COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Tenth report on the implementation status and programmes for implementation (as required by Article 17 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment)
Date: 2020-09-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU investment, application of EU law, environmental monitoring, innovation, urban area, wastewater, water pollution, water protection, water resources, water treatment

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.9.2020  SWD(2020) 145 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  Tenth report on the implementation status and programmes for implementation (as required by Article 17 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment) {COM(2020) 492 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.  Number of agglomerations in EU Member States, by size categories (generated waste water 
load). ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 

2.  Compliance rate and distance to target in 2016 .............................................................................. 3 

2.1. 

Summary table per Member State in 2016, and change compared with 2014 status .............. 3 

2.2.  Maps of compliance rate at regional level .............................................................................. 4 

2.2.1.  Map showing the rate of compliance with Article 3 (collection and IAS)...................... 5 

2.2.2.  Map showing the rate of compliance with Article 4 (secondary treatment) ................... 6 

2.2.3.  Map showing the rate of compliance with Article 5 (more stringent treatment than 
secondary) ....................................................................................................................................... 7 

2.3.  Distance to target in individual Member States ...................................................................... 8 

2.3.1. 

Distance to target for collection (Article 3) .................................................................... 8 

2.3.2. 

Distance to target for secondary treatment (Article 4) .................................................... 9 

2.3.3. 

Distance to target for more stringent treatment (Article 5) ........................................... 10 

2.4.  Rates of application of individual or other appropriate systems (IAS) in individual Member 
States  11 

2.4.1. 

Classification by percentage of generated load connected to IAS ................................ 11 

2.4.2. 
10% of IAS ................................................................................................................................... 12 

Classification of Member States by number of agglomerations which apply more than 

2.5.  Compliance status of national capitals .................................................................................. 13 

3.    Infringement procedures ................................................................................................................ 15 

3.1       Court rulings ......................................................................................................................... 15 

3.2.      Open infringement cases ....................................................................................................... 16 

4.    Implementation of Article 17 in individual Member States ........................................................... 18 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  Number of agglomerations in EU Member States, by size categories (generated waste 

water load). 

Number  of  agglomerations  with  over  2,000  population  equivalents  (p.e.)  per  Member  State 
and  size  category.  The  categories  reflect  the  three  main  ranges  of  size  defined  in  the 
Directive, each of which is subject to different legal obligations on  treatment, depending on 
the nature of the area where waste water is discharged. The variation in distribution between 
countries reflects differences in their level of urbanisation and in the structure of urban areas. 

Germany  has  most  agglomerations  (3,927).  It  also  has  the  largest  number  of  very  large 
agglomerations (above 100,000 p.e.): 174.  

There  are  four  Member  States  (DE,  FR,  IT  and  ES)  with  over  2,000  agglomerations.  The 
majority of EU countries (18) have fewer than 500 agglomerations. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  Compliance rate and distance to target in 2016 

2.1. 

Summary table per Member State in 2016, and change compared with 2014 status 

COMPLIANCE RATE: 

Five countries are fully or almost fully compliant with all the Directive’s requirements (AT, 
DE,  LV,  LT and NL). Other five countries reach a very high compliance level  (EL, FI, SE 
and UK). Seven countries are placed in a relatively high level (BE, DK, EE, FR, LU, PL and 

3 

ComplianceDistance to target98%97% - 100%0%0% - 3%96%95% - 97%4%3% - 5%90%85% - 95%6%5% - 15%80%70% - 85%16%15% - 30%0%< 70%35%> 30% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SK). Four countries are in a lower level of compliance (CY, CZ, ES and PT). At the other end 
of  the  scale,  seven  (BG,  HU,  IE,  IT,  MT,  RO  and  SI)  comply  to  a  limited  or  very  limited 
extent. 

Four countries (BE, BG, PL and RO) show positive trends (compliance rates increased above 
1%)  for  all  articles.  The  largest  increases  can  be  found  for  collection  in  BG,  CY  and  RO, 
showing an increase of  more than 10%; for secondary treatment  in  BG and SI, showing an 
increase of over 18%; and for more stringent treatment, with an increase of over 15% in BG, 
LU, PL, PT and SK. On average, the situation for EU-28 shows a compliance rate of 81% for 
collection and treatment. Taken in isolation, collection is doing best, with a compliance rate 
of 95%.  

DISTANCE TO TARGET 

Nine countries (AT, BE, DE, EE, FI, LV, LT, NL, SE) have already met very high targets in 
collection and treatment.  However, a further  eight  (RO, MT,  IE, SI, ES,  CY, CZ, BG) still 
have  a  significant  way  to  go,  with  distance  to  target  values  of  over  15%  or  even  30%  in 
collection and/or treatment.  Malta has a very high value of distance to  target  for secondary 
treatment (95%). Excessive salt water in all treatment plants and farm manure discharges into 
collecting systems may explain the country’s poor bad performance. Other ten countries (DK, 
EL, FR, HU, IT, LU, PL, PT, SK and UK) have met high targets, but still have to make some 
effort at collection and/or treatment level. 

2.2.  Maps of compliance rate at regional level 

The maps in this chapter show compliance rates as percentages, corresponding to collection, 
secondary  treatment,  and  treatment  that  is  more  stringent  than  secondary  treatment.  They 
cover all EU countries at the level of NUTS 2 regions. 

Legal  compliance  rates  for  collection  and/or  treatment  reflect  the  waste  water  load  of 
agglomerations > 2,000 p.e. found to be fully compliant with the requirements of collection 
(Article  3),  secondary  treatment  (Article  4),  or,  where  applicable,  treatment  more  stringent 
than secondary (Article 5), compared to the total amount of waste water load that should meet 
such requirements, as per Article, expressed as a percentage. 

Legal compliance rates can be calculated at agglomeration, regional, national, EU level, etc., 
depending on the type of data taken into consideration and compared. 

Legal  compliance  with  Articles  3,  4  or  5  does  not  reflect  the  fractions  of  load  in 
agglomerations  that  are  not  fully  compliant,  but  which  are  in  line  with  the  Directive’s 
requirements.  For instance, an agglomeration that collects and adequately treats 80% of the 
waste water it generates is not considered compliant with Articles 3 and 4/5 of the Directive. 
This  means  it  will  not  be  included  in  the  calculation  of  legal  compliance  rates  at  regional 
level,  etc,  even  if  the  above-mentioned  fraction  of  load  is  in  line  with  the  Directive’s 
requirements at collection and treatment level. 

4 

 
 
 
 
It should therefore be noted that ‘legal compliance’ does not reflect the efforts yet to be made 
by  each  region  (in  the  case  of  the  maps  in  this  chapter)  to  implement  the  Directive’s 
requirements in full. The concept is thus far less stringent than ‘distance to target’. 

2.2.1.  Map showing the rate of compliance with Article 3 (collection and IAS) 

5 

 
 
 
 
Map showing compliance rate by NUTS 2 regions. All regions in BG, CY, HU, RO and SI, 
and some regions in ES, IT, PL and PT have low compliance rates for collection, some being 
in the 0-70% range. 

2.2.2.  Map showing the rate of compliance with Article 4 (secondary treatment) 

6 

 
 
 
 
Map showing the situation by NUTS 2 regions. All regions in BG, CY, HU, MT, RO and SI, 
and some regions in CZ, EL, ES, FR, IE, IT, PL, PT, SK and the UK, have compliance rates 
for secondary treatment of below 85%. More than 20 EU regions even fall below 70%.  

2.2.3.  Map showing the rate of compliance with Article 5 (more stringent treatment than 

secondary) 

7 

 
 
 
Map showing the situation by NUTS 2 regions. All regions of BG, CY, IE, MT, RO and SI, 
and some regions of BE, CZ, DK, EL, ES, FR, HU, IT, PL, PT, SE, SK and the UK, have a 
compliance rate of below 85% for more stringent treatment. More than 40 regions even fall 
below 70%.  

2.3.  Distance to target in individual Member States 

The term ‘distance to target’, used for the first time in the Commission’s reports in the 2014 
reporting  year,  means  the  effort  still  required  to  comply  in  full  with  the  Directive’s 
requirements on collection and treatment. 

‘Distance  to  target’  values  do  not  take  account  of  agglomerations  subject  to  under  non-
expired  deadlines  which  therefore  have  no  compliance  obligations  in  this  report  (i.e. 
agglomerations in Croatia, those that are subject to a final deadline in Romania, or those that 
discharge  waste  water  into  sensitive  areas  of  late  designation  under  Article  5,  where 
applicable). 

‘Distance to target-treatment’ takes account only of collected waste water that is not properly 
treated (meaning that its treatment is non-compliant and/or the treatment level is inadequate). 
It does not take account of waste water that is not collected, and therefore not treated. 

2.3.1.  Distance to target for collection (Article 3) 

The distance to target for collection in Europe in terms of load is attributable mainly to six 
Member States which account for the highest absolute values: BG, CY, ES, HU, IT (between 
174,000 p.e. and 565,000 p.e. each) and RO, with  4,377,000 p.e. It  can be observed in  this 
figure that the corresponding relative values are not so high in two of these countries (ES and 

8 

0.1%5.5%17%0.6%0.5%4.1%0.7%0.3%0.05%26%4.4%0.4%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%BEBGCYEEESHUITPLPTROSISK% of waste water load subject to Article 32016 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IT), thus  meaning that these countries have high amounts of p.e.   In 20 Member States the 
distance  to  target  is  not  beyond  0.5%.  In  five  (BG,  HU,  SI,  IT,  EE)  it  is  between  0.6  and 
5.5%, while two (CY and RO) still have a distance to target of 17 and 26%, respectively. 

2.3.2.  Distance to target for secondary treatment (Article 4) 

Fourteen Member States collectively account for most of the distance to target for secondary 
treatment in Europe in terms of load. Six countries (ES, FR, IE, IT, PT and RO) have values 
exceeding  1  million  p.e.  each,  even  though  amongst  them,  only  RO  and  IE  also  have  high 
relative  values  (in  the  remaining  four  countries,  the  distance  to  target  is  not  so  relevant,  in 
relative  terms).  Together,  they  account  for  over  32.5  million  p.e.  (or  88%  of  the  entire 
distance to target for ‘secondary treatment’ in the EU). Another eight countries (BG 901,204 
p.e., CY, EL, HU, MT1, PL, SE and UK) reach levels between 147,000 p.e. and 901,000 p.e. 
each. In 10 Member States, the distance to target is equal or close to 0%.  

1 Malta shows a very high value in ‘distance to target’ for secondary treatment (95%). Excessive salt water in all treatment plants and farm 
manure discharges into collecting systems may explain the country’s poor performance. 

9 

14%18%5%12%1%8%6%49%12%95%0.6%16%50%1%7%2%1%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%BGCYELESFIFRHUIEITMTPLPTROSESISKUK% of waste water load subject to Article 42016 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.3.3.  Distance to target for more stringent treatment (Article 5) 

Sixteen Member States account for most of the distance to target for more stringent treatment 
in Europe in terms of load. Nine of these (BG, CZ, ES, FR, IE, IT, PL, RO and UK) are over 
1 million p.e. Together they account for about 29.5 million p.e. (93% of the entire distance to 
target for ‘more stringent treatment’ in the EU). Only four of these countries (FR, IT, PL and 
UK)  have  rates  of  10%  or  below,  thus  meaning  that  distance  to  target  is  not  so  relevant  at 
relative level in each of the countries, respectively.  Seven countries (DK, HU, MT, PT, SE, 
SI and SK) are between 111,000 p.e. and 519,000 p.e. each. Six countries (AT, CY, EE, DE, 
LU and NL) have zero or very close to 0 (EE) distance to target. 

10 

1%18%24%5%0.6%34%2%5%5%73%10%2%7%100%10%8%65%2%43%4%6%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%BEBGCZDKELESFIFRHUIEITLTLVMTPLPTROSESISKUK% of waste water load subject to Article 52016 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.4.  Rates of application of individual or other appropriate systems (IAS) in individual 

Member States 

2.4.1.  Classification by percentage of generated load connected to IAS 

]
d
a
o

l

d
e
t
a
r
e
n
e
g
f
o
%

[

S
A
I

16%

15%

14%

13%

12%

11%

10%

9%

8%

7%

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

K
S

U
H

L
E

G
B

Z
C

L
P

V
L

I
S

T
I

E
I

U
L

Y
C

T
L

E
E

E
D

O
R

S
E

T
A

K
U

This figure shows how much IAS is used by depicting the percentage of generated load for 
each country reporting the use of IAS. Of the 19 EU countries reporting IAS use, three (SK, 
HU and EL) use it in more than 10% of the generated load.  

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.4.2.  Classification of Member States by number of agglomerations which apply more 

]
s
n
o
i
t
a
r
e
m
o
g
g
a

l

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
n
[

S
A
I

%
0
1
>

than 10% of IAS 

700

600

575 

500

400

300

200

100

0

421 

338 

293 

254 

243  233 

100 

79 

58 

38 

32 

24 

24 

16 

14 

L
P

U
H

T
I

E
D

K
S

Z
C

L
E

O
R

S
E

G
B

K
U

V
L

I
S

T
L

E
E

E
I

6 

Y
C

This  figure  reflects  the  number  of  agglomerations  reporting  that  more  than  10%  of  their 
generated  load  is  addressed  through  IAS.  PL  reported  the  highest  number,  with  575 
agglomerations,  while  seven  countries  in  total  (PL,  HU,  IT,  DE,  SK,  CZ  and  EL)  reported 
over 200 agglomerations with a significant percentage of load addressed through IAS. 

It should be noted that a high number of agglomerations applying IAS does not necessarily 
entail  a  high  IAS  rate  at  country  level.  It  indicates  that  many  agglomerations  rely,  in  a 
relatively  high  individual  rate,  on  the  use  of  IAS  instead  of  collecting  the  generated  waste 
waters in their entirety. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.5.  Compliance status of national capitals 

Member 
State 

Member 
State 

Capital city 

Generated 
load [p.e.] 

Legal compliance/distance to target > 0 (in percentage) 

Collection 

Secondary 
treatment 

More 
stringent 
treatment 

Collection 
and 
treatment 

UK 

FR 
EL 
DE 
ES 
AT 
IT 
SE 
HU 
PL 
BE 
NL 
PT 
FI 
LT 
LV 
SK 
EE 
CY 
LU 
HR 
IE 

RO 

BG 
DK 

CZ 

MT 
SI 

London 
Paris 
Athens 
Berlin 
Madrid 
Vienna 
Rome 
Stockholm 
Budapest 
Warsaw 
Brussels 
Amsterdam 
Lisbon 
Helsinki 
Vilnius 
Riga 
Bratislava 
Tallinn 
Nicosia 

United 
Kingdom 
France 
Greece 
Germany 
Spain 
Austria 
Italy 
Sweden 
Hungary 
Poland 
Belgium 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Finland 
Lithuania 
Latvia 
Slovakia 
Estonia 
Cyprus 
Luxembourg  Luxembourg 
Croatia 
Ireland 

Zagreb 
Dublin 

Romania 
Bulgaria 
Denmark 
Czech 
Republic 
Malta 
Slovenia 

Bucharest 
Sofia 
Copenhagen 

Prague 
La Vallette 
Ljubljana 

10,636,249 

9,545,414 
5,200,000 
4,353,563 
4,018,202 
4,000,000 
3,005,533 
2,788,000 
2,722,686 
2,491,821 
1,460,000 
1,099,208 
1,063,000 
926,700 
850,890 
673,670 
530,000 
468,000 
235,000 
231,359 
957,301 
2,225,120 

2,159,995 

2,037,000 
1,100,000 

1,533,060 

615,810 
302,293 

C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
PD 
C 

C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
PD 
NC/100% 

NC/15% 
NC/1% 
C 

NC (PD)/100% 
NC/1% 
C 

C 
C 
C 
NR 
C 
C 
NR 
C 
C 
C 
NR (C)  
C 
NR 
C 
C 
C 
C (NC) 
C 
NR 
C 
PD 
NC/100% 
NC 
(PD)/100% 
NC/1% 
NC (C)/33% 

C 
C 
C 

C 
NC/94% 
NC/2% 

NC/100% 
NR 
NC/100% 

C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
C (NC) 
C 
C 
C 
PD 
NC 

NC 
NC 
NC (C)  

NC 
NC 
NC 

Legend 
C: compliant 
NC: non-compliant 
PD: pending deadline 
NR: not relevant 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
This table shows all the capital cities in the EU (all ‘big cities’2), ordered by size but sorted 
into groups: compliant (on top); subject to pending deadlines (Zagreb, Croatia); and totally or 
partially non-compliant, at the end of the table. All but three capitals have maintained their 
reported compliance status. Of the three, two (Copenhagen and Bucharest) are less compliant 
than  at  the  time  of  the  previous  report.  Bucharest,  whose  deadlines  have  now  expired,  still 
discharges 52% of its waste water untreated, while the treatment of the remaining 48% falls 
short  of  required  standards,  especially  as  regards  the  removal  of  nitrogen  and  phosphorus. 
Copenhagen has reported that the Damhusåen treatment plant has failed to reach the required 
level  of  performance  as  regards  phosphorus  treatment.  Dublin  became  non-compliant  in 
2012, and the downward trend continued in 2016. Bratislava became fully compliant during 
the reporting period, an improvement on its previous status, especially in terms of treatment. 
The previous results are given in brackets wherever there has been a change. Most capitals 
are fully compliant with the Directive’s requirements. 

In  addition  to  legal  compliance  (/DTT),  the  values  of  distance  to  target  in  collection  and 
treatment (what efforts are still required to reach compliance) are shown.  

For  all  the  capital  cities  found  to  be  compliant  with  the  Directive’s  various  requirements 
(collection/secondary/more stringent treatment), the distance to target is equal to zero %.  
The values of distance to target in situations of non-compliance span a wide range. Some are 
very  low  (e.g.  Sofia,  for  all  dimensions;  Ljubljana,  for  secondary  treatment),  but  in  most 
other cases distance to target is equal to 100%. 

3.    Infringement procedures 

2 Cities with more than 150,000 inhabitants, which may consist of one or more agglomerations. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
3.1       Court rulings 

The table below lists Court rulings since 1 January 2017. 3 

Member 
State 

Case 
number 

Date  
issued 

Hyperlink to 
ruling 

Information on fines and 
penalty payments, where 
relevant 

United 
Kingdom 

C-502/15 

Greece 

C-320/15 

04-05-2017  Commission v 
United Kingdom  
14-09-2017  Commission v 

Greece 

C-328/16 

Italy 

C-251/17 

Greece  

22-02-2018  Article 260 

Commission v 
Greece  
31-05-2018  Art. 260 

Commission v 
Italy  

Spain 

C-205/17 

25-07-2018  Art. 260 

Ireland 

C-427/17 

18-03-2019 

Cyprus 

C-248/19 

5-3-2020 

Italy 
Sweden 

C-668/19 
C-22/20 

Pending 
Pending 

Commission v 
Spain  

Commission v 
Ireland  

Commission v 
Cyprus  
Pending  
Art. 260 - Pending 

EUR 3 276 000 for each six-
month period of delay  and 
EUR 5 million lump sum 

EUR 25 million lump sum and 
EUR 30,112,500 for every six 
months of delay 

EUR 46,522,999 lump sum and 
EUR 191,217.20 EUR for 
every day of delay 

3.2.      Open infringement cases4 

3  Last  updated  on  24  March  2020.  For  a  list  of  previous  rulings,  please  refer  to  previous  Commission 
implementation reports.  
4 Last updated on 24 March 2020.  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
There  are currently 29 open infringement  cases.  Most of the non-compliant  agglomerations 
identified in the implementation reports are covered by these cases. 

The vast majority of infringement cases listed below are ‘horizontal’, meaning that they cover 
groups of agglomerations within a Member State that are found, on the same legal basis, to be 
in breach of the legislation, usually in the same reported year.  

There are horizontal cases involving large agglomerations discharging waste water into ‘non-
sensitive’  areas,  or  into  sensitive  areas;  cases  on  small  agglomerations;  and  ‘gap  cases’, 
involving the compilation of agglomerations found to be non-compliant. ‘Gap cases’ may be 
initiated  once  all  other  types  of  cases  have  been  brought  at  Member  State  level.  They  may 
involve  non-compliant  agglomerations  with  obsolescent  facilities  that  were  previously 
compliant,  or  those  that  were  previously  non-compliant  but  just  not  reported  by  a  Member 
State in previous years. 

All  the  deadlines  laid  down  in  the  Directive  have  expired  as  regards  the  EU-14  Member 
States  plus  the  UK.  Most  of  the  types  of  cases  referred  to  above  have  thus  already  been 
launched, if needed. A few ‘gap cases’, based on 2016 results, have yet to be launched. 

Some  cases  relating  to  the  countries  which  joined  the  EU  after  2004,  corresponding  to 
deadlines that expired in 2014 and 2015, have yet to be launched. In many of these cases, in 
particular, the Commission has also included an investigation of compliance by individual or 
other appropriate systems (IAS), where such systems are applied at relevant rates at the level 
of an agglomeration. 

EU-14 
Member 

Case 
number 

Member 
States that 

Case    

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
States and 
United 
Kingdom 

number 

have joined 
the EU 
since 2004 

Greece 

1999/4336 

Czechia 

2016/2141 

United 
Kingdom 

2000/4225 

Romania 

2016/2142 

Spain 

2002/2123 

Hungary 

2016/2186 

Portugal 

2002/2128 

Slovenia 

2016/2188 

Greece 

2004/2030  

Slovakia 

2016/2191 

Spain 

Italy 

2004/2031 

2009/2034 

Lithuania 

2016/2193 

Latvia 

2017/2030 

Portugal 

2009/2309 

Cyprus 

2017/2046 

Sweden 

2009/2310 

Bulgaria 

2017/2082 

Poland 

2017/2183 

Romania 

2018/2109 

Greece 

Spain 

United 
Kingdom 

2011/2027 

2012/2100 

2013/2055 

Ireland 

2013/2056 

Italy 

Spain 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

2014/2059 

2016/2134 

2017/2100 

2017/2125 

2017/2181 

4.    Implementation of Article 17 in individual Member States 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The tables below summarise information on investment programmes in 2016 as reported by 
all EU countries. The investment and work planned correspond to non-compliant situations. 
For  those  countries  that  are  fully  compliant,  the  table  indicates  ‘no  data’.  The  national 
authorities  collectively  estimated  the  sum  of  all  investment  programmes  across  the  EU  in 
2016  at  nearly  EUR 230 billion.  This  covers  work  on  treatment  plants,  with  a  forecast 
investment cost of EUR 166 billion, and work on collecting systems and/or IAS, investment 
in which is forecast to cost EUR 63 billion. 

As regards the expected yearly investment at national level in collection and treatment, nine 
countries report a static situation compared with previous reporting. Eight report an increase 
in investment, and three a decrease (IT, PT and SI). 

The  highest  values  of  the  ratio  of  the  current  investment  in  collection  and  treatment  per 
inhabitant  and  year  to  the  expected  investment  per  inhabitant  and  year  are  found  in 
Luxembourg  (EUR 148/152)  and  Denmark  (EUR 142/134).  Both  countries  have  very  high 
compliance rates in these two areas, more stringent treatment being the exception. 

The lowest values can be found in Spain (EUR -/14) and Portugal (EUR 4/2) per inhabitant 
and  year.  Both  countries  have  medium-to-low  compliance  rates,  especially  as  regards 
treatment. 

The  OECD  study5  estimates  that  Member  States  will  need  to  spend  an  additional 
EUR 253 billion  between  2020  and  2030  to  reach  and  maintain  full  compliance  with  the 
UWWTD. Projections assume that all countries will meet compliance by 2030, and that they 
will  make  equal  incremental  progress  each  year  towards  reaching  compliance,  and  adjust 
their  expenditure  accordingly.  Total  expenditure  is  thus  calculated  on  the  basis  of  both 
distance to  compliance  and change in  population growth. The OECD  estimates do not  take 
account  of  possible  delays  in  investment  or  investment  backlogs  or  of  the  state  of  existing 
infrastructure, as there was no data available to assess these aspects. This may explain why 
country-specific assessments that take into account the state of the assets in question and the 
investment  backlog  may  differ  from  OECD  projections.  The  assessment,  which  builds  on 
2014 data, uses Eurostat and similar data sources. 

5 OECD, Estimating investment needs and financing capacities for water-related investment in EU member 
countries: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/economics/OECD_study_en.htm 

18 

 
 
                                                           
19 

Planned works (expired deadlines) [No of works or agglomerations]no data0272180no datano data520489no datano datano data135Planned works (pending deadlines) [No of works or agglomerations]no datano data000no datano data0no data0002520Planned works (expired deadlines) [No of treatment plants]no data321176no datano data4no data53631400180Planned works (pending deadlines) [No of treatment plants]no datano data000no datano data0no data1002390Forecast for investment needed (as in national plan)  [EUR million]no data02,2512730no datano data548802,0440no data1,975444Amount of (planned) EU funding needed [EUR million]no data0582120no datano data45748360no data1,31815Forecasting period [years] no data02020-20302021-20260no datano data2019-20212016-20232019-20270no data2019-20252019-2022Forecast for investment needed (as in national plan)  [EUR million]no data67321450no datano data75354,45127228836506Amount of (planned) EU funding needed [EUR million]no data0205300no datano datano data45410003256614Forecasting period [years] no data2019-20222020-20292019-20250no datano data2019-20202016-20232019-20272019-20212019-20232019-20262019-2023EXPECTED annual investment costs (new and renewal)  [EUR million]2626321834300 (+ IAS 0.6)no data51023177172 (+ IAS 1)552750 (+IAS 660)249no dataAnnual average for [years]2018-20212019-20232023-20302019-20262018-2022no data2016-20192018-20232016-20232015-20302018-20222015-20182018-2025no dataEXPECTED annual investment costs (new and renewal)  [EUR million]51906518117no data255304893361,550105no dataAnnual average for [years]2018-20212019-20212023-20302019-20262018-2022no data2016-20192018-20232016-20232015-20302018-20222015-20182018-2025no dataChange in amount of investment (CURRENT to EXPECTED)00000######001######00############Ratio: CURRENT investment/population [EUR/inhabitant/year]37132163403614216no data06958no data26Ratio: EXPECTED investment/population [EUR/inhabitant/year]3614406140no data134201614717484no dataNumber of investments planned Collecting systemsTreatment plantsDenmarkGermanyCzechiaHungaryCroatiaFranceFinlandSpainTreatment plantsCollecting systemsTreatment plantsAnnual average costs Collecting systemsForecast for investments for non-compliant situationsCyprusBulgariaBelgiumAustriaGreeceEstonia 
 
 
 
20 

Number of investments planned Planned works (expired deadlines) [No of works or agglomerations]112763154no datano datano data1,0560785no data93925Planned works (pending deadlines) [No of works or agglomerations]00000no datano data001,0170000Planned works (expired deadlines) [No of treatment plants]291,8601103no data5924965012357234Planned works (pending deadlines) [No of treatment plants]00000no datano data009790000Forecast for investments for non-compliant situationsForecast for investment needed (as in national plan)  [EUR million]38832691.365010no datano data3,465no data5,118no data40652712,303Amount of (planned) EU funding needed [EUR million]no datano data3510no datano datano datano data2,534no data1604420Forecasting period [years] 2021-20232019-20302020-20232023-20230no datano data2019-2021no data2019-2027no data2019-20282020-20232020-2023Forecast for investment needed (as in national plan)  [EUR million]603151,3511304no data4,2701111,91710197171129Amount of (planned) EU funding needed [EUR million]113no datano data204no datano data73,46898no data47107no dataForecasting period [years] 2019-20252019-20292020-20202019-202902019-2019no data2019-20212019-20222019-20272019-20232019-20292019-20232019-9999Annual average costs EXPECTED annual investment costs (new and renewal)  [EUR million]1183542271438854628154537221140576Annual average for [years]2017-20212018-20232016-20222017-20202018-20202019-20232019-20242016-20212013-20222018-20272016-20172019-20282018-20232018-2023EXPECTED annual investment costs (new and renewal)  [EUR million]205397no data1945136741621198291734904Annual average for [years]2017-20212018-2023no data2017-20202018-20202019-20232019-20242016-20212012-20222018-20272016-20212019-20282018-20232018-2023Change in amount of investment (CURRENT to EXPECTED)######-1############000######-110-200Ratio: CURRENT investment/population [EUR/inhabitant/year]no data2028no data1482171no data4958371817Ratio: EXPECTED investment/population [EUR/inhabitant/year]6812113115220722723867133223MaltaLuxembourgLithuaniaLatviaItalyUnited KingdomSlovakiaSloveniaSwedenRomaniaPortugalPolandNetherlandsCollecting systemsIrelandCollecting systemsTreatment plantsTreatment plantsCollecting systemsTreatment plants