 
Hungary and Romania. The Czech 
Republic did not include such 
a measure as the limits set by law 
had been updated in 2007, thus 
shortly before the approval of the 
river basin management plan. For 
Hungary the scope of the measure 
was not provided. For Romania the 
plan indicated that more stringent 
limits are required in a limited 
number of agglomerations but it is 
not clear whether this is sufficient 
in terms of covering all water bod-
ies subject to important organic 
and nutrient pollution;

—  the issue of rainwater manage-

ment was only partially addressed 
by the Member States. Both over-
flows — occurring during heavy 
rainfall when the capacity of a sew-
age network and/or a treatment 
plant is not sufficient — and urban 
run-off20 can lead to water pollu-
tion. Hungary included a specific 
measure consisting mainly in the 
establishment of a national rain-
water management plan and Ro-
mania identified agglomerations 
which need rainwater collection 
systems. None of the plans includ-
ed specific measures to deal with 
overflows21;

22

22 

23 

In Special Report No 23/2012 
‘Have EU structural measures 
successfully supported the 
regeneration of industrial and 
military brownfield sites?’ the 
Court indicated a number of 
obstacles that hinder the 
setting of priorities with 
regard to the regeneration of 
sites (such as a lack of 
complete and appropriate 
registers on contaminated 
sites) (see paragraphs 37 to 44) 
(http://eca.europa.eu).

In this context an OECD paper 
on ‘Water quality and 
agriculture: meeting the policy 
challenge’, published in 2012, 
mentions that meeting the 
challenges of sustainable 
management of water quality 
in agriculture requires a high 
level of political commitment.

Observations

—  since the late 1990s the presence 

—  while all four Member States 

of micropollutants has increasingly 
been recognised as an issue in the 
context of water quality. Micro-
pollutants are typically found in 
pharmaceutical products, personal 
care products and food additives. 
Despite its increasing importance 
the issue of micro pollutants was 
not addressed by the four Mem-
ber States in their 2009 river basin 
management plans. Measures 
available to address this issue 
are: (i) prevention/reduction of 
pollution where it is occurring 
(‘at source’) and (ii) treatment of 
the polluted water (‘end-of-pipe’ 
measures).

Pollution from industrial 
installations: lack of targeted 
measures

37 
A ‘basic measure’ for tackling pollu-
tion from industrial installations is the 
implementation of the industrial emis-
sions directive (see Table 1).

38 
With regard to ‘other basic’ and ’sup-
plementary measures’, the Court 
identified the following shortcomings 
in the 2009 river basin management 
plans of the four Member States:

— 

in order to reduce pollution from 
hazardous substances, measures 
are required that target those sub-
stances which prevent water bod-
ies from achieving good ecological 
and chemical status. However, 
none of the four Member States 
had measures targeting specific 
substances;

included measures regarding the 
rehabilitation of contaminated 
and/or waste disposal sites, only 
the plans of the Czech Republic 
and Slovakia identified sites that 
were considered as posing a risk 
to water quality. Nevertheless, the 
Court found that the selected sites 
did not necessarily correspond to 
those sites prioritised for decon-
tamination by the national bodies 
responsible for decontamination 
strategy22.

Pollution from agriculture: 
measures in addition to the 
nitrates directive are mainly of a 
voluntary nature

39 
The ‘basic measure’ for tackling pol-
lution from agriculture is the imple-
mentation of the nitrates directive (see 
Table 1).

40 
With regard to ‘other basic’ and 
‘supplementary measures’, the river 
basin management plans of the four 
Member States mainly referred to the 
measures under the rural develop-
ment programmes where farmers can 
engage in actions going beyond com-
pulsory legislation (such as fertilisation 
rules stricter than those of the nitrates 
directive). These measures are howev-
er of a voluntary nature only and thus 
may not cover the areas where water 
pollution is most significant (see also 
paragraphs 145 to 157)23.

23

24  Fertilisers include as active 

substances in particular one or 
more of the following: 
nitrogen, phosphate and 
potash.

Observations

41 
The Court also identified the following 
shortcomings in the 2009 river basin 
management plans of the four Mem-
ber States:

—  although phosphorus from diffuse 
pollution plays a significant role 
in the nutrient pollution of water 
bodies, there was no indication — 
in any of the programmes — of 
measures directly targeted at limit-
ing the amount of phosphorus to 
be applied on land (kg/ha)24;

—  measures targeted at reducing ero-
sion — which contributes signifi-
cantly to phosphorus pollution — 
were indicated in the programmes 
of measures of the Czech Republic, 
Hungary and Romania. Neverthe-
less, in Hungary the measure refers 
to the application of the rel-
evant GAEC standard (see Box 3), 
whereas, in the programmes of 
the Czech Republic and Romania, 
there is a lack of detail as to how 
the measures are to be carried out;

—  measures targeted at reducing the 
use of pesticides were mentioned 
in the programmes of measures of 
all four Member States. However, 
the measures were vague or they 
referred to the pesticide action 
plans that were to be adopted and 
communicated to the Commission 
by 26 November 2012 as requested 
by the pesticides directive (see 
Table 2).

Meaningful information 
regarding the funding of the 
measures is missing

42 
The Court found that an estimation 
of the costs was not provided for all 
measures set out in the 2009 river 
basin management plans. Information 
on the sources and availability of funds 
was only partial for the four Member 
States.

43 
The absence of information on costs 
and on the expected results of the 
measures (see paragraph 34) hinders 
the identification of the most cost-
effective measures.

44 
Funding provided outside of EU 
programmes is rare. The major fund-
ing sources are the programmes co-
financed by the EU via the European 
Regional Development Fund/Cohesion 
Fund as well as the European Agricul-
tural Fund for Rural Development. The 
priorities and financial allocation de-
cided in these programmes thus have 
an impact on progress in the field of 
water quality. However, coordination 
between the bodies approving priori-
ties and projects and the bodies ap-
proving the programme of measures 
of the river basin management plans 
has not always been achieved (see also 
paragraph 38).

Observations

24

Significant number of water 
bodies exempted from the 
2015 and 2021 deadlines

45 
According to the 2009 river basin 
management plans, the four Member 
States exempted a significant number 
of water bodies from the 2015 deadline 
(see Table 5) but without providing 
clear justifications for the time exten-
sions granted.

46 
The number of exemptions within the 
2015 draft river basin management 
plans remains high, with the exception 
of Romania and, for chemical status, 
Slovakia. This means that for the 
exempted water bodies good water 
quality can only be expected to be 
achieved in the 2021-2027 period.

5 Surface water bodies exempted (as % of the total number of surface water bodies)
e
l
b
a
T

2015 draft river basin  
management plans

2015 draft river basin  
management plans

2009 river basin  
management plans

2009 river basin  
management plans

Member State

Ecological status

Chemical status

Czech Republic

Hungary

Romania

Slovakia

90 %

88 %

36 %

1

63 %

84 %

14 %

47 %

31 %

44 %2

6 %

1

36 %

75 %

2 %

1 %

1  Slovakia provided a figure (37 %) which relates to both ecological and chemical status taken together.

2  The percentage was calculated on the number of bodies with known status.

Source: Information provided by the Member States via WISE or in the river basin management plans.

Close follow-up by 
the Commission but 
improvements depend on 
Member States’ willingness 
to act

47 
The Commission is not responsible for 
approving the river basin management 
plans adopted by the Member States. 

Nevertheless, if a Member State fails to 
comply with EU law, the Commission 
has the power to initiate an infringe-
ment procedure and ultimately to refer 
the case to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union. In 2008, the Commis-
sion introduced what is known as the 
EU ‘pilot procedure’, which is used as 
a first step to try to resolve problems 
so that, if possible, formal infringe-
ment proceedings are avoided.

 
25

25  SWD(2012) 379 final of 

14 November 2012 ‘Reports by 
Member States accompanying 
the report from the 
Commission to the European 
Parliament and the Council on 
the implement ation of the 
water framework directive 
(2000/60/EC) river basin 
management plans’ and  
SWD(2015) 50 final of 
9 March 2015 ‘Report on the 
progress in implementation of 
the water framework directive 
programmes of measures, 
accompanying the document 
“Communication from the 
Commission to the European 
Parliament and the Council on 
the water framework directive 
and the floods directive: 
actions towards the ‘good 
status’ of EU water and to 
reduce flood risks”’.

26  A partnership agreement is 
a strategic plan negotiated 
between the Commission and 
the national authorities with 
investment priorities covering 
the European Structural and 
Investment Funds.

27 

If ex ante conditionalities 
defined by EU regulations are 
not fulfilled, action plans need 
to be prepared to ensure 
fulfilment by 31.12.2016.

28  The operational programme 

was approved in April 2015.

Observations

48 
The Commission reviewed the 2009 
river basin management plans of all 
Member States and presented specific 
observations and recommendations by 
Member State in two reports25 accom-
panying two Commission communica-
tions. The Commission also organised 
bilateral meetings in 2013 and 2014 
with all four Member States where it 
addressed its main concerns.

49 
In the context of the approval of the 
partnership agreements26 and the 
operational programmes on environ-
ment for the 2014-2020 programme 
period, the Commission assessed the 
‘adoption of a river basin management 
plan’ as a criterion for fulfilment of an 
ex ante conditionality27. In the Czech 
Republic, Hungary and Slovakia this 
criterion was not considered as having 
been fulfilled. The operational pro-
grammes include actions to be taken 
as a consequence, but they do not 
cover all weaknesses identified during 
the bilateral meetings for Hungary and 
Slovakia (see paragraph 48). Instead 
the Commission considers the actions 
detailed in the minutes of these bilat-
eral meetings as actions to be taken by 
Member States. However, these min-
utes do not have the same contractual 
force as the operational programmes. 
Only for the Czech Republic was spe-
cific reference made in the operational 
programme28 to Commission requests 
made during the bilateral meeting. 
Overall this way of action weakens the 
effect of the ex ante conditionality.

50 
The draft 2015 river basin manage-
ment plans still present a number of 
the shortcomings found by the Court 
and the Commission in the 2009 plans 
regarding the identification of suitable 
measures.

Measures and instruments 
implemented by the 
Member States in order to 
reduce pollution caused 
by waste waters

51 
The Court examined whether the 
measures and instruments as imple-
mented in the four Member States are 
appropriate in addressing pollution 
from waste waters emitted by agglom-
erations and industrial installations.

Pollution from 
agglomerations: progress in 
the treatment of waste water 
but available instruments 
could be used to better 
effect

52 
An important way to reduce pollu-
tion from agglomerations for the four 
Member States was to increase the 
percentage of properly treated waste 
water. Therefore the Court examined 
whether the four Member States:

—  had made progress with regard to 
the quantity of waste water that is 
properly treated;

26

29  Final deadlines for 

implementation of the urban 
waste water treatment 
directive: the Czech Republic 
31.12.2010, Hungary 
31.12.2015, Romania 31.12.2018 
and Slovakia 31.12.2015.

Observations

—  had an inspection system ensur-
ing the enforcement of the emis-
sion limits set in the waste water 
discharge permits;

—  used the water pollution charge 
to be paid by urban waste water 
treatment plants as an instrument 
to deter the emission of pollutants.

Progress has been made with 
regard to the quantity of waste 
water being treated

53 
The four Member States have to 
achieve the objectives set by the urban 
waste water treatment directive (see 
Table 1) according to the deadlines29 
agreed in the Accession Treaties.

54 
According to Article 5 of the urban 
waste water treatment directive, 
Member States had to identify sensi-
tive areas, in particular areas at risk of 
eutrophication. The Czech Republic, 
Romania and Slovakia designated their 
whole territories as being sensitive 
areas. This is a positive aspect from 
the point of view of water quality as in 
these areas more stringent treatment/
tertiary treatment of waste water is 
required for agglomerations above 
10 000 p.e., i.e. reduction of nutrients 
that are responsible for eutrophica-
tion (see Annex III). For Hungary, see 
paragraph 64.

55 
In order to make progress, Member 
States needed to increase the share of 
the population connected to a treat-
ment plant and had to improve the 
treatment technology, i.e. ensure the 
respect of emission limits for organic 
pollution (BOD5 and COD) through 
secondary treatment and nutrient 
pollution (Ntot and Ptot) through more 
stringent treatment/tertiary treatment. 
In addition, the emission limits set by 
a treatment plant should reflect the 
water quality in the body receiving the 
waste water.

Progress made in terms of 
connection to the sewage network 
and treatment plants but gaps 
remain in particular in two Member 
States …

56 
Figure 3 shows the progress with 
regard to the connection rate of the 
total population to both public sewage 
networks and treatment plants. In all 
four Member States the connection 
rates increased between 2008 and 
2012. Romania, having joined the EU 3 
years later than the other three Mem-
ber States, had the lowest connection 
rates overall.

57 
The difference between the percent-
age of the total population connected 
to public sewage networks and the 
percentage connected to an urban 
waste water treatment plant illustrates 
that not all of the waste water from the 
connected population is being treated 
by a waste water treatment plant. This 
difference is highest in Hungary and 
lowest in Slovakia.

Observations

27

3 Percentage of total population connected to public sewage networks and connected 
e
to an urban waste water treatment plant: progress made between 2008 and 2012
r
u
g
i
F

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

83 %

78 %

85 %

73 %

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

44 %

41 %

62 %
61 %

Czech Republic

Hungary

Romania

Slovakia

% connected to public sewage networks
% connected to urban waste water treatment plants

Source: Percentage connected to public sewage networks: statistical offices of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia and Romania’s report 
on the implementation of the urban waste water treatment directive dated 30.6.2013 for 2008 data and statistical office for 2012 data. 
Percentage connected to urban waste water treatment plants: statistical offices of the Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia and Eurostat (2011 
data) for Hungary.

58 
The total population that is not yet 
connected to a public sewage network 
can be split as follows:

—  the population from agglomera-

tions equal to or above 2 000 p.e. 
for which there is no collection 
yet. This is the case for Romania, 
where 39.8 % of the load30 had not 
been collected at the end of 2012. 
Romania has until 2018 to meet its 
obligations under the urban waste 
water treatment directive;

—  the population from agglomera-

tions equal to or above 2 000 p.e. 
for which the load is collected 
by individual systems (such as 
septic tanks)31. For the four Mem-
ber States the load collected by 
individual systems was: the Czech 
Republic: 7 %, Hungary: 14 %, Ro-
mania: 1 %, Slovakia: 13 %;

—  the population from agglomera-
tions below 2 000 p.e. for which 
there is no collection.

30  The load is the organic 

biodegradable load of an 
agglomeration expressed in 
p.e. One p.e. corresponds to 
the pollution load of sewage 
generated by one inhabitant 
and represents the organic 
biodegradable load having 
a 5-day biochemical oxygen 
demand of 60 g of oxygen per 
day.

31  See Special Report No 2/2015, 

paragraphs 21 and 22.

 
Observations

28

59 
With regard to the individual systems, 
the urban waste water treatment 
directive requires that they provide 
a similar level of environmental protec-
tion as for urban waste water dis-
charged into collection systems. The 
Court concludes that on the basis of 
the information provided to the Com-
mission by Member States an assess-
ment cannot be made as to whether 
these systems comply with the direc-
tive. Likewise, the 2009 river basin 
management plans do not provide 
information on this. In the second half 
of 2014 the Commission asked Member 
States to provide explanations as to 
how compliance has been achieved.

60 
With regard to agglomerations with 
a p.e. below 2 000, the directive re-
quires that where collection systems 
are in place, appropriate treatment is 
to be ensured in the case of discharge 
to fresh water and estuaries. However, 
the 2009 river basin management 
plans of the Czech Republic and Hun-
gary did not provide any information 
on the number of agglomerations 
where collection systems were in 
place but where there were no urban 
waste water treatment plants. In ad-
dition to the requirements from the 
urban waste water treatment direc-
tive, Member States, in line with the 
water framework directive, have to set 
measures for those agglomerations 
where the discharge of waste water 
has a negative impact on water qual-
ity. However, the measures in the 2009 
river basin management plans are 
vague (see paragraph 36).

Picture 1 — Waste water treatment plant in Hungary
Source: ECA.

Observations

29

62 
The lower percentage of secondary 
treatment for Romania (39 %) is partly 
due to the fact that it joined the EU 
3 years later than the other Member 
States. In 2012, Romania was also 
behind schedule with regard to its 
interim deadline for the urban waste 
water treatment directive concerning 
secondary treatment (by 2010, 51 % of 
the load was to be properly treated).

32  Data provided by the Member 
States to the Commission in 
2010 regarding the period 
2007/2008 and in mid-2014 
regarding the period 
2011/2012.

… and significant progress made 
in terms of secondary and tertiary 
treatment of waste water in three of 
the Member States, but all are still 
behind schedule

61 
The progress in terms of secondary 
treatment of urban waste water from 
agglomerations equal to or above 
2 000 p.e. over the period 2007/2008 
to 2011/201232 was significant (see 
Figure 4). At the end of 2012 in three 
of the four Member States over 90 % of 
the urban waste water of the agglom-
erations complied with the emission 
limits imposed by the directive for 
BOD5 and COD.

4 Progress over the 2007/2008 to 2011/20121 period regarding secondary treatment of 
e
urban waste water for agglomerations ≥ 2 000 p.e. (expressed as % of the total load 
r
u
of these agglomerations excluding the load going into individual systems)
g
i
F

99 %

26 %

92 %

56 %

39 %

44 %

13 %

97 %

2007/2008

2011/2012

Czech Republic2

Hungary

Romania

Slovakia

1 

 The data for Hungary relates to 2007 and 2011, for Romania to 2007 and 2012, and for the Czech Republic and Slovakia to 2008 and 2012.

2  The data for the Czech Republic relates to the whole territory and thus not just to the part in the Danube river basin.

Source: ECA analysis of data provided by the Member States to the Commission.

 
Observations

30

63 
The progress in terms of tertiary treat-
ment of urban waste water over the 
period 2007/2008 to 2011/2012 was 
equally significant. Figure 5 shows the 
situation for the load of all agglomera-
tions above 10 000 p.e. It indicates the 
percentage of the total load (excluding 
the load going into individual systems) 
meeting the urban waste water treat-
ment directive emission limits for Ntot 
and Ptot.

64 
Hungary did not declare its whole 
territory as being sensitive area but 
applies Article 5(4) of the urban waste 
water treatment directive. This means 
that it is not the individual waste water 
treatment plants that need to apply 
the limits for Ntot and Ptot as long as 
it can be shown that the minimum 
percentage of reduction of the over-
all load entering all plants (equal to 
or above 2 000 p.e.) is at least 75 % 
for both Ntot and Ptot. While Hungary’s 
overall treatment rate was significantly 
lower than in the Czech Republic and 
Slovakia33, it was close to complying 
with the 75 % requirement at the end 
of 201234.

33  According to 2012 data 

provided by the Member 
States to the Commission, the 
load from agglomerations 
equal to or above 2 000 p.e. 
that respected the limits of the 
directive is as follows: (i) for 
Ntot: the Czech Republic: 83 %, 
Hungary: 33 %, Slovakia: 60 % 
and (ii) for Ptot: the Czech 
Republic: 77 %, Hungary: 39 %, 
Slovakia: 86 %.

34  According to information 

provided by the Hungarian 
authorities to the Commission, 
the percentage of reduction of 
the load entering treatment 
plants was 73.1 % for Ntot and 
74.4 % for Ptot.

5 Progress over the 2007/2008 to 2011/20121 period regarding tertiary treatment of 
e
r
u
g
i
F

urban waste water for agglomerations above 10 000 p.e. (expressed as % of the total 
load of these agglomerations excluding the load going into individual systems)

Ntot

Ptot

4
6
h
p
a
r
g
a
r
a
p
e
e
S

67 %

32 %

20 %

10 %

Hungary

Romania

Slovakia3

78 %

31 %

Czech
Republic2

1  See note 1 of Figure 4 for the reference dates.

4
6
h
p
a
r
g
a
r
a
p
e
e
S

96 %

34 %

20 %

3 %

Hungary

Romania

Slovakia

96 %

32 %

Czech
Republic

2007/2008

2011/2012

2 

 For the Czech Republic the treatment plant of Prague which treats 15 % of the total load for agglomerations equal to or above 2 000 p.e was 
not compliant with the directive requirements in 2012. It is expected that the waste water of Prague will be receiving adequate treatment 
by 2018.

3 

 For Slovakia separate data for Ntot and Ptot was not available. The data used corresponds to the load meeting the emission limits for one or 
both of the parameters.

Source: ECA analysis of data provided by the Member States to the Commission.

 
 
 
 
 
31

35  As of 31.12.2014 the EU 

contribution allocated to 
waste water in the budget of 
the operational programmes 
in the four Member States 
visited was 5.07 billion euro.

36  See Special Report No 2/2015, 

paragraphs 24 to 26.

37  See Special Report No 2/2015, 

paragraphs 89 to 105.

38  For certain parameters, 

national law in all four 
Member States imposes limits 
that are stricter than the ones 
of the urban waste water 
treatment directive.

39 

In 2011 the Czech law 
introduced a set of emission 
limit values that result from 
the application of best 
available techniques. These 
are the limits that the 
authorities issuing the permit 
should take into account when 
they want to impose limits 
stricter than the standard set 
by law. In practice this means 
that these limits have become 
the maximum that the 
authorities can impose. Most 
of the emission limit values for 
the four waste water 
treatment plants examined 
that were stricter than the 
directive and the standard set 
by the national law 
correspond to these 
maximum limits.

40 

In the Czech Republic the load 
complying with the limits for 
Ptot is even higher: 97 %.

41  Directive 2013/39/EU of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council of 12 August 2013 
amending Directives 2000/60/
EC and 2008/105/EC as regards 
priority substances in the field 
of water policy (OJ L 226, 
24.8.2013, p. 1).

68 
According to data provided by the 
Member States to the Commission, 
around 20 %40 of the waste water 
treated from agglomerations between 
2 000 and 10 000 p.e. respected in 
2012 the limits of the directive for Ntot 
and Ptot. This is not a requirement of 
the directive but is positive for water 
quality.

69 
The national legal provisions in the 
four Member States do not set emis-
sion limits for micropollutants. A major 
improvement in current treatment pro-
cesses would be required to remove 
such substances (see paragraph 36).

70 
Initiative was taken at EU level as 
the water framework directive was 
amended in 201341 by the European 
Parliament and the Council inter alia 
requesting the Commission to de-
velop by September 2015 a strategic 
approach to the pollution of water 
by pharmaceutical substances and to 
propose by September 2017, meas-
ures to be taken at EU and/or Mem-
ber State level to implement such an 
approach. The concept of a watch 
list of substances for which EU-wide 
monitoring data is to be gathered was 
introduced with the same amendment. 
The first watch list of 10 substances 
was established in March 2015 and 
includes pharmaceutical substances 
and pesticides.

Observations

65 
Despite the progress achieved mainly 
thanks to resources from the European 
Regional Development Fund and Co-
hesion Fund35 the Court notes that all 
four Member States are behind sched-
ule with regard to the interim and/or 
final deadlines for implementation of 
the directive36. It also notes that the 
financial sustainability37 of the newly 
built or rehabilitated infrastructure 
cannot be guaranteed, which is a risk 
to water quality in the long run.

Emission limit values going beyond 
the requirements of the directive 
in 25 % of cases examined by the 
Court

66 
The water quality situation of a water 
body can be such that limits stricter 
than the ones imposed by the urban 
waste water treatment directive need 
to be set for an urban waste water 
treatment plant. Out of a sample of 28 
urban waste water treatment plants 
examined by the Court, the waste 
 water discharge permits for seven 
plants (25 %) included limits that were 
stricter than the ones imposed by 
national38 law: three cases out of four 
examined in the Czech Republic39 (all 
concern nutrients) and four cases out 
of seven examined in Hungary (two of 
which concern the nutrient Ptot).

67 
On the other hand, in Hungary, three 
out of seven plants examined had the 
technical capacity to remove nutrients 
(Ntot and Ptot) and thus to improve the 
quality of the effluents but were not 
required to do so by the discharge 
permit.

Observations

Deterrent effect of the inspection 
system is limited

71 
Properly set emission limits will only 
have an impact on water quality if 
they are complied with. Hence the 
importance of an effective inspec-
tion system42 to ensure that the limits 
specified in the waste water discharge 
permits for urban waste water treat-
ment plants are being adhered to.

72 
Compliance is ensured by two types of 
checks:

—  those carried out by the oper ators 
of the treatment plants on the 
basis of water samples drawn by 
themselves (hereafter referred to 
as self-checks);

—  those carried out by public inspec-

tion bodies43.

73 
With regard to the self-checks, the 
Court concludes that out of a sample 
of 28 urban waste water treatment 
plants examined all but one plant 
respected the requirements of the 
urban waste water treatment directive 
in terms of number of checks. More-
over in 2012, 25 out of the 28 plants 
respected the limits specified in their 
permits44.

74 
With regard to the checks carried out 
by public inspection bodies, their fre-
quency is not prescribed in any of the 
four Member States45. It is thus at the 
discretion of the authority concerned, 
taking into account its resource con-
straints. The actual frequency achieved 
varies by Member State (see Table 6). 
For the Member States that submit-
ted data to the Court, Slovakia carried 
out checks least often. No data on 
frequency was received from Hun-
gary. In Slovakia, the inspection body 
rarely takes its own samples of the 
effluent, relying instead on operators’ 
self-checks carried out by accredited 
laboratories.

75 
When emission limits are exceeded 
and this is observed by the public 
inspection bodies, fines46 are due ac-
cording to the national legal provisions 
in all four Member States.

76 
In Hungary and Romania the fines are 
applied per pollutant for which the 
limit was exceeded. The amount per kg 
of pollution in excess of the limit varies 
by pollutant47 concerned. In Romania, 
the seriousness of the offence is also 
assessed so that the inspection body 
can opt for issuing a warning rather 
than a fine. The Romanian statistics 
on the results of the 2012 inspections 
show that five times more warnings 
than fines were issued.

32

42  At EU level there is 

Recommendation 2001/331/
EC of the European Parliament 
and the Council of 4 April 2001 
providing for minimum criteria 
for environmental inspections 
in the Member States (OJ 
L 118, 27.4.2001, p. 41). It 
provides guidelines for the 
organisation (establishment of 
inspection plans) and the 
carrying out of checks (site 
visits and reporting).

43  These bodies are the 

following: in the Czech 
Republic: the Czech 
Environmental Inspectorate 
(CZIP), in Hungary: the 
National Directorate General 
for Disaster Management of 
the Ministry of the Interior 
(since April 2014), in Romania: 
the National Administration 
‘Romanian Waters’ (ANAR), in 
Slovakia: the Slovak 
Environmental Inspectorate 
(SZIP). Other bodies may also 
carry out checks at the level of 
the waste water treatment 
plants such as the authorities 
which establish the permit. 
These checks were not 
included in the Court’s 
assessment.

44  See Special Report No 2/2015, 

paragraphs 48 and 50.

45  Council conclusions of 

11 June 2012 called for an 
improvement of inspections 
and an opinion of the 
Committee of the Regions 
stressed that an EU-wide 
framework for national 
inspections can ensure a level 
playing field and consistency 
in legal action. It also pointed 
out the value of a well-defined 
inspection-related role of the 
Commission.

46  Sanctions under criminal law 
(such as prison sentences) are 
not addressed in this report.

47  For example in Hungary the 
amount per kg of pollution 
(converted from HUF at the 
exchange rate of 31.12.2014: 
315.54) is 1.11 euro for Ntot and 
7.29 euro for Ptot. In Romania, 
the amount per kg of pollution 
(converted from RON at the 
exchange rate of 31.12.2014: 
4.4828) is 1.71 euro for Ntot 
and Ptot.

Observations

33

6 Checks by public inspection bodies
e
l
b
a
T

Member State

Czech Republic

Hungary

Romania

Slovakia

Actual frequency of the checks on urban waste water treatment plants

Plants with capacity above 10 000 p.e.: once per year.
Plants with capacity between 2 000 and 10 000 p.e.: once every 3 years.
Other plants: every 5 years.

No information received.
On the basis of the frequency observed at a sample of seven waste water treatment plants, the Court concludes 
that plants are not necessarily inspected every year.

In 2013 all plants with a capacity ≥ 2 000 p.e. were checked.

Plants with capacity above 10 000 p.e.: coverage less than 10 % in 2013.
All plants taken together: coverage less than 12 % in 2013.

Source: ECA analysis of national legislation and data received by inspection bodies.

77 
In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, 
the fine does not depend on the pol-
lutant concerned or the amount of 
pollution in excess of the limit. Instead 
the amount is fixed depending on the 
seriousness of the non-compliance 
with the permit conditions as assessed 
by the public inspection body (with 
a maximum amount48 set by the na-
tional legal provisions).

78 
None of the 2009 river basin manage-
ment plans included a measure aimed 
at assessing the effectiveness and de-
terrent effect of the inspection system.

In the Czech Republic the fine 
for non-compliance with 
permit conditions can be up to 
180 278 euro (converted from 
CZK at the exchange rate of 
31.12.2014: 27.735). In Slovakia 
the fine for non-compliance 
with permit conditions can 
range from 1 000 euro to three 
times the annual water 
pollution charge or 1 euro per 
m3 discharged over 
a maximum period of 1 year.

49  Article 191(2) of the Treaty on 
Functioning of the European 
Union (consolidated version).

Water pollution charge partially 
used as an instrument to deter 
the emission of pollutants

48 

79 
The legal framework of all four Mem-
ber States provides for the application 
of a water pollution charge, to be paid 
by those discharging polluted water. 
It is based on the quantity and/or 
concentration (mg/l) of the discharged 
pollutants. Such a charge is in line with 
the ‘polluter pays’ principle49 accord-
ing to which polluters have to bear the 
cost of reducing the pollution caused. 
A water pollution charge can serve 
three purposes: (i) to raise money, 
(ii) to be an incentive to comply with 
the emission limits set in the discharg-
ers’ permits and/or (iii) to act as an 
incentive to further reduce pollution 
by going beyond the set limits.

 
Observations

80 
The charge to be paid for the dis-
charge of waste water into surface 
 water is limited to a number of pol-
lutants (see Annex IV). With regard 
to organic pollution, no charge is due 
for BOD5 in three of the four Member 
States. With regard to nutrient pol-
lution, in the Czech Republic and 
Hungary there is no charge set for Ntot 
but there is one for Ninorg (which is an 
element of Ntot). The charge expressed 
in euro/tonne by pollutant varies 
significantly between the four Member 
States.

81 
Generally all urban waste water treat-
ment plants are liable to pay a water 
pollution charge with the exception 
of smaller dischargers50 in Slovakia 
(discharging less than 10 000m3/year 
or 1 000m3/month). Nevertheless,

— 

— 

in the Czech Republic51 and Slo-
vakia no charge by pollutant is due 
below certain thresholds52 set by 
law;

in Romania, no charge by pollut-
ant is due when the effluent is less 
polluted than the receiving surface 
water body53. This will for example 
favour those that discharge into 
water bodies with a high degree of 
pollution.

82 
The 2009 river basin management 
plans54 did not include measures to as-
sess the appropriateness of the charge 
amounts55.

Pollution from industrial 
installations: difficulties in 
setting emission limits and 
weaknesses in enforcement

83 
Member States have two important 
means at their disposal to influence 
the emission of polluting substances 
by industrial installations: limits in 
their permits56 and the water pollution 
charge.

84 
Industrial installations can discharge 
their waste water either directly into 
water courses or indirectly via a public 
sewage network for treatment by an 
urban waste water treatment plant.

85 
According to the industrial emissions 
directive (see Table 1), industrial instal-
lations carrying out defined activities57 
must have a permit to operate their 
installation. The permit has to include 
emission limits for polluting sub-
stances as well as emission monitoring 
requirements. These limits should not 
exceed the emission levels associated 
with the ‘best available techniques’ as 
adopted by the Commission, assisted 
by an expert committee. As of No-
vember 2015, seven such ‘conclusions 
on best available techniques’ were 
adopted. Urban waste water treatment 
plants, in principle, do not fall under 
the scope of this directive.

34

50 

51 

In practice this means that 
only around 30 % of 
dischargers in Slovakia are 
under charge obligation.

In the Czech Republic a charge 
is also due for the volume of 
waste water discharged where 
such volume exceeds 
100 000m3/year and this 
charge is independent of the 
degree of pollution in the 
waste water.

52  The thresholds relate to (i) the 
volume of the pollution (in kg/
year) and (ii) the concentration 
of the pollutant in the 
discharged water (in mg/l). The 
thresholds are such that in the 
Czech Republic plants with 
a capacity above 10 000 p.e. 
are unlikely to pay a charge for 
Ptot and for Ninorg and in Slovakia 
plants equal to or above 2 000 
p.e. are unlikely to pay a charge 
for total suspended solids 
(TSSs) and plants above 
10 000 p.e. are unlikely to pay 
a charge for Ntot and Ptot.

53  A charge is always due in the 

case of discharge into 
groundwater.

54  For the Czech Republic the 

river basin management plans 
state that it would be 
advisable to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the charging 
system.

55  A study of the European 
Parliamentary Research 
Service on ‘Water legislation, 
cost of non-Europe report’ 
notes that ‘barriers to the 
sufficient use of economic 
instruments are caused by 
inadequate knowledge 
regarding the use of such 
instruments […]’. Document 
PE 536.369 published in 
May 2015.

56  A study of the European 
Parliamentary Research 
Service on ‘Water legislation, 
cost of non-Europe report’ 
notes that ‘emission controls 
foreseen by the water 
framework directive would 
need to be introduced to 
improve the control of 
industrial chemicals […] in 
water’. Document PE 536.369 
published in May 2015.

57  The directive covers inter alia 
the energy industries, the 
production and processing of 
metals and the mineral, 
chemical and waste 
management industries.

35

58 

If an industrial installation 
falling under the industrial 
emissions directive discharges 
into a public sewage system 
the limits should be set 
according to the permit given 
as a result of the application of 
this directive.

Observations

86 
The Court examined whether in the 
four Member States visited:

—  there was a procedure for setting 

emission limits;

—  an inspection system was in place 
to ensure the enforcement of the 
limits;

—  the water pollution charge to be 

paid by industrial installations was 
used as an instrument to deter the 
emission of pollutants.

The authorities that set emission 
limits are often dependent on 
information provided by the 
dischargers themselves

87 
In the case of direct discharge of 
waste water a water discharge permit 
is required in all four Member States. 
The permit is valid for 4 to 10 years 
depending on the Member State. In all 
four Member States the legal frame-
work provides that the competent 
authorities can revoke or amend the 
permit at any time if so required for 
water quality reasons of the receiving 
water bodies.

88 
For direct discharge, national legisla-
tion in the four Member States sets 
limits for a number of substances 
often specified by type of industry. 
The permit issuing authorities can also 
set limits for substances that are not 
included in the legal provisions.

89 
Nevertheless, due to the complexity 
of certain processes and continuous 
technological evolution, the issu-
ing authority is dependent upon the 
information provided by the installa-
tions themselves, both for the type of 
pollutants and the emission limits that 
are reasonably achievable. This leaves 
room for influence by the industrial 
installations, particularly those for 
which best available techniques have 
not been adopted.

90 
While industrial installations discharg-
ing directly into water bodies gen-
erally have limits for chemical sub-
stances in their permits, urban waste 
water treatment plants, although often 
receiving waste water from industrial 
installations, only rarely have such 
limits. It was mainly in the permits of 
the 12 Romanian urban waste water 
treatment plants examined that the 
Court found more substances than 
are required by the urban waste water 
treatment directive (see Annex III).

91 
In the case of indirect discharge of 
waste water, it is the contract58 be-
tween the operator of a sewage net-
work/treatment plant and an industrial 
installation which sets the limits to be 
respected by the industrial installa-
tion. For those substances where the 
national legislation either sets limits 
only for guidance (the Czech Republic 
and Slovakia) or does not set any limits 
(see examples in Annex V), the agreed 
emission limits depend on the nego-
tiation power of the parties involved.

36

59  For self-checks in case of 

indirect discharge, see Special 
Report No 2/2015, paragraph 
60.

60  The operators of the sewage 
networks/urban waste water 
treatment plants that receive 
the waste water are obliged by 
law in the Czech Republic, 
Romania and Slovakia to carry 
out on-the-spot checks.

Observations

92 
Hungary and Slovakia included the 
review of existing permits or of the 
permit issuance procedure as meas-
ures in their river basin management 
plans. The Czech Republic had a meas-
ure which referred merely to the use of 
best available techniques. In the case 
of Hungary, the scope of the measure 
was not indicated. In addition, there 
is no database in Hungary for water 
discharge permits issued for indus-
trial companies not falling under the 
industrial emissions directive, thereby 
restricting any comprehensive review 
exercise. In Slovakia the Court identi-
fied shortcomings regarding the re-
view of the permits of two installations 
examined.

Weaknesses in the inspection 
system

93 
Compliance with emission limits is 
ensured in two ways: self-checks car-
ried out by the dischargers of waste 
water and checks carried out by public 
inspection bodies.

94 
In the four Member States visited, 
industrial installations discharging 
directly into surface water are obliged 
by law to carry out self-checks on their 
effluent59. The frequency of these 
self-checks is generally indicated in 
the waste water discharge permit. 
In Hungary, Romania and Slovakia 
national legislation provides the yearly 
minimum number of checks.

95 
For checks carried out by public 
inspection bodies, their frequency 
is not provided for in any of the four 
Member States, the only exception 
being checks on industrial installations 
falling under the industrial emissions 
directive. For such checks, the direc-
tive specifies the minimum frequency 
required. According to the statistics 
provided by the Member States for 
2012-2013, the Court concludes that:

—  the coverage of the installa-
tions falling under the latter 
directive was compliant with the 
requirements;

—  for direct discharge by installations 
not falling under the scope of the 
industrial emissions directive the 
situation on the actual frequency 
of the public inspections is very 
similar to the one presented in 
Table 6: the frequency was low-
est in Slovakia and for Hungary 
no data was received allowing an 
assessment of the frequency of 
inspections;

—  for indirect discharge, public 

inspection bodies carry out few 
checks at the industrial installa-
tions concerned as it is primarily 
the responsibility of the operator 
of the urban waste water treat-
ment plant to ensure the respect 
of the emission limits set by con-
tract. The Court found that for 22 
out of 26 urban waste water treat-
ment plants analysed (85 %) the 
operators carried out on-the-spot 
checks60. For three of the remain-
ing four plants, the operators re-
lied on the results of the industrial 
dischargers’ self-checks.

37

61  This corresponds to the 

quantity discharged in excess 
of the consented quantity 
(volume multiplied by 
a concentration expressed for 
example in mg/l).

62  Contracts generally specify 
a standard time period 
(usually ranging from 5 to 30 
days) if the precise time period 
during which emission limits 
were exceeded cannot be 
specified.

Observations

96 
One measure in the 2009 river basin 
management plan of Slovakia was to 
tighten the inspection system. How-
ever, there was no indication on how 
and when this measure would be 
implemented and lack of funding for 
implementing the system was men-
tioned as the main problem.

97 
When it has been observed that emis-
sion limits have been exceeded, fines 
are due according to the legal provi-
sions in all four Member States:

— 

— 

in the case of direct discharge, the 
fines are imposed by the public 
inspection body. The procedure is 
the same as the one applied for ur-
ban waste water treatment plants 
(see paragraphs 76 and 77);

in the case of indirect discharge, 
the fines are imposed by the op-
erators of the urban waste water 
treatment plants. While for Hun-
gary and Romania the fine relates 
to the quantity of pollution61 
discharged between two meas-
urements (in a year), in the Czech 
Republic and Slovakia the amount 
calculated generally refers to the 
quantity of pollution discharged 
on the day the measurement took 
place62. The Court considers that 
in such cases the amount due is 
likely to be small and the deterrent 
effect will be limited.

Water pollution charge partially 
used as an instrument to deter 
the emission of pollutants

98 
The number of pollutants for which 
a charge is due is particularly limited 
in the Czech Republic, Hungary and 
Slovakia (see Annex IV). Therefore the 
charge can rarely serve as an incentive 
either to comply with or to go beyond 
the limits set in the permit.

Measures and instruments 
implemented by the 
Member States in order to 
tackle diffuse pollution 
from agriculture

99 
An important way to reduce emissions 
from agriculture is to regulate farm-
ing practices (e.g. rules on the use 
of fertilisers, the storage of manure, 
the use of pesticides, crop rotation, 
etc.). Several instruments are available 
(see paragraph 15) for imposing or 
encouraging good farming practices 
and promoting the compliance of 
farming activities with environmental 
legislation.

38

63  Other criteria: (i) groundwaters 
containing more than 50 mg/l 
nitrates or that could contain 
more than 50 mg/l nitrates if 
action is not taken and (ii) 
surface freshwaters in 
particular those used or 
intended for the abstraction of 
drinking water containing or 
that could contain more than 
25 or 50 mg/l nitrates as 
specified in Council Directive 
75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 
concerning the quality 
required of surface water 
intended for the abstraction of 
drinking water in the Member 
States (OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, 
p. 26).

Observations

100 
Therefore the Court examined 
whether:

—  the nitrates directive is used to 

best effect as an instrument to ad-
dress nitrate pollution;

—  the national pesticides action 

plans show a clear commitment 
towards a reduction of the risks 
and the impacts associated with 
the use of pesticides;

—  cross-compliance is effective in 

requiring good farming practices 
and ensuring compliance with 
these practices;

—  the potential of rural develop-

ment measures to address water 
quality issues is being adequately 
exploited;

—  the ‘polluter pays’ principle is be-
ing applied in the case of diffuse 
pollution from agriculture.

Member States not using all 
possibilities offered by the 
nitrates directive

101 
According to the nitrates directive 
(see Table 1), Member States have to 
designate nitrate-vulnerable zones 
and review them at least every 4 years. 
One of the criteria for the designation 
is the eutrophication status of water 
bodies63. The 1991 nitrates directive 
left it to the Member States to define 
classification criteria for the eutrophi-
cation concept. A guidance document 
on eutrophication assessment in the 
context of European water policies 
was only approved in May 2009 by the 
water directors of the Member States 
(and Norway).

102 
Member States had to adopt action 
programmes specifying the require-
ments that are to be respected by 
farmers in nitratecvulnerable zones. 
These action programmes have to be 
reviewed and, if necessary, revised 
every 4 years. Member States also had 
to adopt a code of good agricultural 
practice for voluntary application by 
those farming outside nitrate-vulner-
able zones. The action programmes 
and the codes are not formally ap-
proved by the Commission. If the Com-
mission assesses their quality to be 
insufficient it is limited to taking legal 
action (see paragraph 47).

Most Member States gradually 
strengthened the requirements 
to be respected by farmers 
in nitrate-vulnerable zones 
but there is scope for further 
improvement

103 
Since their accession to the EU in 2004 
and 2007, the Czech Republic, Hungary 
and Romania have gradually increased 
their zones designated as nitrate-vul-
nerable, whereas in Slovakia there has 
been a reduction of 5 %. Table 7 shows 
the percentage of agricultural land 
that is currently designated as nitrate 
vulnerable in the four Member States.

Observations

39

7 Percentage of agricultural land designated as nitrate 
e
l
b
a
T

vulnerable as of 31.12.2014

Percentage of agricultural land in  
nitrate-vulnerable zones

Change since the first designation

Member State

Czech Republic

Hungary

Romania

Slovakia

49 %

63 %

58 %

+ 15 %

+ 42 %

+ 625 %

In 2013 the Romanian government decided that the action programme applies to the 
whole Romanian territory1.

57 %

- 5 %

1 

 According to Article 3(5) of the nitrates directive, Member States are exempt from the obligation 
to identify specific vulnerable zones if they establish and apply action programmes throughout 
their national territory.

Source: ECA analysis of national legal provisions.

104 
Romania’s decision to apply the action 
programme to the whole country is 
in principle positive from the point 
of view of water quality, particularly 
considering that Romania has the low-
est number of water bodies subject 
to nutrient enrichment (see Annex II). 
However, increasing the zone is by 
itself not sufficient to achieve nitrate 
reduction in water. In the previously 
designated zone (made up of only 
58 % of the agricultural land) little 
progress was made in achieving ap-
propriate manure storage, one of the 
requirements of the action programme 
(see also paragraph 122).

105 
The Court found that the require-
ments of each revision of the action 
programmes of the Czech Republic, 
Hungary and Romania either increased 
in number or became stricter, whereas 
in Slovakia some of the requirements 
were eased. The strengthening of the 
requirements is partially due to Com-
mission action (see examples in Box 1). 
The fact that a number of require-
ments also became more precise aids 
their application and enforcement.

 
Observations

40

1 Examples of the effects of Commission requests made to the Czech Republic and 
x
o
B

Hungary

Member States had to define the capacity of storage vessels for livestock manure. The capacity should be 
such that the vessel can store the manure produced for a period at least as long as the period during which no 
manure is allowed to be applied on the land. The capacity is thus expressed in months. In the Czech Republic 
the capacity was increased as a result of Commission action. Immediate compliance with the requirement was 
not requested from those farmers that newly came under the obligation in 2012 with the increase in nitrate-
vulnerable zones. Instead they benefited from a transitional period (deadline for compliance: end of 2015). 
This period was abolished as a result of Commission action with effect from mid-2014.

In Hungary, the Commission discussed storage obligations and transitional periods with the competent 
authorities. For certain farmers the initial deadlines were extended until 31 December 2014. These farmers 
thus had 10 years from the country’s accession to comply with the requirements. For farmers in areas newly 
designated as nitrate vulnerable in 2013, the deadline was 31 December 2014 for slurry storage and 22 Decem-
ber 2015 for manure storage. However, these transitional deadlines set by the Hungarian authorities were not 
challenged by the Commission.

Picture 2 — Storage vessel for slurry
Source: ECA.

 
Observations

41

2 Examples of requirements in Hungary and Romania that are less demanding than 
x
o
B

the recommendations in the study conducted on behalf of the Commission

In Hungary the period during which the land application of certain types of fertiliser is prohibited runs from 
31 October to 15 February (3 ½ months). The recommendations suggested a period from 1 August to 1 Febru-
ary (6 months) for arable lands with a likely uncertainty of plus/minus 1 month.

In Romania the general rule is that fertiliser application is not allowed within 1 metre of a watercourse on 
a physical block of land with an average slope up to 12 % and within 3 metres on a physical block of land with 
a slope above 12 %. There are other specific rules for various types of water protection areas.

The recommendations suggested buffer strips64 of at least 25 metres in width and in the case of sloping land 
(above 8 %) the buffer strips should be doubled or even tripled. In its correspondence with Romania the Com-
mission also was of the opinion that the buffer strips were not wide enough but did not pursue this issue.

64  Strip of land along a watercourse for which farming restrictions exist such as limitations with regard to fertilisation.

106 
Even though the requirements have 
been tightened up they are still less 
demanding than those set out in 
a 2011 study65 conducted on behalf of 
the Commission and used by the Com-
mission in its assessments of the action 
plans. Examples are given in Box 2.

107 
Several issues66 for which Member 
States had or could define require-
ments under the nitrates directive 
became issues for which Member 
States had to define standards under 
GAEC67. The Court found that the GAEC 
standards for ‘land management’ and 
‘maintenance of a minimum soil cover’ 
are either identical or even stricter 
than what is included in the action 
programmes of the four Member 
States. In addition, there is scope for 
further enhancement of the standards 
(see paragraph 135).

65  See final report presented to 

the Commission in 
December 2011 
‘Recommendations for 
establishing action 
programmes under Directive 
91/676/EEC concerning the 
protection of waters against 
pollution caused by nitrates 
from agricultural sources’ by 
a consortium (DLO-Alterra 
Wageningen UR, DLO-Plant 
Research International 
Wageningen UR, NEIKER 
Tecnalia, Derio, Spain, Institute 
of Technology and Life 
Sciences (ITP), Warsaw, Poland, 
Swedish Institute of 
Agricultural and Environmental 
Engineering (JTI), Uppsala). 
These recommendations by 
climatic zone were only made 
available in 2011, thus 20 years 
after the approval of the 
nitrates directive.

66  These issues are: conditions 
for land application of 
fertilisers near water courses, 
land use management 
(including crop rotation 
systems) and maintenance of a 
minimum quantity of 
vegetation cover during rainy 
periods. The last two are 
optional.

67  The general agricultural and 
environmental conditions 
concerned are: soil erosion 
(including minimum land 
management reflecting 

 
Observations

108 
With regard to fertilisers, Member 
States specified limitations as to the 
amount of nitrogen to be applied (kg/
ha). However, they did not use the op-
portunity to provide similar limitations 
for phosphorus68.

Shortcomings in the Slovak 
and Czech action programmes 
have led to further Commission 
actions

109 
In November 2012 the Commission 
started an infringement procedure 
against Slovakia on the second ac-
tion programme which had been 
approved in 2011. A ‘pilot procedure’ 
with the Czech Republic was begun 
in January 2013 on the third action 
programme approved in 2012.

110 
As of November 2015, there was not 
yet a final position of the Commission 
as a result of the information provided 
by the two Member States69 concerned 
and the actions taken by them.

42

site-specific conditions and 
maintenance of a minimum 
soil cover) and buffer strips 
along water courses. The 
standard on erosion has been 
applicable since 1.1.2005 (or 
1.1.2007 in the case of 
Romania) and the one relating 
to buffer strips has been 
applicable since 1.1.2012 in the 
four Member States visited.

68  For Romania, the Court noted, 
on the basis of a sample of 
fertiliser management plans 
mandatory for certain farms, 
that the recommended 
quantities of fertilisers as 
established using agro-
chemical studies refer both to 
the nitrogen and the 
phosphorus content.

69  Latest letter from the Czech 

Republic dated 
November 2014 and latest 
letter from Slovakia dated 
February 2015. The Czech 
Republic has already approved 
amendments to the existing 
legal base to take into account 
comments from the 
Commission.

70  Fertilisers can be placed into 
two categories: mineral (also 
called chemical or inorganic) 
fertilisers and organic 
fertilisers (such as manure).

71  According to data from 

Eurostat (change in nitrogen 
fertiliser consumption by 
agriculture) the rate of 
increase is as follows: 15 % for 
the Czech Republic, 7 % for 
Hungary, 7 % for Romania and 
32 % for Slovakia.

72  The analysis of the status of 
water bodies underlying the 
plans had to be updated in 
2013 (the update to be 
included in the 2015 river 
basin management plan) and 
the next update is due in 2019 
(to be included in the 2021 
plan).

Action programmes have 
no effect yet on fertiliser 
consumption and effect on 
eutrophication is difficult to 
assess

111 
One indicator that can capture the ad-
equacy of the requirements imposed 
on farmers is the evolution of nitrogen 
fertiliser consumption. Mineral70 ferti-
liser consumption increased in all four 
Member States over the 2004-2012 pe-
riod71 while the arable land surface did 
not change significantly. At the same 
time consumption of organic fertilisers 
(such as manure) does not show a clear 
trend, either upwards or downwards.

112 
Another useful indicator for assess-
ing the effectiveness of the action 
programmes is the evolution of the 
eutrophic status of the waters, even 
though the eutrophic status is the 
result of the impact of all pollution 
sources not just agriculture.

113 
Member States had to draw up water 
monitoring programmes to measure 
the nitrate concentrations in fresh-
waters and to review the eutrophic 
status of their waters at least every 
4 years. The latest implementation 
reports were submitted by the Mem-
ber States in 2012 and relate to the 
2008-2011 period. The next report is 
due in June 2016 on the 2012-2015 
period. The reporting period under the 
nitrates directive is not harmonised 
with the timetable for adoption of the 
river basin management plans72.

43

73  This is for example due to 

different assessment methods 
or an important difference in 
the number of monitoring 
stations.

74  Applicable in the Czech 
Republic, Hungary and 
Slovakia since 2009 and in 
Romania since 2012. For the 
2014-2020 programme period 
the number has changed to 
SMR-1.

75  For Romania, the data relates 
to the 2008-2011 period.

Observations

114 
Drawing conclusions on the evolution 
of the eutrophic status of water bod-
ies is difficult as the datasets for the 
2004-2007 and 2008-2011 periods are 
not comparable73. Neither was the data 
from the 2012 reports on the imple-
mentation of the nitrates directive dir-
ectly comparable with the data in the 
river basin management plans due to 
the use of different assessment criteria 
(see paragraph 101).

115 
On the basis of the data reported for 
2008-2011, in the Czech Republic, Hun-
gary and Slovakia, between 31 % to 
65 % of the surface water was eutroph-
ic. In Romania less than 15 % of the 
rivers were eutrophic; the situation for 
other waters (such as lakes and coastal 
waters) was judged to be not as good.

Mechanism to enforce the 
nitrates directive lacks deterrent 
effect

116 
The nitrates directive did not include 
any specific provisions regarding the 
enforcement mechanism.

117 
With the introduction of cross-com-
pliance (see paragraph 133), Member 
States have to verify the application 
of certain standards and to reduce aid 
payments when non-compliances are 
found. Under statutory mandatory re-
quirement 474 (SMR-4) Member States 
have to check the application by farm-
ers of the nitrate action programmes. 
Farmers that do not receive aid (direct 
payments) under the common agricul-
tural policy and/or aid under certain 
measures of the rural development 
programmes are not subject to SMR-4 
checks.

118 
In addition to the SMR-4 checks, all 
four Member States carry out checks 
on the application of the nitrates 
directive, hereafter referred to as 
‘national checks’. Legal requirements 
with regard to the coverage of the 
‘national checks’ (percentage of the 
total population to be checked) and 
with regard to the sample selection 
did not exist in any of the four Member 
States visited. The actual percentage 
of the population of farmers covered 
by these national checks in 201275 was 
very low (less than 3 %).

Observations

44

in Slovakia, there are no penalties 
set by law for a number of issues 
(such as non-respect of storage 
requirements or non-respect of 
the prohibition period for the land 
application of fertilisers);

in Hungary, the legal framework 
provides for a penalty where there 
is a lack of data provision or nitrate 
pollution. The maximum fine in 
both instances is relatively low 
however. In addition, the penalty 
for nitrate pollution is difficult to 
apply as it requires (i) proof that 
it was the non-respect of fertiliser 
application rules which led to pol-
lution and (ii) an assessment of the 
extent of the pollution;

76  For Hungary, this relates to the 
checks done on non-livestock 
farmers.

77  Farms above 100 livestock 

units are checked by another 
authority. According to the 
information included in the 
implementation report 
presented to the Commission 
in 2012 with regard to the 
nitrates directive the checks 
mainly include the issue of 
storage capacity. No 
information was received by 
the Court on whether checks 
are carried out for farmers that 
do not have livestock and 
there was no such information 
in the implementation report 
presented to the Commission 
in 2012.

— 

in the Czech Republic, penalties 
are applied for the non-respect of 
fertiliser and storage conditions 
but the average fine imposed by 
type of infringement in 2010 to 
2013 was relatively low.

121 
Overall the Court found that the 
information included in the 2012 
implementation report sent to the 
Commission on the checks carried out 
and non-compliances found was very 
general and sometimes incomplete. 
Moreover, figures were not always 
found to be reliable. This will signifi-
cantly hamper any assessment of the 
overall situation by the Commission.

119 
In the Czech Republic and Slovakia the 
‘national checks’ and SMR-4 checks are 
carried out by the same authority and 
in the other two it is different authori-
ties. With regard to the requirements 
actually covered by the ‘national 
checks’, the situation varies by Mem-
ber State:

— 

— 

—  nearly all requirements of the ac-
tion programmes are part of the 
national checks in Hungary76 and 
Slovakia;

— 

in the Czech Republic some of the 
requirements of the action pro-
gramme are checked under the 
‘national checks’ and others under 
SMR-4 checks. As the sample is 
the same for both checks, nearly 
all requirements are checked in 
practice, but the penalties to be 
applied are different (see para-
graphs 120 and 144);

— 

in Romania, a number of require-
ments are not included in the 
instructions to be followed by the 
inspectors for farms having be-
tween 8 and 100 livestock units77.

120 
The Court found that when a non-
compliance with the requirements 
is discovered by ‘national checks’, 
penalties are not necessarily applied or 
when fines are imposed, the amounts 
are low, thereby limiting the deterrent 
effect:

— 

in Romania, for the checks cover-
ing farms having between 8 and 
100 livestock units, generally no 
penalties are applied but remedial 
action is required instead;

45

78 

Integrated pest management 
means careful consideration of 
all available plant protection 
methods and subsequent 
integration of appropriate 
measures. These measures 
should discourage the 
development of populations 
of harmful organisms and 
keep the use of plant 
protection products and other 
forms of intervention to levels 
that are economically and 
ecologically justified and 
reduce or minimise risks to 
human health and the 
environment. Integrated pest 
management emphasises the 
growth of a healthy crop with 
the least possible disruption to 
agro-ecosystems and 
encourages natural pest 
control mechanisms.

79  The term pesticide (including 
amongst others herbicides, 
fungicides and  insecticides) is 
often used interchangeably 
with plant protection product. 
However, pesticide is 
a broader term that also 
covers non plant/crop uses, for 
example biocides.

Observations

122 
Non-respect of the requirement on 
storage capacity for livestock manure 
was frequently observed by these 
checks. One of the reasons reported 
was the lack of financial resources for 
financing the construction of appropri-
ate storage vessels.

Pesticide action plans suffer 
from shortcomings

123 
Member States had to adopt national 
action plans containing quantified 
objectives, targets, measures and 
timetables aimed at reducing risks and 
impact of pesticide use (see Table 2). 
These action plans were to be adopted 
and communicated to the Commission 
by 26 November 2012.

Action plans lack quantified 
objectives and deadlines for 
implementation of the measures

124 
The Court found that the national ac-
tion plans did not include:

—  a timetable for implementation 
of the measures in Hungary and 
Slovakia;

—  the amount of financial resources 

required for the implementation of 
the suggested measures in Hun-
gary, Slovakia and Romania;

—  overall quantitative targets such as 
the rate of reduction in pesticide 
use or reduction of the treatment 
frequency index (intensity of pesti-
cide use).

125 
On the positive side it is noted that the 
action plans of the Czech Republic, 
Romania and Slovakia include meas-
ures regarding the establishment of 
appropriately sized buffer zones where 
pesticides may not be used. For Ro-
mania see also paragraph 135. Hun-
gary has a measure on buffer strips in 
its 2009 river basin management plan.

126 
The Commission’s report on the evalu-
ation of the action plans due by De-
cember 2014 had not been published 
by mid-2015. The Commission has not 
launched any infringement procedures 
for insufficiency regarding the content 
of the measures included in the action 
plans.

Integrated pest management 
will only gradually be applied

127 
According to the pesticides direc-
tive Member States have to ensure 
from 1 January 2014 onwards that the 
general principles of integrated pest 
management78 are applied. The main 
aim is to ensure that the use of plant 
protection products79 is kept to the 
minimum necessary.

46

80  With the exception of the 

inspections to be carried out 
according to Article 8 of 
Directive 2009/128/EC, which 
states that all pesticides 
application equipment will 
have to be inspected by 
26 November 2016.

81  For the 2014-2020 programme 

period the number has 
changed to SMR-10.

82  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 
of the European Parliament 
and the Council of 
17 December 2013 on the 
financing, management and 
monitoring of the common 
agricultural policy and 
repealing Council Regulations 
(EEC) No 352/78, (EC) 
No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, 
(EC) No 814/2000, (EC) 
No 1290/2005 and (EC) 
No 485/2008 (OJ L 347, 
20.12.2013, p. 549).

131 
There are no specific EU require-
ments with regard to the coverage of 
checks80. In none of the four Member 
States did the national legal provisions 
indicate a minimum percentage of the 
population to be checked. However, 
a limited number of aspects regarding 
the use of plant protection products 
are part of cross-compliance:

—  SMR-981 checks mainly aim at veri-
fying that only authorised prod-
ucts are used and that the usage is 
in line with the conditions speci-
fied on the product label. SMR-9 
has been checked since 2011 in 
three of the Member States and in 
Romania since 2014;

—  the sustainable use of pesticides, 
particularly in the form of compli-
ance with the principles of inte-
grated pest management, was 
originally going to be included 
in cross-compliance from 2014 
onwards. However, according to 
Regulation (EU) No 1306/201382, 
the timeframe of this inclusion is 
now uncertain as it is dependent 
on the progress made by Member 
States in implementing the pesti-
cides directive.

Observations

128 
For correct application of the prin-
ciples of integrated pest manage-
ment, guidelines must be available. 
At the time of reporting, crop-specific 
guidelines were in the process of be-
ing established by the Member States. 
The respect of the general principles 
of integrated pest management has to 
be included as a baseline requirement 
under the 2014-2020 rural develop-
ment programmes, where only the 
costs relating to commitments going 
beyond this baseline requirement can 
be financed.

129 
The success of the application of inte-
grated pest management will depend 
on the adequacy of the guidelines and 
such things as the financial resources 
available for farm advisory services, 
the quality of training measures for 
the users of plant protection prod-
ucts and the ease of checking of the 
requirements.

Mechanism to enforce the 
pesticides directive needs to be 
strengthened

130 
Member States were required by the 
directive to determine penalties ap-
plicable to infringements of national 
provisions adopted pursuant to this 
directive. The Court found that the 
penalties as set by the national legal 
provisions do not cover all types of in-
fringements. For example, in Hungary, 
Romania and Slovakia, the national 
 legal provisions in place by mid-2015 
had not yet defined penalties to be 
applied in case of non-respect of inte-
grated pest management. Also, fines 
had not been defined in all cases for 
the use of plant protection products 
which was not in line with the condi-
tions specified on the product label.

47

83  The audit covered the 

following water quality-
related SMRs: SMR-3 regarding 
the application of sewage 
sludge on agricultural land, 
SMR-4 regarding the 
application of the nitrates 
directive, SMR-9 regarding the 
placing of plant protection 
products on the market.

84  Minimum requirements for 
fertilisers must include, inter 
alia, the codes of good 
agricultural practice 
introduced under the nitrates 
directive (see paragraph 102) 
for farms outside nitrate-
vulnerable zones and 
requirements concerning 
phosphorus pollution.

85  Minimum requirements for 
plant protection products 
must include, inter alia, 
requirements to have a licence 
to use the products and meet 
training obligations, 
requirements on safe storage, 
the checking of application 
machinery and rules on 
pesticide use close to water 
and other sensitive sites as 
established by national 
legislation.

Observations

132 
Considering the limited number of 
aspects covered by cross-compliance, 
all other aspects (such as prohibition 
of aerial spraying, adequacy of ap-
plication equipment, integrated pest 
management) are to be covered by 
‘national checks’. The action plans of 
all Member States except Slovakia also 
indicated the need to strengthen the 
checks in the field of plant protection 
products.

The cross-compliance 
mechanism has impact but is 
not being fully exploited

133 
Cross-compliance which links direct 
payments under the common agricul-
tural policy to the respect of a number 
of requirements was introduced in 
2005 (see paragraph 15). The extent to 
which environmental objectives, in this 
case improvement of water quality, 
will be achieved by such a mechanism 
depends mainly on how demanding 
the Member States’ requirements are 
and on the effectiveness of the en-
forcement mechanism in place.

134 
Member States are responsible for the 
implementation of cross-compliance. 
For SMRs83 this includes introducing 
the relevant elements of the specific 
legislation into the scope of cross- 
compliance. For GAECs this includes 
enacting the relevant standards in 
national or regional legislation and de-
fining the practical obligations which 
farmers are expected to observe. 
Member States also had to define 
minimum requirements for fertiliser84 
and plant protection products85 use 
that are applicable for certain meas-
ures under the rural development 
programmes (such as the agri-environ-
ment measure).

Requirements to be respected by 
farmers could be enhanced for 
better water quality

135 
There are two GAEC standards which 
are of particular importance for the 
improvement of water quality: (i) the 
standard on the establishment of buff-
er strips along water courses and (ii) 
the standard on soil erosion. However 
none of the four Member States have 
established buffer strips of the size 
recommended by a study conducted 
for the Commission (see paragraph 
106 and Box 2). Over and above the 
requirements of the nitrates directive, 
Romania has also prohibited the use of 
pesticides on these buffer strips. The 
requirements imposed by the Mem-
ber States as a result of the standard 
on soil erosion could have been more 
demanding, as can be seen from the 
examples given in Box 3.

Observations

48

3 Examples of erosion-related requirements that could be enhanced in all four 
x
o
B

Member States

The type of crop86 planted is one factor that influences the extent of erosion. In Romania and Slovakia no 
crops are forbidden on erosion-vulnerable land.

In the Czech Republic and Hungary certain crops are forbidden on specified land parcels. However, the sur-
face of land concerned by these rules is lower than the actual surface of land prone to erosion.

86  For example row crops such as maize, sunflower and sugar beet are noted for being erosion-inducing crops.

87  A similar observation was 

made by the Court in Special 
Report No 4/2014, 
paragraph 46.

88  According to data published 

by the Romanian Statistical 
Office 54 % of farm holdings 
have an area of less than   1 
hectare and represent close to 
10 % of the agricultural land.

136 
With regard to the minimum require-
ments for rural development payments 
for the 2007-2013 programme period 
(see paragraph 134):

—  concerning phosphorus pollution 
from fertilisers, none of the four 
Member States defined require-
ments although this was required 
by the relevant EU regulation;

—  Hungary did not define meaning-
ful minimum fertiliser require-
ments for farmers outside vulner-
able zones and those defined for 
farmers in vulnerable zones were 
incomplete;

—  concerning rules on pesticide use 
close to water, the four Member 
States mainly established rules for 
special protection areas such as 
those designated for the abstrac-
tion of water intended for human 
consumption. See also paragraph 
135 on buffer strips.

137 
In the context of the approval of the 
rural development programmes for 
the 2014-2020 programme period, the 
Commission assessed the following 
ex ante conditionalities: (i) whether 
GAEC standards were defined and (ii) 
whether minimum requirements for 
fertiliser and plant protection products 
applicable to certain measures under 
the rural development programmes 
were fulfilled. The Commission did not 
put into question the adequacy of the 
requirements in terms of effectiveness 
to meet the EU water policy objectives 
despite the weaknesses set out above 
(see paragraphs 135 and 136)87.

Cross-compliance enforcement 
mechanism, an insufficient 
deterrent

138 
Farmers that do not get aid under the 
common agricultural policy and/or 
the rural development programmes 
are not subject to cross-compliance 
checks. In fact, farms with an area of 
less than one hectare are not eligible 
for direct payments under the com-
mon agricultural policy. With the 
exception of Romania88, the farms 
having an area of less than 1 hectare 
represent a negligible share of the 
agricultural land.

 
49

89  Commission Regulation (EC) 

No 1122/2009 of 
30 November 2009 laying 
down detailed rules for the 
implementation of Council 
Regulation 73/2009 as regards 
cross-compliance, modulation 
and the integrated 
administration and control 
system, under the direct 
support schemes for farmers 
provided for that Regulation, 
as well as for the 
implementation of Council 
Regulation 1234/2007 as 
regards cross-compliance 
under the support scheme 
provided for the wine sector 
(OJ L 316, 2.12.2009, p. 65).

90 

In all four Member States the 
risk factors used for the 
sample selection changed 
over the years, reflecting 
a certain difficulty in 
establishing appropriate 
factors.

Observations

139 
The Court concludes that in terms of 
sample size the EU requirement89 to 
cover 1 % of the farmers that have to 
apply the cross-compliance stand-
ards was slightly exceeded by all four 
Member States in 2011-2013. A rate 
of 1 % implies that, on average, there 
is a probability that a farmer will be 
checked once every 100 years.

140 
Equally all four Member States vis-
ited respected the EU requirement 
on the split between risk-based90 and 
random-based sampling. However, the 
risk analysis partially loses its mean-
ing as the actual sample checked does 
not necessarily consist only of those 
farmers considered highest in the risk 
ranking. This is due to the fact that the 
final selection also takes into account 
the human resources available at the 
national/regional authority carrying 
out the checks.

141 
With regard to the content of the 
checks, the Court found that:

—  concerning SMR-4 on the applica-

tion of the nitrates directive, the 
checks in Hungary, Romania and 
Slovakia cover the majority of the 
requirements defined in the nitrate 
action programmes. In the Czech 
Republic, some requirements of 
the nitrate action programme are 
covered by the cross-compliance 
checks while others are covered by 
the ‘national checks’ (see para-
graph 119);

—  concerning the minimum require-
ments applicable for certain meas-
ures under the rural development 
programmes, the checks in Hun-
gary were insufficient (see para-
graph 136). In the Czech Republic 
and Romania the checks did not 
cover the requirement on  manure 
storage capacity. In Ro mania 
not all aspects of the minimum 
requirements for plant protection 
products’ use were defined and 
thus checks were limited to verify-
ing that only authorised products 
were used.

142 
One intrinsic limitation of the sys-
tem of cross-compliance checks is 
that some requirements are, by their 
nature, very difficult to check. For 
ex ample, some can only be checked 
during a certain period of the year or 
in the absence of certain meteorologi-
cal conditions (e.g. strong wind, frost), 
which may not necessarily coincide 
with the timing of the on-the-spot 
 visit. For the four Member States vis-
ited, there was a heavy concentration 
of the checks in the second half of the 
year. No checks (Hungary and Ro-
mania) or only a very low proportion 
of them took place during the winter 
months or in the main vegetation peri-
od. On top of being contrary to certain 
regulatory requirements, this means 
that some water-related requirements 
cannot be verified visually in the field.

Observations

143 
The effectiveness of the checks is also 
affected by the fact that important 
evidence takes the form of declara-
tions made by the farmers themselves, 
in particular in the form of the ferti-
lisation register (which includes data 
on the period of fertilisation and the 
quantities applied). The more frequent 
the updates of the register, the more 
accurate the information will be. The 
register is either to be kept continu-
ously (Hungary, Romania and Slovakia) 
or has to be updated at the end of 
every month (the Czech Republic).

144 
Finally, for many requirements the 
farmer’s cost of compliance (for ex-
ample in terms of foregone production 
and income) is higher than the fine 
liable to be imposed, i.e. the maximum 
reduction of the aid amount is at most 
only 5 %91 and therefore such reduc-
tions do not have any real deterrent 
effect92.

The potential of rural 
development measures to 
address water quality issues 
is not being fully exploited

145 
The measures supplementary to exist-
ing legislation (such as the nitrates 
directive) that were set out in the 
river basin management plans were 
mainly linked to the rural development 
programmes93.

146 
These programmes contain sets of 
measures to which the target popu-
lations (e.g. farmers) can voluntarily 
commit. Beneficiaries of rural develop-
ment measures undertake to comply 
with specific conditions set by their 
Member State.

Less than 30 % of the agricultural 
land is covered by agri-
environment schemes that can 
lead to an improvement in water 
quality

147 
The Court found that the pollution 
pressure on water from agriculture was 
described in very general terms in the 
2007-2013 rural development pro-
grammes of the four Member States 
and was not necessarily consistent94 
with the information in the river basin 
management plans95.

148 
Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 1974/200696 indicated the measures 
that could form part of a rural develop-
ment programme. The most important 
measures used in the four Member 
States having a direct positive impact 
on water quality are the following:

—  measure 121 ‘modernisation of 
agricultural holdings’: the four 
Member States97 used this measure 
to finance manure storage ves-
sels. The annual implementation 
reports describing the progress 
of the measures do not provide 
information on the number of stor-
age facilities and the co-financed 
investment cost;

50

91  The Commission regulation 
sets the reduction, as 
a general rule, at 3 % of the 
amount granted. Member 
States may decide not to 
impose any reduction or to 
reduce the rate to 1 % or to 
increase it to a maximum of 
5 %. Higher rates apply to 
repeated cases of non-
compliance and to cases of 
non-compliance considered 
by the Member States as 
being intentional.

92  See Special Report No 8/2008, 

paragraph 69.

93  There is one rural 

development programme for 
each of the four Member 
States visited.

94  A similar observation was 

made by the Court in Special 
Report No 4/2014, paragraph 
52.

95  Whereas the environmental 

assessments for rural 
development programmes 
were drafted in 2006, the 
environmental analyses 
carried out in the context of 
the river basin management 
plans were to be completed 
not later than 2 Decem-
ber 2004 (Article 5 of the water 
framework directive).

96  Commission Regulation (EC) 

No 1974/2006 of 
15 December 2006 laying 
down detailed rules for the 
application of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 
on support for rural 
development by the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural 
Development (EAFRD) (OJ 
L 368, 23.12.2006, p. 15).

97 

In Romania the storage vessels 
are generally made available 
by local authorities. These 
authorities were not eligible 
for a grant from the rural 
development programme.

Observations

—  measure 214 ‘agri–environmental 
payments’ (see paragraph 13): 
the importance of the measure 
in terms of financial resources 
allocated under the 2007-2013 
programme period98 varies by 
Member State (see Table 8);

—  measure 221 ‘first afforestation99 of 
agricultural land’: this measure was 
not a priority in the four Mem-
ber States as very little financial 
resources had been allocated to it.

149 
The Czech Republic and Hungary 
also reported100 measures 211 ‘natu-
ral handicap payments to farmers in 
mountain areas’ and/or 212 ‘payment 
to farmers in areas with handicaps, 
other than mountain areas’ as con-
tributing to water quality. The other 
two Member States did not report any 
areas although they also spent funds 
under these measures. The Court con-
siders that these measures only have 
an indirect impact as their main aim is 
to ensure continued use of agricultural 
land. Maintenance does not improve 
the situation for the environment, but 
non-preservation would worsen it101. In 
the Czech Republic, farmers only get 
grants for maintenance of grasslands. 
Grasslands are more beneficial102 to 
water quality than land under crop 
cultivation. Nevertheless, in all cases 
payments are made with the aim of 
maintaining/preserving the existing 
landscape.

8 Financial resources for measure 214 ‘agri-environmental 
e
payments’ as of 31.12.2014 (expressed in million euro)
l
b
a
T

Budget (and as proportion of the 
total public funds available under 
the rural development programme)

Execution of the budget (and as 
proportion of the budget for the 
measure)

1 101.2

1 137.3

1 270.6

390.2

(30 %)

(22 %)

(14 %)

(15 %)

1 085.7

1 169.6

1 340.9

357.3

(99 %)

(103 %)

(106 %)

(92 %)

Member State

Czech Republic

Hungary

Romania

Slovakia

Source: 2014 implementation reports for the rural development programmes.

51

98  Less funds are allocated by the 
four Member States to the 
equivalent measure under the 
2014-2020 programme period. 
This is particularly the case for 
Slovakia (63 % less) and 
Hungary (43 % less).

99  According to a paper on 

‘Water quality improvements 
from afforestation in an 
agricultural catchment in 
Denmark illustrated by the 
INCA model’ by A. Bastrup-
Birk and P. Gundersen 
published in Hydrology and 
Earth System Sciences, Vol. 8, 
No 4), pp. 764-777, ‘a change of 
land use from intensive 
agriculture to forest 
substantially reduces the 
leaching fluxes of nitrate to 
ground and surface water, 
largely through the cessation 
of fertiliser and manure 
N input.’

100 Reporting to the Commission 
for predefined indicator 
‘R6 — area under successful 
management contributing to 
water quality’: Czech Republic: 
844 717 ha (or 20 % of total 
agricultural land) and Hungary 
59 959 ha (or 1 % of total 
agricultural land).

101  Slovakia also reported 348 860 

ha under measure 226 
‘restoring forestry potential 
and introducing preventive 
action’. As the main aim is to 
restore forests damaged by 
natural disasters and fires, the 
impact on water quality is not 
of a direct nature as it does not 
increase forest land.

102  Grasslands can reduce soil 

erosion. The soil quality is also 
generally better than for 
cropland and allows better 
and/or more infiltration of rain 
thereby reducing run-off 
(which includes nutrients 
present in or on the soil).

 
52

103  By changing crops soil erosion 

can be reduced or prevented.

Observations

150 
Under measure 214 ‘agri-environ-
mental payments’, the Member 
States included a variety of different 
schemes. Different obligations apply 
to the different schemes and can imply 
limitation or prohibition of fertiliser 
use, limitation or prohibition of plant 
protection products use and/or crop 
rotation rules103. The obligations that 
the farmer accepts to take on have to 
go beyond existing relevant legislation 
including SMRs and GAEC (for example 
the requirements regarding fertiliser 
use have to be stricter than the ones 
in the action programmes under the 
nitrates directive).

151 
The schemes to which farmers can vol-
untarily commit are not all equally suc-
cessful with farmers. Table 9 shows the 
most successful schemes by Member 
State where the total area supported 
(in ha) under those schemes in the 
2007-2013 programme period repre-
sents more than 10 % of the agricul-
tural land of the Member State at the 
end of 2014. The table also indicates 
the obligations to be respected by the 
farmer with regard to fertiliser use, 
plant protection product use and crop 
rotation rules.

9 Share of agricultural land and obligations to be respected under the most successful 
e
l
b
a
T

agri-environment schemes as of 31.12.2014

Scheme (and area supported in ha1 as % of 
total agricultural land)

Obligations to be respected 
(the list is not exhaustive)

Member State

Czech Republic

Hungary

Romania

Slovakia

Grassland maintenance

Organic farming

Integrated arable crop production 
scheme

(16.5 %)

(10.7 %)

(11 %)

For the two most important sub-schemes: limitation of the nitrogen input for one 
and elimination of mineral fertiliser for the other.

Use of authorised fertilisers and plant protection products only.
Since 2009, application of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/20072.

A nutrient management plan3 is required.
Crop rotation rules apply.
Use of defined environmentally friendly plant protection products only.

‘High nature value’ grasslands and 
traditional farming

(22.2 %)

Use of pesticides is not allowed.
Use of mineral fertilisers is not allowed and limitation of the nitrogen input for 
organic fertilisers.

Environmental friendly farming – 
basic scheme

(18.4 %)

Use of determined plant protection products only. Depending on the sub-schemes: 
no mineral fertiliser allowed or limitation of the nitrogen input.

1 

2 

3 

 The area taken into account is the total area which is under agri-environmental commitments. The same area can be counted several times if 
several obligations apply on the same land. There are no figures available by scheme that exclude double counting.

 Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) 
No 2092/91 (OJ  L 189, 20.7.2007, p. 1), which came into force on 1.1.2009.

 The main aim of a nutrient management plan is to establish the amount of fertiliser required at specific points in time considering soil charac-
teristics, crop needs, climate, etc. to achieve optimum use of fertilisers thus avoiding overfertilisation.

Source: 2014 implementation reports for the rural development programmes.

 
53

104 Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1698/2005 of 20 
September 2005 on support 
for rural development by the 
European Agricultural Fund 
for Rural Development 
(EAFRD) (OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, 
p. 1).

105 Articles 11, 12 and 25 of 

Commission Regulation (EU) 
No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 
laying down detailed rules for 
the implementation of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, 
as regards the implementation 
of control procedures as well 
as cross-compliance in respect 
of rural development support 
measures (OJ L 25, 28.1.2011, 
p. 8).

106 Assurance that the control 

systems put in place give the 
necessary guarantees 
concerning the legality and 
regularity of the underlying 
transactions.

Observations

152 
Based on the information available 
the Court estimates that in the four 
Member States between 15 and 
30 % of the agricultural land is under 
various water-quality favourable agri- 
environmental commitments under 
the 2007-2013 programme period. 
However, in the Czech Republic, Hun-
gary and Romania some of the most 
important schemes involve grasslands 
(see Table 9). These schemes mainly 
relate to the existing grasslands and al-
though maintenance does not improve 
the situation for the environment, 
failure to maintain the existing status 
would worsen it.

—  the fertiliser limitations imposed 

for the most important schemes in 
Romania and Slovakia (see Table 9 
(basic scheme in Slovakia)) in terms 
of nitrogen amount per hectare 
are either very close to (Romania) 
or above (Slovakia) the average 
nitrogen amount used in the coun-
try and thus the additional ben-
efits for water quality from such 
schemes are expected to be small;

—  the most important schemes that 
help fight against erosion are 
those relating to existing grass-
lands (see paragraph 152).

153 
In line with the provisions of Article 39 
of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005104, 
farmers have to keep the obligations 
taken on under an agri-environment 
scheme for a period of between 5 and 
7 years. Whether after the period of 5 
to 7 years farmers will continue with 
similar commitments will depend on 
a number of factors such as availabil-
ity of financial support in the form of 
grants and profitability considerations.

154 
The Court’s analysis of the various 
obligations to be complied with shows 
the following shortcomings:

—  despite the importance of buffer 
strips for water protection, none 
of the agri-environment schemes 
imposed a size bigger than the 
one farmers have to respect under 
GAEC (see paragraph 135 and 
Box 2);

Enforcement mechanism 
under the rural development 
programmes lacks deterrent 
effect

155 
Schemes under the agri-environment 
measure have a number of provisions 
beneficial to water quality but they will 
only be effective if correctly applied. 
According to Commission Regulation 
(EU) No 65/2011105 Member States are 
required to perform administrative 
checks on all aid applications received 
as well as on-the-spot checks cover-
ing, depending on the aid scheme, at 
least 5 % of all beneficiaries or of the 
expenditure.

156 
In its 2014 annual activity report, the 
Commission (DG Agriculture and Rural 
Development) expresses reservations 
regarding the assurance106 provided by 
the control systems on rural develop-
ment expenditure in Romania and 
Hungary.

54

107  See Special Report No 23/2014 
‘Errors in rural development 
spending: what are the causes 
and how are they being 
addressed?’, paragraphs 59, 
62, 64 and 65 (http://eca.
europa.eu).

108 The rate of 5 % (see paragraph 

155) implies that, on average, 
there is a probability that 
a farmer is checked once every 
20 years.

109 In extreme cases, where 

farmers have not complied 
with any of the obligations 
and the entire aid is recovered, 
the farmers could find 
themselves in the same 
situation as if they had not 
entered into any commitment.

110  Preamble 2 of Directive 

2004/35/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council 
of 21 April 2004 on 
environmental liability with 
regard to the prevention and 
remedying of environmental 
damage (OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, 
p. 56) amended by Directive 
2006/21/EC (OJ L 102, 
11.4.2006, p. 15) and Directive 
2009/31/EC (OJ L 140, 5.6.2009, 
p. 114).

Observations

157 
The Court considers that the EU con-
trol system for agri-environment aid is 
not sufficiently effective107. The main 
reasons are that (i) farmers have a low 
incentive to comply as the efforts 
made are not rewarded by immediate 
positive effects on the farm, (ii) there 
is a low control rate for on-the-spot 
checks108 and (iii) the system of sanc-
tions and aid reductions does not have 
a strong deterrent effect109.

159 
The application of the ‘polluter pays’ 
principle in the field of diffuse pollu-
tion from agriculture poses method-
ological problems: on the one hand 
it is difficult to identify the polluter 
and on the other hand it is difficult to 
establish a causal relationship be-
tween a certain practice by the farmer 
and the level of pollution or damage 
caused.

‘Polluter pays’ principle only 
applied to a limited extent 
to diffuse pollution from 
agriculture

The ‘polluter pays’ principle is 
difficult to apply

158 
According to the environmental li-
ability directive110, the prevention and 
remedying of environmental dam-
age should be implemented through 
the furtherance of the ‘polluter pays’ 
principle: an operator whose activity 
has caused environmental damage 
is to be held financially liable. The 
directive also recognises that liability 
is not a suitable instrument for deal-
ing with pollution of a widespread, 
diffuse character, where it is impossi-
ble to link the negative environmental 
effects with acts or failures of certain 
individuals.

160 
In the agricultural context, the applica-
tion of restrictions on farmers (such 
as the requirements imposed by the 
nitrate action programmes) without 
provision of financial compensation 
is considered as implementing the 
‘polluter pays’ principle. On the other 
hand, where farmers are remunerated 
for voluntarily engaging in environ-
ment-related activities such as under 
measure 214 ‘agri-environmental 
payments’, this is more the case of the 
‘provider gets’ principle rather than 
the ‘polluter pays’ principle.

161 
One way of covering environmental 
costs linked to pollution (‘environmen-
tal damage costs’) is the application 
of an appropriate system of penalties 
in the case of non-respect of restric-
tions imposed on farmers. The Court 
identified a number of weaknesses in 
that respect (see paragraphs 120, 130, 
144 and 157). Cross-compliance can 
provide a useful but only partial re-
sponse to the ‘polluter pays’ principle 
as penalties are not calculated on the 
basis of the cost of the damage caused 
and thus, may represent only a portion 
of this cost. In many cases they are not 
proportionate to the seriousness of the 
farmer’s breach of cross-compliance 
obligations.

Observations

162 
Another way of applying the ‘polluter 
pays’ principle and recovering costs is 
by using economic instruments (such 
as environmental taxes on fertilisers or 
plant protection products). Both Slo-
vakia and the Czech Republic planned 
to analyse the use of economic instru-
ments for such purposes, whereas 
neither Hungary nor Romania made 
mention of the possible use of eco-
nomic instruments in their river basin 
management plans.

The Commission does not 
request Member States to ensure 
recovery of the costs of diffuse 
pollution

163 
The water framework directive (Art-
icle 9) requires an adequate contribu-
tion of the different water uses111 to 
the recovery of the costs112 of water 
services. Compliance with Article 9 of 
the directive is one of the criteria for 
assessing the fulfilment of a specific 
ex ante conditionality in place for the 
2014-2020 programme period.

164 
The Commission assessed the fulfil-
ment of Article 9 in the context of the 
approval of the partnership agree-
ments and, more specifically, with 
regard to agriculture, in the context 
of the approval of the 2014-2020 rural 
development programmes. For all 
four Member States the Commission 
remarked that the costs resulting from 
diffuse pollution from the agricul-
tural sector should be calculated and 
included in the economic analysis of 
costs and their recovery, but it does 
not request an action plan for Mem-
ber States that do not or only partially 
recover the costs of diffuse pollution.

165 
In a 2015 communication113 the Com-
mission stated that measures included 
in the river basin management plans 
to ensure the recovery of environmen-
tal and resource costs are limited. The 
Commission has not yet issued any 
guidance on the possible methods for 
cost recovery and best practices in that 
field.

55

111  It includes all activities having 
a significant impact on the 
status of water.

112  The costs of water services 
include environmental and 
resource costs. Environmental 
costs are the costs of damage 
that water uses impose on the 
environment and ecosystems 
and those who use the 
environment (e.g. a reduction 
in the ecological quality of 
aquatic ecosystems or the 
salinisation and degradation 
of productive soils). Resource 
costs are costs of foregone 
opportunities which other 
uses suffer due to the 
depletion of the resource 
beyond its natural rate of 
recharge or recovery (e.g. 
linked to the over-abstraction 
of groundwater).

113  COM(2015) 120 final of 

9 March 2015 ‘The water 
framework directive and the 
floods directive: actions 
towards the “good status” of 
EU water and to reduce flood 
risks’.

56

114  The final status of a water 
body is determined by the 
worst element found in the 
assessment process.

Conclusions and 
recommendations

169 
Shortcomings in the monitoring 
systems of the four Member States 
resulted in a lack of data both on the 
type of pollution causing a water body 
to fail good status as well as on the 
relative importance of the various pol-
lution sources. Comparability of data 
was also affected by the fact that there 
were big differences among the four 
Member States regarding the number 
of specific physico-chemical pollutants 
evaluated. The lack of comprehensive 
data hampers the identification of 
targeted and cost-effective measures 
(see paragraphs 28 to 32).

170 
Member States showed limited ambi-
tion with regard to the identification of 
measures to remedy the situation and 
as a result the river basin management 
plans provided limited added value in 
that respect (see paragraphs 33 to 41) 
as:

—  they are focused on the ‘basic 

measures’ i.e. on the implemen-
tation of existing legislation (EU 
directives) and

— 

‘other basic’ and ‘supplementary 
measures’ either do not cover all 
pollution issues or do not include 
an assessment of the opportunity 
offered by some instruments, or 
their scope is not clear.

166 
The four Member States have some 
way to go if they are to achieve good 
surface water quality, the main objec-
tive of the water framework directive. 
They will have to step up their ef-
forts to accelerate progress on water 
quality.

Use of the river basin 
management plans as 
a tool for achieving better 
water quality

167 
The introduction of the river basin 
management plan as a tool for inte-
grated water management was one 
of the strengths of the 2000 water 
framework directive but, in practice, 
the plans suffer from shortcomings in 
the identification of pollution pres-
sures and in the definition of remedial 
measures.

168 
The comparison of the 2009 river basin 
management plans with their 2015 
draft updates for the four Member 
States showed that there has been lit-
tle improvement in the ecological and 
chemical status of water bodies. The 
Court notes, however, that progress 
regarding individual elements making 
up the status may be masked due to 
the application of the ‘one-out all-out’ 
rule114. This low level of improvement 
was to be expected considering the 
high number of water bodies that were 
exempted from the 2015 deadline for 
reaching good status (see paragraphs 
26 to 27 and 45 to 46).

Conclusions and recommendations

57

171 
Furthermore, the expected impacts 
of the various measures are at best 
only partially indicated in the river 
basin management plans. Information 
on the amount of funds required for 
implementing the measures as well as 
their likely availability is incomplete. 
Coordination between those preparing 
the river basin management plans and 
those approving and allocating funds 
has not always been provided for (see 
paragraphs 42 to 44).

172 
The Commission in cooperation with 
the Member States developed guide-
lines for the application of the water 
framework directive. Moreover, the 
Commission presented Member State 
specific recommendations regard-
ing the 2009 river basin management 
plans in several of its communica-
tions. Infringement procedures as to 
the shortcomings noted in the 2009 
plans were not started by the Com-
mission for the four Member States. 
Actions specified in the 2014-2020 
operational programmes as a result 
of the non-fulfilment of the relevant 
ex ante conditionality did not cover 
all of these shortcomings. Instead the 
Commission relies on Member States’ 
goodwill and commitment to step up 
efforts on the basis of the requests 
noted in minutes of bilateral meetings. 
The draft 2015 river basin manage-
ment plans still present a high number 
of exemptions from the deadline for 
achieving good status and many of the 
shortcomings found by the Court and 
the Commission in the identification 
of suitable measures are still valid (see 
paragraphs 47 to 50).

Recommendation 1

The Commission should:

(a)  provide guidelines for a more dif-
ferentiated reporting on progress 
with regard to water quality cur-
rently masked due to the applica-
tion of the ‘one-out all-out’ rule;

(b)  foster comparability of data, for 

example, by reducing the discrep-
ancies in the number of physico-
chemical substances that are 
assessed for the ecological status;

(c)  continue its follow-up of Member 
States’ progress in reaching good 
water quality, the objective of the 
water framework directive.

Member States should:

(d)  ensure good-quality water moni-
toring to have accurate informa-
tion on the situation and origin of 
pollution by water body to allow 
better targeting and increase 
cost-effectiveness of the remedial 
measures. For agriculture for ex-
ample this might mean finding an 
effective combination of compul-
sory and voluntary measures;

(e)  provide in their river basin man-
agement plans (i) clear justifica-
tions for the use of exemptions 
from the deadlines of the water 
framework directive, (ii) informa-
tion on how the implementation 
of measures will be funded and 
(iii) information on the expected 
impact of the measures;

(f)  ensure coordination between 

those bodies defining measures in 
the river basin management plans 
and those approving projects for 
funding.

Conclusions and recommendations

58

Implementation of 
measures to reduce 
pollution caused by urban 
and industrial waste 
waters

173 
Member States made progress in 
removing organic and nutrient pol-
lution from waste waters emitted by 
urban waste water treatment plants. 
However, the instruments available to 
reduce pollution in waste waters, such 
as the enforcement mechanism and 
the water pollution charge, were not 
used to best effect.

Agglomerations

174 
With regard to the implementation 
of the urban waste water treatment 
directive (see paragraphs 53 to 65), 
the ‘basic measure’ regarding pollu-
tion from agglomerations, progress 
was made in collecting waste water 
(i.e. increase in number of households 
connected to a sewage system and 
a treatment plant) and in appropriately 
treating waste water. However, all four 
Member States were behind schedule 
with regard to their interim or final 
deadlines for implementation of the 
directive (see also conclusions and rec-
ommendations made in Special Report 
No 2/2015).

175 
The 2009 river basin management 
plans lacked information on ‘other 
basic’ and ‘supplementary measures’ 
required for water bodies which fail to 
achieve good status:

—  for waste water not yet connected 
to a treatment plant there was no 
indication as to how the load will 
be tackled (load from agglomer-
ations equal to or above 2 000 p.e. 
going into individual systems and 
load from agglomerations below 
2 000 p.e.) (see paragraphs 58 
to 60);

—  there is no indication on which ur-
ban waste water treatment plants 
need stricter emission limits (with 
the exception of the Romanian 
plan) (see paragraphs 66 to 68);

—  the issue of micropollutants was 
not addressed. There are no EU 
and no national legal provisions in 
the four Member States for emis-
sion limits (see paragraphs 69 
to 70).

176 
With regard to the enforcement mech-
anism the Court concludes that the 
system of self-checks to be carried out 
by operators of waste water treatment 
plants on their effluents was overall 
satisfactory. The system of public in-
spection shows weaknesses however, 
as the frequency of the inspections 
was not prescribed and in some Mem-
ber States was low (Slovakia) or could 
not be assessed (Hungary). In addi-
tion, in Romania checks have a limited 
deterrent effect as preference is given 
to issuing warnings rather than fines 
when emission limits are exceeded 
(see paragraphs 71 to 78).

Conclusions and recommendations

59

177 
In application of the ‘polluter pays’ 
principle a water pollution charge is 
due by dischargers of waste water but 
with certain exceptions in the Czech 
Republic, Romania and Slovakia. The 
charge is not due for all parameters re-
flecting organic and nutrient pollution 
and the charge amounts by pollutant 
(by discharge in mg/l) vary significant-
ly between the four Member States. In 
the Czech Republic and Slovakia the 
charge can act as an incentive to com-
ply with the emission limits set in the 
permits for some parameters (as no 
charge is due when they are complied 
with) while in Hungary and sometimes 
in Romania the charge can act as an 
incentive to go beyond emission limits 
for those parameters where a charge is 
due. Whether it does act as an incen-
tive depends on the amounts due: 
none of the river basin management 
plans assessed the deterrent effect 
(see paragraphs 79 to 82).

Industrial installations

178 
Certain categories of industrial instal-
lations fall under the scope of the 
industrial emissions directive (‘basic 
measure’). The best available tech-
niques’ conclusions that are adopted 
by the Commission by type of industry 
indicate emission limits. By the end of 
2015 there were only seven such con-
clusions adopted (see paragraph 85).

179 
The 2009 river basin management 
plans lacked ‘other basic’ and ‘supple-
mentary measures’ for water bodies 
which fail to achieve good status: there 
were no measures targeting specific 
pollutants or specific dischargers (such 
as an indication of specific substances 
and limits to be included in the dis-
charge permits). However, Hungary 
and Slovakia included the review of 
the permit issuing procedure or of 
specific permits as measures in their 
river basin management plans. But the 
Court did not find the review to be ef-
fective due to various weaknesses and 
omissions (see paragraphs 87 to 92).

180 
The Court concludes that (see para-
graphs 89 to 91):

—  for setting emission limits the com-

petent authorities are to a certain 
extent dependent on the informa-
tion provided by the dischargers 
themselves. This is particularly the 
case where national legal provi-
sions either set limits for guidance 
only or did not set limits at all;

—  the waste water discharge permits 
of urban waste water treatment 
plants receiving industrial waste 
water only in some cases include 
limits for pollutants other than 
organic material and nutrients.

Conclusions and recommendations

60

181 
With regard to the enforcement 
mechanism, few public inspections are 
carried out in the case of indirect dis-
charge, via a public sewage network, 
by installations not falling under the 
industrial emissions directive. Instead, 
in a majority of cases (85 % of the 
sample of 28 treatment plants audited) 
the operators of the urban waste water 
treatment plants carried out on-the-
spot checks at the sites of the indus-
trial installations. However, the fines 
imposed in the Czech Republic and 
Slovakia are likely to have a limited 
deterrent effect. For inspections on 
direct dischargers, the situation is simi-
lar to the one described in para  graph 
176 (inspections on urban waste water 
treatment plants) (see paragraphs 93 
to 97).

182 
The water pollution charge can only 
rarely serve as an incentive to either 
comply with or go beyond the emis-
sion limits set in the permits as the 
charge is only due for a limited num-
ber of pollutants (organic matter, 
nutrients and a few heavy metals) (see 
paragraph 98).

Recommendation 2

The Commission should:

(a)  assess how to best set binding 

criteria for effective Member State 
inspections on waste water treat-
ment plants not falling under the 
industrial emissions directive.

Member States should:

(b)  indicate for which water bodies, 

due to their unsatisfactory quality, 
measures are required for specific 
dischargers. For urban waste water 
treatment plants this will include 
setting emission limits in the 
permits that are stricter than those 
set by law for organic and nutrient 
pollution parameters and setting 
limits for priority and other chem-
ical substances or micropollutants;

(c)  assess and ensure the effective-
ness of the enforcement mech-
anisms, in particular the coverage 
to be achieved and the deterrent 
effect of the penalties applied;

(d)  assess the potential of using the 
water pollution charge as an eco-
nomic instrument and as a way to 
apply the ‘polluter pays’ principle 
at least for the main substances 
which negatively affect water 
quality.

Conclusions and recommendations

61

Implementation of 
measures to tackle diffuse 
pollution from agriculture

183 
In general, Member States made bet-
ter use of the nitrates directive but 
were reluctant to make full use of 
the instruments available such as the 
enforcement mechanisms, the GAEC 
standards under cross-compliance, the 
rural development measures and the 
‘polluter pays’ principle.

184 
With regard to the implementation 
of the nitrates directive, the main 
‘basic measure’ regarding pollution 
from  agriculture, the Czech Repub-
lic, Hungary and Romania gradually 
strengthened the requirements to be 
respected by farmers in nitrate-vulner-
able zones. This was mainly the result 
of Commission action. Slovakia did not 
sufficiently follow the Commission’s 
suggestions and therefore in 2012 the 
Commission launched an infringement 
procedure against Slovakia (see para-
graphs 101 to 110).

185 
However, despite the improvements in 
three Member States there is scope for 
tightening up the requirements (see 
paragraphs 111 to 115).

186 
The trend regarding eutrophication 
cannot be assessed due to incompar-
able sets of data. The Court notes that 
the reporting period under the nitrates 
directive does not coincide with the 
one under the water framework direc-
tive (see paragraphs 113 to 114).

187 
With regard to ‘other basic’ and ‘sup-
plementary measures’ (see paragraphs 
123 to 129 and 135 to 137), the Court 
concludes that:

—  measures dealing with pesticide 
use were either vague or referred 
to the pesticides action plans. 
However, these plans partially lack 
quantified objectives, deadlines 
for implementation and informa-
tion on the funds required for 
implementation of the measures. 
No infringement procedures had 
been launched by the Commission 
as of mid-2015 for insufficiencies 
regarding these plans;

—  there is scope for making the GAEC 
standards and ‘minimum require-
ments’ in rural development more 
demanding. The Commission 
does not systematically assess the 
adequacy of the requirements in 
terms of effectiveness to meet the 
EU water policy objectives, and 
only checks for their existence and 
relevance;

Conclusions and recommendations

62

—  Member States did not set limits 
as to the quantity of phosphorus 
fertiliser to be applied on land (kg/
ha);

—  Member States mainly rely on 
voluntary agri-environment 
measures.

188 
The potential of rural development to 
address water quality concerns is not 
being fully exploited (see paragraphs 
145 to 154):

—  the agricultural land under water 

quality favouring agri-environmen-
tal commitments varied between 
15 and 30 % in the 2007-2013 pro-
gramme period. However much of 
this concerns commitments given 
by farmers for the maintenance of 
existing grasslands. Maintenance 
is positive but does not lead to 
improvements in water quality. In 
addition, as those obligations only 
have to be kept for a period of 5 
to 7 years, the long-term impact 
on water quality is not necessarily 
ensured;

—  limitations regarding the amount 

of nitrogen fertiliser applied per 
hectare of land are close to or 
above the average applied in 
Romania and Slovakia and thus ad-
ditional benefits for water quality 
are likely to be small.

189 
A farmer can be subject to a whole 
set of enforcement mechanisms: EU-
regulated cross-compliance checks 
and checks for rural development 
payments as well as ‘national checks’ 
under the nitrates directive and in the 
field of plant protection products (see 
paragraphs 116 to 122, 130 to 132, 138 
to 144 and 155 to 157). All these checks 
are affected by intrinsic limitations 
such as important evidence in the 
form of declarations made by farmers 
themselves. In addition,

—  the deterrent effect is limited 

for cross-compliance and checks 
under rural development. This is 
mainly due to their set-up: low 
coverage (1 % and 5 % respective-
ly) and sanctions (aid reductions) 
are lower than the cost of compli-
ance. The ‘national checks’ under 
the nitrates directive have similar 
weaknesses;

—  all Member States visited except 
Slovakia indicated in their pesti-
cide action plans the need to 
strengthen the enforcement of 
pesticide-related obligations. At 
the time of the audit, the four 
Member States did not specify the 
coverage to be achieved by their 
checks or fines for all types of 
infringement.

Conclusions and recommendations

63

190 
Furthermore, the principle of inte-
grated pest management will only be-
come a mandatory requirement under 
cross-compliance when progress has 
been made in such areas as guidelines, 
professional qualifications and defini-
tion of verifiable requirements (see 
paragraph 131).

191 
The application of the ‘polluter pays’ 
principle in the field of diffuse pollu-
tion from agriculture faces method-
ological problems. Imposing obliga-
tions on farmers without the provision 
of financial compensation (as is the 
case with the nitrate action pro-
grammes) is commonly considered as 
one way of implementing the ‘polluter 
pays’ principle. The application of pen-
alties in the case of non-compliance 
can compensate for the costs caused 
by pollution. However, the Court iden-
tified a number of shortcomings re-
garding the use of fines. Another way 
of applying the principle is the use of 
environmental taxes (such as taxes on 
fertilisers or pesticides) and the Czech 
Republic and Slovakia intend to study 
the use of such taxes. The Commis-
sion did not request the four Member 
States to take specific action for ensur-
ing cost recovery, or issue guidance on 
possible cost recovery methods (see 
paragraphs 158 to 165).

Recommendation 3

The Commission should:

(a)  continue its efforts in ensuring 

that Member States make the best 
use of the requirements under the 
nitrate action programmes and 
that they implement the pesticide 
action plans within a reasonable 
timeframe;

(b)  systematically assess not only the 

existence, but also the adequacy of 
the GAEC standards and min imum 
requirements adopted by the 
Member States;

(c)  consider the introduction of an 
obligation to set limitations on 
the quantity of phosphorus to be 
applied on land, as is the case for 
nitrogen;

(d)  reduce the possibility of Member 
States’ double reporting on the 
eutrophication status by aligning 
the reporting under the nitrates 
directive and the water framework 
directive and promote the use of 
the 2009 guidance on eutrophi-
cation assessment so that the 
same assessment parameters are 
used under both directives;

(e)  provide guidance on the possible 
methods for cost recovery in the 
field of diffuse pollution.

Conclusions and recommendations

64

Member States should:

(f)  set requirements in the nitrate ac-
tion plans, in the pesticide action 
plans, under GAEC and for agri-
environmental payments that are 
ambitious enough to achieve a re-
duction of fertiliser and pesticides 
input and adequate protection 
from erosion;

(g)  assess the potential of using 

economic instruments (such as en-
vironmental taxes) as an incentive 
to reduce pollution and as a way to 
apply the ‘polluter pays’ principle.

The Commission and the Member 
States should, on the basis of an inven-
tory of the enforcement mechanisms 
(both EU and national), identify ways 
for simplifying the set-up and imple-
mentation of the checks and for ensur-
ing their effectiveness.

This Report was adopted by Chamber II, headed by Mr Henri GRETHEN, Member 
of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 9 December 2015.

For the Court of Auditors

Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA
President

 
 
 
Annexes

65

I Danube river basin district overview
x
e
n
n
A

© International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR).

 
Annexes

66

I Pollution of surface water bodies 
I
x
(2009 river basin management plans)
e
n
n
A

1. Percentage of surface water bodies subject to different sources of pollution

Sources of pollution

Czech Republic

Hungary

Romania

Point sources

Diffuse sources

46 %

61 %

19 %

25 %

8 %

32 %

Slovakia

No data

No data

Source: Information provided by the Member States via WISE.

2. Percentage of surface water bodies subject to different types of pollution

Type of pollution

Czech Republic

Hungary

Romania

Organic enrichment

Nutrient enrichment

Contamination by priority substances or other 
specific pollutants

31 %

61 %

31 %

27 %

45 %

2 %

13 %

32 %

4 %

Slovakia

No data

No data

No data

Source: Information provided by the Member States via WISE.

 
Annexes

67

I Emission limit values set by the urban waste water treatment directive
I
I
x
e
n
n
A

Concentration

Parameters

Secondary treatment

Minimum percentage of reduction2

Biological oxygen demand (BOD5)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)

Total suspended solids (TSS)

Total phosphorus (Ptot)

Total nitrogen1 (Ntot)

25 mg/l

125 mg/l

35 mg/l

70-90

75

90

60 mg/l 
(for agglomerations between 2 000 and 10 000 p.e.)

70 
(for agglomerations between 2 000 and 10 000 p.e.)

More stringent treatment

2 mg/l 
(for agglomerations between 10 000 and 100 000 p.e.)

80

1 mg/l 
(for agglomerations with more than 100 000 p.e.)

15 mg/l 
(for agglomerations between 10 000 and 100 000 p.e.)

70-80

10 mg/l 
(for agglomerations with more than 100 000 p.e.)

1  Total nitrogen means: the sum of total Kjeldahl-nitrogen (organic N + NH3), nitrate (NO3)-nitrogen and nitrite (NO2)-nitrogen.
2  Reduction in relation to the load of the influent.

 
Annexes

68

V Water pollution charge: amount by pollutant (in euro1/t)
I
x
e
n
n
A

Czech Republic

Pollutants

Hungary

285.2

576.9

COD
BOD5
TSS
Ptot
Ntot
Ninorg
N-NH4 (ammoniacal nitrogen)

Hg (mercury)

Dissolved inorganic salts

Cd (cadmium)

AOX (adsorbable organic halogens)

Cr (chromium)

Ni (nickel)

Pb (lead)

Cu (copper)

Zn (zinc)

Phenols

As (arsenic)

Co (cobalt)

—

72.1

2 523.9

—

1 081.7

—

721 110.5

18.0

144 222.1

10 816.7

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

4 753.8

—

570.5

—

697 217.5

—

139 443.5

—

27 888.7

27 888.7

27 888.7

13 944.3

—

—

—

—

—

Romania

Slovakia

10.4

10.4

2.5

41.5

41.5

—

41.5

10 384.1

—

10 384.1

—

2 596.0

2 596.0

2 596.0

2 596.0

124.57

41.51

8 074.5

124.6

and more2

199.2

—

99.6

3 319.4

497.9

—

497.9

497 908.8

16.6

99 581.8

6 638.8

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

1 

 The amounts in CZK, HUF and RON were converted into euro using the exchange rates as of 31.12.2014.

2 

 In Romania the charge is paid for the following groups of pollutants: (i) general chemical indicators (22), (ii) specific chemical indicators (11), 
(iii) toxic and very toxic chemical indicators (9) and (iv) bacteriological indicators (2). Not all are named in the table.

Source: ECA analysis of national legislation.

 
Annexes

69

V Emission limit values specified in national legal provisions
x
e
n
n
A

The following table provides an overview of the emission limit values included in national legal provisions for a selected number of substances.

(in mg/l)

Direct discharge

Czech Republic 
(indicated as range as limits 
depend on the type of activity)

Hungary 
(minimum and maximum 
values)2

Romania

Slovakia 
(indicated as range as limits 
depend on the type of activity)

0.5 – 1.5

0.5 – 1

2 – 3

0.1 – 1

0.5 – 5

0.2

0.5 – 1

0.01 – 0.05

0.5 – 0.8

Limit for PAH: 0.01

0.1 – 1

0.1 – 4

0.5 – 10

0.2 – 2

0.1 – 7

0.005 – 0.3

0.05 – 0.4

0.001 – 0.08

0.1 – 2

0.015 – 0.03

0.1

0.1

0.5

1

—

0.2

0.2

0.05

0.5

—

0.1 – 1

0.5 – 1

1.5 – 3

0.5 – 2

0.1 – 2

0.05 – 0.2

0.2 – 1.5

0.03 – 0.1

0.5 – 0.8

Limit for PAH: 0.01

Czech Republic 
(suggested limits)

Indirect discharge

Hungary 
(non-temporary 
water flows)

Romania

Slovakia 
(suggested limits)

0.2

1

2

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.05

0.1

0.2

2

2

1

0.1

0.2

0.05

1

—

0.2

1

1.5

0.3

0.5

Not allowed

1

0.2

1

2

0.8

0.1

0.3

0.05

0.2

Arsenic and compounds

Copper and compounds

Zinc and compounds

Chromium and compounds

Adsorbable organic halogens

Cadmium and its compounds

Lead and its compounds

Mercury and its compounds

Nickel and its compounds

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene1

Arsenic and compounds

Copper and compounds

Zinc and compounds

Chromium and compounds

Cadmium and its compounds

Lead and its compounds

Mercury and its compounds

Nickel and its compounds

1  Benzo(g,h,i)perylene is a polyciclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH).

2 

 The Hungarian law sets limit values by type of activity (technological limits) and territorial limits (depending on the type of water body 
receiving the waste water). The authority issuing the permit may deviate from these limits but has to respect the minimum and maximum 
values by substance that were set in the legal framework.

 
Reply of the  
Commission

70

Executive summary

V
In 2015, the Commission and Member States 
developed a common implementation strategy 
(CIS) guidance document ‘Communicating pro-
gress towards good status in the second river basin 
management plan (RBMP)’ to enable reporting on 
partial improvements in water quality1.

VI
The Commission is of the opinion that the 2009 
plans provide significant added value. For example, 
for the first time an overview of all relevant pres-
sures and impacts in the basin (including at inter-
national level in the Danube international plan) is 
presented, including the identification of types and 
sources of pollution.

However, the Commission agrees on the lack of 
ambition in terms of measures as the focus in the 
first plan has been mainly on basic measures.

VII
Important EU legislation regarding protection of 
EU waters from agricultural pollution, such as the 
nitrates directive (ND) or the pesticides regulation, 
has been a part of cross-compliance from the outset 
in 2005. As regards phosphorus and pesticides, in 
some Member States these are covered by the stat-
utory management requirements (SMRs) in relation 
to EU legislation currently implemented. In some 
Member States, the action plans on the nitrates 
directive include the requirements on phosphorus 
and this directive is a part of cross-compliance.

X
Extensive support to implementation has been 
developed since 2001 under the CIS, a process led 
by the Commission and the Member States. In the 
context of the CIS, the Commission and the Member 
States have worked quite intensively on cost recov-
ery over the past years. 

1 

‘Indicators to communicate progress towards good status’. 
Common implementation strategy for the water framework 
directive. Adopted by water directors on 25 November 2015.

Guidance on how to calculate environmental and 
resource costs exists. Recent attempts to comple-
ment this guidance within the CIS have failed due 
to diverging views among Member States and the 
Commission. The CIS work programme for 2016-
2018 is currently under discussion and may include 
further work on this issue.

Introduction

13 Second indent
The agri-environment measure can be applied to 
address various environmental and climate-related 
issues. Water quality is just one of such issues.

One of the characteristics of this measure is a strong 
interconnection between various operations and 
actions in delivering environmental benefits. This 
implies that an operation primarily targeting bio-
diversity may also benefit other natural resources 
such as soil and water but does so in a more indirect 
way.

This duality of the measure often reflects the 
concept of the measure’s targeting on primary (and 
secondary) objectives, which is related to the main 
environmental needs and issues identified in the 
SWOT analysis. Therefore, such direct and indirect 
effects must be taken into account when discussing 
the contribution of the total budget allocated to 
the agri-environment measure to the water policy 
objectives.

15
Since 2005, cross-compliance has integrated impor-
tant legal provisions on inter alia environmental 
protection, including water quality, into the com-
mon agricultural policy (CAP) framework. Apart 
from cross-compliance, there are other equally 
important CAP instruments promoting sustainable 
agriculture that are beneficial to the climate and 
environment, including water quality, such as the 
mandatory greening component of the direct pay-
ments mechanism applicable under the 2014-2020 
financial period or the farm advisory system having 
the water framework directive (WFD) and the sus-
tainable use of pesticides directive as compulsory 
scope and the agri-environmental payments.

Reply of the Commission 

71

Audit scope and approach

20
Due to the high number of water bodies that fail 
to achieve good status due to hydromorphological 
impacts, measures related to pollution abatement 
only are not sufficient to achieve good status.

Observations

23
The Commission agrees that the one-out all-out 
approach may mask partial improvements in water 
quality.

The one-out all-out approach is the expression 
of the water framework directive’s integrated 
approach to water management, which considers 
all pressures and impacts on water resources. The 
objective is to ensure that water quality is classified 
as good only when it is truly good and not when 
a certain number of quality elements/parameters 
are good. For example, if a water body has a seri-
ous problem of pollution by one specific pollu-
tant, removing all other pollutants will be progress 
towards good status (maybe even significant 
progress) but the water will not be clean unless the 
problem for that specific pollutant is solved.

In 2015, the Commission and Member States devel-
oped a CIS guidance document ‘Communicating 
progress towards good status in the second RBMP’ 
to enable reporting on partial improvements in 
water quality2.

27
The Commission considers that the assessments of 
status between the 2009 and the 2015 river basin 
management plans are not necessarily directly 
comparable. 

2 

‘Indicators to communicate progress towards good status’. 
Common implementation strategy for the water framework 
directive. Adopted by water directors on 25 November 2015.

The assessment frameworks for water status used 
in the 2009 river basin management plans had in 
many cases important limitations. For example, 
methods were not developed for all biological 
quality elements at the time the first plans were 
published (e.g. in Hungary, Romania and Slovakia). 
Deficiencies in monitoring were also found (e.g. 
Czech Republic). More details of the gaps are found 
in the Commission’s water framework directive 
implementation reports. Therefore, the results of 
this analysis have to be treated with caution.

29
The Commission considers that variations in the 
number of substances assessed for ecological 
status in principle do not necessarily constitute bad 
implementation. Substances have to be used for 
the classification only if they are relevant, i.e. if they 
cause risk to failure of good status in the particu-
lar basin. The number of substances causing risk 
depends very much on the existing pressures. Thus, 
differences in the number of substances may be 
well justified.

However, the Commission considers that the num-
ber of substances used by some Member States 
was too low, due to lack of proper identification of 
relevant substances and insufficient monitoring. 
If the directive were implemented correctly, the 
relevant substances would have been considered 
and the classification would be correct. This issue 
was identified by the Commission in the imple-
mentation report and has been discussed with the 
Member States concerned. The Commission expects 
that improved risk assessments and monitoring will 
inform the second river basin management plans.

36 Third indent
The Commission is gathering evidence from across 
the EU on the type of measures used at the level 
of Member States to limit overflows (in line with 
the requirement in Annex IA to the urban waste 
water treatment directive), their effectiveness and 
their practical application: a study on these issues 
is ongoing. The outcome of the study will serve as 
a basis for the Commission to reflect on the possi-
bilities to address overflow pollution in a systematic 
manner at EU level.

Reply of the Commission 

72

41 Second indent
The Commission shares the Court’s view and is of 
the opinion that the measures to reduce erosion 
and prevent pollution should be more specifically 
set out in the RBMPs irrespective of whether they 
are linked to the Good Agricultural and Environ-
mental Conditions (GAEC) standard or not.

41 Third indent
The Commission agrees that measures to reduce 
pesticide pollution of water in line with Art    icle 11(3)(h) 
should be specific and included in the water framework 
directive (WFD) programmes of measures. It under-
lines that Directive 2009/128/EC on sustainable use of 
pesticides provides a wide flexibility to Member States 
to design the action plans.

44
The Commission is aware of the coordination prob-
lems observed by the Court in the Member States. 
The coordination between the authorities prepar-
ing and implementing operational programmes and 
rural development programmes and the authorities 
in charge of establishing river basin management 
plans’ measures remains within the competence of 
Member States. It is the obligation of the Member 
States to set up partnerships with the competent 
authorities, partners and relevant representatives of 
civil society throughout the preparation and imple-
mentation of operational programmes and rural 
development programmes.

In some cases the financial allocation for the 2007-
2013 programming period was decided before the 
approval of the 2009 river basin management plans. 
These coordination problems have been addressed 
in the preparation of the operational programmes 
for the 2014-2020 programming period. In addi-
tion, the ex ante conditionality aims at aligning 
the investments with the river basin management 
plans.

The Commission would also like to point out that 
in several audited Member States national funding 
sources are also used for investments in waste water 
treatment infrastructure, and that EU funding is not 
in itself expected or sized to reach compliance.

The Commission has identified gaps in establishing 
appropriate cost recovery provisions. Filling these 
gaps would allow regular revenues from users/pol-
luters that could be used to support measures and 
therefore increase the source of non-EU funding.

48
As a result of the 2013-2014 bilateral meetings, a list 
of action points for improvement was drawn up for 
each Member State in view of the adoption of the 
second river basin management plan in 2015. The 
recommendations set out for each Member State in 
the implementation report published in March 2015 
reflect these agreed action points.

(Commission Services Staff Working Docu-
ment SWD(2015)50 final, see footnote 26 for full 
reference).

49
In the cases where the relevant ex ante conditionality 
for the European Regional Development Fund and/
or the Cohesion Fund (ERDF/CF) was unfulfilled at 
the time of adoption of the operational programme, 
Member States have developed action plans for its 
fulfilment before the end of 2016. The action plan is an 
integral part of the operational programme, therefore 
its contractual enforceability is secured. The Commis-
sion monitors the completion of action plans and may 
suspend the funds when the ex ante conditionality 
remains unfulfilled after 2016. However, the actions are 
only related to the criteria of fulfilment of the ex ante 
conditionality as defined by the regulation and cannot 
be used as a tool to enforce the compliance with all EU 
legislation.

Reply of the Commission 

73

The follow-up of actions as a result of the bilateral 
meetings is a separate process and not all of those 
actions can be taken into account in the operational 
programmes.

Common Commission reply to 
paragraphs 56 and 57
For the purposes of the urban waste water treat-
ment directive, the Commission does not collect 
data on total population, but only on the ‘popula-
tion equivalent’ (p.e.) in agglomerations of or above 
2000 p.e. The Commission notes that the percent-
ages in Figure 3 are based on total population. The 
Commission considers that these do not reflect the 
legal compliance of agglomerations of or above 
2 000 p.e. in a given Member State.

58
The Commission notes that the categories analysed 
by the Court in paragraph 58 do not necessarily 
relate to compliance obligations under the urban 
waste water treatment directive.

58 Second indent
From a compliance point of view, the use of individ-
ual systems such as septic tanks is in line with the 
urban waste water treatment directive obligations, 
provided they achieve the same level of environ-
mental protection.

58 Third indent
Agglomerations below 2000 p.e. are only covered 
by limited obligations under the urban waste water 
treatment directive — for example, there is no obli-
gation to collect their waste waters.

63
The Commission notes that it uses a specific meth-
odology for the assessment of legal compliance of 
Member States3 that is based on agglomerations 
rather than on the total percentage of compli-
ant load. In order to try and reflect better the 
improvements and give a more realistic picture of 
the situation in Member States, the Commission is 
introducing the concept of ‘distance to compliance’ 
in the eighth urban waste water treatment directive 
implementation report.

64
According to the Accession Treaty only a small part 
of Hungary was considered as a sensitive area. In 
addition, following Romania’s accession, Hungary 
committed to achieve for its entire territory the tar-
get of 75 % nutrient removal (N and P respectively), 
by 31 December 2018 according to the possibility 
offered under Article 9 of the urban waste water 
treatment directive.

65
For the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary, 
the Commission has already launched pilot letters 
investigating cases of alleged non-compliance with 
the urban waste water treatment directive (for the 
Czech Republic) and with intermediate deadlines 
(for Slovakia and Hungary). The Commission is in 
addition currently preparing a similar pilot letter 
investigating Romania’s compliance with inter-
mediate deadlines.

Concerning the issue of financial sustainability, the 
Commission draws attention to its relevant replies 
to the Court’s Special Report No 2/2015 of 28 Janu-
ary 2015 on the Danube river basin.

3  Evaluation of information reported in the frame of the urban 
waste water treatment directive questionnaires: General 
methodology and working steps. Produced by UBA in 
March 2012, revised in October 2014.

Reply of the Commission 

74

69
The Commission believes that end-of-pipe solutions 
may not be the most cost-effective way of address-
ing the problem of micropollutants. Measures to 
reduce pollution at source need to be considered.

The implementation focus should be on properly 
assessing the extent of the problem (through good 
pressure and impact analysis and good monitoring 
networks) and then assessing the best (combination 
of) measures to achieve the objectives.

71
The Commission fully accepts the importance of 
ensuring compliance and of having appropriate 
systems to check it. This observation extends to all 
the pollution pressures referred to by the Court in 
its report. The Commission also acknowledges the 
link between checks on compliance and the penal-
ties used to deter detected non-compliance. The 
Commission aims to present during 2016 a general 
initiative on environmental compliance assurance 
across the EU.

84
As regards the indirect discharge of waste water 
by industrial installations, this would be subject to 
prior regulation and/or specific authorisation by 
the competent authority. Pre-treatment must be 
applied in order to reach the objectives that are 
described in Annex IC to the urban waste water 
treatment directive.

90
See Commission reply to paragraph 84.

105
As regards Hungary, the Commission notes that 
rules concerning manure storage were already 
in place when the Commission took note of the 
transitional periods granted to farmers for con-
structing the required storage under the new action 
programme and the new nitrate vulnerable zones 
entered into force in 2012 and 2013, respectively.

108
While P limitations can help to achieve the objec-
tives of the nitrates directive, it is to be noted 
that Member States are not required to provide 
P application standards under the nitrates directive 
itself. However, under the WFD Member States are 
required to put in place measures to control diffuse 
sources of pollution and where phosphate from agri-
culture need to be addressed to allow good status 
to be reached. This can be done either through the 
nitrates action programme or another mechanism.

109
The Commission underlines that the adequacy of 
the Czech action programme is being assessed 
within the context of the ongoing pilot. Further-
more, the Czech action programme was amended 
in 2014 and the discussion in the context of the pilot 
has been involving the amendment and not only 
the version of the action programme dated 2012.

115
The Commission notes that the figures refer to both 
eutrophic and hypertrophic waters and not only 
eutrophic.

When assessing eutrophication it is also essential to 
bear in mind the river basin approach. For example, 
high levels of nitrates may not have an important 
impact on rivers but will cause eutrophication in 
the downstream coastal areas, as in the case of the 
Danube in the Black Sea.

Reply of the Commission 

75

117
The Commission underlines that cross-compliance 
is not a mechanism to enforce European environ-
mental legislation. Cross-compliance links common 
agricultural policy (CAP) payments to the respect 
of certain rules while infringing such rules leads to 
reduced CAP payments. Cross-compliance should 
in principle use existing control systems. However, 
it should also ensure a minimum control rate when 
the control system of the sectoral legislation is not 
sufficiently effective. Only beneficiaries of such 
payments can be sanctioned while sectorial legisla-
tion and its enforcement mechanisms apply to all 
farmers, independently of the CAP.

119
According to Article 96(1) of Regulation (EU) 
No 1306/2013 ‘Member States may make use of their 
existing administration and control systems to ensure 
compliance with the rules on cross-compliance’. As 
such, it is up to Member States to organise cross-
compliance controls.

131
The Commission concurs with the observation that 
no quantitative EU requirements for the cover-
age of checks are set forth, with the exception of 
Article 8 of Directive 2009/128/EC, which states that 
all pesticides application equipment will have to be 
inspected by 26 November 2016.

134
The minimum requirements are based on national 
rules going beyond EU rules. Therefore, the con-
tent of those national rules depends on the deci-
sion taken by each Member State. These minimum 
requirements are part of the baseline for certain 
rural development measures. Until 1 January 2015, 
they were also included in the scope of cross-com-
pliance but for the sake of simplification and having 
a level playing field between farmers they were 
withdrawn from the scope of cross-compliance dur-
ing the last CAP reform. However, they are still part 
of the baseline requirements under rural develop-
ment and, as such, are to be checked.

123
The directive provides Member States with wide 
flexibility to design the national action plans.

136
See Commission reply to paragraph 134.

124 Second indent
The Commission notes that the directive does not 
require this level of detail in the national action 
plans.

130
The Commission agrees that the general principles 
of integrated pest management laid down in Annex 
III to Directive 2009/128/EC do not set a clear legal 
basis to identify possible infringements. Exceptions 
are both the obligation of record keeping and the 
requirement to be able to justify an intervention 
with pesticides based on monitoring or related 
technical advice. No other elements have been 
clearly defined in the directive due to the subsidi-
arity principle and to the variety of agro-climatic 
conditions that have to be considered.

136 Second indent
The Hungarian RDP for 2007-2013 includes a defini-
tion and specifications for the minimum require-
ments for fertilisers (nutrients) and plant protection 
products use.

137
In the course of the approval of the rural devel-
opment programmes, the Commission verifies 
whether the relevant ex ante conditionalities are 
fulfilled. In the case of ex ante conditionality on 
minimum requirements for fertilisers and plant pro-
tection products, the criterion for their fulfilment 
stipulates that such requirements are to be speci-
fied in the programmes.

The presence and relevance of concrete require-
ments and GAEC standards relevant to given 
commitments is further assessed in the course of 
analysing the content of measures and types of 
operations for which these two elements constitute 
part of the relevant baseline.

Reply of the Commission 

76

The content of minimum requirements for fertilisers and 
pesticides should reflect, as minimum, the provision of 
Annex I, point 8(9), to Regulation (EU) No 808/2014.

138
See Commission replies to paragraph 117 and 119.

Common reply to 139 and 140
While the legislation indeed sets a minimum control rate 
of 1 %, the probability for certain farmers to be subject to 
a cross-compliance check may be higher than 1 % since 
several other factors intervene:

—  The specific method of sampling applied;

—  The sectorial legislation determines a different con-

trol rate (e.g. 3 % for animal ID);

— 

— 

In case of a significant degree of non-compliance 
with an act or standard, the number of on-the-spot 
checks shall be increased;

Instances of non-compliance identified by other 
sources (e.eg. sectorial controls) are to be cross-re-
ported and followed up by the competent authority;

—  Farmers for whom an infringement was identified 
have to be given a special weighting in the risk 
assessment.

141 Second indent
See Commission reply to paragraph 134.

142
While it is true that the annual cross-compliance 
campaign cannot be adapted to all types of require-
ments, findings from other sources are also to be 
followed up under cross-compliance (e.g. cross-
reporting). Furthermore, the legislation requires 
that each beneficiary selected for an on-the-spot 
check shall be checked at a time when most of the 
requirements and standards for which he or she was 
selected may be checked4. Moreover, the on-the-
spot checks shall, as a general rule, be carried out as 
part of one visit and they shall consist of a verifica-
tion of the requirements and standards which may 
be checked at the time of the visit5 depending on 
the cycle of nature.

143
Control of registers is designed for several stand-
ards and requires one of the compulsory control 
elements to be covered during an on-the-spot 
cross-compliance check. However, they are to be 
complemented by other checkpoints such as stor-
age conditions, invoices and field visits stemming 
from sectorial legislation.

144
The cross-compliance administrative penalty is 
applied as a percentage-based reduction to all CAP 
payments of the beneficiary. Such a penalty has to 
be applied after evaluating the severity, extent and 
permanence of the infringements and should go 
up to 100 % even in the following year6, therefore, 
ensuring the deterrent effect.

Indeed, footnote 86 indicates that 5 % is not the 
maximum reduction rate.

4  Article 71(1) of Regulation (EU) No 809/2014.

5  Article 71(3) of Regulation (EU) No 809/2014.

6  Article 75 Regulation (EU) No 809/2014.

Reply of the Commission 

77

146
Article 30 payments can also be programmed by 
the Member States for compensation for mandatory 
WFD measures. These measures have not yet been 
programmed in the four countries.

147
Member States have an obligation to include in 
their 2014-2020 programmes a SWOT analysis which 
includes an analysis of their environmental situ-
ation. Such analysis includes information on the 
state of environmental assets such as waters and 
their status. The problems identified in the SWOT 
analysis should be addressed by the application of 
the relevant rural development measures or other 
instruments. In addition, the programmes are also 
subject to the strategic environmental assessment 
(SEA) which is part of the ex ante evaluation report.

See also Commission reply to paragraph 44.

153
Member States decide whether they intend to 
continue the agri-environment operations from the 
previous programming in the new programming, 
which can be influenced by various factors, e.g. 
success and effectiveness of the operations, their 
contribution to the objectives of the policy, rel-
evance to the architecture of the new programming 
including priorities and objectives, as well as the 
character of the environmental needs identified in 
the SWOT analysis of the new programming.

154 Second indent
The basic scheme implemented under the rural 
development programme of the Slovak Republic 
2007-2013 limits the use of fertilisers. In addition, 
the scheme includes a ban of use of mineral fertilis-
ers on the grasslands, including the limited use of 
pesticides, which also affects the water quality.

The use of pesticides and mineral fertilisers is not 
allowed in Romania, only organic fertilisers under 
certain conditions. No EU support is paid for reduc-
ing fertiliser use in this case, but the condition is 
intended to prevent further intensification of farm-
ing systems in the areas under commitment, which 
could have a potential negative effect on water 
quality (see paragraph 16).

157
The support under the agri-environment measure is 
to compensate for additional cost and income fore-
gone resulting from the voluntary commitments 
made by beneficiaries. Where it is necessary, it can 
also cover transaction costs. This support does not 
allow for incentive elements and does not imply 
immediate economic benefits for the benefici aries 
(although such benefits are not excluded in the 
longer run).

However, such compensation, together with the 
long-term benefits for farming stemming from the 
implementation of the commitments (e.g. improved 
soil quality), are considered as encouraging farmers 
to adhere to the measure.

160
The CAP is structured on the enforcement of the 
polluter pays principle through respecting the 
mandatory requirements of cross-compliance 
and on the voluntary approach to compensate for 
provision of public goods and services additional to 
those delivered by these requirements, through e.g. 
agri-environment payments.

161
The Commission considers that beyond the appli-
cation of cross-compliance it is up to the Member 
States to choose the instruments to apply the pol-
luter pays principle.

Reply of the Commission 

78

Common Commission reply to  
paragraphs 163-165 and 191
The Commission contends that, in the context of 
the water framework directive implementation, it 
has not issued any guidance so far. The extensive 
support to implementation has been developed 
since 2001 under the common implementation 
strategy (CIS), a process led by the Commission and 
the Member States. In the context of the CIS the 
Commission and the Member States have worked 
quite intensively on cost recovery over the past 
years. Guidance on how to calculate environmental 
and resource costs exists7. Recent attempts to com-
plement this guidance within the CIS have failed 
due to diverging views among Member States and 
the Commission. The CIS work programme for 2016-
2018 is currently under discussion and may include 
further work on this issue.

164
The ex ante conditionalities for the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) 
are on water pricing and only apply to investments 
in water efficiency investments and therefore the 
action plans where the ex ante conditionalities were 
not fulfilled focused on ensuring farmers would pay 
for the quantity of water consumed. At the time the 
ex ante was assessed the Commission also commu-
nicated to the Member States the need for diffuse 
pollution costs to be recovered, but because this 
was not covered by the EAFRD there was no specific 
requirement in the action plans on this.

7 

‘Assessment of environmental and resource costs in the water 
framework directive’. Information sheet prepared by Drafting 
Group ECO2. Common implementation strategy for the water 
framework directive. June 2004 (endorsed by water directors on 
3 December 2004).

Conclusions and recommendations

168
The Commission and the Member States are work-
ing on indicators to show progress towards good 
status. The indicators are expected to be agreed on 
by the end of 2015.

The assessments of status between the 2009 and 
the 2015 river basin management plans are not 
necessarily directly comparable. The assessment 
frameworks for water status used in the 2009 river 
basin management plans had in many cases impor-
tant limitations. For example, methods were not 
developed for all biological quality elements at the 
time the first plans were published (e.g. in Hungary, 
Romania and Slovakia). Deficiencies in monitor-
ing were also found (e.g. in Czech Republic). More 
details of the gaps are found in the Commission’s 
water framework directive implementation reports.

169
The Commission considers that variations in the 
number of substances assessed for ecological 
status in principle do not necessarily constitute bad 
implementation. Substances have to be used for 
the classification only if they are relevant, i.e. if they 
cause a risk of failure of good status in the particu-
lar basin. The number of substances causing risk 
depends very much on the existing pressures. Thus, 
differences in number of substances may be well 
justified.

However, the Commission considers that the num-
ber of substances used by some Member States 
was too low, due to lack of proper identification of 
relevant substances and insufficient monitoring. 
If the Directive were implemented correctly, the 
relevant substances would have been considered 
and the classification would be correct. This issue 
was identified by the Commission in the imple-
mentation report and has been discussed with the 
Member States concerned. The Commission expects 
that improved risk assessments and monitoring will 
inform the second river basin management plans.

Reply of the Commission 

79

170
The Commission is of the opinion that the 2009 
plans provide significant added value. For example, 
for the first time an overview of all relevant pres-
sures and impacts in the basin (including at inter-
national level in the Danube international plan), 
including the identification of types and sources of 
pollution. This is very important and of great added 
value even though it was not fully complete.

However, the Commission agrees on the lack of 
ambition in terms of measures as the focus in the 
first plan has been mainly on basic measures.

Beyond the requirement to comply with the basic 
measures, it also needs to be clear what additional, 
more detailed measures have to be in place and 
how they are to be implemented.

171
The Commission is aware that the information on 
the availability of funds in the 2009 river basin man-
agement plans was incomplete in some cases. The 
Commission is also aware of the coordination prob-
lems observed by the Court in the Member States. 
The coordination between the authorities prepar-
ing and implementing operational programmes and 
rural development programmes and the authorities 
in charge of establishing river basin management 
plans’ measures remains within the competence of 
Member States. It is the obligation of the Member 
States to set up partnerships with the competent 
authorities, partners and relevant representatives of 
civil society throughout the preparation and imple-
mentation of operational programmes and rural 
development programmes.

In some cases the financial allocation for the 2007-
2013 programming period was decided before the 
approval of the 2009 river basin management plans. 
These coordination problems have been addressed 
in the preparation of the operational programmes 
for the 2014-2020 programming period. In addi-
tion, the ex ante conditionality aims at aligning 
the investments with the river basin management 
plans.

Lastly, the Commission would also like to point 
out that in several audited Member States national 
funding sources are also used for investments in 
waste water treatment infrastructure, and that EU 
funding is not in itself expected or sized to reach 
compliance.

172
The Commission will continue monitoring the 
Member States’ efforts and achievements. But given 
the sheer number of river basin districts, water 
bodies for which river basin management plans and 
programmes of measures are to be assessed by the 
Commission, choices had inevitably to be made 
in the past and they will remain necessary in the 
future as well.

The approach taken is one of favouring compliance 
promotion with the Member States’ authorities and 
only exceptionally resorting to formal infringement 
action where this cannot be avoided/where the 
circumstances justify this action of last resort.

It is not only for the Commission to verify compli-
ance by the Member States’ authorities; national 
judicial institutions also play a vital role in this 
respect.

In the cases where the relevant ex ante condition-
ality for ERDF/CF was unfulfilled at the time of 
adoption of the operational programme, Member 
States have developed action plans for its fulfil-
ment before the end of 2016. The action plan is 
an integral part of the operational programme, 
therefore its contractual enforceability is secured. 
The Commission monitors the completion of action 
plans and may suspend the funds when the ex 
ante conditionality remains unfulfilled after 2016. 
However, the actions are only related to the criteria 
of fulfilment of the ex ante conditionality as defined 
by the regulation and cannot be used as a tool to 
enforce compliance with all EU legislation.

Reply of the Commission 

80

180 Second indent
The urban waste water treatment directive does 
not regulate the details of the permits, e.g., the 
pollutant’s limits, but only describes which are the 
main objectives to be reached by pretreating the 
industrial waste water prior to its discharge into the 
urban collecting systems.

181
The Commission fully accepts the importance of 
ensuring compliance and of having appropriate 
systems to check it. This observation extends to all 
the pollution pressures referred to by the Court in 
its report. The Commission also acknowledges the 
link between checks on compliance and the penal-
ties used to deter detected non-compliance. The 
Commission aims to present during 2016 a general 
initiative on environmental compliance assurance 
across the EU.

Recommendation 2(a)
The Commission accepts the recommendation and 
is working on a policy initiative to improve compli-
ance assurance in Member States, while respecting 
the proportionality and subsidiarity principles.

Recommendation 2(b) 
The Commission supports these recommendations 
addressed to Member States.

186
The Commission has already been working on 
streamlining the monitoring and reporting under 
the nitrates directive and the water framework 
directive.

Recommendation 1(a)
The Commission accepts the recommendation

Together with the Member States, it is working on 
indicators to show progress towards good status. 
The indicators are expected to be agreed by the 
end of 2015. The observations of the Court of Audi-
tors on reporting will also feed into a broad fitness 
check of environmental reporting which the Com-
mission is undertaking and will complete in 2017.

Recommendation 1(b)
The Commission accepts this recommendation. It 
will continue urging Member States to improve the 
pressure and impact assessment and the monitor-
ing networks so that substances causing risk at river 
basin level are identified.

The Commission at the same time would like to 
note that it has very limited means to demonstrate 
that relevant substances are missing from the river 
basin management plans.

Recommendation 1(c) 
The Commission accepts this recommendation and 
is currently preparing a comprehensive assessment 
of the second river basin management plans on 
which Member States will report by March 2016.

Recommendation 1(d) 
The Commission supports these recommendations 
addressed to Member States.

174
For the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary, 
the Commission has already launched pilot letters 
investigating alleged non-compliance cases with 
the urban waste water treatment directive (for 
Czech Republic) and with intermediate deadlines 
(for Slovakia and Hungary). The Commission is in 
addition currently preparing a similar pilot letter 
investigating Romania’s compliance with intermedi-
ate deadlines.

See also the Commission’s replies to Special Report 
No 2/2015.

Reply of the Commission 

81

187 Second indent
Since 1 January 2015, the minimum requirements 
are no longer in the scope of cross-compliance, as 
they were taken out in the last CAP reform for the 
sake of simplification. They are still part of the base-
line under rural development and as such are to be 
checked. Member States must implement the EU’s 
GAEC standards by defining their national GAEC 
standards. Such national GAEC standards must take 
into account the national, regional or local needs. 
Accordingly, GAEC standards may differ between 
Member States. The Commission assesses the ade-
quacy of GAEC standards with the CAP framework. 
If a GAEC standard is either missing or is clearly 
non-compliant with the CAP definition, it is classi-
fied as ‘missing’ and the shortcoming is followed up 
appropriately with the Member States.

188 First indent
Various commitments under the agri-environment 
measure can help address water quality concerns in 
a more or less direct and active manner. The design 
and selection of the commitments should result 
from the specific needs of the territory concerned 
by the programme.

There are many other measures in rural develop-
ment programmes that can be used to reach water 
objectives — Article 30, non-productive invest-
ments etc.

The obligation to carry out the commitments 
under this measure for the period of between 5 
and 7 years is to help achieve the objectives of the 
commitments. The commitments might be further 
carried out if this is justified by the need to protect 
or further improve water quality.

188 Second indent
The commitments of agri-environment must be 
set at a level going beyond the mandatory require-
ments. They also need to avoid compensating the 
level of practices which corresponds to normal 
practices. While a reduction in amounts of nitrogen 
going just slightly beyond normal practices might 
not lead to significant environmental benefits, it 
cannot be assumed that it does not provide bene-
fits going beyond the level of mandatory require-
ments and normal practices.

When deciding on what level to choose the Mem-
ber State should consider what load reduction of 
nutrients from the agriculture sector is necessary to 
ensure that nutrient conditions consistent with WFD 
good status can be reached in all waters.

189 First indent
The Commission notes that administrative penalties 
may reach 100 % of the total CAP payment of a ben-
eficiary even in two following calendar years.

191
EU water policy is implemented partly with the 
support of EU funds, but partly without (in fulfil-
ment of the polluter pays principle). Non-funded 
legal requirements play a very important role in the 
whole package of measures necessary to address 
agricultures impact on water.

Recommendation 3(a)
The Commission accepts this recommendation.

Recommendation 3(b)
The Commission does not accept this 
recommendation.

As regards minimum requirements, the Commission 
carries out the assessment of the minimum require-
ments by reference to their existence and relevance 
to the measures for which they constitute part of 
the baseline. Given the diversity of situations where 
these requirements are defined, the Commission 
relies on Member States’ judgment with regard to 
their adequacy.

Reply of the Commission 

82

The Commission will stress the necessity for the 
Member States to set the parameters of minimum 
requirements at the level which ensures the reflec-
tion of their situations and to respect the rules upon 
which such requirements should be established.

With regard to GAEC standards, the Commission 
assesses the existence and adequacy of these 
standards. The Commission considers this approach 
as consistent with the CAP legal framework.

Recommendation 3(c)
The Commission accepts this recommendation.

Member States are subject to obligations regard-
ing inputs of phosphorus where this is necessary 
to achieve the objectives of the WFD. They must 
include in their programme of measures measures 
to control diffuse sources of pollution to allow 
good status to be reached. If sources of agricultural 
phosphate are identified as significant, controls 
on phosphate must be established by the Member 
State. This is one of the areas that will be checked 
by the Commission in the assessment of the second 
RBMPS.

Recommendation 3(d)
The Commission accepts this recommendation and 
notes that it has been working on streamlining the 
monitoring and reporting under the nitrates direc-
tive and the water framework directive.

Recommendation 3(e)
The Commission accepts the recommendation and 
considers it fulfilled as a guidance document on cost 
recovery has been developed under the CIS process. 
The recent attempt to complement this guidance 
within the CIS failed due to diverging views among 
Member States. Further work on this issue may be 
included in the CIS work programme for 2016-2018 
that is under discussion. It must be noted that Mem-
ber States are free to choose the method for calcula-
tion of environmental and resource costs.

Recommendation 3(f)
The Commission supports these recommendations 
addressed to Member States.

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:

(cid:127) 

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

(cid:127)   more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or  
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Priced publications:

(cid:127) 

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

 
Water pollution in the Danube river basin originates from 
various sources such as households, industrial installations 
and agriculture.
Under the 2000 water framework directive, Member States 
adopt river basin management plans which have to 
include measures to combat this pollution. The Court 
examined whether the Member States’ implementation of 
the measures of the 2009 plans led to an improvement in 
water quality.

EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS