Technical assessment of the implementation of Council ... · Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive 91/271/EEC IV LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: DATE OF (FIRST AND FINAL)

Specific contract No. 07.0307/2013/SFRA/669101/ENV.C.2

Implementing Framework Service Contract No.

ENV.D.2/FRA/2012/0013

Technical assessment of the

implementation of Council Directive

concerning Urban Waste Water Treatment

(91/271/EEC)

Final version

25 March 2015

This document has been produced by Umweltbundesamt GmbH for the European Commission, DG Environment. It reflects data reported by EU Member States as of 31 December 2011 or – in case more recent data was available – as of 31 December 2012. This document does not necessarily represent the official position of the European Commission or of any Member State of the European Union. Brussels, March 2015.

Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive 91/271/EEC

I

Table of Contents

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS AND DATA REQUEST Q-2013 ....................................................... 2 1.2 OBLIGATIONS AND DEADLINES ............................................................................................... 3 1.3 AVERAGE COMPLIANCE RATES ............................................................................................... 4 1.4 TEMPORAL EVOLUTION OF IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE RATES .................................. 6

2 IMPLEMENTATION IN EU-28 MEMBER STATES .............................................................. 7

2.1 NUMBER OF AGGLOMERATIONS, GENERATED WASTE WATER LOAD AND BIG CITIES/BIG DISCHARGERS IN EU-28 MEMBER STATES .............................................................................. 7

2.2 TEMPORAL EVOLUTION OF WASTE WATER LOAD DESTINATION ............................................. 10 2.3 TEMPORAL EVOLUTION OF TYPE AND SIZE OF URBAN WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS .... 12 2.4 SENSITIVE AREAS AND CATCHMENT OF SENSITIVE AREAS IN EU-28 MEMBER STATES ......... 13

3 ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DIRECTIVE IN EU-28 MEMBER STATES .......................................................................................................... 18

3.1 RELEVANT OBLIGATIONS ..................................................................................................... 18 3.2 ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DIRECTIVE ........................ 18 3.3 ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DIRECTIVE ON REGIONAL

LEVEL .................................................................................................................................. 26 3.4 STATUS OF URBAN WASTE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND TREATMENT IN BIG CITIES/BIG

DISCHARGERS ...................................................................................................................... 31 3.5 COMPARISON OF IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE.......................................................... 35

4 PRODUCTION OF SLUDGE, SLUDGE RE-USE AND DISPOSAL .................................... 48

5 ASSESSMENT OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMME ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 17 OF THE DIRECTIVE ........................................................................................ 51

6 ANNEX I: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND KEY CONCEPTS ............................................. 52

7 ANNEX II: GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................. 54

8 ANNEX III: METHODOLOGY OF DATA EVALUATION AND PRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 56

9 ANNEX IV: EXISTING TRANSITIONAL PERIODS FOR EU-13 EU MEMBER STATES ..... 62

10 ANNEX V: UWWTD IMPLEMENTATION IN EU-28 MEMBER STATES ............................. 64

11 ANNEX VI: LIST OF DESIGNATED SENSITIVE AREAS/CATCHMENT AREAS OF SENSITIVE AREAS IN EU-28 MEMBER STATES .................................................................. 66

12 ANNEX VII: WASTE WATER TREATMENT OF EUROPEAN BIG CITIES/ BIG DISCHARGERS IN EU-28 MEMBER STATES ........................................................................ 68


II

II

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: AVERAGE COMPLIANCE RATES (SOLID BARS: LOAD THAT SHOULD BE COLLECTED AND/OR TREATED; TRANSPARENT BARS: LOAD FOR WHICH THE COLLECTION OR TREATMENT PROVIDED COMPLIES WITH THE PROVISIONS IN THE DIRECTIVE) IN RELATION TO THE TOTAL GENERATED WASTE WATER LOAD. .............................................................. 5

FIGURE 2: AVERAGE COMPLIANCE RATES WITH ARTICLE 3, ARTICLE 4 AND ARTICLE 5 FOR EU MEMBER STATES FOR WHICH THE DEADLINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION HAS EXPIRED BY THE DATE OF REPORTING IN RELATION TO THE TOTAL SUBJECTED

WASTE WATER LOAD. ........................................................................................................................................ 6

FIGURE 3: FREQUENCY OF AGGLOMERATION SIZES (LEFT) AND GENERATED LOAD (RIGHT) OF AGGLOMERATION SIZES IN EU-28 (2,000 TO 10,000 P.E.; 10,001 TO 15,000 P.E.; 15,001 TO 100,000 P.E.; 100,001 TO 150,000 P.E.; > 150,000 P.E.). ............................................................................................................................................................ 10

FIGURE 4: FREQUENCY (LEFT) AND GENERATED LOAD (RIGHT) OF AGGLOMERATION SIZES IN EU-15 (SOLID BARS) AND EU-13 (TRANSPARENT BARS) FOR 2,000 TO 10,000 P.E.; 10,001 TO 15,000 P.E.; 15,001 TO 100,000 P.E.; 100,001 TO 150,000 P.E.; > 150,000 P.E. ......................................................................................................................... 10

FIGURE 5: EVOLUTION OF THE LOAD DESTINATION (COLLECTED, IAS, NOT COLLECTED AND NOT ADDRESSED THROUGH IAS) FOR EU-15 IN A COMPARISON OF DATA AVAIBLE FROM Q-2011 (TRANSPARENT BARS) AND Q-2013 (SOLID BARS). .... 11

FIGURE 6: EVOLUTION OF THE LOAD DESTINATION (COLLECTED, IAS, NOT COLLECTED AND NOT ADDRESSED THROUGH IAS) FOR EU-13 IN A COMPARISON OF DATA AVAIBLE FROM Q-2011 (TRANSPARENT BARS) AND Q-2013 (SOLID BARS). .... 11

FIGURE 7: EVOLUTION OF THE NUMBER OF URBAN WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS AND LOAD IN P.E. PER URBAN WASTE WATER TREATMENT SIZE CLASS AT EU-28 LEVEL IN A COMPARISON OF DATA AVAIBLE FROM Q-2011 AND Q-2013. ... 12

FIGURE 8: EVOLUTION OF THE TREATMENT TYPE AT EU-28 LEVEL IN A COMPARISON OF DATA AVAIBLE FROM Q-2011 AND Q-2013. ........................................................................................................................................................... 12

FIGURE 9: OVERVIEW OF SENSITIVE AREAS AND CATCHMENT AREAS OF SENSITIVE AREAS AND THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 5(8) OF THE DIRECTIVE IN EU-28 (AS REPORTED BY EU MEMBER STATES) FOR REFERENCE YEAR 31 DECEMBER 2011 OR 31 DECEMBER 2012. ................................................................................................................................. 15

FIGURE 10: ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 3 (IN RELATION TO THE GENERATED LOAD SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 3) FOR EU-28 MEMBER STATES. ................................................................................................. 20

FIGURE 11: ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 4 (IN RELATION TO THE GENERATED LOAD SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 4) FOR EU-28 MEMBER STATES. ................................................................................................. 21

FIGURE 12: ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 5 (IN RELATION TO THE GENERATED LOAD SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 5) FOR EU-28 MEMBER STATES.................................................................................................. 22

FIGURE 13: SHARE OF GENERATED LOAD COMPLIANT WITH ARTICLE 3 OF THE DIRECTIVE IN EU-28 MEMBER STATES. ....... 23



FIGURE 16: COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE DIRECTIVE ON REGIONAL LEVEL IN EU-28 MEMBER STATES. ........................................................................................................................................................ 27



FIGURE 19: COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 3, 4 AND 5 OF THE DIRECTIVE ON REGIONAL LEVEL IN EU-28 MEMBER STATES; CLASSIFICATION IN MORE THAN 66.7% OF AGGLOMERATIONS ABOVE 10,000 P.E. (TREND TO URBAN); MORE THAN 66.7% OF AGGLOMERATIONS BELOW 10,000 P.E. (TREND TO RURAL) AND REST OF REGIONS (BALANCED RURAL-URBAN). ............................................................................................................................. 30

FIGURE 20: BEST AVAILABLE WASTE WATER TREATMENT IN EU-28 BIG CITIES (IN % OF TOTAL GENERATED LOAD) DISCHARGING INTO DIFFERENT RECEIVING AREAS (ARTICLE 5(2,3) AREAS, ARTICLE 5(4) AREAS AND NORMAL AREAS). .................................................................................................................................................................... 33

FIGURE 21: BEST AVAILABLE WASTE WATER TREATMENT OF BIG CITIES / BIG DISCHARGERS LOCATED IN DIFFERENT RECEIVING AREAS IN EU-28 (LOADS PER TREATMENT CATEGORY IN % OF TOTAL GENERATED LOAD). ...................................... 33

FIGURE 22: DEVELOPMENT OF COMPLIANCE RATES OVER TIME. .................................................................................... 36

FIGURE 23: PROGRESS IN COMPLIANCE RATES FOR ARTICLE 3 UWWTD (REFERENCE YEAR 2007/2008 FOR THE 6TH

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT (Q-2009), REFERENCE YEAR 2009/2010 FOR THE 7TH

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT (Q-2011), REFERENCE YEAR 2011/2012 FOR THE 8

TH IMPLEMENTATION REPORT (Q-2013)) IN % OF THE SUBJECTED LOAD

(LEGEND: A) NO COMPLETE DATASET SET REPORTED ON TIME AND B) NOT SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE). ...................................................................................................................................................... 40


III

III

FIGURE 24: LOAD (P.E.) SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 3 AND COMPLIANT WITH ARTICLE 3 AND COMPLIANCE RATES (%) AS REPORTED FOR THE 7

TH IMPLEMENTATION REPORT AND THE 8

TH IMPLEMENTATION REPORT (LEGEND: A) NO

COMPLETE DATASET SET REPORTED ON TIME AND B) NOT SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE). ................ 41

FIGURE 25: PROGRESS IN COMPLIANCE RATES FOR ARTICLE 4 UWWTD (REFERENCE YEAR 2007/2008 FOR THE 6TH IMPLEMENTATION REPORT (Q-2009), REFERENCE YEAR 2009/2010 FOR THE 7TH IMPLEMENTATION REPORT (Q-2011), REFERENCE YEAR 2011/2012 FOR THE 8TH IMPLEMENTATION REPORT (Q-2013)) IN % OF THE SUBJECTED LOAD (LEGEND: A) NO COMPLETE DATASET SET REPORTED ON TIME AND B) NOT SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE). ...................................................................................................................................................... 42



TH IMPLEMENTATION REPORT (LEGEND: A) NO


FIGURE 27: PROGRESS IN COMPLIANCE RATES FOR ARTICLE 5 UWWTD (REFERENCE YEAR 2007/2008 FOR THE 6TH IMPLEMENTATION REPORT (Q-2009), REFERENCE YEAR 2009/2010 FOR THE 7TH IMPLEMENTATION REPORT (Q-2011), REFERENCE YEAR 2011/2012 FOR THE 8TH IMPLEMENTATION REPORT (Q-2013)) IN % OF THE SUBJECTED LOAD (LEGEND: A) NO COMPLETE DATASET SET REPORTED ON TIME AND B) NOT SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE). ...................................................................................................................................................... 44



H IMPLEMENTATION REPORT (LEGEND: A) NO


FIGURE 29: CHANGES OF COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 3 ON THE LEVEL OF EU-15, EU-13 AND EU-28 IN THE 6TH

(Q-2009), 7

TH (Q-2011), AND 8

TH (Q-2013) IMPLEMENTATION REPORT. ............................................................................... 46

FIGURE 30: CHANGES OF COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 4 ON THE LEVEL OF EU-15, EU-13 AND EU-28 IN THE 6TH (Q-2009), 7TH (Q-2011), AND 8TH (Q-2013) IMPLEMENTATION REPORT. ............................................................................ 47

FIGURE 31: CHANGES OF COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 5 ON THE LEVEL OF EU-15, EU-13 AND EU-28 IN THE 6TH (Q-2009), 7TH (Q-2011), AND 8TH (Q-2013) IMPLEMENTATION REPORT. ............................................................................ 47

FIGURE 32: SEWAGE SLUDGE IN T DS/YEAR FOR EU-28. ............................................................................................. 49

FIGURE 33: SEWAGE SLUDGE – RE-USE AND DISPOSAL ROUTES IN EU-13, EU-15 AND EU-28 MEMBER STATES. .............. 50


IV

IV

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: DATE OF (FIRST AND FINAL) DATA SUBMISSIONS FOR Q-2013 REPORTED BY EU-28. ........................................... 3

TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF TOTAL NUMBER AND GENERATED LOAD OF AGGLOMERATIONS ≥ 2,000 P.E. OF EU-28, FOR WHICH DATA WAS AVAILABLE FROM Q-2011 AND Q2013. *DUE TO THE POOR QUALITY OF DATA REPORTED BY ITALY, ITALIAN DATA ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS TABLE. **DUE TO THE POOR DATA QUALITY OF DATA REPORTED BY POLAND, POLISH DATA ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS TABLE, ALSO CROATIA IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS TABLE AS IT WAS NOT YET AN EU MEMBER AT THE TIME OF Q-2011. ...................................................................................................................... 7

TABLE 3: NUMBER AND GENERATED LOAD OF AGGLOMERATIONS ≥ 2,000 P.E. OF 28 EU MEMBER STATES. DUE TO THE POOR QUALITY OF DATA REPORTED BY ITALY AND POLAND, ITALIAN AND POLISH DATA ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS TABLE. .... 9

TABLE 4: OVERVIEW OF SENSITIVE AREAS AND CATCHMENT AREAS OF SENSITIVE AREAS IN EU-28 MEMBER STATES (REFERENCE DATE 31 DECEMBER 2011 OR 31 DECEMBER 2012). ....................................................................... 17

TABLE 5: NATIONAL COMPLIANCE RATES AS CONCERNS ARTICLE 3, ARTICLE 4 AND ARTICLE 5 (COLORS SHOW RANGES OF COMPLIANCE: RED 0% - 20%, ORANGE >20% - 40%, YELLOW >40% - 60%, GREEN >60 – 80%, BLUE >80% - 100%, WHITE NO DATA OR TRANSITION PERIOD STILL PENDING). .................................................................................... 19

TABLE 6: NUMBER AND SIZE OF BIG CITIES / BIG DISCHARGERS IN DIFFERENT RECEIVING AREAS IN EU-28. ........................ 32

TABLE 7: TABLE WITH STATUS OF CAPITAL CITIES IN EU-28 (C = COMPLIANCE, NC = NON COMPLIANCE, NR = NOT RELEVANT AS THE DEADLINE IS NOT EXPIRED YET, EITHER FOR ARTICLE 3, 4 OR 5, NA = NOT APPLICABLE AS AGGLOMERATION IS DISCHARGING INTO NORMAL AREA, NCO = NO COMPLIANCE OBGLIGATION (IN GENERAL) AND ND = NO DATA AVAILABLE). COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 5.4 REFERS TO THE AREA OF DISCHARGE OF THE AGGLOMERATION. .......... 35

TABLE 8: DEVELOPMENT OF COMPLIANCE RATES OVER TIME. ....................................................................................... 36

TABLE 9: DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOAD SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH AND THE COMPLIANCE RATES FOR ARTICLE 3, ARTICLE 4 AND ARTICLE 5 FROM Q-2009 TO Q-2011 AND FROM Q-2011 TO Q-2013 (GREEN ARROWS HIGHLIGHT INCREASES, RED ARROWS SHOW DECREASES AND ORANGE ARROWS INDICATE NO CHANGES). .................................................. 38

TABLE 10: EXAMPLE FOR PRESENTATION OF DATA FOR ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE WITH REGARDS ITS REQUIREMENTS AND DEADLINES/ TRANSITIONAL PERIODS. ............................................................... 59


1

1 Executive summary

The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive1 (UWWTD, hereinafter referred to as “the

Directive”) is one of the core elements of EU water policy. Adopted in 1991 its objective is

to protect the environment from adverse effects of discharges of urban waste water from

settlement areas and biodegradable industrial waste water from the agro-food sector.

Principally, but not exclusively, the Directive requires that all European agglomerations

with a size of more than 2,000 population equivalents (p.e.)2 are equipped with collecting

and treatment systems for their waste waters. The Directive provides for biological waste

water treatment (‘secondary treatment’) to significantly reduce the biodegradable pollution

in waste water. In the so-called sensitive areas (i.e. those areas suffering from

eutrophication or used for other purposes such as e.g. bathing or drinking water

abstraction) and their related catchments, more stringent treatment is required to

eliminate nutrients (mainly nitrogen and/or phosphorus) before the waste water is

discharged.

The present report reflects the status of implementation of the Directive at 31 December

2011 or 31 December 2012, based on data reported by EU Member States in the 2013

reporting exercise (Q-2013).

For EU Member States for which the deadlines expired in 2005 (hereinafter referred to as

EU-15 EU Member States3) the provision of waste water collection and treatment systems

should have been completed for all agglomerations within the scope of the Directive. For

those EU Member States, which acceded to the European Union in 2004, 2007 and 2013

(hereinafter referred to as EU-13 EU Member States4), some of the transitional periods

that were granted on the basis of the size of agglomerations and the nature of the

discharge area are still in force.

This document presents the technical assessment of information provided by EU Member

States on the implementation and its compliance with provisions required by the Directive.

The results of the assessments carried out in different periods have been compared.

Conclusions on the progress in the implementation of the Directive in EU Member States

are drawn over the past years.

1 Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, OJ L 135,

30.5.1991.

2 The term "population equivalent" is used in the UWWTD in order to measure the size of

agglomerations. It is calculated considering that the average five-day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) released per person is 60 g oxygen/day.

3 EU-15 refers to EU Member States being in the EU before the 2004 enlargement: Austria, Belgium,

Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,

the Netherlands and United Kingdom.

4 EU-13 refers to EU Member States who acceded to the EU in 2004, 2007 and 2013 enlargements:

Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland,

Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania.


2

2

1.1 Implementation reports and data request Q-2013

At regular intervals the European Commission elaborates implementation reports on the

situation of waste water treatment and the progress of implementing the Directive in the

European Union. So far, seven Implementation Reports have been published since the

year 19985.

Since 2007 the reporting under Article 15 of the Directive follows a new standardised

approach, which was jointly developed by the European Commission, the European

Environment Agency and EU Member States and which was set-up in line with reporting

principles under the Water Information System for Europe (WISE).

The Commission requested EU Member States6 to provide data on waste water collection

and treatment under Article 15(4) of the Directive, based on an electronic questionnaire

(Q-2013), until end of May 2014. All EU-EU Member States with the exception of CY, HU

and LT (reference year 2011) reported data for reference year 2012.

In total, 19 EU Member States made their first data submission within the official deadline

to report for Q-2013. Eight EU Member States (HU, DK, FI, DE, HU, LV, MT and PT)

uploaded their first data set shortly after the official deadline and until 16 June 2014 at the

latest. Poland provided its first data set on 15 September 2014.

For most of the EU Member States a number of amendments and technical corrections of

the datasets were required in order to fit the agreed format. Several re-submissions and

correction rounds took place, and most datasets were finalized until August 2014.

From September to October 2014 quality checked data reported by EU Member States

were assessed for compliance with the requirements of Article 3, 4 and 5 of the Directive.

On 31 October 2014 draft compliance assessment results were sent to EU Member

States for comments. In the frame of the commenting process new/corrected data were

provided by EU Member States in November 2014 to January 2015 and were

consequently taken into account: Seven EU Member States (BE, CZ, DK, EL, FR, SK and

UK) required changes to data reported as regards performance/installation (type of

treatment) of urban waste water treatment plants. Five EU Member States (CY, ES, HR,

SE and SI) required changes/clarifications to data reported on NUTS2 codes (regions),

big cities and/or receiving areas.

EU-MS

date of data submission to ETC (CDR) final data

submission (after

compliance assessment)

EU-MS

date of data submission to ETC (CDR) final data

submission (after

compliance assessment) first final first final

Austria 28.05.2014 13.06.2014 Italy 30.05.2014 19.01.2015

Belgium 26.05.2014 11.06.2014 15.01.2015 Latvia 03.06.2014 02.07.2014

Bulgaria 24.04.2014 18.06.2014 Lithuania 27.05.2014 16.07.2014

Croatia 16.06.2014 30.07.2014 19.01.2015 Luxembourg 17.04.2014 17.04.2014

Cyprus 28.05.2014 02.06.2014 14.11.2014 Malta 02.06.2014 08.07.2014

5 Implementation Reports are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-

urbanwaste/implementation/implementationreports_en.htm. 6 The letter was sent out to EU Member States on 28 November 2013 with the request to provide data

within six months via the Reportnet system of the European Environment Agency.


3

3

Czech Republic 30.05.2014 23.06.2014 20.11.2014 Netherlands 30.05.2014 05.06.2014

Denmark 02.06.2014 30.06.2014 19.12.2015 Poland 15.09.2014 19.01.2015

Estonia 28.05.2014 05.06.2014 Portugal 11.06.2014 26.06.2014

Finland 12.06.2014 01.07.2014 Romania 28.04.2014 26.06.2014

France 28.05.2014 01.08.2014 16.01.2015 Slovakia 30.05.2014 06.06.2014 04.02.2015

Germany 03.06.2014 30.06.2014 Slovenia 30.05.2014 12.08.2014

Greece 30.05.2014 27.06.2014 04.11.2024 Spain 30.05.2014 04.08.2014 04.02.2015

Hungary 02.06.2014 11.06.2014 Sweden 26.05.2014 26.06.2014 14.01.2015

Ireland 30.05.2014 10.06.2014 United

Kingdom 28.05.2014 18.08.2014 15.01.2015

Table 1: Date of (first and final) data submissions for Q-2013 reported by EU-28.

Due to the insufficient quality of data reported by Italy, only a certain share of

agglomerations and waste water load could have been assessed and is being presented

in this Report. The main errors and inconsistencies were found in relation to discharge

points of urban waste water treatment plants, sensitive areas and catchment of sensitive

areas, and missing links between discharge points and receiving areas. Data for regions

Sardegna and Umbria are completely missing in the assessment, a considerable number

of agglomerations and generated load are missing for regions Friuli Venezia Giulia,

Campania and Molise.

As for Poland, the poor quality of reported data prevented a compliance assessment as

such. The main problems of data reported included many agglomerations reported with 0

generated load but load entering the urban waste water treatment plant, no reported

monitoring results for urban waste water treatment plants, no information on big cities,

percentage entering urban waste water treatment plants reported with figures far above

100% or agglomerations reported with generated load but no data on percentages on

destination of waste water load, accept for entering load. Information on NUTS codes was

only provided for a certain number of agglomerations in Poland.

Consequently, data for Italy and Poland are not included in those figures and tables

in the Report which are describing the situation in EU-28 Member States. Thus, the

reference EU-28 Member States in this Report generally describes the situation of

26 EU Member States only.

Compared to the last Implementation Report, which covered all EU Member States, this

Report does not cover (totally or partially) Italy and Poland. The number of amendments

and data corrections which were requested by a number of EU Member States and in

general the delays in provision of information shows that further improvement of national

reporting systems is required for some EU Member States. This is in line with the current

development of “SIIFs” (structured information and implementation frameworks) which,

once established, will constitute a more effective and streamlined way to provide the

information requested in the frame of the Directive. CY, SI and LT were acting as “pilots”

to test the planned reporting services in the year 2014, PL and RO will join the group of

those EU Member States being the front runners in the “SIIF” exercise.

1.2 Obligations and deadlines

The Directive sets staged deadlines for the years 1998, 2000 and 2005 for all EU-15 EU

Member States, depending on the size of the waste water discharge and the sensitivity of

receiving areas:


4

4

Agglomerations beyond 10,000 p.e. discharging into sensitive areas and

catchments of sensitive areas were due to compliance by 31.12.1998.

Larger agglomerations beyond 15,000 p.e. discharging into normal areas were to

compliance by 31.12.2000.

All other agglomerations beyond 2,000 p.e. were due to compliance by

31.12.2005.

The deadlines apply to the implementation of waste water collecting systems (Article 3 of

the Directive), secondary treatment (Article 4 of the Directive) and more stringent

treatment in sensitive areas and their catchment areas (Article 5 of the Directive). By the

reference year for this report the deadlines for implementation of the obligations under the

Directive (as highlighted above) completely expired in all EU-15 EU Member States.

For EU-13 EU Member States, transition periods were negotiated as part of the Accession

Treaties, obliging those EU Member States to comply with the Directive by different dates.

Certain interim deadlines already expired and were taken into consideration for the

reference year of this Report.

In summary, the EU Member States that are subject to a compliance check with the

requirements of the Directive in this Report are:

EU-15: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Germany, Ireland,

Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden.

EU-13: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,

Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia (for certain interim deadlines).

The following interim deadlines are addressed in this Report for the first time:

CY: Compliance due for one agglomeration (Paphos) with more than 15,000 p.e. by

31 December 2011.

EE: Compliance due for all agglomerations by 31 December 2010.

LV: Compliance due for all agglomerations between 10,000 and 100,000 p.e. by 31

December 2011.

HU: Compliance due for all agglomerations in normal areas with more than 15,000

p.e. by 31 December 2010.

SI: Compliance due for all agglomerations with more than 15,000 p.e. by 31

December 2010.

SK: Compliance due for all agglomerations with more than 10,000 p.e. by 31

December 2010.

RO: Compliance with Article 3 due for 61% of the total waste water load by 31

December 2010. Compliance with Article 4 and 5 due for 51% of the total waste

water load by 31 December 2010.

Due to still pending transitional periods, compliance was not assessed for any

agglomeration in Croatia yet.

1.3 Average compliance rates

Compliance with the Directive is assessed comparing the amount of pollution load that

receives the treatment requested by the Directive (i.e. which is collected, which receives

biological treatment and which receives more advanced treatment) with the total amount


5

5

of load which is generated and, second, with the amount that, theoretically, should receive

such treatment (the so called subjected load).

The comparison with the total generated load is presented in Figure 1 (% of the total

generated load are shown).The share of the load for which compliance is required (solid

bars) and the share of the load for which compliance was achieved (transparent bars)

both in relation to the total generated load are presented.

Summarizig the results, it can be concluded that the obligations as regards collection

(Article 3) are met for 94.9% of the total generated load (479 Mio. p.e., i.e. 96.4% of the

total generated load should be collected).

Regarding biological treatment (Article 4), the obligations are met for 86% of the total

generated load (464 Mio. p.e., i.e. 93.5% of the total generated load should receive

biological treatment).

As regards more stringent treatment (Article 5), obligations are met for 50.5% of the total

generated load (285 Mio. p.e., i.e. 57.5% of the total generated load should receive more

stringent treatment).

Figure 1: Average compliance rates (solid bars: load that should be collected and/or treated; transparent

bars: load for which the collection or treatment provided complies with the provisions in the Directive) in

relation to the total generated waste water load.

The comparison of the compliance rates expressed not as percentage of the total

generated load, but as percentage of the load for which compliance is required (i.e.

subjected load), is presented in Figure 2.


6

6

Figure 2: Average compliance rates with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 for EU Member States for which

the deadline for implementation has expired by the date of reporting in relation to the total subjected

waste water load.

1.4 Temporal evolution of implementation and compliance rates

The implementation of the Directive is more challenging than expected. However, taking

into account the values of compliance rates published by the European Commission in the

previous Implementation reports, a positive trend appears: compliance increases over

time. Punctual downwards are explained by the use of more accurate calculation methods

and/or by the incorporation of new EU Member States to the assessment.

As for the requirement of collection (Article 3), a number of EU Member States

consequently achieved the maximum compliance rate of 100% over the past years, such

as AT, CZ, DK, DE, EL, IE, LU, MT, NL and SE. In the 8th Implementation Report the

number of EU Member States fully complying with Article 3 of the Directive considerably

increased: additionally, CY, FI, FR, HU, LV, LT, PT, SK, ES and UK reported 100%

compliance with collection requirements.

As for the provision of biological treatment (Article 4), AT, DE, DK, NL and SE constantly

achieved very high compliance rates of more than 95% over the past years. BE, EE, FI,

EL, LV, LT, LU, SK and UK show compliance rates of more than 95% in the 8th

Implementation Report.

As concerns the provision of more stringent treatment (Article 5), several EU Member

States achieved high compliance rates of 95% or above over the past years (AT, DE, NL).

Many EU Member States were added to this group in the 8th Implementation Report: CY,

DK, FI, FR, EL, LT and UK reporting compliance rates of more than 95%.


7

7

2 Implementation in EU-28 Member States

2.1 Number of agglomerations, generated waste water load and big cities/big dischargers in EU-28 Member States

EU Member States reported 19,079 agglomerations larger than 2,000 p.e. amounting for

a total generated waste water load of 495 Mio. p.e. as of reference date 31 December

2011 or – in case more recent data was available – 31 December 2012.7

For EU-15 EU Member States, 14,707 agglomerations producing generated waste water

load of 428 Mio. p.e. were reported. For EU-13 EU Member States, EU Member States

concerned reported 4,372 agglomerations generating a total waste water load of 68 Mio.

p.e. (see Table 3).

Table 2 highlights the comparison of the total number of agglomerations and their

generated load reported for Q-2011 and Q-2013 for those EU Member States for which

data was available from both reporting periods (all EU-EU Member States with the

exception of Croatia, Italy and Poland).

In terms of number of agglomerations, no major changes can be seen with the exception

of RO (minus 538 agglomerations). Smaller changes in the number of agglomerations

were reported for CZ (minus 36), DE (minus 42) and ES (minus 58). The decrease is

mainly due to the recalculation of the agglomerations’ size on the basis of new data from

census, tourists and industry. Increased numbers of agglomerations were reported from

FI (plus 30) and SE (plus 40).

The total generated waste water load reported in Q-2013 significantly decreased in

comparison to Q-2011 in CZ, ES, HU and RO due to the recalculation of the

agglomerations’ size on basis of new data from census, tourists and industry. A significant

increase in generated load was reported for BG, FR, NL and SE.

AT 3 135,320 LT -1 101,400

BE 9 -112,200 LU 0 -12,650

BG 6 1,887,276 LV -5 -27,603

CY 0 111,200 MT -3 -80,829

CZ -36 -2,229,388 NL -6 1,065,284

DE -42 -826,993 PL - -

DK 2 7,000 PT 9 569,693

EE 0 -78,607 RO -538 -3,171,352

ES -58 -1,318,256 SE 40 4,774,266

FI 30 32,500 SI 2 -69,526

FR -6 1,114,373 SK 0 -25,099

EL 14 -52,427 UK -3 124,090

HR - - EU 15* -21 5,440,863

HU 3 -1,262,432 EU 13** -572 -4,844,960

IE -13 -59,137 EU 28 -593 595,903

IT - -

Comparison generated

load of agglomerations

Q2013 - Q2011

Comparison total number

of agglomerations Q2013 -

Q2011

Comparison generated

load of agglomerations

Q2013 - Q2011

Member State Member StateComparison total number

of agglomerations Q2013 -

Q2011

Table 2: Comparison of total number and generated load of agglomerations ≥ 2,000 p.e. of EU-28, for

which data was available from Q-2011 and Q2013. *Due to the poor quality of data reported by Italy,

Italian data are not included in this table. **Due to the poor data quality of data reported by Poland,

Polish data are not included in this table, also Croatia is not included in this table as it was not yet an EU

member at the time of Q-2011.

7 It has to be highlighted that data for Italy and Poland are not included in these figures due to the poor

data quality of reported data for Q-2013, see also reference in section 1.1.

Technical assessment of implementation of Directive 91/271/EEC

8

2,000 - 10,000 p.e. 10,001 - 15,000 p.e. 15,001 - 100,000 p.e. 100,001 - 150,000 p.e. > 150,000 p.e. Total

Number

agglomerations Generated load (p.e.)

Number agglomerations

Generated load (p.e.)









AT 376 1,623,179 44 458,675 188 6,680,190 13 1,648,650 15 8,992,000 636 19,402,694

BE 231 1,064,500 41 509,900 94 3,316,800 4 508,500 10 3,779,100 380 9,178,800

BG 256 961,498 38 457,568 57 2,322,150 4 471,347 9 4,012,996 364 8,225,559

HR 190 845,795 28 356,353 58 2,188,375 1 129,933 4 1,547,181 281 5,067,637

CY 46 192,300 3 36,700 6 256,000 0 0 2 400,000 57 885,000

CZ 466 2,009,060 42 513,445 83 2,730,938 3 305,811 4 2,031,350 598 7,590,604

DK 257 1,249,769 42 546,127 106 4,359,904 13 1,584,900 11 3,867,245 429 11,607,945

EE 38 176,291 5 64,151 12 439,388 1 123,000 3 839,936 59 1,642,766

FI 146 655,800 16 194,400 46 1,759,300 2 254,500 6 2,375,700 216 5,239,700

FR 2,187 9,886,924 232 2,913,452 619 22,490,725 42 5,059,767 67 31,192,824 3,147 71,543,692

DE 2,200 10,694,869 482 5,991,244 1,209 42,826,525 66 7,994,169 111 45,371,615 4,068 112,878,422

EL 370 1,567,625 39 471,860 72 2,540,822 5 654,546 6 7,066,000 492 12,300,853

HU 311 1,587,460 57 709,061 115 4,024,488 6 746,903 9 4,597,275 498 11,665,187

IE 105 451,729 22 268,889 38 1,386,373 2 231,000 3 2,826,025 170 5,164,016

LV 53 231,088 9 107,027 15 534,519 1 113,497 1 762,739 79 1,748,870

LT 33 155,200 9 112,400 19 744,700 2 242,000 4 1,483,600 67 2,737,900

LU 35 158,682 3 35,433 8 235,141 0 0 1 228,741 47 657,997

MT 0 0 0 0 2 73,195 0 0 1 429,009 3 502,204

NL 85 524,954 23 284,343 167 6,839,309 15 1,788,856 33 8,181,025 323 17,618,487

PT 269 1,248,336 24 299,240 92 3,426,787 15 1,875,700 13 4,803,550 413 11,653,613

RO 1,626 6,207,800 71 857,486 125 4,485,448 11 1,425,034 19 8,433,407 1,852 21,409,175

SK 275 1,113,392 23 280,901 51 1,749,393 4 470,108 3 1,365,832 356 4,979,626

SI 132 523,921 9 106,147 15 395,885 1 133,977 1 302,293 158 1,462,223

ES 1,422 6,719,997 200 2,490,009 453 17,071,609 46 5,584,790 87 36,405,951 2,208 68,272,356

SE 212 1,031,978 34 424,764 98 3,581,981 10 1,345,967 13 6,278,305 367 12,662,995


9

9

UK 979 4,569,592 184 2,251,929 509 19,668,926 58 7,107,702 81 35,732,889 1,811 69,331,038

EU 15 8,874 41,447,934 1,386 17,140,265 3,699 136,184,392 291 35,639,047 457 197,100,970 14,707 427,512,608

EU 13 3,426 14,003,805 294 3,601,239 558 19,944,479 34 4,161,610 60 26,205,618 4,372 67,916,751

EU 28 12,300 55,451,739 1,680 20,741,504 4,257 156,128,871 325 39,800,657 517 223,306,588 19,079 495,429,359

Table 3: Number and generated load of agglomerations ≥ 2,000 p.e. of 28 EU Member States. Due to the poor quality of data reported by Italy and Poland, Italian and Polish data

are not included in this table.


10

10

Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate the frequency of agglomeration sizes and generated load

in EU-28 (Figure 3) as well as in EU-15 and EU-13 (Figure 4); it can be seen how big

cities with more than 150,000 p.e., despite their low absolute number (2.7% of all

agglomerations with more than 2,000 p.e.), generate the highest waste water loads

across the European Union (45.1% of the total load is generated by big cities).

Figure 3: Frequency of agglomeration sizes (left) and generated load (right) of agglomeration sizes in

EU-28 (2,000 to 10,000 p.e.; 10,001 to 15,000 p.e.; 15,001 to 100,000 p.e.; 100,001 to 150,000 p.e.;

> 150,000 p.e.).

Figure 4: Frequency (left) and generated load (right) of agglomeration sizes in EU-15 (solid bars) and

EU-13 (transparent bars) for 2,000 to 10,000 p.e.; 10,001 to 15,000 p.e.; 15,001 to 100,000 p.e.;

100,001 to 150,000 p.e.; > 150,000 p.e.

2.2 Temporal evolution of waste water load destination

While section 2.1 presents a comparison of the total number of agglomerations and their

generated waste water load reported for Q-2011 and Q-2013 for those EU Member States

for which data was available from both reporting periods (all EU-EU Member States with

the exception of Croatia, Italy and Poland), Figure 5 and Figure 6 describe the temporal

evolution of the destination of the generated waste water load.

As for EU-15 EU Member States, it can be seen that – with the exception of Greece –

most of the generated waste water load is collected in collecting systems. Greece shows

a high share of waste water load addressed through individual appropriate systems.


11

11

The situation is different in EU-13 EU Member States as a considerable share of waste

water load is neither collected or addressed through an individual appropriate system

(e.g. in BG, CY, RO and SI). Other EU-13 EU Member States (CZ, EE, HU, LV, LT, SK

and SI) show a relevant share of waste water load addressed through individual

appropriate systems (IAS).

Figure 5: Evolution of the load destination (collected, IAS, not collected and not addressed through IAS)

for EU-15 in a comparison of data avaible from Q-2011 (transparent bars) and Q-2013 (solid bars).

Figure 6: Evolution of the load destination (collected, IAS, not collected and not addressed through IAS)

for EU-13 in a comparison of data avaible from Q-2011 (transparent bars) and Q-2013 (solid bars).


12

12

2.3 Temporal evolution of type and size of urban waste water treatment plants

The temporal evolution of number and size as well as type of urban waste water treatment

plants is described in Figure 7 and Figure 8. While the number of urban waste water

treatment plants in the size between 2,000 and 10,000 p.e. is considerably higher than all

other size classes, most of the generated waste water load is treated in those urban

waste water treatment plants with a capacity of more than 150,000 p.e.

Figure 7: Evolution of the number of urban waste water treatment plants and load in p.e. per urban

waste water treatment size class at EU-28 level in a comparison of data avaible from Q-2011 and Q-

2013.

While the treatment type no and primary as well as secondary treatment slightly

decreases from the last to this year’s Report, an increase for more stringent treatment

with nitrogen and phosphorus removal as well as other forms of advanced treatment can

be observed. This is in line with the general progress of improved more stringent

treatment possibilities such as filtration and/or UV-treatment in many EU Member States.

Figure 8: Evolution of the treatment type at EU-28 level in a comparison of data avaible from Q-2011 and

Q-2013.


13

13

2.4 Sensitive Areas and Catchment of Sensitive Areas in EU-28 Member States

As requested in Article 5(1) of the Directive, EU Member States have to identify sensitive

areas according to the criteria laid down in Annex II of the Directive and to review this

identification at least every four years according to Article 5(6). However, according to

Article 5(8), EU Member States do not have to identify sensitive areas if more stringent

treatment will be applied over the whole territory.

Concerning the requirement of more stringent treatment, the Directive provides the option of

individually targeting each agglomeration with a load of more than 10,000 p.e. according to

Article 5(2,3) or achieving a general removal rate for nitrogen and phosphorus by 75% of

the load entering all urban waste water treatment plants according to Article 5(4).

With reference date 31 December 2011 or 31 December 2012, 12 EU Member States have

decided to apply Article 5(8) of the Directive and apply more stringent treatment over the

whole territory: AT, CZ, DE, DK, EE, FI, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL and RO.

Out of those, seven EU Member States (CZ, DK, EE, FI, LV, LT, LU and RO) apply

Article 5(8) and Article 5(2,3). All apply Article 5(8) with sensitivity for N and P with

the exception of FI, which applies the Directive with sensitivity for P only (and for

some subregions, if this is necessary due to the local situation, sensitivity for N is

applied).

AT, DE, NL and PL apply Article 5(8) and Article 5(4).

BE, SK and SE apply Article 5(2,3) and have identified all their water bodies as sensitive

areas.

The remaining 13 EU Member States decided to apply Article 5(2,3) of the Directive and

identified certain water bodies in their territory as sensitive areas and/or catchment of

sensitive areas: BG, CY, EL, ES, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, MT, PT, SI and UK.

Summarizing the situation of EU-28 Member States, 15 EU Member States apply Article 5

of the Directive to their entire territory or have designated all their water bodies as sensitive

areas, whereas 13 EU Member States have identified certain water bodies in their territory

as sensitive areas for which more stringent treatment requirements need to be

implemented.

With the accession of the new EU Member States in 2004 and 2007 the Baltic Sea, the

North-west shelf of the Black Sea, the Danube Delta and the Northern Adriatic were

identified as sensitive or catchment areas due to eutrophication, thus requiring EU Member

States lying in the relevant catchments, to apply more stringent treatment with nitrogen and

phosphorus removal:

For the Baltic Sea, out of those EU Member States being part of the catchment (DK,

EE, FI, DE, LV, LT, PL and SE), all EU-15 EU Member States as well as LT and EE,

PL (for 1069 agglomerations representing 86% of total biodegradable load), and LV

(for agglomerations with between 10,000 and 100,000 p.e.) have to be compliant

with Article 5 for the reference year 2011/2012.

For those EU Member States lying in the Black Sea catchment, RO and BG, the

relevant deadlines for applying Article 5 are as follows: RO, for the first time in this


14

14

report, is due to compliance for 51% of the total load, while BG needs to be

compliant with the respective requirements for agglomerations with > 10,000 p.e.

For the Danube catchment, all relevant EU-15 EU Member States (DE, AT) as well

as CZ have to be compliant with Article 5 for the reference year 2011/2012. All

remaining EU-13 EU Member States being part of the Danube catchment still have

interim compliance deadlines for Article 5 in place until the year 2014 (BG), 2015

(SI, HU, SK, BG and RO) as well as 2023 (HR).

For the catchment of the Northern Adriatic Sea it can be said that the deadline to

apply more stringent treatment expired in IT, while SI is already subject to

compliance in agglomerations with > 15,000 p.e..

Figure 9 and Table 4 provide an overview of:

The designation of sensitive areas and their related catchments.

The respective application of Article 5(1) and 5(2,3), Article 5(8) and 5(2,3) or Article

5(8) and 5(4).

The number (and percentage of the national territory) of SA and CSA identified.

The changes in the % of national territory identified as sensitive area or catchment

of sensitive area compared to Q-2011.

By the reference year for this report and based on GIS data reported by EU Member States,

it can be seen that

37.35% of the territory of EU-28 is designated as sensitive area and/or catchment of

sensitive area according to Article 5(1) and 5(2,3); compared to the last Report this

is an increase of 0.85% of EU-28 territory.

37.22% of the territory of EU-28 needs to receive more stringent waste water

treatment as EU Member States apply more stringent treatment in the whole

territory according to Article 5(8); compared to the last Report this is a minor

decrease of 0.48%.

In total, 74.57% of EU-28 territory receives more stringent treatment according to

Article 5 of the Directive (increase of 0.37% of EU-28 territory compared to the last

Report).


15

15

Figure 9: Overview of sensitive areas and catchment areas of sensitive areas and the application of

Article 5(8) of the Directive in EU-28 (as reported by EU Member States) for reference year 31

December 2011 or 31 December 2012.


16

16

Member State

UWWTD Articles applied Number of sensitive areas and catchment of sensitive areas identified

% of national territory identified as sensitive area or catchment of sensitive area

Changes since the 7th Implementation Report

AT Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(4) Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas

--

BE Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) - entire territory

Application of Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) for entire territory, sensitivity N and P

100 --

BG Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) 14 SA + 14 CSA 87.67 --

CY Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) 2 SA + 2 CSA 2.57 --

CZ Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(2,3) Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas

--

DK Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(2,3) Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas

--

EE Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(2,3) Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas

--

EL Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) 46 SA + 42 CSA 23.25

7th Report: same number of SA + CSA, covering 27.8% of the national territory (difference in % of the national territory due to more accurate GIS delineation of SA/CSA)

ES Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) 427 SA + 429 CSA 34.88 7th Report: 426 SA + 428 CSA, covering 33.55% of the national territory

FI Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(2,3)

Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity P (and for some subregions, if this is necessary due to the local situation, sensitivity for N) - no identification of sensitive areas

--

FR Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) + Art. 5(4)

108 SA 66.66 7th Report: 113 SA, covering 66.63% of the national territory

DE Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(4) Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas

--

HR Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) 81 SA + 55 CSA 79.94

HU Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) 3 SA 7.04 --

IE Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) 59 SA + 56 CSA 49.31 7th Report: same number of SA and CSA, covering 50.48% of the national territory

IT Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) + Art. 5(4)

No complete dataset reported.

54.43 7th Report: 204 SA + 188 CSA, covering 54.45% of the national territory

LV Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(2,3) Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas

--

LT Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(2,3) Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas

--

LU Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(2,3) Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas

--

MT Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) 8 SA only coastal area

identified as SA --

NL Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(4) Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas

--

PL Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(4) Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas

7th Report: Application of Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(2,3)

PT Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) 25 SA + 25 CSA + 3 LSA 28.3 --


17

17

Member State

UWWTD Articles applied Number of sensitive areas and catchment of sensitive areas identified

% of national territory identified as sensitive area or catchment of sensitive area

Changes since the 7th Implementation Report

RO Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(2,3) Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P - no identification of sensitive areas

--

SK Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) - entire territory

Application of Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) for entire territory, sensitivity N and P

100 --

SI Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) 146 SA + 146 CSA, 89 areas designated according to Article 9 UWWTD

96.71 7th Report: 58 SA + 58 CSA, covering 39.73% of the national territory

SE Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) - entire territory

Application of Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) for entire territory, sensitivity N and P for Southern Coast, sensitivity P for Northern Coast and inland waters

100 --

UK Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) 589 SA + 232 CSA 46.46 7th Report: 331 SA + 196 CSA, covering 43.16% of the national territory

Table 4: Overview of sensitive areas and catchment areas of sensitive areas in EU-28 Member States

(reference date 31 December 2011 or 31 December 2012).


18

18

3 Assessment of compliance with the requirements of the Directive in EU-28 Member States

3.1 Relevant obligations

The compliance is assessed comparing the amount of waste water load that receives the

treatment requested by the Directive (i.e. which is collected, which receives secondary

treatment and which receives more stringent treatment) with the amount that,

theoretically, should receive such treatment (the so called subjected load).

As a general criterion, it has been considered that all EU-15 EU Member States have to

comply with all provisions in the Directive by the date of reference for this reporting

exercise (i.e. 31 December 2011 or – in case more updated information was available –

31 December 2012). For EU-13 EU Member States, certain transitional deadlines are in

force and were considered to define the load that should be subject to collection or

treatment (subjected load).

In those EU Member States subject to full compliance with the requirements of the

Directive for this reporting period (i.e. EU-15 EU Member States as well as CZ, EE, LT

and MT), all agglomerations with a size of more than 2,000 p.e. are considered to be

obliged to meet provisions in Articles 3 and 4 (excepting those between 2,000 p.e. and

10,000 p.e. discharging into coastal waters, not subject to Article 4). Compliance with

Article 5(2,3) is not requested for agglomerations smaller than 10,000 p.e. which

discharge into sensitive areas and their catchments, and for agglomerations discharging

into "normal areas”. When applicable, compliance with Article 5(4) has been checked (as

an alternative to Article 5(2,3), since the level of treatment is not requested at

agglomeration-level, instead a minimum reduction rate of 75% for total nitrogen and total

phosphorus needs to be achieved for the entire load entering the UWWTPs of the

respective area).

3.2 Assessment of compliance with the requirements of the Directive

The compliance assessment results with the requirements of the Directive for all EU-28

Member States as regards Article 3, 4 and 5 are presented in Table 5 as well as Figures

10, 11 and 12 below. Due to the poor quality of data reported by Italy and Poland, both

data sets are not presented in the below table.

As regards compliance with Article 3 (collecting systems) the European Union as a whole

reaches 98% (EU-15 100% and EU-13 86%). 20 EU Member States show a compliant

collection level of 100% of the waste water load, BE has a compliance rate of 98%, RO of

99% and EE for 94% for Article 3. Only two EU Member States are collecting less than

60% of the load that should be collected (BG only 12% and SI 57%).

As regards requirements of Article 4 (secondary treatment) the European Union as a

whole reaches a compliance rate of 92% (EU-15 94% and EU-13 68%). 16 EU Member

States reach a level of compliance between 90% and 100%. Five EU Member States (CY,

CZ, FR, PT and ES) are having a compliance rate between 60% and 90%, RO shows a

compliance rate of 48%. Low compliance rates can be seen in BG (11%) and SI (14%),

MT shows no compliance with Article 4.


19

19

As regards provisions in Article 5 (more stringent treatment), the EU as a whole reaches

88% (EU-15 95% and EU-13 32%). Ten EU Member States reach levels of compliance

between 90% and 100%. Five EU Member States (BE, EE, HU, PT and SE) show

compliance rates with more stringent treatment for 60% to 90% of the relevant waste

water load. Ten EU Member States are on the other hand still below 50% of compliance;

out of these LV and MT have 0% compliance with Article 5, BG and IE show compliance

for 1% of waste water load only.

Member State Article 3

compliance rate (%) Article 4

compliance rate (%) Article 5

compliance rate (%)

Austria 100 100 100

Belgium 98 97 82

Bulgaria 12 11 1

Croatia transition period pending transition period pending transition period pending

Cyprus 100 60 100

Czech Republic 100 87 54

Denmark 100 99 99

Estonia 94 97 89

Finland 100 100 100

France 100 88 99

Germany 100 100 100

Greece 100 96 100

Hungary 100 93 64

Ireland 100 91 1

Italy - - -

Latvia 100 99 0

Lithuania 100 100 97

Luxembourg 100 99 42

Malta 100 0 0

Netherlands 100 100 100

Poland - - -

Portugal 100 77 73

Romania 99 48 16

Slovakia 100 98 43

Slovenia 57 14 34

Spain 100 86 38

Sweden 100 98 89

United Kingdom 100 98 96

EU 15* 100 94 95

EU 13** 86 68 32

EU 28 98 92 88

Table 5: National compliance rates as concerns Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 (colors show ranges of

compliance: red 0% - 20%, orange >20% - 40%, yellow >40% - 60%, green >60 – 80%, blue >80% -

100%, white no data or transition period still pending).


20

20

Figure 10: Assessment of compliance with Article 3 (in relation to the generated load subject to compliance with Article 3) for EU-28 Member States.


21

21

Figure 11: Assessment of compliance with Article 4 (in relation to the generated load subject to compliance with Article 4) for EU-28 Member States.


22

22

Figure 12: Assessment of compliance with Article 5 (in relation to the generated load subject to compliance with Article 5) for EU-28 Member States


23

23

The maps in Figure 13, 14 and 15 show compliance rates for collecting systems (Article 3),

secondary treatment (Article 4) and more stringent treatment (Article 5) in EU-28 Member

States as a percentage of the load subject to compliance.

Figure 13: Share of generated load compliant with Article 3 of the Directive in EU-28 Member States.


24

24



25

25



26

26

3.3 Assessment of compliance with the requirements of the Directive on regional level

The assessment of compliance with the requirements of the Directive is for the first time in

this Report not only presented on national, but also on regional level (NUTS2 level). The

additional presentation of compliance results on the basis of NUTS2 level regions provides

a better correlation with data presented by Eurostat and information required for the

application of several EU funds, such as the European Regional Development Fund.

Furthermore citizens are often interested in getting information on the waste water situation

at a level which is closer than the national level, i.e. in their respective regions.

For all EU Member States a table and different maps for Article 3, 4 and 5 present the

compliance results on regional level (see Annex V as per EU Member State). In Figure 16,

17 and 18, compliance with the requirements of the Directive are shown on regional level

for EU-28 Member States. Due to the fact that no dataset was available for Poland and only

partial results available for Italy, both EU Member States are not displayed on the maps. As

the compliance figures for Romania are based on the total generated waste water load of

the entire territory, compliance on regional level cannot be presented for Romania.

As it is visible from figures 16 to 18, the number of NUTS2 regions substantially varies over

Europe: Six EU Member States reported their whole territory as one NUTS2 region (CY,

EE, LT, LU, LV and MT). Based on their size of the territory, the number of regions ranges

from two regions (IE, SI) to 13 regions in Greece, 19 regions in Spain, 26 regions in France,

38 regions in the United Kingdom and 42 regions in Germany. All other EU Member States

have reported between 5 and 12 NUTS2 regions for their entire territory.

Apart from those EU Member States having 100% compliance rates for Article 3 (collection)

for the entire territory (AT, CY, CZ, DK, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, IE, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, PT, SK,

ES, SE and UK), certain regions in BE and EE show compliance rates above 80%. Far less

compliance rates are reported for region “Eastern Slovenian” (17%) and certain regions in

Bulgaria (ranging from 0 to 25% of compliance rates).

Five EU Member States (AT, FI, BE, LT and NL) show 100% compliance rates for Article 4

(secondary treatment) for all regions; many regions in BE, CZ, DK, ES, EL, ES, FR, HU, IE,

LU, LV, PT, SE, SK and UK show compliance rates above 80%. Compliance rates less than

20% can be found in several regions in Bulgaria, Malta, the Regiao Autonoma da Madeira

(Portugal), Eastern Slovenija and Western Slovenija as well as in Gibraltar.

AT, CY, FI, DE, EL and NL have 100% compliance rates for more stringent treatment

(Article 5) over the whole territory. Certain regions in BE, CZ, DK, EE, ES, FR, HU, LT, SE

and UK show compliance rates above 80%. “Region de Bruxelles-Capitale”, several regions

in Bulgaria and Spain, “Praha”, “Del-Dunantul” (HU), regions “Border, Midland and Western”

and “Southern and Eastern” in Ireland, Latvija, Malta, “Eastern Slovenija” and “Bratislavsky

kraj” (Slovakia) show compliance rates below 20%.

When classifying the regions in groups of “(trend to) urban” (more than 66.7% of

agglomerations above 10,000 p.e.), “(trend to) rural” (more than 66.7% of agglomerations

below 10,000 p.e.) and the rest of regions to “balanced rural-urban” (see figure 19), it can

be seen that most of the regions with bad performances with Article 3, 4 and 5 are “rural”

regions. This is in particular the case for performances of more stringent treatment (Article

5) and to a minor extent also for requirements of collection (Article 3) and secondary

treatment (Article 4).


27

27

Figure 16: Compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Directive on regional level in EU-28

Member States.


28

28


Member States.


29

29


Member States.


30

30

Figure 19: Compliance with the requirements of Article 3, 4 and 5 of the Directive on regional level in

EU-28 Member States; classification in more than 66.7% of agglomerations above 10,000 p.e. (trend to

urban); more than 66.7% of agglomerations below 10,000 p.e. (trend to rural) and rest of regions

(balanced rural-urban).


31

31

3.4 Status of urban waste water infrastructure and treatment in big cities/big dischargers

Although the term “big city” or “big discharger” is not provided in the Directive, it has been

used since the 2nd

Implementation Report in order to highlight waste water treatment in

the biggest stressors to the aquatic environment. “Big cities” present “real” cities with

more than 150,000 inhabitants, which may consist of one or several agglomerations (e.g.

Madrid or London). On the other hand, the term “big discharger” represents all

agglomerations with more than 150,000 p.e.

For the reference year of this Report, EU-28 Member States reported 463 big cities with a

total generated waste water load of 227.4 Mio. p.e. (see Table 6). It has to be noted that –

due to the poor quality of data reported from Italy and Poland – these two data sets are

not included in this assessment.

There are no grounds in the Directive to assess the compliance of big cities as such. The

best available waste water treatment in these cities is usually the parameter considered to

assess their performance as regards the general obligations prescribed by the Directive.

Over the last years the trend shows a general improvement, since the amounts of waste

water which are not treated or collected or which are treated through individual systems

decrease. In addition, increased quantities of waste water receive nutrient removal

treatments or at least secondary treatment. Nearly one quarter of the entire pollution load

originating from big cities furthermore receives other more stringent treatment (e.g.

filtration, UV disinfection) in addition to secondary or nutrients-removal treatment.

The current situation is summarized in Figures 20 and 21 taking into account the different

types of areas (i.e. sensitive areas to comply with Articles 5(2,3) or Article 5(4) and normal

areas).

Up to 64.3% of the generated waste water load in big cities discharging into an area

requiring the treatment specified by Article 5(2) of the Directive receives such treatment.

However, an important share of waste water load (32%) receives secondary treatment

only. Moreover, 1.4% of the waste water load of big cities discharging into Article 5(2)

areas is collected but discharged without any treatment.

As regards big cities discharging into areas requiring the treatment specified by Article

5(4) of the Directive (i.e. a reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus of at least 75% as a

whole), the situation seems to be better: up to 97% of the total generated waste water

load receives the required treatment.

Table 6 as well as Figure 20 and Figure 21 reflect the percentage of the generated load of

big cities for which a specific treatment installation is in place. The different collection

pathways and the best available treatment types are reflected in Table 6; more stringent

treatment is presented as 3N, 3P and 3NP (representing the type of more stringent

treatment primarily requested by the Directive) and other more stringent treatment (e.g.

UV disinfection, filtration).

Technical assessment of implementation of Directive 91/271/EEC 32

Best available treatment

Type of SA

Number of big

cities/big dis-

chargers

Total generated

load

Not collected / not treated

in IAS Treated in IAS

Collected without

treatment Primary Secondary

More stringent treatment (3N, 3P,

3NP)

Other more stringent

treatment (e.g. UV, filtration)

5(4) or 5(2,3)

Mpe Mpe % of gen. load

Mpe % of gen. load

Mpe % of gen. load

Mpe % of gen. load

Mpe % of gen. load

Mpe % of gen.

load Mpe

% of gen. load

Normal area / less sensitive area

118 51.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.8 0.3 0.5 1.1 2.1 34.1 66.2 15.1 29.3 20.0 38.9

Article 5(4) Sensitive Area

184 87.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 2.0 2.3 85.0 97.0 12.8 14.6

Article 5(2,3) Sensitive Area

157 88.3 1.5 1.7 0.4 0.4 1.3 1.4 0.2 0.2 28.3 32.0 56.7 64.3 11.8 13.4

Total: 463 227.4 1.5 0.7 1.9 0.8 1.6 0.7 1.3 0.6 64.5 28.4 156.7 68.9 44.7 19.7

Table 6: Number and size of big cities / big dischargers in different receiving areas in EU-28.


33

33

Figure 20: Best available waste water treatment in EU-28 big cities (in % of total generated load)

discharging into different receiving areas (Article 5(2,3) areas, Article 5(4) areas and normal areas).

Figure 21: Best available waste water treatment of big cities / big dischargers located in different

receiving areas in EU-28 (loads per treatment category in % of total generated load).

The trend of a decreasing fraction of waste water generated load of big cities/big

discharger “not collected in collecting systems and not addressed through IAS”,

“addressed through IAS” and “collected in collecting system and discharged without


34

34

treatment” is also confirmed in this Report. At the same time more and more waste water

receives nutrient removal (i.e. nitrogen- and/ or phosphorus removal) or at least

secondary treatment.

Table 7 describes the compliance status of capitals of all EU-28 Member States. Taking

into account the deadlines to implement the Directive, all EU capitals with the exception of

Zagreb (Croatia) are fully due to compliance at the reference date of this Report.

Out of these, 14 capitals (Vienna, Copenhagen, Tallin, Helsinki, Paris, Berlin, Athens,

Budapest, Vilnius, Amsterdam, Lisbon, Madrid, Stockholm and London) are in compliance

with requirements of collection (Article 3), secondary treatment (Article 4) and more

stringent treatment (Article 5).

12 capitals (Brussels, Sofia, Nicosia, Prague, Dublin, Rome, Riga, Luxembourg, La

Valetta, Bucarest, Bratislava and Ljubljana) are considered as non compliant in the final

assessment due to failing compliance with Article 3 (Sofia and Bucarest), Article 4 (Sofia,

Nicosia, Rome, La Valetta, Bucarest and Ljubljana) and/or Article 5 (Brussels, Sofia,

Prague, Dublin, Riga, Luxembourg, Bucarest and Bratislava).

Sofia and Bucarest are non compliant with Article 3 (collection), as the generated waste

water load is only partially collected. Due to the hierarchical approach (i.e. non-

compliance with Article 3 implies non-compliance with Article 4 and 5, if applicable), these

two capitals are also non compliant with the requirements of Article 4 and 5.

The reasons for non compliance with secondary treatment (Article 4) are failing monitoring

results for secondary treatment in Nicosia and La Valetta, only partly sufficient monitoring

results for Ljubljana and generated waste water load partially collected in collecting

systems without treatment in Rome and Bucarest.

In terms of not meeting the requirements of Article 5 (more stringent treatment), the

reasons can be summarized as follows: failing monitoring results for more stringent

treatment in Prague, more stringent treatment is only partially installed for the capitals

Brussels, Luxembourg and Bratislava, no more stringent treatment is in place in Riga and

only secondary treatment is reported for Dublin.

As Poland did not report data in the agreed format, compliance for Warsaw was not

possible to be assessed.

Compared to the last Report, Tallinn, Lisbon and London are compliant with collection

(Article 3), secondary treatment (Article 4) and more stringent treatment (Article 5) in this

reporting period.

MEMBER STATE

CAPITAL CITY Population (CAPITAL)

Collection (Article 3)

Secondary Treatment (Article 4)

More stringent Treatment (Article 5.2 or 5.4)

FINAL Assessment

Austria Vienna 4000000 C C C C

Belgium Brussels 1,460,000 C C NC NC

Bulgaria Sofia 2,037,000 NC NC NC NC

Croatia Zagreb 957,301 NR NR NR NCO

Cyprus Nicosia 235,000 C NC NA NC


35

35

Czech Republic Prague 1,140,489 C C NC NC

Denmark Copenhagen 1,100,000 C C C C

Estonia Tallin 468,000 C C C C

Finland Helsinki 1,223,100 C C C C

France Paris 9,577,285 C C C C

Germany Berlin 3,948,976 C C C C

Greece Athens 5,200,000 C C C C

Hungary Budapest 2,468,109 C C NA C

Ireland Dublin 2,362,329 C C NC NC

Italy Rome 2768000 C NC NA NC

Latvia Riga 762,739 C C NC NC

Lithuania Vilnius 703,000 C C C C

Luxembourg Luxembourg 228,741 C C NC NC

Malta La Valetta 429,009 C NC NA NC

Netherlands Amsterdam 901,908 C C C C

Poland Warsaw ND ND ND ND

Portugal Lisbon 1,063,000 C C NA C

Romania Bucarest 2,159,995 NC NC NC NC

Slovakia Bratislava 600,032 C C NC NC

Slovenia Ljubljana 302293 C NC NA NC

Spain Madrid 4,072,507

C C NR C

Sweden Stockholm 2,586,400 C C C C

United Kingdom London 10,012,460 C C C C

Table 7: Table with status of capital cities in EU-28 (C = compliance, NC = non compliance, NR = not

relevant as the deadline is not expired yet, either for Article 3, 4 or 5, NA = not applicable as

agglomeration is discharging into normal area, NCO = no compliance obgligation (in general) and ND =

no data available). Compliance with Article 5.4 refers to the area of discharge of the agglomeration.

3.5 Comparison of implementation and compliance

3.5.1 General overview

The implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive is more challenging

than expected. However, comparing the values of compliance rates published by the

European Commission in the Implementation reports starting with the year 1998, a positive

pattern appears: compliance increases over time (see Table 8 and Figure 22).8

8 Due to difference in the situation of reporting for the different Implementation Reports, the following

needs to be highlighted: Only advanced treatment obligations were relevant for the reference year of

the report published in 2002 (2nd Report). For the 3rd Report data on collection were not published.

Nine EU Member States (BG, CZ, ES, EL, IE, IT, MT, PL and UK) are missing in the presentation of

the 5th Report. The 6th Report did not include a dataset for UK. This report does not include data for

IT and PL.


36

36

2nd

Report 3rd Report 4

th Report 5

th Report 6

th Report 7

th Report 8

th Report

Reference year 1998 2000/2001 2001/2002 2005/2006 2007/2008 2009/2010 2011/2012

Compliance rate (%)

Collection -- 83 -- 99 93 94 98

Biological treatment -- 69 79 86 78 82 92

Advanced treatment 9 14 84 85 75 77 88

Table 8: Development of compliance rates over time.

Figure 22: Development of compliance rates over time.

Plotting these values also shows the positive trends. Downwards segments are explained

by the use of more accurate calculation methods and by the incorporation of new EU

Member States to the compliance assessment.

3.5.2 Progress in compliance

In order to assess the progress in compliance with the requirements of the Directive, the

data reported for the 6th Implementation Report (reference years 2007/2008, Q-2009), 7th

Implementation Report (reference years 2009/2010, Q-2011) are compared with data

reported for this Report (reference years 2011/2012, Q-2013). Only those EU Member

States whose compliance has been evaluated and assessed in the respective Reports are

considered; UK was not included in the 6th Implementation Report, datasets for IT and PL

are not covered in this Report.

Table 9 provides the progress in compliance with Article 3, 4 and 5 in absolute figures and

% of the subjected load. Increases in the compliance rates are highlighted in green,

decreases in red and no changes in the compliance rates are presented in orange colour.

It can be highlighted that several EU Member States already achieve the maximum level of

the compliance rate of 100% for Article 3, Article 4 and/or Article 5 over the past years and

hence, no changes are displayed in the progress of the compliance rate over the three past

reporting periods. However, it is important to stress that the status of waste water treatment


37

37

is not stagnating on a high level for these respective EU Member States, but regularly

improved even going beyond the requirements of the Directive (e.g. further advanced waste

water treatment, improved maintenance and technical equipment of UWWTPs, etc.). In

order to highlight this particular situation of maximum compliance rates equal to 100%, the

respective cells are coloured in yellow.


38

Subjected load Subjected load Compliance rateCompliance rate Subjected load Subjected load Compliance rateCompliance rate Subjected load Subjected load Compliance rateCompliance rate

Q2009 - Q2011Q2011 - Q2013 Q2009 - Q2011Q2011 - Q2013 Q2009 - Q2011Q2011 - Q2013 Q2009 - Q2011Q2011 - Q2013 Q2009 - Q2011Q2011 - Q2013 Q2009 - Q2011Q2011 - Q2013

(p.e.) (p.e.) (%) (%) (p.e.) (p.e.) (%) (%) (p.e.) (p.e.) (%) (%)

Austria 215,998 135,320 0 0 225,060 119,313 0 0 225,060 119,313 0 0

Belgium -417,400 -112,200 8 20 264,187 -81,251 8 24 217,045 -150,698 4 30

Bulgaria -- 1,994,543 -- -4 -- 1,747,748 -- 5 -- 1,743,984 -- -1

Croatia -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Cyprus -- 143,000 -- 100 -- 199,330 -- 60 -- 52,383 -- 100

Czech Republic 7,310,974 -2,229,388 52 0 7,082,579 -2,179,878 70 6 5,454,104 -2,261,381 8 34

Denmark 14,800 7,000 0 0 -1 -24,011 0 0 18,000 0 0 5

Estonia -- 93,506 -- 65 -- 113,954 -- 66 -- 26,572 -- 68

Finland 167,400 32,500 0 0 194,258 -8,989 -3 3 219,384 -54,052 -36 36

France 1,119,973 1,114,373 -4 4 625,224 1,616,481 20 3 1,656,370 20,902,789 31 12

Germany -252,274 -826,993 0 0 217,476 -828,682 0 0 314,071 -843,034 0 0

Greece 183,018 -52,427 0 0 483,287 -74,618 4 -3 6,333,297 -176,577 16 0

Hungary -- 9,287,155 -- 0 -- 8,441,275 -- -7 -- 14,589 -- 16

Ireland -351,047 -59,137 0 0 -310,719 -3,157 19 51 352,583 272,370 2 -1

Italy -789,226 -- 4 -- 176,042 -- 7 -- 862,167 -- 20 --

Latvia -- 681,275 -- 100 -- 591,374 -- 99 -- 591,374 -- 0

Lithuania -- 101,400 -- 0 -11,131 103,595 11 2 -108,934 74,895 24 12

Luxembourg 16,977 -12,650 0 0 12,881 -8,598 2 41 1,257 -10,143 3 4

Malta -967 -80,829 0 0 -967 -70,629 -8 -5 -967 4,079 0 0

Netherlands 452,357 1,065,284 0 0 448,779 1,055,774 0 0 452,357 1,065,284 0 0

Poland 7,126,993 -- 5 -- 8,798,503 -- -35 -- -762,597 -- -- --

Portugal 3,500 569,693 8 3 -652,285 622,786 11 30 -312,920 1,241,900 4 53

Romania -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Slovakia -272,735 320,411 58 0 -902,433 359,804 67 8 -- -- -- --

Slovenia -- 731,429 -- 25 -- 643,424 -- -8 -- -8,541 -- 11

Spain 869,491 -1,318,256 0 2 876,842 -1,104,558 3 0 581,947 1,201,764 22 -16

Sweden -580,759 4,774,266 0 0 -595,941 4,751,813 0 -1 -532,530 4,708,197 13 2

UK -- 124,090 -- 0 -- 97,844 -- 1 -- -6,513,300 -- 33

Article 3 Article 4 Article 5

Table 9: Development of the load subject to compliance with and the compliance rates for Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 from Q-2009 to Q-2011 and from Q-2011 to

Q-2013 (green arrows highlight increases, red arrows show decreases and orange arrows indicate no changes).


39

Figure 23, Figure 25 and Figure 27 present the progress in compliance rates with Article 3,

Article 4 and Article 5 in % of the subjected load; the generated waste water load subject to

compliance with Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5 in absolute numbers including the indication of

the % of compliance rate is highlighted in Figure 24, Figure 26 and Figure 28.

When looking at the compliance rates with Article 3 (collection) it can be noted that the

maximum compliance rate of 100% is being consequently achieved in many EU-MS over the

last reporting periods, i.e. for AT, CZ, DK, DE, EL, FI, IE, LU, MT, NL and SE (see Table 9); LT

and UK show 100% compliance with the requirement of collecting systems for total generated

waste water load in the 7th and 8th Implementation Report. LV and CY have 100% compliance

rates for Article 3 in this Report. BE, EE and SI show significant improved compliance rates.

A decrease of load subject to Article 3 from the 7th to the 8th Implementation Report can be

observed for CZ and ES. This decrease is mainly due to the fact that the EU Member States

recalculated the agglomerations’ size on basis of new data from census, tourists and industry.

On the other side, a considerable increase of load subject to Article 3 was reported by FR, NL

and SE.

As for compliance with Article 4 (secondary treatment) the high score of more than 95% of

compliance over the past years, is consequently achieved in AT, DK, DE and NL. The

compliance rate for all other EU-MS significantly varies over the last reporting periods.

Significantly improved compliance rates for Article 4 can be seen for IE, LU, PT and BE over

the last years. Taking into account the hierarchical approach of the compliance assessment

(i.e. non-compliance with Article 3 implies non-compliance with Article 4), this development is

due to both, improved waste water treatment and improved copmpliance rates for Article 3.

As for compliance with Article 5 AT, DE and NL provide more than 95% compliance rates with

Article 5 for the last three reporting periods, whereas MT achieves this rate for the last three

Implementation Reports. CY reached 100% compliance with Article 5 in the 8th

Implementation Report. BE, CZ and PT show significantly improved compliance rates over the

past three Reports.


40

Figure 23: Progress in compliance rates for Article 3 UWWTD (reference year 2007/2008 for the 6th

Implementation Report (Q-2009), reference year 2009/2010 for the

7th

Implementation Report (Q-2011), reference year 2011/2012 for the 8th

Implementation Report (Q-2013)) in % of the subjecte

Documents

Technical assessment of the implementation of Council ... · Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive 91/271/EEC IV LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: DATE OF (FIRST AND FINAL)