10th technical assessment on the urban waste water ... · to target, 2012-2016 [% of waste water...

Written by Benoît Fribourg-Blanc, Nicolas Dhuygelaere, Camille Madec, Cynthia Hocquet, Jean Marc Berland (OIEau) with active support from Thomas Neumann and Xavier Le Den (Ramboll) [June 2020]

10th Technical assessment on the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD)

Implementation 2016European Review and National Situation

Final version

CONFIDENTIALITY AND COPYRIGHT

This document has been produced by the Office International de l’Eau: Benoît

Fribourg-Blanc, Nicolas Dhuygelaere, Camille Madec, Cynthia Hocquet, Jean Marc

Berland with active support from Ramboll: Thomas Neumann and Xavier Le Den,

for the European Commission, DG Environment. It reflects data reported by

Member States as of 31 December 2016. This document does not necessarily

represent the official position of the European Commission or of any Member

State of the European Union.

Photos on next page: secondary treatment basins of Waste Water Treatment

Plant of Vienna, Austria (photo 1) and more stringent basin (photo 2), secondary

treatment basins of Waste Water Treatment Plant of Paris Seine aval, France

(photo 3), Bucharest manhole cover, Romania (photo 4).

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for EnvironmentDirectorate C - Quality of LifeUnit C2 - Marine Environment and Water IndustryEuropean Commission B-1049 Brussels

LEGAL NOTICE

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

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

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020

PDF ISBN 978-92-76-20423-7 doi:10.2779/23677 KH-04-20-389-EN-N

© European Union, 2020

The Commission’s reuse policy is implemented by Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39 – https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/2011/833/oj).

Unless otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed, provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated.

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the EU, permission may need to be sought directly from the respective rightholders.

10th Technical assessment on UWWTD implementation 2016

European overview & national situation

March 2020

- i –– Ramboll & Office International de l’Eau –

Under contract DG 070201/2018/787684/SFRA/ENV.C.2

Table of contents

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

II INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 4

III GENERAL INFORMATION ON DATA COLLECTED ......................................................... 6

III.1 Summary on 2016 data collection and data assessment process ....................................... 6III.2 Agglomerations, waste water load & treatment plants ..................................................... 7III.2.1 The size of agglomerations in the EU .......................................................................... 8III.2.2 The number and size of agglomerations, and changes between 2014 and 2016 per Member

State ..................................................................................................................... 9

III.2.3 Where the waste water load comes from in the EU ..................................................... 11III.2.4 Where the waste water load comes from per country .................................................. 11III.2.5 Type of treatment plants and their total design capacity in the EU, and number of each

type by Member State ............................................................................................ 14

III.3 Types of discharge areas per Member State ................................................................. 15III.4 Deadlines and transitional periods per Member State .................................................... 21

IV LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE (LEGAL COMPLIANCE) .................. 22

IV.1 Compliance rates for collection, secondary treatment and more stringent treatment: EUoverview ................................................................................................................ 23

IV.2 Compliance rates for collection, secondary treatment and more stringent treatment: bycountry .................................................................................................................. 24

IV.2.1 Compliance rate for collection .................................................................................. 24IV.2.2 Compliance rate for secondary treatment .................................................................. 27IV.2.3 Compliance rate for more stringent treatment ............................................................ 29

IV.3 Compliance rates for collection, secondary treatment and more stringent treatment:Historical trends ...................................................................................................... 31

IV.4 Conclusions on compliance rates ................................................................................ 34

V DISTANCE TO TARGET ............................................................................................ 35

V.1 Distance to target for collection, secondary treatment and more stringent treatment in the

EU ......................................................................................................................... 35

V.2 Evolution of distance to target per country for collection, secondary treatment and more

stringent treatment .................................................................................................. 36

V.2.1 Distance to target for collection ............................................................................... 36

V.2.2 Distance to target for secondary treatment ................................................................ 41

V.2.3 Distance to target for more stringent treatment ......................................................... 45

V.3 Trends in distance to target – historical evolution of distance to target ............................. 49

V.4 Conclusions on distance to target ............................................................................... 49

VI COMPARISON OF NON-COMPLIANCE AND DISTANCE TO TARGET PER COUNTRY ..... 51

VII IAS ......................................................................................................................... 54

VIII COMPLIANCE IN BIG CITIES / BIG DISCHARGERS .................................................. 58

IX PRODUCTION OF SLUDGE, SLUDGE REUSE AND DISPOSAL ...................................... 60

X NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMMES .......................................................... 62

X.1 Requirements (Article 17) ......................................................................................... 62

X.2 Summary on investments in new infrastructure and renewal of existing infrastructure ....... 62

X.3 Assessment of the 28 National Implementation Programmes .......................................... 68

XI ANNEX I: ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY ............................................................ 71

XII ANNEX II: ACCESSION TREATY DEADLINES AND TRANSITIONAL PERIODS ............. 75

XIII ANNEX III: NATIONAL CHAPTERS ........................................................................... 80



March 2020

- ii – – Ramboll & Office International de l’Eau –




March 2020

- iii – – Ramboll & Office International de l’Eau –


List of figures

Figure 1. Number of agglomerations per Member State in 2016 [number of agglomerations] ............... 8

Figure 2. Size of agglomerations per Member State in 2016 [Number of agglomerations per size] ...... 10

Figure 3: How the load is distributed by size of agglomeration per Member State in 2016 [% of the total

waste water load generated for agglomerations >100,000 p.e.] .............................................. 13

Figure 4. Number of treatment plants per treatment level and Member State in 2016 [number of treatment

plants] ............................................................................................................................ 15

Figure 5: Overview map of sensitive areas and catchment of sensitive areas and the application of Article

5(8) of the UWWTD per Member State in 2016 ..................................................................... 18

Figure 6: Compliance rate for the Directive in the EU-28 in the period 2012-2016 [% of waste water load

of agglomerations which complied with the Directive for the given year] Note: 2012 column shows

2010/2012 data ............................................................................................................... 23

Figure 7: Compliance rates for Articles 3, 4 and 5 in EU-28 in 2016 [% of waste water load of

agglomerations which complied with a given Article].............................................................. 24

Figure 8: Compliance rate for Article 3 per Member State in 2016 [% of waste water load subject to Article

3]. ................................................................................................................................. 25

Figure 9: Map of compliance with Article 3 of the UWWTD at regional level in 2016 [% rate regarding

expired deadlines] ............................................................................................................ 26

Figure 10: Compliance rate for Article 4 per Member State in 2016 [% of waste water load subject to

Article 4] ......................................................................................................................... 27



Figure 12: Compliance rate for Article 5 per Member State in 2016 [% of waste water load subject to

Article 5]. ........................................................................................................................ 29



Figure 14: Development of compliance rates over time in the period 1998-2016 in Europe (increasing

Member States coverage) [% of compliance for the given year] .............................................. 32

Figure 15: Development of compliance rates over time in the period 2012-2016 in EU-28 [% of compliance

for the given year] ........................................................................................................... 33

Figure 16: Development of compliant load over time in the period 2012-2016 in EU-28 [% of compliance

for the given year] ........................................................................................................... 33

Figure 17. Distance to target for collection, secondary treatment and more stringent treatment in EU-28

in 2016 [% of waste water load for all agglomerations. This load did not meet criteria for compliance

in a given year] ............................................................................................................... 36

Figure 18: Distance to target for collection in EU-28 for the period 2012-2016 [% of waste water load for

all agglomerations. This load did not meet criteria for compliance in a given year] Note: 2012 column

shows 2010/2012 data ...................................................................................................... 37

Figure 19: Distance to target for collection (Article 3) for MS which have >10% distance to target in the

period 2012-2016 [% of waste water load of all agglomerations. This load did not meet criteria for

compliance for the given year] ........................................................................................... 38

Figure 20: Distance to target for collection (Article 3) per Member State in 2016 (only MS with values

above 0% are included) [% of waste water load of all agglomerations. This load did not meet criteria

for compliance in 2016]..................................................................................................... 39



March 2020

- iv – – Ramboll & Office International de l’Eau –


Figure 21: Map of the distance to target under Article 3 of the UWWTD at regional level in 2016 [% rate

regarding expired deadlines] .............................................................................................. 40

Figure 22: Distance to target of the Directive for secondary treatment in the EU, 2012-2016 [% of waste

water load for all agglomerations. This load did not meet criteria for compliance in a given year]

Note: 2012 column shows 2010/2012 data .......................................................................... 41

Figure 23: Distance to target for secondary treatment (Article 4) for Member States which have >10%

distance to target, 2012-2016 [% of waste water load of all agglomerations. This load did not meet

criteria for compliance for the given year] ............................................................................ 42

Figure 24: Distance to target for secondary treatment (Article 4) per Member State in 2016 (only MS with

values above 0% are included) [% of waste water load of all agglomerations. This load did not meet

criteria for compliance in 2016] .......................................................................................... 43

Figure 25: Map of the distance to target with Article 4 of the UWWTD at regional level in 2016 [% rate


Figure 26: Distance to target of the Directive for more stringent treatment in the EU, 2012-2016 [% of

waste water load for all agglomerations. This load did not meet criteria for compliance in a given

year] Note: 2012 column shows 2010/2012 data .................................................................. 45

Figure 27: Distance to target for more stringent treatment (Article 5) for Member States which have

>10% distance to target in the period 2010-2016 [% of waste water load of all agglomerations. This

load did not meet criteria for compliance for the given year] ................................................... 46

Figure 28: Distance to target for more stringent treatment (Article 5) per Member State in 2016 (only MS

with values above 0% are included) [% of waste water load of all agglomerations. This load did not

meet criteria for compliance in 2016] .................................................................................. 47

Figure 29: Map of the distance to target with Article 5 of the UWWTD at regional level in 2016 [% rate


Figure 30: Development of distance to target rates for the period 2012-2016 in EU-28 [% rate regarding

expired deadlines]. ........................................................................................................... 49

Figure 31: Waste water load connected to IAS per Member State in 2016 [% of generated waste water

load of all agglomerations] ................................................................................................ 55

Figure 32: Classification of Member States by the percentage of generated load connected to IAS in 2016

(only MS reporting IAS included) [% of generated waste water load of all agglomerations] ......... 56

Figure 33: Classification of Member States by the number of agglomerations that apply, at individual level,

more than 10% of IAS [number of agglomerations] .............................................................. 57

Figure 34: Sewage sludge reuse in EU-28 in the period 2012-2016 [% of sewage sludge reused in soil

and agriculture] ............................................................................................................... 60

Figure 35: Sewage sludge reuse per Member State in 2016 [% of sewage sludge reused in soil and

agriculture] ..................................................................................................................... 61

Figure 36: Current yearly investments (new and renewal) reported by each Member State in 2016 (only

MS with values are included) [EUR per inhabitant per year] .................................................... 64

Figure 37: Current yearly investments (new and renewed) reported by each Member State in 2016 (only

MS with values are included) [billion € per year] ................................................................... 65

Figure 38: Forecast of Member States by number of planned urban waste water works (collecting systems

and treatment plants) reported by each Member State with planned works reported in 2016 [Number

of planned works] ............................................................................................................ 66

Figure 39: Classification of Member States by investments in new and renewed waste water collecting

systems and treatment plants reported (forecast investment cost) and compared with EU averages

in 2016 (only MS reporting values are included) [EUR/inhabitant/year] .................................... 67



March 2020

- v – – Ramboll & Office International de l’Eau –


List of tables

Table 1: Number of agglomerations ≥2,000 p.e. in EU-28 in 2016.................................................... 8

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

2014 and 2016. ................................................................................................................. 9

Table 3: Number of agglomerations ≥2,000 p.e. by size class per Member State in 2016 ..................... 9

Table 4: Comparison of total number of agglomerations ≥2,000 p.e. per Member State between 2014 and

2016 [% change if >1% and number of agglomerations] ....................................................... 11

Table 5: Load of agglomerations ≥2,000 p.e. of EU-28 per size class in 2016 [generated load in p.e.] . 11

Table 6: Load of agglomerations ≥2,000 p.e. per size class and Member State in 2016 [generated load in

p.e.] ............................................................................................................................... 12

Table 7: Comparison of total load of agglomerations ≥2,000 p.e. per Member State: load in 2016 and

change between 2014 and 2016 [% change if >4%, and generated load in p.e.] ....................... 14

Table 8: Number of treatment plants, load entering and design capacity per treatment level in EU-28 in

2016 .............................................................................................................................. 14

Table 9: Overview of sensitive areas and catchment of sensitive areas per Member State in 2016 and in

comparison with 2014 ....................................................................................................... 19

Table 10: Development of compliance rates over time in Europe in the period 1998-2016 (increasing

Member States coverage) .................................................................................................. 31

Table 11: Distance to target in EU-28 in 2016 [p.e. and percentage of the subjected load] ................ 35

Table 12: Summary situation of compliance and distance to target per Member State in 2016 and

comparison with 2014 (change if >1%). .............................................................................. 52

Table 13: Number and load of big cities in EU-28 in 2016 ............................................................. 58

Table 14: Compliance status of national capitals in 2016 and comparison with 2014 ......................... 59

Table 15: Article 17 information per Member State in 2016 (part 1) ............................................... 69



March 2020

- 1 - – Ramboll & Office International de l’Eau –


I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The objective of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC or Directive concerning urban waste

water treatment (also known as the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive or UWWTD)

is to protect the environment from the adverse effects of discharges of both urban waste

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

industries.

The UWWTD requires that all European settlement areas or agglomerations1 with a size of

2,000 population equivalents (p.e.)2 or above, are equipped with collection and treatment

systems for their waste waters. The UWWTD sets detailed criteria for collection and the

required levels of treatment, which depend on the size of the agglomeration, and the type

of receiving water in which the treated waste waters are discharged.

To assess the level of implementation of the UWWTD, the Commission requests all EU

Member States to report every 2 years with detailed information, especially at

agglomeration and treatment plant level, according to Article 15 of the UWWTD and also

on their implementation programmes, as required by Article 17 of the UWWTD3. The data

treatment and assessment rules are spelled out in a detailed methodology. 4 The

calculations are included in a tool that applies the concept of structured implementation

and information framework (SIIF) for the UWWTD. There are many different and specific

situations but, in short, an agglomeration is considered compliant with the UWWTD only if

it fully collects its waste water and treats it appropriately. Treatment must reduce the

organic pollution in all cases. For agglomerations above 10,000 p.e. and discharging into

sensitive areas, the treatment applied must also reduce at least the nutrients (nitrogen

and/or phosphorus).

This 10th UWWTD implementation report uses the reported data – and the results produced

by the UWWTD-SIIF national platforms – to present the situation in the EU and in its 28

Member States for year 2016. The EU overview is completed by detailed national

assessments, attached in Annex III.

This report also proposes a fully revised approach, as compared to the previous

implementation reports developed since the Directive entered into force. As with previous

1 An agglomeration is an area where the population and/or economic activities are sufficiently concentrated for

urban waste water to be collected and conducted to an urban waste water treatment plant or to a final discharge

point (Article 2(4) of the Directive). Member States define the boundaries of their agglomerations and report

data per each agglomeration.

2 p.e. stands for ‘population equivalents’: the organic biodegradable load has a 5-day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) of 60 g of oxygen per day (Article 2(6) of the Directive). This term reflects organic pollution generated

at agglomerations’ level by their inhabitants and other sources, such as non-resident population and industries

under Articles 11 or 13.

3 Such requests have already been made, especially to Member States acceding the EU since 2004. Formats to

report were updated with the adoption of the Implementing Decision 2014/431/EU, OJ L 197, 4.7.2014, p. 77-

86, and since 2014 such a request is regularly made to all EU Member States.

4 UWWTD legal compliance assessment methodology document

https://uwwtd.eu/docs/Point_5_legal_compliance_assessment_methodology_document.pdf



March 2020



reports, Member States have been involved throughout the process and have provided

regular feedback on preliminary assessment results and additional clarifications.

The report focuses first on the information reported under Article 15 and then on the

information reported under Article 17. In 2016, the UWWTD is applied in full in all EU

Member States, except for Romania (only one pending deadline) and Croatia, which

entered the EU more recently and where transitional periods still exist.

Using information reported under Article 15, the following can be said: 23,600

agglomerations, generating 612 million p.e. (Mio p.e.) of domestic, industrial and run-off

rain waste water have been reported. Among these, the 1,056 biggest agglomerations

(>100,000 p.e.) account for 52% of the waste water generated load. In total, the

agglomerations are connected to 22,000 waste water treatment plants, of which around

17,000 are equipped for more stringent treatment; the remaining waste water treatment

plants are mainly equipped with secondary treatment. However, around

2,200 agglomerations still have no collection and/or treatment in place.

In general, the EU has reached a high level of compliance5 by 2016 with an overall

compliance (collection and treatment) of 81%. Moreover, the rates for collection,

secondary treatment and more stringent treatment are, respectively, 95%, 88% and 86%.

The compliance continues to increase but to a lower extent than in the previous reporting

periods. This is due to a mix of positive and negative changes, including higher generated

loads, worse results in some older Member States and agglomerations found to be not

compliant with their final obligations at the deadlines for some new Member States. Also,

there are still substantial differences between Member States as illustrated in the current

report, but all Member States show a stable situation or progress over the last two

reporting periods.

The low distance to target6 for collection (1%) shows that almost all waste water was

adequately collected in 2016. For secondary and more stringent treatment, the situation

still requires a significant effort with respectively 6 and 8% not adequately treated,

representing 37 and 32 Mio p.e.7

The extent to which Individual and Appropriate Systems (IAS) are used very much differs

between Member States but with an overall 14 Mio p.e. of generated waste water treated

in IAS, it represents a significant share of the load generated in the EU. Member States

have to ensure that IAS provide the same level of protection of the environment as

collecting systems.

In addition to the above on largest agglomerations, the UWWTD identifies specifically the

largest agglomerations (or groups of agglomerations), defining them as ‘big cities’ 8 and

5 An agglomeration is only considered compliant with the UWWTD if it fully collects its waste water AND treats it

appropriately. Figures are then aggregated at EU level to calculate a EU compliance rate.

6 ‘Distance to target’ represents the effort still necessary to reach compliance with the Directive for each

requirement (per article).

7 ‘Distance to target’ for treatment does not include the waste water that is not collected.

8 ‘Big city’ refers to one agglomeration or a group of agglomerations with more than 150,000 p.e. where the

waste water load is mainly of urban origin.



March 2020



‘big dischargers’9. Almost 700 big cities represent 47% of the generated load and more

than 40 of these, which include some capital cities, show values of distance to target of

more than 50% for the treatment of their waste waters.

Treating waste water generated almost 8 Mio tons of sludge in 2016 in the EU. The sludge

destinations vary significantly between Member States. However, agriculture is the main

channel for waste water sludge in most of the Member States: 4 Mio tons of sludge are

used in agriculture and a significant part is incinerated (1 Mio ton) or put in landfills

(0.5 Mio ton).

Implementing the UWWTD requires significant investments in new infrastructure but also

for the maintenance or the extension of existing ones. The investment needed is often

higher for collecting systems than for treatment systems, in particular because sewers are

widely spread in agglomerations (and may need to be continuously extended as

agglomerations increase), while there are generally one or two treatment plants per

agglomeration. Using information reported under the implementation programme (Article

17), the following can be said: the current yearly investment in collection and treatment

plants’ infrastructures varies significantly between Member States. It ranges from EUR 4

to EUR 142 per inhabitant and per year for those Member States having reported this

information. The national programmes also include investments in planned works for the

period 2018-2030 in a significant amount of agglomerations with, in total, 4,400 collecting

systems and 5,600 treatment plants. In total for the EU, the forecasted investments reach

almost EUR 229 billion and include works on treatment plants (EUR 166 billion) and works

on collecting systems and/or IAS (EUR 63 billion).

In conclusion, this technical assessment highlights the significant progress made in recent

years and in general since the adoption of the UWWTD, and the continuous effort by

Member States not only to implement the UWWTD but also to maintain the collecting and

treatment systems in good working conditions. The technical assessment also highlights

the significant challenges that the EU-28 are still facing in the implementation of this

Directive.

9 ‘Big discharger’ refers to one agglomeration or a group of agglomerations with more than 150,000 p.e. where

the waste water load is not necessarily generated just by inhabitants, but also by industrial activities.



March 2020



II INTRODUCTION

The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive10 (UWWTD) is one of the core elements of EU

water policy. Adopted in 1991, its objective is to protect the environment from the adverse

effects of urban waste water discharges from agglomerations and biodegradable industrial

waste water from agro-food industries.

The UWWTD requires that all European agglomerations greater than 2,000 population

equivalents (p.e.) are equipped with collecting and treatment systems for their waste

water. The UWWTD also provides for biological waste water treatment (known in the

UWWTD as ‘secondary treatment’) to significantly reduce the biodegradable pollution in

waste water. In the so-called sensitive areas11 and their related catchment areas, ‘more

stringent treatment’ is required to eliminate nutrients – mainly nitrogen (N) and/or

phosphorus (P) – before the waste water is discharged.

In 2012, the European Commission published a communication (COM/2012/095 final)

stating that they will assess

[…] the feasibility for Member States, with support from the Commission, to develop

structured implementation and information frameworks (SIIFs) for all key EU

environment laws. These would be designed to clarify the main provisions of a directive

as well as identify the types of information needed to demonstrate how EU law is being

implemented on the ground.

This objective was translated into a concept paper for the case of UWWTD and implemented

in a pilot phase on the UWWTD’s reported data. The general public was provided with

access to the data through an open access online platform. The visualisation results (charts

and maps) that are available on this platform were also used in the current report to

present the situation of sanitation for each Member State.

This report reflects the status of implementation of the UWWTD at 31 December 2016 for

2016, based on data reported by EU Member States in 2018 at agglomeration and

treatment plant level, according to Article 15 of the UWWTD, and also on their

implementation programmes, as required by Article 17 of the UWWTD. For most EU

Member States, the provision of waste water collecting and treatment systems should have

been completed for all agglomerations by the reporting date (31 December 2016).

Exceptions include more stringent treatment for agglomerations >10,000 p.e. in sensitive

areas of recent designation12 or sensitive areas that have been extended. With regard to

Romania and Croatia, which acceded to the European Union in 2007 and 2013,

respectively, some of the transitional periods that were granted, based on the size of

agglomerations and the nature of the discharge area, are still in force.

NB: Acronyms and a set of key technical terms are defined in Annex I.

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

11 Sensitive areas are those areas suffering from eutrophication or used for other purposes, such as bathing or

drinking water abstraction.

12 Member States shall ensure that areas identified as sensitive shall within 7 years meet the requirements of

Article 5.



March 2020



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

States on the implementation and compliance with the provisions required by the UWWTD.

The results of the assessments carried out in different periods are compared. Conclusions

on the progress in the implementation of the UWWTD in EU Member States are drawn from

the past six years. The elaboration of the technical assessment has been largely revised

for the last two reports with the full implementation of the structured implementation and

information framework (SIIF) for the UWWTD. This approach, described in a dedicated

Concept paper, has been implemented in practice in a set of 28 European Commission

national urban waste water websites and the European overview website. This improves

transparency and gives opportunities to all stakeholders to use the reported information

(see https://uwwtd.eu/).

https://uwwtd.eu/



March 2020



III GENERAL INFORMATION ON DATA COLLECTED

This chapter describes key elements of the assessment for the year 2016: data collection

and assessment process, overall situation as regards the agglomerations, collection and

treatment of waste water, receiving areas and their situation, and deadlines and

transitional periods.

III.1 Summary on 2016 data collection and data assessment process

To assess the implementation of the UWWTD, every 2 years the European Commission

launches a request for the collection and reporting of waste water data to all EU Member

States.13 Since 2007, the reporting under Article 15 of the UWWTD (waste water discharges

– detailed information at agglomeration and treatment plant level) follows a standardised

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

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

principles under the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) (and since 2014, this

has included the regular reporting under Article 17 (programmes for the implementation

of the Directive). A consultant then assesses the datasets in order to elaborate the

Technical assessment of information on the implementation of Council Directive

91/271/EEC (report), including annexes. These documents present the situation of waste

water collection and treatment in 2016 and the progress of implementing the UWWTD in

the European Union. The current document is the 10th technical assessment of information

on the implementation of Council Directive 91/271/EEC. Based on this and other

information, the European Commission will prepare a report on the implementation status

and programmes for implementation (as required by Article 17) to the European

Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee

of the Regions. Together, these documents form the so-called Implementation Reports. So

far, 9 Implementation Reports have been published since 1998.14

For the 10th reporting exercise, the electronic questionnaire for Article 15 was updated

during spring 2017. This update mainly included the use of a single format for the

questionnaire, some adjustments to the organisation of the tables for reporting sensitive

and less sensitive areas15, a new requirement to provide the date of application of Articles

3, 4 and 5 at agglomeration level, and an improved set of controls on the quality of the

data. It was tested during autumn 2017 and the tools necessary for the reporting have

been developed.

The European Commission launched the data collection in January 2018, requesting

Member States to deliver their dataset within 6 months, using the Reportnet system of the

European Environment Agency. The data collection was supported by a helpdesk to ensure

13 The letter was sent out to EU Member States in January 2018 with the request to provide data according to the

requirements of Articles 15 and 17 within 6 months via the Reportnet system of the European Environment

Agency.

14 The Implementation Reports are available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-

urbanwaste/implementation/implementationreports_en.htm

15 The latest only designated in Portugal.

https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-icm/etc-news/uwwtd-data-request-2017https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/implementation/implementationreports_en.htmhttps://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/implementation/implementationreports_en.htm



March 2020



a smooth collection of data. The European Topic Centre for Water, a contractor of the

European Environment Agency, ran the helpdesk. For the majority of EU Member States,

a number of amendments and technical corrections of the data sets were required in order

to fit the agreed formats and ensure coherence of the content. Several re-submission and

correction rounds took place, but most datasets were finalised before October 2018.

From October 2018 to January 2019, the quality-checked data reported by EU Member

States was assessed for compliance with the requirements of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the

UWWTD using the UWTD-SIIF websites. During the period December 2018-January 2019,

raw data assessment documents and draft versions of the national websites were prepared

and sent to EU Member States for comments. From January until June 2019 the EU Member

States provided comments and new or corrected data. For 16 EU Member States, changes

to the reported data were required and new datasets were provided during this period.

From March until June 2019, draft versions of the compliance assessments and national

chapters were prepared and sent to the EU Member States for comments.

From July to December 2019, updated national chapters and a EU overview were prepared

and discussed with the Member States. The resulting final reports and annexes form the

current document.

III.2 Agglomerations, waste water load & treatment plants

For the reference year 201616, the 28 EU Member States reported the following:

23,637 agglomerations ≥2,000 p.e. with a total generated waste water load of approximately 613 Million p.e.;

21,995 urban waste water treatment plants, with a total design capacity of approximately 783 Million p.e.;

340 plants equipped solely with primary treatment; 4,845 plants equipped with technology for primary and secondary treatment; 16,810 plants equipped with technology for more stringent treatment than secondary; 309 agglomerations using solely Individual and Appropriate Systems (IAS) to collect

and treat their waste water;

2,237 agglomerations with a collecting system but no treatment plant in place, or no waste water collection and treatment in place.

There are more agglomerations reported in total than treatment plants. However, when

excluding agglomerations with either no treatment plant or using IAS for the entire

agglomeration the number of agglomerations is reduced to 21,091. Therefore, on average,

there is more than 1 treatment plant per agglomeration.

16 Annual data on the collection and treatment of waste water for the year 2016.



March 2020



Figure 1. Number of agglomerations per Member State in 2016 [number of agglomerations]

Figure 1 shows that agglomerations in France, Germany, Italy and Spain together account

for a large share (52%) of all agglomerations in the EU. This share is similar to the share

of the population of these countries (256 Mio inhabitants), which represents 50% of the

EU population of 510 Mio inhabitants. The greatest number of agglomerations in the

remaining countries is not above 1,900 per Member State.

III.2.1 The size of agglomerations in the EU

Collectively, the EU Member States reported 23,637 agglomerations of >2,000 p.e. that

together generated almost 613 Million p.e. of waste water load in 2016. The distribution in

sizes of agglomerations is presented in the following table. As can be seen, most of the EU

agglomerations are small in size, with 64% of the agglomerations in the range of 2,000-

10,000 p.e., 32% in the intermediate range of 10,001-100,000 p.e. and 4% in the highest

range of >100,000 p.e.

Table 1: Number of agglomerations ≥2,000 p.e. in EU-28 in 2016

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

EU-28 15,090 7,491 1,056 23,637

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES FI

FR

HR

HU IE IT LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE SI

SK

UK

Nu

mb

er o

f ag

glo

merati

on

s



March 2020



Compared to 2014, there is a small increase in the number of agglomerations reported (an

additional 127), which corresponds to an increase of 0.5% of the number of

agglomerations. In terms of generated load, this led to an increase of 1.5% of the reported

load.

Table 2: Comparison of total number and generated load of agglomerations ≥2,000 p.e. in EU-28 between 2014 and 2016.

Comparison of total number of

agglomerations, 2014-2016

Comparison of total generated load of

agglomerations, 2014-2016

EU-28 127 8,901,272

III.2.2 The number and size of agglomerations, and changes between 2014 and 2016 per

Member State

Similar to the EU-28 level, most countries have the highest share of agglomerations in the

size category 2,000-10,000 p.e.; 13 countries are below the EU average of 64% of

agglomerations in this size category; NL has only 23% and CY no agglomerations in this

size category. On the other hand, the number of agglomerations >100,000 p.e. varies

between 1% and 8%, except for NL (17%) and CY (67%). The number of agglomerations

in the intermediate category (10,001-100,000 p.e.) exceeds 40% in three countries (DE,

LT, NL). This is illustrated in Table 3 and Figure 2.

Table 3: Number of agglomerations ≥2,000 p.e. by size class per Member State in 2016

2,0

00

-1

0,0

00

p.e

.

10

,00

1-

10

0,0

00

p.e

.

>1

00

,00

0 p

.e.

To

tal

2,0

00

-10

,00

0

p.e

.

10

,00

1-

10

0,0

00

p.e

.

>1

00

,00

0 p

.e.

To

tal

AT 370 232 33 635 IE 117 61 7 185

BE 231 135 14 380 IT 1,990 993 131 3,114

BG 230 87 11 328 LV 49 24 1 74

CY 46 9 2 57 LT 32 28 5 65

CZ 489 149 10 648 LU 35 12 1 48

DE 2,051 1,702 174 3,927 MT 0 1 2 3

DK 254 148 24 426 NL 72 190 52 314

EE 34 18 4 56 PL 985 475 73 1,533

EL 336 109 10 455 PT 295 122 30 447

ES 1,300 657 127 2,084 RO 1,664 181 25 1,870

FI 134 66 8 208 SE 259 144 21 424

FR 2,179 881 105 3,165 SI 132 24 2 158

HR 175 85 5 265 SK 276 74 6 356

HU 370 198 23 591 UK 985 686 150 1,821

For 3 countries (CY, RO and SI), the share of agglomerations in the smallest size category

exceeds 80%. The following figure illustrates this share per Member State, showing the

variability of the distribution between countries. This is very much linked to the level and

structure of urbanisation of the different Member States.



March 2020



Figure 2. Size of agglomerations per Member State in 2016 [Number of agglomerations per size]

Table 4 below highlights the comparison of the total number of agglomerations reported

for reference years 2014 and 2016. In terms of the number of agglomerations, no major

changes can be seen. Ten countries report fewer agglomerations and 12 report more

agglomerations. This change can be partly related to the ‘threshold effect’: an

agglomeration of around 2,000 p.e. can be reported one year and excluded from the report

if the size decreases (e.g. some inhabitants move away). Depending on the country, the

variations can be explained by several other factors: decrease in population, re-delineation

of agglomerations (leading to reduction or increase in size, aggregating or disaggregating

agglomerations), etc. The size of the country and the associated number of agglomerations

is also very different as previously illustrated. The table therefore also presents the

percentage change. Seven countries report a greater than 1% increase in agglomerations

and 6 countries a greater than 1% decrease in agglomerations. The highest change can be

found in HU with 11% more reported agglomerations.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES FI

FR

HR

HU IE IT LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE SI

SK

UK

Nu

mb

er o

f ag

glo

merati

on

s

2,000-10,000 p.e. 10,001-100,000 p.e. >100,000 p.e.



March 2020



Table 4: Comparison of total number of agglomerations ≥2,000 p.e. per Member State between 2014 and 2016 [% change if >1% and number of agglomerations]

III.2.3 Where the waste water load comes from in the EU

89% of the waste water load in the EU is generated by agglomerations above 10,000

p.e. Table 5 shows that more than 52% of the generated load comes from agglomerations

>100,000 p.e. The load from the intermediate category (10,001-100,000 p.e.) is also

important, representing 37%. Lastly, the load generated by the largest sized group of

agglomerations (100,000 p.e. Total

EU-28 68,848,761 223,813,839 319,949,510 612,612,110

III.2.4 Where the waste water load comes from per country

Comparable to the EU-28 average, on the one hand, most countries have the highest share

of load in the size category >100,000 p.e. leading to an EU average of 52% of the load in

this size category, but 16 countries are below this average and SI and SK have only 30%

in this size category. On the other hand, the load of agglomerations in the size category

2,000-10,000 p.e. varies between 0 and 36% and 10 countries are below 10%. This is

shown below in Table 6 and Figure 3.

[% change][number

change]

[number

in 2016][% change]

[number

change]

[number

in 2016]

AT 0.3% 2 635 IE 5.9% 11 185

BE 0.3% 1 380 IT -0.6% -18 3,114

BG -6.1% -20 328 LT 0.0% 0 65

CY 0.0% 0 57 LU 2.1% 1 48

CZ 6.6% 43 648 LV -1.4% -1 74

DE -0.6% -24 3,927 MT 0.0% 0 3

DK -0.2% -1 426 NL -2.9% -9 314

EE -1.8% -1 56 PL 0.7% 11 1,533

EL 0.0% 0 455 PT 0.7% 3 447

ES 1.0% 21 2,084 RO 2.8% 52 1,870

FI -1.4% -3 208 SE 4.0% 17 424

FR -0.2% -7 3,165 SI 0.0% 0 158

HR -6.4% -17 265 SK 0.0% 0 356

HU 11.0% 65 591 UK 0.1% 1 1,821


agglomerations 2014-2016

[change if >1% for the MS]


agglomerations 2014-2016

[change if >1% for the MS]



March 2020



Table 6: Load of agglomerations ≥2,000 p.e. per size class and Member State in 2016 [generated load in p.e.]

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

DE 9,988,414 48,906,021 53,011,623 111,906,058

IT 9,364,456 30,676,626 37,108,985 77,150,067

FR 9,803,767 26,750,168 35,178,994 71,732,929

UK 4,601,942 21,463,805 45,027,966 71,093,713

ES 6,258,674 19,425,222 39,135,381 64,819,277

PL 4,603,112 13,903,757 20,035,549 38,542,418

AT 1,755,473 7,417,950 11,493,783 20,667,206

RO 6,542,352 5,167,845 8,431,853 20,142,050

NL 467,086 7,349,318 11,623,761 19,440,165

HU 1,773,090 4,982,145 6,833,741 13,588,976

SE 1,246,805 4,114,260 7,148,200 12,509,265

PT 1,375,970 3,902,270 6,959,400 12,237,640

EL 1,518,930 3,013,974 7,270,546 11,803,450

DK 1,240,769 4,906,031 5,452,145 11,598,945

CZ 1,944,048 4,152,849 3,258,497 9,355,394

BE 1,082,100 3,841,700 4,287,600 9,211,400

BG 923,453 2,481,677 4,043,148 7,448,278

IE 494,189 1,439,948 3,146,478 5,080,615

FI 587,750 2,083,050 2,386,500 5,057,300

HR 805,600 2,532,958 1,661,154 4,999,712

SK 1,065,118 1,904,850 1,255,500 4,225,468

LT 162,100 946,880 1,796,720 2,905,700

EE 161,638 504,117 923,961 1,589,716

LV 208,815 706,183 673,670 1,588,668

SI 523,921 502,032 436,270 1,462,223

CY 202,300 426,700 400,000 1,029,000

MT 0 52,313 736,726 789,039

LU 146,889 259,190 231,359 637,438

Five countries (FR, DE, IT, ES, UK) collectively generated 65% of the total generated load.

In these countries, the size category 2,000-10,000 p.e. accounts for less than 10% of the

load, as illustrated in the following figure.

As with Figure 2, Figure 3 illustrates the share per Member State, showing the variability

of the distribution between countries and the significant part found in the highest category.

This is very much linked to the urban/rural nature of individual countries.



March 2020



Figure 3: How the load is distributed by size of agglomeration per Member State in 2016 [% of the total waste water load generated for agglomerations >100,000 p.e.]

Table 7 below summarises the comparison of the total generated load of agglomerations

reported for the reference years 2014 and 2016.

It should be noted that each year is different, and not only in terms of rainwater, which is

partly collected in sewers. Economic activities generate part of the waste water, and

together with fluctuant and permanent populations, etc., and even the amount of reported

load caused by other reasons (e.g. newly reported agglomerations, amendment of errors,

etc.), affect the total amount of p.e. As a result, the generated load changes for almost all

countries. The overall change can be high, up to 2.9 Mio p.e. more for Spain. In total, the

change is above 4% for 11 Member States: decreases in BG, EE, FI and SK and increases

in CZ, ES, HU, LT, MT and NL, with the highest increase of almost 18% in CZ.

56%

47%54%

39%

35%

47%

47%

58%

62%

60%

47%

49%

33%50%

62%

48%

62%36%42%93%

60%

52%

57%

42%

57%

30%30%

63%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES FI

FR

HR

HU IE IT LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE SI

SK

UK

Waste

wate

r lo

ad [

Million p

.e.]

2,000-10,000 p.e. 10,001-100,000 p.e. >100,000 p.e.



March 2020



Table 7: Comparison of total load of agglomerations ≥2,000 p.e. per Member State: load in 2016 and change between 2014 and 2016 [% change if >4%, and generated load in p.e.]

III.2.5 Type of treatment plants and their total design capacity in the EU, and number of

each type by Member State

The treatment plants installed are mostly applying more stringent treatment for a treated

load of 500 Mio p.e., which represent 85% of the load directed to urban waste water

treatment plants. The load treated with secondary treatment represents 14% leaving

almost 4.3 Mio p.e. (0.7%) that is only receiving primary treatment.

The entering load corresponds to around 75% of the design capacity for all levels of

treatment. This is a standard value to overcome temporal variations of entering load and

load increase forecasts.

Table 8: Number of treatment plants, load entering and design capacity per treatment level in EU-28 in 2016

Level of

treatment

Number of treatment

plants

Total load entering the

treatment plants [p.e.]

Total design capacity of

the treatment plants [p.e.]

Primary 340 4,288,334 5,626,795

Secondary 4,845 84,803,278 110,716,193

More stringent 16,810 500,249,611 666,853,218

Total 21,995 589,341,223 783,196,206

Only Croatia still has a significant number of treatment plants applying only primary

treatment (55%). Five countries: LV, PL, PT, RO and UK have more than 57% of their

treatment plants applying secondary treatment, with the highest share in LV, as illustrated

in the following figure. All remaining countries have more than 52% of their treatment

plants applying more stringent treatment.

[% change] [p.e. change] [p.e. in 2016] [% change] [p.e. change] [p.e. in 2016]

AT 1.2% 258,335 20,667,206 IE -3.4% -175,150 5,080,615

BE 0.0% 2,000 9,211,400 IT -0.4% -272,634 77,150,067

BG -8.6% -637,337 7,448,278 LT 8.7% 253,610 2,905,700

CY 3.3% 34,000 1,029,000 LU 4.9% 31,223 637,438

CZ 17.7% 1,654,384 9,355,394 LV 2.5% 39,333 1,588,668

DE 2.4% 2,673,097 111,906,058 MT 35.0% 276,038 789,039

DK -0.1% -13,600 11,598,945 NL 6.2% 1,214,390 19,440,165

EE -4.1% -64,830 1,589,716 PL 0.0% 5,868 38,542,418

EL 0.1% 12,864 11,803,450 PT 1.7% 201,980 12,237,640

ES 4.6% 2,959,249 64,819,277 RO -3.9% -782,731 20,142,050

FI -6.2% -315,800 5,057,300 SE -0.1% -14,363 12,509,265

FR -0.1% -87,332 71,732,929 SI 0.0% 0 1,462,223

HR -0.5% -26,515 4,999,712 SK -10.2% -430,823 4,225,468

HU 13.9% 1,894,329 13,588,976 UK 0.3% 211,687 71,093,713


agglomerations 2014-2016 [change if

>4% for the MS]


agglomerations 2014-2016 [change if

>4% for the MS]



March 2020



Figure 4. Number of treatment plants per treatment level and Member State in 2016 [number of treatment plants]

III.3 Types of discharge areas per Member State

Article 5(1) of the UWWTD requires EU Member States to identify sensitive areas according

to the criteria laid down in Annex II of the UWWTD and to review this identification at least

every 4 years according to Article 5(6).

In these areas Member States have to implement more stringent treatment. The UWWTD

provides two options:

- Article 5(2,3) requires implementing more stringent treatment for each agglomeration with a load of more than 10,000 p.e.

- Article 5(4) requires achieving a general removal rate for nitrogen and phosphorus of 75% of the load entering all urban waste water treatment plants of the discharge

area.

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.

At the reference date of 31 December 2016, 12 EU Member States decided to apply Article

5(8) of the UWWTD, i.e. more stringent treatment over the whole territory: AT, CZ, DE,

DK, EE, FI, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL and RO. Of these:

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES FI

FR

HR

HU IE IT LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE SI

SK

UK

Nu

mb

er o

f tr

eatm

en

t p

lan

ts

Primary treatment Secondary treatment More stringent treatment



March 2020



Nine EU Member States (CZ, DK, EE, FI, LV, LT, LU, PL and RO) apply Articles 5(8) and 5(2,3). All of these Member States apply Article 5(8) with sensitivity for N and P with

the exception of FI, which applies the UWWTD with sensitivity for P only. For some

regions sensitivity for N only is applied, if this is necessary due to the local situation. In

such cases the country does not have to define sensitive areas but all agglomerations

above 10,000 p.e. have to implement a more stringent treatment for N and/or P and

report individual equipment and performance for each treatment plant of these

agglomerations.

AT, DE and NL apply Articles 5(8) and 5(4). In such case the country does not have to define sensitive areas nor report equipment and performance of waste water treatment

plants for more stringent treatment, but it does have to collect and report the total load

for total N and total P entering and discharged for all treatment plants for each Article

5(4) area.

In 3 EU Member States: SK and SE apply Article 5(2,3) and have identified all their water

bodies as sensitive areas. In such case all agglomerations above 10,000 p.e. have to

implement a more stringent treatment for N and/or P and report individual equipment and

performance for each treatment plant of these agglomerations. BE did the same for most

of the territory, but decided to apply Article 5(4) for the Brussels region.

IT and FR decided to apply either Article 5(4) or Article 5(2,3) of the UWWTD depending

on the area, identifying certain water bodies in their territory as sensitive areas (SAs)

under Article 5(4) and some others under Article 5(2,3) and/or catchment of sensitive

areas (CSAs). In the latter case, all agglomerations above 10,000 p.e. discharging in a

sensitive area have to implement a more stringent treatment for N and/or P and report

individual equipment and performance for each treatment plant of these agglomerations.

In addition, the country has to collect and report the total load for total N and total P

entering and discharged for all treatment plants in each Article 5(4) area.

HU decided to apply Article 5(4) of the UWWTD across its territory. Consequently, the

compliance regarding more stringent treatment is calculated at sensitive area level and not

at agglomeration level. The Member State must apply more stringent treatment so that at

least 75% of the total nitrogen and at least 75% of the total phosphorus is removed,

accordingly. The ‘total waste water load’ is the load entering all the treatment plants and

then discharged, regardless of their capacity. Compliance with Article 5(4) is only reached

if all the agglomerations in Hungary are compliant with both Articles 3 and 4.

The remaining 10 EU Member States decided to apply Article 5(2,3) of the UWWTD and

identified certain water bodies in their territory as SAs and/or CSAs: BG, CY, EL, ES, HR,

IE, MT, PT, SI and UK. In such cases, all agglomerations above 10,000 p.e. discharging in

a sensitive area have to implement a more stringent treatment for N and/or P and report

individual equipment and performance for each treatment plant of these agglomerations.



March 2020



Summarising the situation of the EU-28, 16 Member States apply Article 517 of the UWWTD

to their entire territory or have designated all their water bodies as sensitive areas,

whereas 12 Member States have identified certain water bodies on their territory as

sensitive areas for which more stringent treatment requirements need to be implemented.

With the accession of the ‘new’ Member States in 2004, 2007 and 2013, the Baltic Sea,

the north-west shelf of the Black Sea, the Danube Delta and catchment, and the Northern

Adriatic were identified as CSAs due to eutrophication18. EU Member States lying in the

relevant catchments are therefore required to apply more stringent treatments or

measures to remove nitrogen and phosphorous. In most cases the deadline to apply more

stringent treatment has expired, at the latest by the end of the reference year 2015 for

LV, HU, PL, SI and SK. The only one remaining is HR (2020). The following lists all the

Member States responsible for each catchment:

Baltic Sea: EE, LV, LT, PL (plus DK, FI, DE and SE); Black Sea catchment: RO and BG. RO had to be compliant for 77% of the total load and

all agglomerations >10,000 p.e. by the end of the reference year 2015;

Danube catchment: HU, CZ, SK, SI, HR, BG, RO (plus AT and DE). Croatia has interim compliance deadlines in place for Article 5 until the end of the reference year 2020.

Northern Adriatic Sea catchment: HR (end of 2020), SI (plus IT).

Figure 9 and Table 9 provide an overview of:

the designation of sensitive areas and catchment areas of sensitive areas; the respective application of Article 5(1) and 5(2,3), Article 5(8) and 5(2,3), Article 5(4)

and 5(2,3), or Article 5(8) and 5(4);

the number (and percentage of the national territory) of SAs and CSAs identified; and, the changes in the percentage of national territory identified as sensitive area or

catchment of sensitive area compared to the last reporting (2014).

By the 2016 reference year for this report and based on Geographical Information System

(GIS) data reported by EU Member States, it can be seen that despite changes introduced

by some Member States as compared to the 9th Report, the overall change at EU-28 level

is limited:

38% of the territory of EU-28 (3% decrease) is designated as SAs and/or CSAs according to Article 5(1) and 5(2,3).

38% of the territory of EU-28 (3% increase) needs to carry out more stringent waste water treatment as EU Member States apply more stringent treatment in the whole

territory according to Article 5(8).

In total, 76% of EU-28 territory carries out more stringent treatment according to Article 5 of the UWWTD, which is, in total, the same as in the 9th Report.

17 As compared to 9th technical assessment, Hungary was added in this reporting cycle because all its waterbodies

are designated as Sensitive Areas in 2016.

18 Part of the Baltic Sea, Danube catchment and the catchment of the Adriatic Sea, relating to ‘old’ Member States,

had already been identified as sensitive.



March 2020



Figure 5: Overview map of sensitive areas and catchment of sensitive areas and the application of Article 5(8) of the UWWTD per Member State in 2016



March 2020



Table 9: Overview of sensitive areas and catchment of sensitive areas per Member State in 2016 and in comparison with 2014

Mem

ber

Sta

te UWWTD

Articles applied

Sensitive areas and catchment of sensitive

areas identified Situation in the 9th

Implementation Report

Differences between 9th and 10th Report Number

% of national territory

AT Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(4)

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

No change

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

Application of Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3) for Flanders and Wallonia, Art. 5(2,3) + Art. 5(4) for the Senne, sensitivity N and P for all

100 --

No change

BG Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3)

14 SAs + 14 CSAs 100 -- No change

CY Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3)

2 SAs + 2 CSAs 0.86 -- No change

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


DE Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(4)

Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P -

no identification of sensitive areas -- No change

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


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


EL Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3)

46 SAs + 43 CSAs 28.2 46 SAs + 42 CSAs, covering 24% of the national territory

Increase

ES Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3)

446 SAs + 447s CSA 34.1 453 SAs + 455 CSAs, covering 34% of the national territory

Increase

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

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

--

No change

FR

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

45 Article 5(2,3) SA + 38 CSAs

66.7

107 SAs + 90 CSAs, covering 79% of the national territory

61 Article 5(4) SA + 50 CSA Decrease

HR Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3)

81 SAs + 55 CSAs 80.6 -- Not applicable yet

HU Art. 5(4) 3 SAs 100 3 SAs, covering 7.1% of the national territory

Increase

IE Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3)

33 SAs + 6 CSAs 17.4


Decrease

IT 174 SAs + 161 CSAs 53.5 Decrease



March 2020



Mem

ber

Sta

te UWWTD

Articles applied

Sensitive areas and catchment of sensitive

areas identified Situation in the 9th

Implementation Report

Differences between 9th and 10th Report Number

% of national territory

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

6 Article 5(4) SAs 213 SAs + 174 CSAs, covering 56% 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 --

No change

LT Art. 5(8) + Art.

5(2,3)


No change

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


No change

MT Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3)

1 SA Only coastal area identified as SA

1 SA, only coastal

No change

NL Art. 5(8) + Art. 5(4)


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

Application of Art. 5(8), sensitivity N and P – no identification of sensitive areas

-- No change

PT Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3)

28 SAs + 25 CSAs 28.3 --

No change

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


No change

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 3 SAs + 2 CSAs

100 --

No change

SI Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3)

146 SAs + 150 CSAs

96.7 148 SAs + 147 CSAs, covering 94% of the

national territory

Increase

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 --

No change

UK Art. 5(1) + Art. 5(2,3)

398 SAs + 233 CSAs 45


Increase



March 2020



III.4 Deadlines and transitional periods per Member State

The UWWTD sets staged deadlines for the years 1998, 2000 and 2005 for all countries that

were EU Member States in 1991. Deadlines depend on the size of the agglomeration,

expressed in population equivalent (p.e.), and on the sensitivity of receiving areas:

Agglomerations greater than 10,000 p.e. discharging into sensitive areas (SAs) and catchments of sensitive areas (CSAs) were required to reach compliance by 31

December 1998.

Larger agglomerations greater than 15,000 p.e. discharging into normal areas (NA) were required to reach compliance by 31 December 2000.

All other agglomerations greater than 2,000 p.e. were required to reach compliance by 31 December 2005.

The deadlines mean that the related agglomerations must have a fully functioning waste

water management system with collection (Article 3 of the UWWTD), and treatment, that

is to say secondary treatment (Article 4 of the UWWTD), and, for agglomerations beyond

10,000 p.e. discharging into sensitive areas and their catchment areas, a more stringent

treatment (Article 5 of the UWWTD). By the reference year for this report the deadlines for

implementation of the obligations under the UWWTD (as highlighted above) completely

expired in all countries that were EU Member States in 1991. Some of these Member States

still have pending deadlines mainly related to Article 5, due to the designation of new

sensitive areas after 2007 (date of application is 7 years after the date of designation).

This is the case for France, Ireland, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. As an exception

in the group of ‘old’ Member States, France also has pending deadlines for one of its

overseas territories: Mayotte (2020 and 2027).

For Member States who joined the EU after 1991, transitional periods (see Annex II) were

negotiated as part of the Accession Treaties, obliging these EU Member States to comply

with the UWWTD by different dates. Most final deadlines have already expired and were

taken into consideration for the reference year of this report.

Transitional periods still apply in 2016 to Bulgaria for 4 agglomerations due to an extension

for the existing SAs/CSAs after 2007. Transitional periods also still apply in 2016 for

Romania and Croatia. The following final deadlines for Romania apply to this period:

compliance with Articles 3, 4 and 5 due for all waste water load by 31 December 2018.

Regarding Croatia, no transition period is over and therefore compliance was not assessed

for any agglomeration. The deadlines for Croatia are 31 December 2018, 31 December

2020 and 31 December 2023.



March 2020



IV LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE (LEGAL COMPLIANCE)

Box 1. Definition of legal compliance

Compliance with the main requirements of the Directive is assessed per agglomeration. Three requirements

are needed for full compliance, namely:

Collection of waste water (condition required for compliance with Article 3 and also for compliance with Articles 4 and 5);

Secondary treatment of the collected waste water, i.e. adequate treatment level and treatment performance (condition required for compliance with Article 4 and also for Article 5); and

More stringent treatment than secondary treatment, i.e. adequate treatment level and treatment performance; generally applicable to agglomerations >10,000 discharging into sensitive areas.

An agglomeration can be categorised as fully compliant only if these three requirements are met.

A non-compliant agglomeration can be partially compliant, e.g. adequately collects the waste water (compliant

with Article 3), but the collected waste water is treated inadequately (not compliant with Article 4 or Articles

4 and 5). Moreover, an agglomeration which does not adequately collect the waste water (non-compliant with

Article 3) cannot be categorised as compliant with the requirements of the Directive. If an agglomeration is

categorised as non-compliant (with Articles 3, 4 or 5), then the fraction of its waste water load which

corresponds to the compliant load (with Articles 3, 4 or 5) is not taken into account in the overall ‘compliance

rate’ calculations (i.e. compliance at regional, national or EU levels).

The total (100%) waste water load of an agglomeration is considered compliant with the requirements of the

Directive even if:

less than or equal to 2% (and less than or equal to 2,000 p.e.) of the waste water load does not comply with Article 3; and

less than or equal to 1% (and less than or equal to 2,000 p.e.) of the collected waste water load does not comply with Article 4 and/or Article 5.

Compliance rate with Articles 3, 4 or 5 and full compliance rate at Member State level is calculated on the basis

of all the loads of agglomerations found to be in full compliance.

Compliance rate with Article 3 (collection) is calculated on the basis of the waste water load of all the

agglomerations in full compliance with the collection obligations, in reference to the total load of all the reported

agglomerations (i.e. those with 2,000 p.e. or above).

Compliance rate with Article 4 (secondary treatment) is calculated on the basis of the waste water load of the

agglomerations in full compliance with the secondary treatment obligations under this Article, in reference to

the total load of the reported agglomerations with obligations under Article 4. These are the agglomerations

discharging into either sensitive or non-sensitive areas, with 2,000 p.e. or above discharging into fresh water

or estuaries; with 10,000 p.e. or above discharging into coastal waters.

Compliance rate with Article 5 (more stringent treatment than secondary) is calculated on the basis of the

waste water load of the agglomerations in full compliance with more stringent treatment obligations under this

Article (removal of nitrogen and/or phosphorus) in reference to the total load of all the reported agglomerations

with obligations under Article 5. These are the agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas, with

10,000 p.e. or above.

Full compliance with the Directive is calculated on the basis of the waste water load of the agglomerations in

full compliance (Article 3 and, where applicable, Articles 4 and 5) in reference to the total load of all the

reported agglomerations.

A Member State that does not adequately collect the waste water (non-compliant with Article 3) cannot be

categorised as compliant with the treatment requirements (Articles 4 and/or 5).



March 2020



IV.1 Compliance rates for collection, secondary treatment and more stringent treatment: EU overview

The compliance rate19 has remained around 80% over the last two reporting years. The

compliant load has increased from 467,531,055 p.e. (in 2014) to 491,139,647 p.e. (in

2016), an increase of 23.6 Mio p.e., despite the fact that the waste water load subjected

increased in 2016 as compared to 2014. It was 591,365,261 p.e. in 2014 and

604,298,431 p.e. in 2016, an increase of 12.9 Mio p.e.

Figure 6: Compliance rate for the Directive in the EU-28 in the period 2012-2016 [% of waste water load of agglomerations which complied with the Directive for the given year] Note: 2012 column shows 2010/2012 data

19 Referred to Articles 3 (plus Articles 4 and 5 when applicable).

80%

79% 81%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2012 2014 2016

Waste

wate

r l

oad

[M

illio

n p

.e.]

Non-compliant Compliant



March 2020



Figure 7: Compliance rates for Articles 3, 4 and 5 in EU-28 in 2016 [% of waste water load of agglomerations which complied with a given Article]

As indicated in Figure 7, compliance with Article 3 is 95%, 88% of the load is compliant

with Article 4 and 86% of the load is compliant with Article 5. The compliance rates for all

Articles are high. 1.4% of the EU load is under pending deadline for Article 3 corresponding

to the remaining pending deadlines in RO and HR. 1% of the EU load applying Article 5 is

under pending deadline for Article 5 corresponding to the designation of new or an

extension of existing sensitive areas.

IV.2 Compliance rates for collection, secondary treatment and more stringent treatment: by country

This section gives an overview of the compliance rates by Article and by Member State,

and its NUTS 2 regions (also known as basic regions for the application of regional policies)

for 2016, except for HR, which is still under pending deadlines.

IV.2.1 Compliance rate for collection

Collection is the first step in the implementation of a waste water management system.

Five Member States (BG, CY, HU, RO, SI) still have a compliance rate for collection in the

95%88%

86%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Article 3 (collection) Article 4 (secondary

treatment)

Article 5 (more stringent

treatment)

Waste

wate

r l

oad

[M

illio

np

.e.]

Pending Non-compliant Compliant Total waste water load



March 2020



two lowest categories, i.e. below 85% or even below 70%, but in any case not above 76%

in 2016.

Figure 8: Compliance rate for Article 3 per Member State in 2016 [% of waste water load subject to Article 3].

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

maximum compliance rate of 97-100% is being consistently achieved in most EU Member

States over the last reporting period as illustrated above. However, 5 countries (BG, CY,

HU, RO, SI) remain at a lower rate between 15 and 76%.

In Figure 9 on the next page, showing the situation by NUTS 2 regions, it appears that all

regions in BG, CY, HU, RO and SI but also some regions in ES, IT, PL and PT have a

compliance rate for collection below 85%. There are even 9 regions in the EU-28 with a

compliance rate for collection below 70%.

100

100

51

76

100

100

100

98

100

97 100

100

72

100

95 1

00

100

100

100

100

97

100

15

100

62

100

10th technical assessment on the urban waste water ... · to target, 2012-2016 [% of waste water...

Documents