-
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
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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 14: SHARE OF GENERATED LOAD COMPLIANT WITH ARTICLE 4 OF
THE DIRECTIVE IN EU-28 MEMBER STATES. ....... 24
FIGURE 15: SHARE OF GENERATED LOAD COMPLIANT WITH ARTICLE 5 OF
THE DIRECTIVE IN EU-28 MEMBER STATES. ....... 25
FIGURE 16: COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE
DIRECTIVE ON REGIONAL LEVEL IN EU-28 MEMBER STATES.
........................................................................................................................................................
27
FIGURE 17: COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE
DIRECTIVE ON REGIONAL LEVEL IN EU-28 MEMBER STATES.
........................................................................................................................................................
28
FIGURE 18: COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE
DIRECTIVE ON REGIONAL LEVEL IN EU-28 MEMBER STATES.
........................................................................................................................................................
29
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
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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
FIGURE 26: LOAD (P.E.) SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 4 AND
COMPLIANT WITH ARTICLE 4 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). ................ 43
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
FIGURE 28: LOAD (P.E.) SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 5 AND
COMPLIANT WITH ARTICLE 5 AND COMPLIANCE RATES (%) AS REPORTED FOR
THE 7
TH IMPLEMENTATION REPORT AND THE 8
H IMPLEMENTATION REPORT (LEGEND: A) NO
COMPLETE DATASET SET REPORTED ON TIME AND B) NOT SUBJECT TO
COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE). ................ 45
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
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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.
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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.
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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:
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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.
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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%.
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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.)
Number agglomerations
Generated load (p.e.)
Number agglomerations
Generated load (p.e.)
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
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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.
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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.
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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).
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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.
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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).
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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.
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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 --
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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).
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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.
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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).
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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.
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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.
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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.
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
24
24
Figure 14: Share of generated load compliant with Article 4 of
the Directive in EU-28 Member States.
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
25
25
Figure 15: Share of generated load compliant with Article 5 of
the Directive in EU-28 Member States.
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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).
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
27
27
Figure 16: Compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of the
Directive on regional level in EU-28
Member States.
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
28
28
Figure 17: Compliance with the requirements of Article 4 of the
Directive on regional level in EU-28
Member States.
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
29
29
Figure 18: Compliance with the requirements of Article 5 of the
Directive on regional level in EU-28
Member States.
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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).
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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.
-
Technical assessment of implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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.
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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
-
Technical assessment of the implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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.
-
Technical assessment of implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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).
-
Technical assessment of implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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.
-
Technical assessment of implementation of Directive
91/271/EEC
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