Point 2a - UWWTD implementation - 5th Commission Synthesis Report Sophie Breul-Busson European Commission DG ENV, Water & Marine Environment

Background (1) Based on questionnaire sent June 2007 Overview of implementation status in agglomerations > 2,000 p.e. Most of MS have reported on year 2005, a few on year 2006 Cut off date 30 November 2008

→ Report covers only 52% of the pollution load generated in EU-27 Background (2) Only 18 MS replied in the agreed format by 30 November 2008 2 MS did not report at all by this date (IE, EL) → Report covers only 52% of the pollution load generated in EU-27 Reported : AT BE DE DK FI FR LU NL PT SW _ CY EE HU LT LV RO SI SK Not completely reported :

Double-approach for assessing the implementation of the UWWTD: Background (3) Focus on the pollution load generated by the MS, rather than on the specific agglomerations Double-approach for assessing the implementation of the UWWTD: UWW infrastructure in place Compliance with requirements of the UWWTD Figures on agglomerations available in the detailed report

EU-27 Overview 23,000 agglomerations of more than 2,000 p.e. generating more than 600 M p.e. 2% of agglomerations are > 150,000 p.e. (big cities) and generate 40% of pollution load 66% of agglomerations are between 2,000 and 10,000 p.e. and generate 13% of pollution load 68% of the EU-27 territory considered as SA

EU-27 Sensitive Areas 14 Member States are considering their whole territory as a S.A. 13 Member States have identified certain water bodies in their territory as S.A. Progress since the last reporting exercise Accession of EU-12 (catchment of the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea and the Northern Adriatic) revision of designation in EU15 (FR & ES) Map as reported by MS Blue vs green = 5(1) vs 5(8) 10 MS in 5(8) + 4 in 5(1) for all territory – 13 MS in 5(1) with specific SA Romania + Bulgaria = as by date of Accession

EU-18 Overview For the 18 MS which replied timely in the agreed format : 13,734 agglomerations > 2,000 p.e. 313 M p.e. 83% of the load is discharged in Sensitive areas 17% of the load discharged in Normal areas

UWW infrastructure in place & its performance collection systems in place for 93% of the total load secondary treatment in place for 87% of the load more stringent treatment for 72% of the load Non full performance of the treatment in place Collection in place : 83% of agglo 2ary tt in place : 77% of agglo (OK 68%) More stringent tt in place : 56 % of agglo (OK 47%)

UWW infrastructure in place & its performance Collection in place : 83% of agglo 2ary tt in place : 77% of agglo (OK 68%) More stringent tt in place : 56 % of agglo (OK 47%)

Infrastructure – Big Cities Almost 300 big cities reported total pollution load of 129 M p.e. More than 98% of this load is collected 90% of the load receive secondary treatment or more at least 8% of the load receive less than secondary treatment (10 M p.e.). Six big cities with a total load of 4,3 M p.e. had no waste water treatment at all 6 big cities : Barreiro/Moita, costa do Estoril (PT) , Bucarest, Braila, Craiova, Galati (RO)

Compliance with UWWTD requirements Among the 18 MS, 11 MS had deadlines expired in 2005 : AT, BE, DK, FI, FR, DE, LU, NL, PT, SE and SK Therefore the picture of compliance is lacking EL, ES, IE, IT, UK, PL and MT which had as well deadlines expired in 2005 These 11 MS record 10,300 agglomerations generating 270 M p.e.

Compliance rates – EU-11 11 MS subject to compliance by 31/12/2005 Compliance rates, expressed as % of the load which is subject to compliance : Collecting systems : 99% Secondary treatment : 86% More stringent treatment : 85%

Compliance rates – EU-11

Compliance : overview 11 of 18 MS had deadlines expired by end 2005 (EU-15 + Slovakia) Yellow = not subject to deadlines by end 2005 White : not reported timely in the agreed format Purple grades = rates of compliance – the darker the more compliant

Overall assessment High degree of inadequate or lack of reporting at the cut-off date Non-comprehensive picture of implementation and of compliance Establishment of collection systems progressing well Big differences between Member States regarding establishment and compliance of secondary treatment - Varied implementation picture as regards more stringent treatment Treatment in normal areas and sensitive areas under Art 5(2) is much less developed than in sensitive areas under 5(4) Waste water treatment of big cities is elaborated at a very high level but 10 M p.e. still not treated.

The way forward Accelerated efforts in some countries in particular regarding secondary treatment, more stringent treatment and big cities Improved cooperation with individual Member States and across EU to facilitate implementation of the Directive - Continued use of infringement procedures Fine tuning the data exchange, information and reporting between the Commission and Member States under WISE Establishing a complete picture of the situation in EU-27 with the Q-2009 reporting exercise

Thank you for your attention… Thank you for your attention….. 5th Implementation report very soon on our website : www.europa.eu