Monetised equivalent of the time spent based on hourly wage costs in the maritime and public administration sector

The existing data limitations around volumes of waste being delivered to port, exemptions granted, as well as results from the inspections undertaken, should be addressed through the mix of policy measures included in option 3B: these include the introduction of a waste receipt, to be reported into SafeSeaNet, which is expected to generate information on types and quantities of waste actually delivered in ports and facilitate monitoring of the mandatory delivery obligation. In addition, the exemptions will also be electronically reported and exchanged through SafeSeaNet, based on harmonised criteria and a standard format, which should provide more information on vessels that have been exempted from the main obligations in the Directive. Finally, the results of inspections will have to be reported into Port State Control database (THETIS), which should allow for operational alerts to be developed for monitoring and enforcement purposes.

It is foreseen that five years after the end of the implementation date of the proposed legislation, the Commission services will carry out an evaluation to verify whether the objectives of the initiative have been reached. This is intended to determine whether the new measures in place have resulted in an improvement of the situation, both in terms of increased waste deliveries in port, as well as simplification and reduction of the administrative burden. This evaluation shall be carried out based on the below mentioned core progress indicators in line with Commission requirements on evaluation.

The Commission services will monitor the implementation and effectiveness of this initiative through a set of core indicators listed in the table below that will measure the progress towards achieving the operational objectives. Some of the indicators are of qualitative nature and show if the desired deliverables are being achieved and implemented, while others are based on data to be collected that will need to be analysed further.

The preferred option also fully delivers on the REFIT objectives of the revision, in particular simplification of the regulatory framework and administrative burden reduction. By seeking further alignment with MARPOL, inconsistencies between the EU framework and the international regime are removed and parallel reporting can be avoided. Through increased electronic reporting and exchange of information and by integrating the inspections within the Port State Control framework, following a risk-based approach, the burden on ports, port users and authorities in the Member States will be significantly reduced.

Based on the analysis above, Policy Option 3b (MARPOL alignment, with special focus on marine litter), scores best on effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and proportionality, as also shown in the Table above. This policy option contributes positively to volumes of waste delivered, thereby reducing discharges of waste at sea. It also contributes to the reduction of the (unnecessary) administrative burden associated with the implementation of the Directive, and will positively support the operation of a circular economy. These positive effects will be realised at relatively limited operational and investment cost. Furthermore, this policy option includes a number of policy measures, in particular those in relation to alignment with the MARPOL Annexes, which have synergetic effects. The policy option, and the measures it entails, can be considered proportionate in relation to the problems addressed.

As regards the position of fishing vessels and small recreational craft, it should be noted that these vessels are already included in the scope of the current Directive, and are only exempted from certain obligations, in particular the advance waste notification, payment of the indirect fee, and inspection criteria and procedures, although the Directive requires Member States to establish control procedures for fishing vessels and small recreational craft, to the extent required. Stakeholders view the inclusion of fishing vessels in the indirect fee favourably, as they have to pay anyhow for the waste they deliver, and payment of an indirect fee should give the right to these vessels to deliver all of their waste (including passively fished waste) without having to pay additional direct charges. The advance reporting by these vessels has been discarded as this would be a disproportionate measure, and for the inspection part a threshold has been applied (100GT and above), so that only the larger vessels will be targeted in terms of inspections. To address marine litter effectively, it is important to include the fishing vessels and recreational craft more comprehensively in the scope of the Directive, given their relatively high share in the contribution to the marine litter problem at sea. As has been shown in section 2.1.1, i.e. approximately 30% and 19% respectively of all marine litter from ships (the remainder being attributed to merchant shipping).

The specific problem of marine litter warrants some additional measures, specifically designed to achieve intended discharge reduction at sea through a combination of both incentive and enforcement measures. As enforcement might be disproportionate as regards the smaller vessels, it has been proposed in Policy Options 3b and 4b to take a differentiated approach and apply these measures only to vessels over 100GT.

Policy option 4 provides stricter requirements, but still limits the additional burden compared to the current obligations, and also provides a risk-based approach for enforcement. While going beyond MARPOL discharge norms, in terms of the scope of the delivery obligation, the idea of an EU discharge prohibition has been discarded, as this would go beyond the objectives of the revision (see section 5.2.1).

The specific problem of marine litter warrants some additional measures, specifically designed to achieve intended discharge reduction at sea through a combination of both incentive and enforcement measures. As enforcement might be disproportionate as regards the smaller vessels, it has been proposed in Policy Options 3b and 4b to take a differentiated approach and apply these measures only to vessels over 100GT.

Policy Option 3 seeks to achieve the objectives mainly by aligning with the international approach (MARPOL), as well as integrating inspections into the Port State Control framework. Further approximation to the international framework generates important efficiency gains, in particular from aligning definitions, forms, and inspection procedures.

As Policy option 2 only envisages the introduction of minimum legislative updates, reflecting changes in EU legislation, as well as in the international legal framework, the impacts of the revision are limited. As regard the other issues to be tackled, the option relies mostly on soft law guidance.

The proposed policy options do not go beyond what is needed to achieve the policy objectives. They effectively (to various degrees) reduce discharges of waste at sea and lift unnecessary administrative burden on all stakeholders, as explained below.

Stakeholders have generally expressed preference for further alignment with MARPOL as the more efficient option, rather than strengthening the EU regime, which would require significant additional enforcement efforts to be made and result in additional administrative burden. For these reasons, the MARPOL alignment option and its marine litter variant were also considered more proportionate than option 4. This also applies to option 3b, where the measures specifically addressing the problem of marine litter were considered justified, given the particularly harmful effects of garbage on the marine environment. Stakeholders acknowledged the potential of the revision for addressing the sea-based sources of marine litter at various occasions, and the need for redefining the position of fishing vessels and recreational craft, given the important contribution of sea-based sources to the problem of marine litter. The issue of Incentives, which is addressed in options 3 and 4, was among the main concerns expressed by stakeholders. Both options envisage the streamlining of the underlying principles of the indirect fee, which is based on a list of recommendations drawn up by the main stakeholders. A number of stakeholders, in particular the ports, have nevertheless expressed concerns over the efficiency of the 100% indirect fee for garbage, as included in option variants 3b and 4b.

The analysis of the options and the comparison is largely in line with the outcome of the stakeholder consultations (as summarised in Annex 2 – synopsis report).

Strict interpretation of the PRF Directive, with special focus on marine litter, scores well on the objectives of increasing waste delivery, as well contributing to the circular economy. However, the increase in administrative burden is even more substantial, again negatively impacting overall effectiveness of this policy option. By extension, the additional waste delivered is offset by the overall additional administrative burden. Aggregated operational and investment costs are higher than Policy Option 3 (both variants), resulting in a lower efficiency score. The additional focus on marine litter will have positive effects on coherence with EU and international initiatives on marine litter, in addition to the environmental benefits already attributed to Policy Option 4a. However, similar to Option 4a the positive effects will be off-set by a decrease in coherence with international regulations (MARPOL). Although this Policy Option is considered feasible, the overall balance is lower than policy measure 3b.

Overall, this policy option is considered feasible. Although some additional waste may be collected in ports, the efforts in enforcement required in this policy option outweigh the environmental gains, and result in this policy option being scored lower than policy option 3a.

Strict operation of the EU regime, based on a strict mandatory delivery obligation (beyond the MARPOL discharge norms) without a specific focus on marine litter, scores better on the waste delivery objective than policy option 3, but since a strict delivery obligation is not the same as a discharge prohibition, potential gains (in terms of waste deliveries) may still be limited. It also scores relatively well in terms of contributing to the circular economy and also has an overall net result in terms of decreasing the administrative burden mostly from the uniform rules on exemptions. However, gains in administrative burden reduction are certainly not as high as under Policy option 3. The (potential) gains in additional waste delivered are offset by the additional enforcement costs created. With aggregated operational and investment costs similar to policy option 3, this policy option scores lower on efficiency. As regards coherence, the option increases the Directive’s internal coherence with EU environmental policy, but at the same time reduces its external coherence with the international regulations (MARPOL). Therefore its net effect on coherence will also be lower than under policy option 3.

Although investment costs may be higher than for policy option 3a, the increased contribution to the objectives results in a positive score on efficiency. Other impacts outscore the performance of policy option 3a. All in all, this policy option provides a better overall package, based on impacts and costs, as well as synergetic effects between policy measures included in this policy option.

MARPOL alignment with a special focus on marine litter scores very well on effectiveness. Performance on waste delivery and circular economy is better than in policy option 3A. This policy option also benefits from synergetic effects between defined policy measures. Policy measure 3A.1, i.e. MARPOL alignment, adds to the effectiveness of other measures, such as bringing PRF inspections within the scope of the Port State Control regime (though an amendment of Directive 2009/16/EC) and the improvement of definitions and forms. This policy option produces similar benefits for coherence as described for option 3 above, but with even greater potential: through the special focus on the reduction of garbage discharges it directly supports related EU and international initiatives in reducing marine litter, as well as the environmental objectives of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

Although this option will result in additional operational and investment costs, these should be limited because of the basic administrative framework and operational infrastructure already in place, and should be accompanied by substantial benefits. Therefore, this policy option scores positively on efficiency. Other impacts are expected to be limited and for that reason this option scores lower than its variant option focusing on marine litter.

This policy option scores well on effectiveness, with positive contributions to waste delivery, administrative burden reduction/simplification and contribution to the circular economy. However, as regards the delivery of garbage waste, the effectiveness is limited, mainly because fishing vessels and recreational craft will not be specifically addressed in the proposed measures. On the other side, the policy option significantly decreases the unnecessary administrative burden, which will be less the case for variant options with special focus on marine litter. Policy option 3A also benefits from synergetic effects between defined policy measures. Policy measure 3A.1, i.e. MARPOL alignment, adds to the effectiveness of other measures, such as bringing PRF inspections within the scope of the Port State Control regime (through the amendment of Directive 2009/16/EC) and the improvement of definitions and forms. The main focus on MARPOL alignment also implies that this policy option scores well on coherence, in particular its external coherence to international regulations, whereas inclusion of the PRF inspections in the PSC framework adds to coherence with related EU policy measures.

The policy option scores relatively low on effectiveness, with only a limited contribution to volumes of waste delivered, reducing the administrative burden and contributing to the circular economy. At the same time, it should be acknowledged that the operational and investment costs of this option are relatively low. The balance between these relatively limited benefits and the minimal operational and investment costs is net positive, making it a policy option that is preferable to the baseline scenario. This policy option is also expected to have a positive effect on coherence: internal coherence will be fostered through clarification of existing rules (mostly in the adequacy cluster) in line with international and EU Guidance, whereas external coherence will benefit from an update of legal references, such as the current PSC Directive and EU waste legislation, as well as the inclusion of MARPOL Annex VI into the scope of the Directive. However, as only few issues can be addressed though a minimum revision of the PRF Directive, this option strongly relies on the development and application of soft law to address the majority of the problems (guidance on adequacy, incentives and enforcement).

The following table synthesizes the assessment of the policy options in terms of environmental, economic and social impacts.

The Territorial Impact Assessment concluded that the options for the revision will contribute to more environmental awareness, especially in ports and coastal communities but also among the crew on board ships. This has also been acknowledged in a recent report on Marine Litter Management Practices for the Fishing industry, which concluded that improved management of waste from fishing vessels raises the awareness around this type of waste as a source of marine litter and also increases the knowledge of sources and pathways of marine litter. Given the special focus of Policy options 3b and 4b on marine litter, these options have the highest potential of raising environmental awareness.

At the same time, no significant impacts are expected in terms of working conditions at sea or in ports for the different policy options.

Some of the policy measures will affect the activities that are carried out on board the ship, such as PM-2C (green ship, including segregation of waste on board the ship) or PM-2E (fishing for litter programmes, which require additional storage and handling of passively fished waste on board). This was also acknowledged by stakeholders in the Territorial Impact Assessment, where the involvement of crew in proper waste handling on board was deemed crucial for ensuring waste reduction and delivery of waste to ports. Similar conclusions were reached in the context of stakeholder dialogue around the issue of waste management practices in the fishing sector.

The Territorial Impact Assessment (Annex 8) concluded that in terms of effects on tourism and employment, regional differences are to be expected from the proposed revision: the Black Sea region (Romania and Bulgaria) would benefit the most from the expected growth in tourism, resulting in additional employment in this sector. It was also recognised that the increased quality of the environment could induce a more positive impact on tourism in the Southern Mediterranean coastal regions (Italy and Greece), and reduce out-migration, especially from the islands in this region.

Employment impacts are limited to a number of policy measures, notably those that result in additional volumes of waste to be delivered on land, generating additional business for PRF operators, and those that stimulate the tourism sector through the improvement of the coastal environment. As was shown above, this potential is greatest for Policy Options 3b and 4b (with special focus on marine litter), which are expected to generate additional jobs in the area of waste management and nautical tourism. However, for the fishing sector this will depend on the uptake of the fishing for litter schemes in the MS, as participation in those schemes will remain voluntary.

Few social impacts have been identified from the proposed policy options for the revision of the Directive. The possible impacts considered are described below, in particular: employment in the maritime sector and in coastal tourism; working conditions at sea; and environmental awareness.

As this Policy measure is included in Policy Options 4a and 4b, these options are expected to have a negative impact on trade and investment, contrary to Policy Options 3a and 3b, which may positively influence trade and investments, through seeking closer alignment with the international rules on shipping.

On the other side it should be acknowledged that regulatory convergence between EU and neighbouring states, as well as higher global standards, may be fostered through regional agreements, such as for example the cooperation among states surrounding the Mediterranean Sea in the context of the Barcelona Convention.

Limited impact is expected from the various policy options as regards third countries, foreign trade and investment. The impact is particularly linked to PM-3A.2, which proposes a strict delivery requirement for all ship generated waste, including for the waste that can be discharged under MARPOL. As a result, the rules applied in EU ports will be stricter than elsewhere in the world. This may have a negative impact on ship movements to EU ports, and discourage investments in ports that are in direct competition with non-EU ports (e.g. in the Southern Mediterranean). Generally, it may be expected that the stricter the requirements are in comparison with the applicable international obligations under MARPOL, the bigger the competitive disadvantages will be that EU ports are facing in view of neighbouring non-EU ports with which they are in direct competition.

As PM-2C (green ship concept) is included in both Policy Options 3 and 4, these options are expected to generate a positive impact on competitiveness and innovation. In addition, both policy options include the PM 2A and 2B, which – as explained above – are expected to create an enhanced level playing field for ports and port users. On the other side, Policy Option 4 includes PM-3A.2, which may have a negative impact on the EU port sector, making this option less attractive than Policy Option 3 in terms of competitiveness, as reflected in a lower score for option 4.

Conversely, competition between ports may be impacted by PM 2A (shared methodology for calculation of the indirect fee and more transparency between fees and costs), as well as PM 2B (100% indirect fee for garbage) and PM 3A.2 (strict EU mandatory delivery obligation). PM2A envisages more streamlining of the underlying principles of the indirect fee, which should be inherent in every port’s Cost Recovery System. In particular, this should provide more transparency as regards the fee charged and the type of costs covered by these fees, so that port users understand what they are paying for as well as the basic cost calculation. This is expected to provide for a better level playing field for both ports and port users, where these actors compete on basis of equal and fair conditions. PM 3A, which requires delivery of waste beyond the MARPOL discharge norms, may impact the competitive position of the EU port sector, although this effect may be limited as ships will be calling at EU ports for a range of considerations other than the port’s waste policy and fees.

Innovation and competitiveness would potentially be fostered by policy measures 1B (reinforcing the waste hierarchy in WRH Plans) and 2C (harmonisation of “Green Ship” criteria for ships that reduce their waste production on board). Implementation of the EU Waste hierarchy in the context of waste management in ports would require establishment of systems for the separate collection of waste from ships, to enable the waste to be further re-used or recycled. Innovative and effective collection systems may have to be developed to ensure high capture rates and revenues, while increasing the revenue from further treatment. Similarly, applying sound environmental practices on board in order to ensure reduced waste production will also require ships to be equipped with innovative systems. In turn, a ship’s environmental performance, certified in accordance with “green ship” criteria, may improve a ship’s competitive position compared to other ship operators in the market.

Policy Option 2 (minimum revision) will only have a limited impact on SMEs, as it will not include the measures specifically addressing the fishing and recreational sectors. Policy Option 3 (MARPOL alignment) may have a positive impact on SMEs from the additional business to be expected for port reception facility operators, as described above. This impact is somewhat higher for Policy Option 4 (EU PRF regime) given the potential for additional waste to be delivered at ports. The most notable impact on SMEs is expected from Policy Option 3b and Policy Option 4b, given the focus of these variant options on the fishing and recreational sectors by including them in the payment of the indirect fee and the Directive’s inspection regime. SMEs are expected to benefit from the proposed incentive measures: encouraging fishing vessels and recreational craft to deliver their waste on land instead of discharging at sea will create more business for the waste operators. Furthermore, the measures are expected to result in a cleaner marine environment, as well as cleaner beaches, which should have a positive effect on the tourism sector in coastal regions (and islands), boosting the local economy. This has also been acknowledged in the Territorial Impact Assessment, which expects the greatest impacts on tourism development in the areas around the Southern Mediterranean and Black Sea.

The impact on SMEs is mainly linked to three factors: (i) the impact on waste delivered at ports, creating additional business for port reception facilities, (ii) the position of the fishing sector, affected through a number of policy measures that are specifically targeting this sector, and (iii) the benefits for the recreational sector, in particular local tourism, private marinas, and pleasure craft operators. The port reception facility operators hold a relatively small share of SMEs. The fishing industry on the other side contains a relatively high number of SMEs, with an average share of 54%, whereas the recreational sector also includes a significant number of SME’s. Therefore the measures addressing these shipping segments (notably: PM 2D, 2E and PM 3E) are expected to have a significant impact on SMEs.

Policy Option 4 (EU PRF regime) could have an even more substantial impact on business for port reception facility operators, as this policy option strengthens the strict delivery obligation in ports (PM 3A.2) supported by a dedicated monitoring and inspection regime (PM 3D.2 and PM 3F), which is expected to result in more waste being delivered to port reception facilities, in particular sewage. Similar to Option 3b, Policy Option 4b (EU PRF regime with special focus on marine litter) is expected to provide an additional increase in business for port reception facility operators, mostly from the waste being delivered by the fishing and recreational sectors.

Policy Option 3 is expected to result in increased waste deliveries following the incentive measures (PM 2A, 2B) and the measures improving the enforcement regime (PM 3D.1). This impact will be even higher for policy option 3b (MARPOL alignment with special focus on marine litter), as the measures focused on marine litter should result in more waste deliveries from the fishing and recreational sector, with a residual value for subsequent recycling/reuse if handled properly.

Policy Option 2 will only result in a limited increase of waste delivered, and will thus not generate significant additional business for port reception facility operators.

An increase in waste delivery will create new business and revenues for port reception facility operators. Consequently, this impact follows the pattern of volumes of waste delivered in ports, as described under the environmental impacts above.

The specific policy measures that focus on marine litter included in Policy Option 4b may increase the administrative burden even further, to the extent described for option 3b above.

For Policy Option 4 the administrative burden overall has a different outlook. Although administrative costs will be reduced from introducing a more harmonised exemption regime (PM 5-A), the potential for administrative burden reduction of this policy option is limited, as definitions are not aligned with those used in MARPOL, and therefore the reporting forms cannot be standardised with the IMO Circular. The main difference compared to policy option 3 is related to the impact from the enforcement variants under this option: PM-3A.2 (strict mandatory delivery obligation for all waste) may generate an increase in administrative burden, mainly as a result of having a dual system in place with a strong need for inspections. The increase in administrative burden for the crew on board involved in the inspection has been estimated at approximately 400,000 € annually. The introduction of a EU waste receipt (PM-3B.2) that is not fully aligned to the IMO waste receipt is also expected to generate additional administrative burden on port authorities.

For Policy Option 3b (MARPOL – special focus on marine litter) the policy measures to reduce marine litter may create additional administrative burden for smaller vessels and ports, in particular the proposed inspection regime for fishing vessels and recreational craft > 100GT, which will require additional efforts at the inspection as well as the ship’s side. At the operational side of the ship, a limited increase of administrative burden on the ship’s crew involved in the inspection may be expected, which is estimated at 41 000€ annually. Consequently, policy option 3b is likely to increase the administrative burden to some extent compared to policy option 3A. On the other hand, it is expected that the 100% indirect fee system for garbage will be easier to operate than other systems currently in place, and would result in a reduction of the administrative burden for ports and port users.

Both Policy Options 3 and 4 include the policy measure on harmonising the exemption procedures for ships in scheduled and regular traffic (PM 5-A), which will include the introduction of a standard exemption certificate and electronic exchange of information of the exemptions through SafeSeaNet. This approach should make it easier for competent authorities to assess exemption requests, and monitor the exempted ships. Potential gains in time and cost are estimated at approximately 4,100,000€. Also on the ship's side, this should lead to more clarity on eligibility and documentation to be provided, plus reduced time for obtaining an exemption if all conditions have been complied with.

­Incorporating inspections within the Port State Control regime (PM 3D.1). Expected cost savings from this measure for the crew involved in the inspection on board are estimated at: 386,000€. In addition, clarification of the Sufficient Storage Capacity thresholds in accordance with the MARPOL discharge norms should alleviate the administrative burden for ship operators. Improved reporting and exchange of information (PM 3F) are also expected to reduce the administrative burden on competent authorities and inspectorate bodies in charge of monitoring and enforcement.

­Aligning the scope of the mandatory delivery obligation with the MARPOL discharge norms (PM 3-A.1), which also allows for mirroring the MARPOL definitions of Ship Generated Waste and Cargo Residues (PM-4A). This in turn will allow for the forms, notably the advance waste notification, to be fully aligned with the IMO form (IMO Circular 834) as described in PM4B. Cost savings from this alignment of the waste notification with the IMO Circular are estimated at 2,888,000€. There may be some additional administrative cost from issuing and reporting the waste receipt (PM-3B). However, this is expected to be limited given that in most cases such a receipt is already issued upon delivery, and by extension, information on actual delivery in the previous port should normally have been reported through the advance waste notification;

Policy Option 3 (MARPOL alignment) has the greatest potential for reducing the administrative burden, as this option groups several measures, which all seek to align the PRF system with MARPOL. This alignment also provides significant potential for simplification of the PRF regime, in particular by:

Both Policy Options 3 and 4 are expected to result in administrative burden reduction through the introduction of a shared methodology to calculate the indirect fee, as well as through greater transparency in the relation between fees and costs (PM 2-A). A majority of ports and port users welcome a standard calculation method and clarification of the costs included.

Policy Option 2 (minimum revision) has some potential for reducing the administration burden by providing a clearer definition of adequacy, as well as (partially) aligning the scope of the Directive with MARPOL by including Annex VI waste, which will also be reflected in the reporting forms used.

The Territorial Impact Assessment has shown that positive impacts in terms of governance effectiveness may be expected in certain regions in the EU. In particular, the coastal areas in the Eastern part of the Baltic Sea, as well as EU coastal regions bordering the Black Sea, may benefit from the revision of the Directive, especially the measures aimed at simplifying and improving transparency (PM-2A), which are closely linked to the reduction of administrative burden.

Time spent by port users during inspections to demonstrate compliance is also considered as administrative burden from the port user’s perspective. Applying the standard cost model, the total time spent in inspections determines the amount of administrative burden borne by the port users. As developed in previous sections, different options provide for different enforcement regimes.

Administrative burden comprises all costs borne by businesses, citizens or organisations as a result of administrative activities performed to comply with information obligations contained in the legislation. In the context of the Directive, information obligations are primarily borne by ship owners through having to submit the Advance Waste Notifications, and through the provision of information and documents during inspections. Furthermore, ports/competent authorities are facing administrative burden from assessing the Advance Waste Notification, assessing and granting exemptions and reporting/documenting the results from inspections (see chapter 2.2.2). Therefore, the administrative burden is most likely to be affected by the policy measures improving the consistency in definitions/forms, as well as the enforcement and exemption regimes.

The operational costs for Policy Option 4 (EU PRF regime) are higher than in Policy Option 3 and are mostly related to the enforcement measures, such as the provision of specific training for inspectors to be able to implement the new/dedicated inspection regime (PM 3.D2), as well as the extension of the electronic monitoring and information system to provide for operational alerts (PM-3F).

Furthermore, additional compliance costs may be expected for Member State authorities under Policy Options 3b and 4b from the transition to the 100% indirect fee system for garbage (PM-2B). This applies in particular to the initial phase when the existing Cost Recovery Systems will have to be re-designed to meet the criteria of the 100% indirect fee system. This system requires the indirect fee, which is to be paid irrespective of delivery, to cover all of the costs from the reception and handling of the garbage delivered. As such, payment of the fee should allow the ship to deliver all its garbage without having to pay any additional fees. It should be noted that the majority of MS already have this system in place for receiving garbage from ships. If fishing vessels and small recreational craft are also included in the 100% indirect fee systems (PM-2D), including the waste collected under the "fishing for litter schemes" (PM-2E), compliance costs for ports may increase because of the additional waste being delivered. However, these may be offset by a decrease in waste accounting costs, as passively collected waste will no longer have to be distinguished from the waste generated by the vessel itself. At the ship side, operational costs are expected to increase as a result of additional handling and storage of waste, including passively fished waste, although this cost increase will in principle be limited given the non-mandatory nature of the fishing for litter schemes.

Under Policy Options 3 and 4, in addition to investing in additional capacity of PRF to receive MARPOL Annex VI waste (as described above), additional compliance costs may be expected for ports in relation to setting up separate collection schemes to receive the waste that has already been segregated on board. Although Member States should already have this system and the related infrastructure in place as required under the Waste Framework Directive, a number of Member States do not provide for separate collection at municipal/port level. As such, implementing this requirement for separate collection of waste in ports, should also help improve Member States' compliance with obligations under EU waste legislation, which should be considered positively in the overall assessment of the compliance costs of these options. Operational costs may also be incurred through the creation and implementation of incentive schemes based on harmonised criteria for recognising green ships, which reduce the amount of waste produced on board (PM 2C).

Policy Option 2 (minimum revision) will not require significant additional investments to what is already undertaken in the baseline scenario. However, the inclusion of MARPOL Annex VI waste in the scope of the Directive may require additional investments in waste reception facilities in ports to handle this specific type of waste, with more impacts to be expected for ports bordering the special Emission Control Areas, i.e. the North Sea and the Baltic, where standards for Nitrogen Oxide (Nox) and Sulphur Oxide (Sox) emissions are more stringent. Otherwise, as option 2 mainly consists of concise legal adjustments to the PRF Directive and soft law measures, limited impact is expected in terms of compliance costs.

Concerning the transition to the No Special Fee System in ports for the reception and handling of garbage, limited data is available. However, the Correspondence Group under the ESSF has reported that the operation of this system in one of the larger ports in the Mediterranean has resulted in a 700,000 euro deficit in 2016, while some of the large ports claimed that the introduction of such a fee system could result in a doubling of the waste fee to cover all the costs related to collection and handling of garbage from ships, including the hazardous waste, which can be very expensive to manage. Acknowledging that this cost is highly dependent on other factors, such as the port's administrative set up, type and number of ships calling and type of waste being delivered, it can serve as an illustration of costs that could be incurred from setting in place and operating the No Special Fee System in a port. At the same time it should be noted that the transition cost for the EU as a whole will be limited, as the majority of ports already has some form of No Special Fee system in place with respect to garbage from ships., and because funds should be available from EU producer responsibility systems for certain waste streams as required under EU waste legislation.

As regards the separate collection of waste, initial costs for the establishment of these systems should be distinguished from annual running costs. Although some data on costs for separate collection systems in EU municipalities is available, these are not directly applicable to ports, as the data apply to households and are quoted per capita. Some parallels may be drawn to the door to door collection system, where in some ports collection takes place through the employment of barges, whereas in other ports a system of bring points or civic amenity sites is in place. However, given that waste generation and treatment on board differs widely from that by households, a direct comparison between persons per household and passengers on board cannot be drawn. Moreover, ports differ widely, in terms of size, type of traffic and administrative organisation, and infrastructure on waste collection and management in many cases also depend on the municipal set up already in place (as required under EU waste legislation). For these reasons, the available data cannot be applied in the context of waste collection in port.

Generally it has been difficult to acquire data from ports as regards the compliance costs (including investment costs) to be expected from the proposed policy measures, as it concerns commercially sensitive data. Although a qualitative description has been provided by stakeholders (see Annex 2 – results from the stakeholder consultation), no exact figures have been provided, except in the case of the costs incurred with the application of the No Special Fee System in ports, as referred to below.

‐Ports and municipal authorities will have to provide for separate collection of waste from ships (PM 1B), to adjust their cost recovery system to provide for 100% indirect fee for garbage (PM 2B), and to rearrange their inspection regimes (3D.1 and 3D.2). At the same time, separate collection is expected to generate new revenues for the ports that can compensate for the new investments in waste collection.

‐In addition, a number of other policy measures (incentive measures PM 2B and PM 2D, enforcement measures PM 3A and PM 3D) are expected to result in more waste, in particular garbage, being delivered to ports as a consequence of better incentives and enforcement. This will require the development of additional capacity for the reception and treatment of the extra waste delivered. On the other side, the incentive measures, in particular measure 2C ("harmonisation of the green ship concept") should facilitate compliance of the shipping sector and reduce the costs associated with waste delivery.

‐Ports may have to invest in new facilities or upgrade existing facilities as a result of bringing MARPOL Annex VI waste into the scope of the Directive (PM 1A). The measure is expected to give rise to additional costs for providing adequate storage, reception and treatment for this type of waste. However, Member States – as contracting parties to IMO – already need to comply with the requirements under MARPOL to provide for adequate port reception facilities, and to deliver this waste on land, as discharge at sea is prohibited under Annex VI. Therefore, it is assumed that basic infrastructure for receiving this waste is already in place in those ports that are regularly visited by ships with scrubbers on board, and compliance costs will therefore be limited.

Compliance costs, including the investment and operational costs incurred from complying with the proposed measures, will mostly fall on ports and Member State competent authorities, in particular:

These costs have been compared with the inspection costs from full compliance with the requirements in the current Directive, imposing a 25% minimum yearly inspection target. Based on available data on the number of vessels, this target would translate into 19,500 inspections per year in EU Member States. As the Directive stipulates, it is possible for Member States to conduct the PRF inspections within the framework of Port State Control. The associated inspection costs are estimated to be around 429,000€ per year.

Thus, the total inspection costs for Policy Option 4a are estimated at 757,000€ per year (for 17,000 inspections) and the total estimated costs for Policy Option 4b at 791,000€ per year (for approximately 18,000 inspections).

In Policy Option 4b, the same additional costs as in Policy Option 3b are incurred from bringing fishing vessels and small recreational crafts into the scope of PRF inspections (PM-3E), i.e. with the same inspection target of 20%, resulting in an additional cost for inspection of 34,000€ per year (covering 800 vessels).

In Policy Option 4 (both variants), a dedicated EU PRF regime would need to be developed, with a PRF targeting mechanism allowing for ships to be selected for inspection. The implementation of this dedicated regime would result in a total of 17,000 inspections per year, for which the costs have been estimated to be around 757,000€.

The total inspection costs for Policy Option 3a are therefore estimated at 110,000€ per year (for approximately 16,000 inspections) and the total inspection costs for Option 3b are estimated at 144,000€ per year (for approximately 17,000 inspections).

In Policy Option 3b, in addition to the costs incurred under option 3A, fishing vessels and small recreational craft would also be brought into the scope of the inspection regime. If the target is set at the inspection of 20% of fishing vessels over 100GT and 20% of small recreational vessels over 100GT, the additional costs of inspections under these variant options have been estimated at 34,000€ per year (for around 770 vessels).

Annually, 15,186 inspections are conducted in EU Member States under the Port State Control Regime. Using the opportunity of these inspections to also check whether the ship has delivered its waste in accordance with the Directive, or whether it has sufficient capacity on board for delivery in the next port, is estimated to cost 85,500€ per year. In order to retain domestic vessels in the scope of the inspections, a separate regime will have to complement the inspections under Port State Control. Checking 20% of all domestic vessels each year (ca. 600 inspections) would cost around 26,000€ on a yearly basis.

In Policy Options 3 (both variants), the inspections are incorporated in the PSC Regime (by amending Directive 2009/16/EC). The main benefit from this approach in comparison with the baseline is that through the Port State Control regime the selection of ships will be made on a risk basis, focused on those ships posing the highest risk. Furthermore, this approach entails clear follow-up procedures in the context of the Port State Control Directive, as well as recording of all inspections in a database (THETIS).

In Policy Option 2, no new enforcement requirements are introduced in the revision of the Directive, so there are no additional enforcement costs to be borne.

The enforcement costs comprise all costs borne by the authorities to enforce legislation. These costs are expected mainly as a consequence of the inspection requirements to be included in the revised Directive.

The policy measures dedicated to marine litter contained in Policy Options 3b and 4b are all expected to result in additional deliveries of garbage waste to port reception facilities. This waste, which would also include passively fished waste (i.e. the waste caught in nets during fishing operations) through the application of the fishing for litter schemes, has the potential to be further re-used or recycled. This in turn will generate further revenues for waste operators. These options thus score even higher in terms of their contribution to the circular economy.

Both Policy Option 3 (MARPOL alignment) and Policy Option 4 (EU PRF regime) provide for measures 1B (waste hierarch), 1C (consultation with port users), as well as 1D (adequacy definition), thus including the main elements that will generate positive effects for the circular economy. In addition, both policy options include PM–3B (waste receipt), which may produce additional benefits from increased monitoring of waste streams delivered in ports.

Policy Option 2 (minimum revision), which includes measures 1C (consultation with port users) and 1D (adequacy definition) as part of a minimum legislative revision, is thus expected to generate a positive impact on the circular economy. However, the important measure of separate collection is not included, limiting this potential contribution. Encouraging incentive schemes to promote better waste practices on board (“green ship award schemes”) can be fostered and aligned through soft law guidance.

In addition to increasing waste delivery in ports, the options have the potential to contribute to the circular economy, in particular by improving waste management practices in ports as well as on board vessels. This is mostly the case through PM 1B and 1D, which seek to reinforce the waste hierarchy in EU law, in particular through separate collection of waste, and a better definition of adequacy, which should also cover the environmental operation of port reception facilities. In addition, PM 1C seeks to improve consultation of stakeholders in the process, which also allows for the principles of the circular economy to be better implemented. Providing for harmonised criteria for green ships will promote the uptake of sustainable waste practices on board, including segregation and waste minimisation, thus also contributing to the circular economy.

The results of the environmental vulnerability analysis indicate that, for a given volume of waste delivered to port reception facilities, avoidable negative environmental impacts are not equal for all types of waste. It appears, for example, that negative effects are higher for garbage in all sea basins. Therefore the potential for additional garbage to be delivered should be assigned a higher weighting factor when considering the actual environmental impacts. Furthermore, for oily waste and sewage, the environmental impacts are different per sea basin. Taking into account the outcomes from the vulnerability analysis, it may be concluded that Policy Options 3b and 4b will generate the highest environmental benefits, as these are the options that are the most effective in reducing garbage.

Table 12: Waste potentially discharged at sea in the baseline scenario (as absolute value and as percentage of total waste to be delivered)

Therefore, even focusing on garbage alone and on those impacts which can be monetised, a 1% increase in delivery of waste to port reception facilities will generate environmental impacts high enough to outweigh the regulatory costs. Indeed, for all the options considered, the order of magnitude of costs does not exceed hundreds of thousands of euros, as opposed to millions of euros as regards the expected environmental benefits.

These figures also include the garbage waste from fishing vessels and recreational craft, which - considering the share of these vessels in the total annual on-board generation of garbage (30% and 19% respectively, corresponding to 437,000 tonnes of garbage) - contribute significantly to the problem of marine litter and the associated costs. This justifies including specific measures for these vessels in Options 3b and 4b in order to maximise the potential for garbage delivery on shore.

ØCosts to the marine ecosystems which cannot be monetized, but have been described by marine biologists, as also shown in the environmental vulnerability analysis (annex 8).

The significance of the potential environmental benefits can be illustrated by looking at the example of garbage discharges and their potential environmental costs. Every 1% increase of discharges of garbage at sea, corresponding to between 5,800 to 8,200 tonnes of garbage delivered on-shore, may result in:

This indicates that even slight changes in delivery would have substantial environmental impacts. As regards Policy options 3b and 4b, additional delivery of garbage may be expected in comparison to options 3a and 4a.

In Policy Options 3 and 4 (both variants), a significant contribution to all illegal waste discharges could be provided. While it is not possible to provide an exact quantification of the expected increase in waste deliveries, it is important to note the substantial marginal effects of every 1%-increase in terms of reduction of the waste gap. Taking into account the estimates of the waste gap provided in chapter 2, every 1%-increase in deliveries in all waste categories would result in: 11,900 m3 of additional oily waste delivered (waste gap reduced by 40%), 12,300 m3 of additional sewage delivered (waste gap reduced by 9%) and 5,800-8,200 tonnes of additional garbage delivered (waste gap reduced by 2-14%).

In Policy Option 4b (EU PRF regime, with special focus on marine litter), additional delivery of garbage waste can be expected, in line with the description of the impacts for Policy option 3b, as explained above.

Policy Option 4 (EU PRF regime, without additional focus on marine litter) is expected to result in more waste being delivered to port reception facilities than policy option 3 (MARPOL alignment), as this policy option would also target the waste that could otherwise be kept on board for subsequent discharge under the MARPOL norms. This would be particularly relevant for sewage, in particular the sewage that has been generated in the port, as well as small quantities of oily waste. As a result, the discharge of these categories of waste at sea is expected to be reduced. However, it should be noted that having a strict delivery obligation in place is not the same as a discharge prohibition (which has been discarded as a policy measure; see chapter 5.2). A delivery obligation will not directly regulate the ship's operations at sea, but may at most reduce the need for the ship to discharge, in particular through a strict application of the exception of sufficient storage capacity on board until the next port of call. If the application of this exception does not take into account potential legal (MARPOL) discharges at sea but requires the storage capacity to be sufficient until the next port, then the ships will have less operational needs to discharge en route. Therefore, limited additional waste deliveries may be expected, but will be difficult to estimate due to the fact that this depends on the ship's operations at sea.

Policy Option variant 3b (MARPOL alignment, with special focus on marine litter) would lead to even more waste to be delivered to port, in particular from the fishing sector. This would result mainly from the following additional measures: PM-2B (100% indirect fee for garbage) is expected to contribute to the delivery of garbage waste, as it should allow the ship, after having paid the indirect fee, to deliver all its garbage to the port without having to pay any additional direct charges. The inclusion of fishing vessels and small recreational craft in the indirect fee obligation would also provide a better incentive for these vessels to deliver their waste to port instead of discharging at sea. This can be further strengthened by more effective enforcement of larger fishing vessels and pleasure craft (over 100GT), which according to MARPOL rules are obliged to carry a garbage management book on board. An additional increase in waste delivered in ports is to be expected from PM-2E (incentivising the delivery of passively fished waste by fishing vessels to port reception facilities through the fishing for litter programmes). This would bring passively fished waste into the scope of the Directive, as well as the indirect fee, allowing fishing vessels to deliver this waste to port without having to pay additional direct charges. A majority of respondents to the targeted survey for the fishing sector (14 out of the 18 who expressed an opinion, i.e. 78%) were in favour of the introduction of the possibility to deliver the waste caught in nets or deliberately retrieved from sea under the indirect fee.

Policy Option 3 (MARPOL alignment) relies on the inclusion of the inspections in the Port State Control regime. Compared to the baseline scenario, where 25% of all individual ships calling annually need to be inspected, the incorporation of inspections into the Port State Control regime, and the subsequent scope for applying a risk-based approach, will result in a considerable decrease of inspections to be undertaken. At the same time, the system will be more effective than the current regime, as it also allows for checking compliance with the Directive’s delivery obligation and the MARPOL requirements through the same procedures, which overall is expected to result in better compliance and implementation than is currently the case. A more effective inspection regime will also have a deterrent effect on ships visiting EU ports, and it is to be expected to result in more waste being delivered, as was also confirmed by 42 % of the respondents to the targeted survey (mainly PRF operators and port authorities).

The main differences between Options 3 and 4 in terms of waste delivery will come from the proposed enforcement measures, which are different for the two Policy Options. Generally it can be expected that improved inspections will result in more waste being delivered.

As confirmed by the results of the Open Public Consultation, inefficient cost incentives are an important reason for the illegal discharge of waste at sea. By streamlining the indirect fee, and making the link between fees and costs more transparent – while clarifying that the payment of the fee also provides a right to deliver the waste – the incentive regime will be more harmonised, in particular as regards the level of the financial incentive provided. A stronger incentive through harmonisation of the indirect fee is expected to lead to more deliveries of the different waste types in specific ports, which before introduction of the measure applied a lower indirect fee. However, it has been questioned whether this will result in an overall increase of volumes of waste delivered at the EU aggregate level.

Policy Options 3 and 4 both contain additional measures which improve the adequacy of port reception facilities, incentives for delivery of the waste to those facilities, and the exemption regime for ships in scheduled and regular traffic. The measures with the greatest potential for generating increased waste delivery are described below.

Besides these, the relatively small number of policy measures in Policy Option 2 (minimum revision) has a limited combined impact on waste delivery. Through soft law measures, additional waste impact can be generated if Member States wish to adhere to the policy lines recommended.

Also included in all policy options is the strengthened requirement for consultation (PM 1-C), which should improve the adequacy of PRFs as better tailored to the needs of port users. Improved consultation is expected to result in jointly agreed procedures and principles, as recorded in the Waste Reception and Handling Plans, as well as more commitment from port users to the proper management of their waste, including delivery, and more clarity on the operational aspects of the waste delivery and handling process. This should result in more waste being delivered in port.

Policy Options 2, 3, 4 and variants 3b and 4b all envisage the inclusion of MARPOL Annex VI waste in the scope of the Directive (PM-1A), which will require the provision of additional capacity in ports for the reception of this type of waste. Although MARPOL does not allow this waste to be discharged at sea, and requires reception facilities to be provided in ports, the current Directive does not include the corresponding provisions for this type of waste. It can be expected that inclusion of this waste in the Directive will improve enforcement of the MARPOL discharge prohibition and result in more deliveries of Annex VI waste in port. However, this increase in delivery will highly depend on the uptake of Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (scrubbers) by the shipping market, which has been estimated at approximately 24,000m3 of sludge, and 360,000m3 bleed-off annually.

Environmental impacts, in particular those defined as an increase in waste delivery to port reception facilities and a decrease in waste discharged at sea, are described below per policy option. The impact on the circular economy, which was introduced as an additional objective, has also been included in the assessment of expected environmental impacts of the different policy options.

Procedures for inspections to be established for fishing vessels and recreational craft below 100 GT

20% of the total of number of recreational craft of 100 GT and above calling in the MS annually

20% of the total of number of fishing vessels of 100 GT and above calling in the MS annually;

Control procedures to be developed for inspections, to the extent required, for fishing vessels and for recreational craft authorised to carry no more than 12 passengers

The criteria and procedures for selecting ships for inspection do not apply to fishing vessels and recreational craft authorised to carry no more than 12 passengers.

Principles of the indirect fee (including 100% indirect fee for garbage) to apply to all ships, including fishing vessels and recreational craft.

Principles of the indirect fee to apply to ships other than fishing vessels and recreational craft authorised to carry no more than 12 passengers.

All ships, including fishing vessels and recreational craft, irrespective of their flag, calling at a port of a MS

All ships, including fishing vessels and recreational craft, irrespective of their flag, calling at a port of a Member State

It should also be noted that the measures addressing the fishing vessels and small recreational craft in option variants 3b and 4b as outlined above, constitute an add-on to the current regime, which already covers these vessels, but excludes them from the indirect fee, waste notification and the application of enforcement conditions and criteria. The following table provides an overview of the changes envisaged for these vessels under variant options 3b and 4b compared to their current position under the Directive.

As was explained at the beginning of this section, the approximation with the MARPOL convention has been a determining factor in designing the policy options. The degree of alignment with MARPOL differs between the options and is depicted in the Table below.

PM-5B: Clarify in the legal text of the Directive that vessels which are operating exclusively within one port can also be exempted, provided they comply with the relevant conditions.

PM-5A: Develop common criteria to be applied for the application and approval of exemptions, including the introduction of a standardised exemption certificate, while also setting minimal requirements on information exchange between relevant authorities.

PM-4A: Align the definitions of "cargo residues" and "ship-generated waste" with the definitions used in MARPOL

PM-3F: Extend the electronic Monitoring and Information System, based on THETIS (EU) and SSN, to ensure better reporting and exchange of information, including the essential information from the Waste Reception and Handling Plans.

PM-3C.2: Clarify the definition of ‘sufficient storage capacity’ Variant 2: Sufficient Storage Capacity exception does not take account of MARPOL legal discharges, and is not allowed when the next port of call is located outside the EU.

PM-3B: Introduce requirement for a waste receipt to be issued upon delivery (Variant 1: fully aligned with IMO Circular 834, Variant 2: EU waste receipt based on IMO Circular).

Variant 2: Strengthen / emphasize the current Article 7 provision on delivery of all ship-generated waste, beyond the MARPOL discharge norms.

PM-2E: Fishing for litter: include passively fished waste into the scope of the Directive and in the indirect fee

PM-2D: Incentivise the delivery of all waste from fishing vessels and small recreational craft to port reception facilities by including them in the indirect fee regime.

PM-2C: Incentivise measures that reduce the amount of waste produced on-board. For this, the current provisions for green ships should be further improved.

PM-2A: Introduce a shared methodology to calculate the indirect fee, including higher levels of transparency on the various elements of costs charged to port users for the use of PRFs, and introduce the "right to deliver".

PM-1C: Strengthen the requirements for systematic consultation of stakeholders in the development and updating of waste reception and handling (WRH) plans.

PM-1B: Reinforce the waste hierarchy as laid down in the Waste Framework Directive, promoting separate collection in view of reuse and recycling of ship-generated waste.

The Table below presents an overview of the policy measures per policy option. Please note that all options are scored against the baseline scenario (Policy option 1), which has scores of “0”, and also refers to the relevant Guidance already available (Interpretive Guidelines-IG, Technical Recommendations-TR, and/or Inspection Guidance-IG).

This option variant (3b and 4b) will include the adequacy measures, as well as the measures for improving the incentives for delivery, including the Green Ship concept.

2.Approach based on enforcement and incentives (more stringent variant): this approach includes the incentive part mentioned above, but also addresses the enforcement of the waste delivery obligation for fishing vessels and recreational craft. The current regime can be strengthened by including specific targets for these vessels in the Directive, including reporting on the results from inspections in the monitoring and information system (THETIS-EU module). For the enforcement part, a differentiated approach is adopted for fishing vessels and recreational craft, based on GT: Fishing vessels and recreational craft over 100 GT will be targeted, as these vessels according to MARPOL need to carry a garbage management plan on board, which constitutes a crucial document to be checked in the inspection.

1.Approach based on incentives: to provide for a maximum incentive not to discharge at sea but instead deliver the waste to a facility on land, the indirect part of the fee is set at 100%. Furthermore, as has been shown in the analysis, fishing vessels and small recreational craft can be held accountable for a significant part of the marine litter from sea-based sources. Therefore, in this approach fishing vessels and small recreational craft have been included in the indirect fee regime of the Directive. In addition, passively fished waste would also be brought under the scope of the Directive, and arrangements put in place so that this type of waste can be delivered on shore without fishing vessels having to pay additional charges.

An option variant has been defined to specifically address the issue of marine litter from ships (mostly covered by MARPOL Annex V waste). This option variant will group all the measures that can effectively make a contribution to reaching the overall reduction target set in the circular economy. The following two approaches are proposed:

This option includes the adequacy measures which build on the definition of adequacy in the IMO Guidelines and the principles of EU waste law. It also includes the measures for improving the incentives for delivery, including the introduction of harmonised criteria for considering a ship to be a “green ship” in the context of the Directive, i.e. that it reduces its waste generation on board, and may thus qualify for a reduction in the waste fees charged by the port.

As a consequence, the forms to be used (waste notification and waste receipt) cannot be fully aligned with IMO Circular 834 either, as MARPOL applies different definitions for cargo residues as reflected in the Circular. Option 4 would only allow for the forms to be aligned with the Circular to the extent possible, which has already been the approach adopted so far by the waste expert group for implementing Annex II to the Directive.

Policy option 4 implies keeping the distinction between ship-generated waste and cargo residues, as there are no valid reasons for subjecting the latter to the stricter EU regime, given their specific nature and the fact that they are mostly handled by the terminals, which is different from the ship-generated waste. The cargo residues would thus continue to be delivered in accordance with MARPOL, as is the case under the current Directive.

As it was not deemed appropriate to include a discharge prohibition in the Directive (see chapter 5.2 above), the effectiveness of this option depends on a strict enforcement of the mandatory delivery requirement in each EU port. It also depends on a restrictive interpretation of the exception of sufficient storage capacity, backed up by an electronic monitoring and information system, where the information from the advance waste notification as well as the waste receipt will be reported and exchanged between Member States. Policy option 4 would thus require the introduction of a dedicated targeting mechanism, defining the priorities for inspection (to be determined by alerts created on basis of the information notified/reported), as well as an inspection commitment for Member States to check compliance.

This option seeks to further strengthen the EU regime for the delivery of all ship-generated waste to port: the mandatory delivery applies to all waste from ships, and this will include an express reference to the waste that can be legally discharged under MARPOL. As demonstrated by the overview of the MARPOL discharge norms, this would mostly have an effect on the delivery of small quantities of oily waste and sewage, which under strict operational conditions can be discharged at sea.

As mentioned before, Policy option 3 also includes measures for improving the adequacy of port reception facilities (defined in accordance with IMO Guidelines), which address both the operational conditions of the facilities through a more refined definition of "adequacy", as well as the environmental operation of the facilities in accordance with EU waste legislation. In addition, it contains measures for improving the incentives for delivery, such as further streamlining the underlying principles of the Cost Recovery Systems, in particular with regard to the requirement for an indirect fee, and providing rebates for ships that reduce waste generation on board ("green ships").

Policy option 3 will also bring the Directive’s inspections fully under the Port State Control Regime, which provides for a risk-based selection system of ships for inspection. This would imply that every initial Port State Control inspection also checks compliance with the Directive, in particular the mandatory delivery of ship-generated waste. This will require the Port State Control Directive to be amended to incorporate these inspections, as well as new priority criteria to be incorporated in Annex I to the Port State Control Directive. Combining PRF inspections with Port State Control inspections would allow for checking MARPOL and compliance with the Directive simultaneously.

By extension, this would allow for the waste notification form to be aligned with the IMO Circular MEPC.1/Circ. 834, notably for the same categories of waste to be reflected. The same would be the case for the waste receipt to be introduced under this option, which would also fully reflect the waste receipt included in IMO Circular 834.

In addition, Policy option 3 aims to fully align the definition of ship-generated waste (article 2 of the Directive) with the Annexes of MARPOL. This would involve including a reference to MARPOL Annex VI, as well as the cargo residues which are currently defined as a separate category of waste under the Directive (including MARPOL Annexes I and II wash waters, as well as MARPOL Annex V cargo residues).

In the first place, the MARPOL alignment option defines the scope of the mandatory delivery requirement in article 7 in relation to MARPOL: the delivery obligation will reflect the MARPOL discharge prohibition, i.e.: what cannot be discharged under MARPOL shall be delivered to PRF by ships calling in EU ports. This should also be reflected in the interpretation of the sufficient storage capacity exception in article 7.2, which in turn should be more flexible and take account of MARPOL legal discharges until the next port of delivery.

Policy option 3 is referred to as "MARPOL alignment" as it seeks further approximation to the MARPOL Convention, in particular the MARPOL Annexes. At the same time, it does not mean a full alignment with MARPOL either, as this would require abandoning existing requirements in the Directive, such as the development of Waste Reception and Handling Plans and the development of cost recovery systems, which are important features of the PRF regime that should remain and even be further strengthened in order to fully respond to the concerns identified in the ex-post evaluation.

·PM-2C: Incentivise measures that reduce the amount of waste produced on-board. For this the current provisions for green ships should be further improved;

In addition, Policy option 2 would also envisage a number of the proposed policy measures to be developed through soft law, providing further guidance on their implementation. The following policy measures (“PM”), which seek to provide for better incentives for the delivery of waste, would qualify for further development through soft law:

More specifically, the minimum legislative changes to be made include basic alignment with recent changes in MARPOL, such as the inclusion of MARPOL Annex VI waste (scrubber waste) into the scope of the Directive, as well as updating legal references in the PRF Directive which are no longer valid. The Directive contains old references to EU legislation which has meanwhile been amended, such as the Waste Framework Directive and the Port State Control Directive. Furthermore, the "adequacy" concept could be further clarified in the text of the Directive in line with the interpretation provided in the Commission Guidelines.

Policy option 2 builds on the baseline scenario, including targeted initiatives that have already been prepared and planned (as described in section 2.4 above), complemented by concise legal adjustments to the Directive, as well as development of soft law measures on certain aspects that need further clarification. As such policy option 2 would contain all the measures which would be necessary as a minimum to ensure effective continuation of the regime.

Policy option 1 provides the baseline scenario as described in section 2.4 above. Ambiguities in the application of the Directive would continue to exist, as no legal clarity would be provided on the relationship between the delivery obligation in the Directive and the discharge norms under MARPOL, as well as the concept of adequacy of port reception facilities. Soft Law measures that have been developed by the Commission and EMSA in the past can help provide further guidance on the main concepts of the Directive, but Member States will not be legally required to apply the recommendations. Through effective reporting and exchange of information of waste information through the Common Monitoring and Information System, enforcement of the mandatory delivery requirement can be supported, provided that the National Single Window is properly set up and implemented in all EU Member States. EMSA Guidance on enforcement will also help inspection authorities to conduct proper inspections under the Directive.

·The potential for reducing administrative burden and simplification of the regime has been considered for all the options presented.

·The potential for addressing the specific problem of marine litter (garbage) from ships. Policy options 3 and 4 both have two variant options; one with and one without focus on marine litter, as described below.

·The scope of the mandatory delivery of waste in ports (article 7). The interpretation and enforcement of the delivery requirement define the main differences between Policy options 3 and 4. Policy option 3 seeks to align the delivery requirement with the discharge norms laid down in MARPOL, i.e. explicitly requiring that the waste which cannot be discharged under MARPOL has to be delivered to a facility on land. This will also reflect on other aspects, as elaborated below. Policy option 4 aims to have all waste delivered at ports, including the waste that can be legally discharged at sea in accordance with MARPOL. This position will also reflect on other aspects, such as the application of the Cost Recovery Systems, and the type of inspection regime in place;

·The scope of the revision. Policy option 2 concentrates on a minimum legislative revision, focusing mainly on adequacy and incentives measures to be included in the revised Directive (while other areas are to be covered through parallel soft law measures). The other policy options focus on a more extensive legislative revision of the Directive, addressing the different operational objectives;

In the development of these policy options, three main guiding principles have been considered, as presented below:

The policy options have been constructed in such a way as to provide clearly identifiable packages of policy measures focusing on the objectives outlined above.

However, it should be noted that most of these vessels operate from and to the same port. Furthermore, the majority will not be equipped to electronically notify the required information. Requiring fishing vessels and small recreational craft to report waste information would thus induce considerable administrative cost to the operators of such vessels, as well as to national authorities for having to process the information. Even if a threshold is applied (only ships over 100 GT or 45 mtr in length overall) it would still imply a considerable burden on the vessels concerned, given that they would be required to submit the advance waste notification every time they call in port. In addition, the measure would require both Member States and EMSA to upgrade their electronic reporting systems (SafeSeaNet and the National Single Window) to cater for the additional notifications.

The Directive exempts fishing vessels as well as small recreational craft (carrying less than 12 passengers on board) from the obligation to notify the port of entry of the information contained in Annex II (advance waste notification). In order to collect the relevant data from the amounts of waste carried on board by these vessels, their storage capacity, and whether or not they have delivered in the previous port, it has been considered to include these vessels in the scope of the advance waste notification requirement. This should also support the enforcement of the mandatory delivery requirement, as well as facilitate the waste management process.

Another reason for not considering an exemption for “smaller” ports from having to develop a Waste Plan, is that part of the focus of the revision is on the reduction of marine litter, including the litter generated by fishing vessels and recreational craft, which are the vessels most likely to be calling at smaller harbours and marinas. Having a basic waste management plan in place for the smaller ports, and also communicating information about available waste facilities to port users, will increase the likelihood of these vessels delivering their waste on shore.

The EMSA Technical Recommendations have also reflected this flexibility in the development of the plans, by presenting an overview of the different types and formats that can be developed, showing large variety in coverage and detail depending on the size and geographic location of the port(s), as well as the waste streams normally delivered.

This has been confirmed in the Commission's Guidelines for the interpretation of the Directive, which explain that the plans may vary significantly in detail and coverage and some of the items in Annex I to the Directive (setting out the requirements for the Waste Reception and Handling Plans) may be only partially applicable to smaller ports. The Guidelines note that what is considered to be an “appropriate” plan depends on the size, geographic location and type of port, which would also determine the level of detail required. Furthermore, the Guidelines also point to the possibility provided in article 5(2) of the Directive of adopting a regional Waste Reception and Handling Plan, which combines the essential elements into one plan covering several ports in the same region, in order to facilitate port waste management planning.

However, this policy measure has been discarded, as the current provisions in the Directive leave a sufficient degree of flexibility for Member State authorities as regards the development and monitoring of the WRH Plans, with due consideration being given to the type of port as well as its size and location.

The Waste Reception and Handling Plans are fundamental for ensuring that adequate port reception facilities are provided. For this reason, the Directive requires that such an appropriate plan is developed for each port, including small fishing ports and marinas. It has been argued by stakeholders that the requirement for developing a WRH Plan places an unreasonable burden on smaller ports, only servicing a limited number of ships.

Finally, it should be mentioned that practical measures to address the issue are already available under the current Directive: the advance waste notification allows for timely arrangements to be made in case adequate facilities may not be available for the waste reported to be delivered. In addition, the waste reception and handling plan provides a key instrument in planning the waste delivery process, as it provides the basic information to the port users, including information on the reception facilities available in the port, and can include contingency planning and arrangements covering situations of force majeure.

This policy measure has been discarded in the Impact Assessment, as it risks introducing a loophole to the main obligations (provision of adequate port reception facilities and mandatory delivery), which would undermine the overall objective of the Directive. Even with a more detailed description of what should be considered adequate in terms of the facilities in line with international and EU Guidance (see policy measure 1D), some degree of uncertainty will remain on when this exception could be invoked, as this concept is strongly dependent on local conditions and the type of traffic to the port. This argument has also been discussed in the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee, in the context of a request for an amendment of MARPOL. The fact that the issue is still being discussed at the international level provides an important reason for not considering such a measure in the context of the revision of the PRF Directive.

The current Directive does not provide for situations where port reception facilities are (temporarily) unavailable, which may result in a ship leaving the port without having delivered in accordance with the Directive. This has been raised in particular in the context of passengers ships with significant volumes of sewage on board calling at ports where adequate facilities for dealing with the quantity or quality of the waste are not available, or in cases where due to natural disasters or serious problems with the infrastructure ships are not in a position to deliver their waste. Having to wait in the port until the situation has been resolved may generate long delays resulting in high costs for the ship, and may be difficult due to itinerary planning. For these reasons, it has been considered to introduce a provision that addresses these situations and would allow the ship to depart with waste still on board for delivery in the nearest port on its route for immediate delivery. This would further build on the regional approach already embedded in article 5 of the Directive, which allows Member States to develop the waste reception and handling plans in a regional context, with the appropriate involvement of each port, specifying the availability of waste facilities on a regional basis.

The REFIT Evaluation has also shown that overall the Directive has been relevant, effective and efficient, although the regime can be further improved. Repealing the specific obligations imposed by the Directive has never been advocated by any of the stakeholders. Full alignment and abandoning the EU's port approach and obligations would have a serious negative impact on the delivery of waste to port and lead to more waste being discharged at sea.

3.Requiring the establishment of Cost Recovery Systems to ensure that the costs of port reception facilities are covered through a fee from ships;

2.Requiring mandatory delivery of all waste before departure, in order to ensure that ships actually use the facilities set up in the ports;

1.Adoption of the waste reception and handling plans, which is a fundamental instrument to ensure adequacy of PRF;

MARPOL only provides for a general obligation to provide adequate PRF in the relevant annexes. However, while the Directive builds on this general obligation, it goes further by addressing in detail the legal, financial and practical responsibilities. In particular, the Directive has provided for:

Full compliance with MARPOL would mean repealing those specific measures which have made the MARPOL regime more effective through the application of EU law.

The MARPOL regulatory regime has evolved over time to formulate an adequate and functional framework for international shipping. This has also been acknowledged by the EU with the adoption of Directive 2005/35/EU (as amended) on ship source pollution, which incorporates the MARPOL international standards for ship source pollution into EU law. The international standards included are the discharge norms contained in MARPOL Annexes I and II. The Directive requires that the illegal discharge of polluting substances (as defined in MARPOL Annexes I and II) be considered a criminal offence (under the conditions laid down in Directive 2009/123) and that criminal penalties be imposed on the polluter. Although this Directive does not cover all of the Annexes of MARPOL, introducing a discharge ban for all EU waters would deviate from the approach taken by this Directive to incorporate the MARPOL norms, and would introduce further inconsistencies between the EU and the international legal framework. Given that shipping is an international sector, operating both in European and international waters, deviations between discharge standards should be avoided. In addition, a discharge ban in EU waters would be very difficult to enforce and control, as it will be difficult to prove illegal discharges, due to a lack of evidence in open seas, and the fact that the document proof (certificates and documents held on board) is completed in accordance with the MARPOL requirements, and would not correspond to the EU needs and requirements. Taking into account the specific situation of sewage discharges, it should also be noted that a general discharge prohibition would have an impact on the operational pattern of ships as additional sewage treatment plants and storage capacity would need to be installed on board of ships, affecting their design, construction and equipment, making it difficult to have a flag-neutral implementation in EU waters.

As explained above (chapter 1.1, EU legal context), the PRF Directive focuses on delivery in port, compared to MARPOL which regulates discharges at sea. Although the delivery obligation bears a strong connection to discharge operations at sea, it is certainly not equivalent to a discharge prohibition. To effectively address the discharges of waste in European waters, it has therefore been considered to introduce a discharge prohibition in the Directive. This would effectively assign “special area status” to EU waters for all categories of waste and cargo residues, especially having an effect on sewage discharges from passenger ships, not least because MARPOL still leaves considerable scope for sewage discharges, especially beyond the 12 nm zone (see MARPOL discharge norms, Annex 6). However, for the following reasons such a measure is not considered feasible and should be discarded:

Some of the measures proposed as part of the revision of the PRF Directive can also be implemented through soft law. In general, however, this tends to result in a reduced overall impact, while potentially lowering costs. The soft law approach has been assessed for the relevant measures.

Clarify in the Directive that vessels operating exclusively within one port (tug vessels, pilot vessels, etc.) can also be exempted under the same conditions, in line with the Commission’s Interpretive Guidelines.

Include common criteria for the granting of exemptions to ships in scheduled traffic. This will involve the clarification of the terms already provided in article 9 in line with the Commission’s Interpretive Guidelines, so that a truly common exemption regime is provided. A standardised exemption certificate will be included in an additional annex to the Directive, which should also be reported into the Common Monitoring and Information System (SSN) for subsequent exchange between MS.

Update the waste notification form(s) to fully reflect the IMO standard (IMO MEPC.1/Circ.834), including its definitions and waste categorisation. This policy measure builds on PM 4A above.

Align the definition of ship generated waste with the Annexes of MARPOL, by including MARPOL Annex VI (see also measure 1A), as well as incorporating the definition of cargo residues within the overall scope of ship-generated waste, in order to fully align with the definitions used in the MARPOL Annexes. This will also bring Annexes I and II wash waters, which under the current Directive are considered as “cargo residues”, into the scope of SGW, and the definition of cargo residues will be limited to MARPOL Annex V cargo residues. This measure builds on PM 3A (variant 1); the rationale for a deviant definition of cargo residues in the Directive has been to exclude it from the current strict delivery obligation for all waste and instead have it covered by the more flexible delivery obligation in article 10 (delivery in accordance with MARPOL). With PM 3A (1) there will be no further need for this distinction, thus opening the door for alignment of the definitions.

Extend/adapt the electronic Monitoring and Information System, based on THETIS-EU and SSN, to ensure better electronic reporting and exchange of information. Under both inspection variants above, adaptations will be necessary to THETIS/ THETIS EU, as well as adaptations of SSN (at central and MS level).

Strengthening the enforcement regime for fishing vessels and small recreational craft, by introducing a 10% annual inspection target for these vessels. Only the larger vessels will be included, i.e. those over 100 GT, as this is the MARPOL threshold for carrying a garbage management plan on board, which will be the key data source for checking whether waste delivery obligations have been met.

Provide for a dedicated PRF inspection regime. Under this variant, a specific PRF targeting mechanism will be provided, as well as a system to calculate the annual PRF inspection commitment per MS. The results of inspections shall be recorded in a separate EU module of the PSC database (THETIS-EU), which will also support the targeting mechanism and calculation of the commitment.

Incorporate the PRF inspections into the PSC Regime. To achieve this variant, the Port State Control Directive (Directive 2009/16/EC) will have to be amended to allow for PRF inspections to be combined with PSC inspections and to use the same risk-based selection system of ships for inspection. Results of the inspections will be reported in the PSC database (THETIS). This approach will allow for the enforcement of the PRF Directive in parallel to MARPOL enforcement. However, in addition to the PSC regime, a separate obligation will have to be provided in the Directive for inspection of domestic vessels (10% annual inspection target), as these do not fall under PSC, but should not be left out of the scope of PRF enforcement.

Strict variant: calculations shall be made of the SSC until the next port of call/delivery and the exception shall not be allowed in situations in which the next port of call is located outside the EU or unknown (outside the port to port reporting and monitoring system and no certainty that adequate PRF will be available in the next port).

Flexible variant: calculation of SSC on board taking into account discharges that can be made in accordance with MARPOL after the ship has left the port.

Clarify the definition of 'Sufficient Storage Capacity' (the main exception to the mandatory delivery obligation, “SSC”); two variants:

EU Waste receipt (based on different definitions and categories of ship generated waste and cargo residues than those used in MARPOL)

Waste Receipt in line with IMO Circular 834 (based on the same definitions and categories of ship generated waste and cargo residues as used in MARPOL)

Introduce a requirement for a waste receipt. The PRF operator will be required to issue a waste receipt to a ship upon delivery, stating the amounts and types of waste delivered. This receipt shall be communicated to the port authority which will be reporting its information electronically into the Common Monitoring and Information System (SafeSeaNet) for further exchange with Member States, as well as for statistical purposes to ensure better insights on waste streams in port. Small unmanned facilities shall be exempted from the requirement of issuing a waste receipt.

Strengthen the current mandatory delivery obligation for all ship-generated waste, beyond the MARPOL discharge norms. The delivery of all waste will be strengthened by making clear in the legal text that this also includes the waste that can in principle be discharged under MARPOL. It should be noted, however, that a delivery obligation does not equal a discharge ban and that a strict delivery obligation does not regulate operations at sea (which will continue to be governed by MARPOL) but rather focuses on what happens in port.

Align the delivery obligation with the MARPOL discharge norms; under this variant the mandatory delivery requirement would apply to the waste that cannot be discharged under MARPOL. The delivery obligation would thus reflect the discharge norms and provide for full complementarity.

Include “passively fished waste” in the scope of the Directive and include this waste stream in the 100% indirect fee for garbage. This measure addresses the waste that fishermen catch in their nets during normal fishing operations, and which doesn’t form part of the operational waste of the vessel itself. Given the current scope of the Directive, which is limited to ship generated waste as defined in the MARPOL annexes (which do not cover passively fished waste), the inclusion of this waste in the Directive will thus require extending its scope beyond MARPOL. By applying this measure in combination with PM 2B and 2D, the passively fished waste should be included in the indirect fee so that it can be delivered to port without having to pay additional direct charges. This measure would also facilitate the operation of existing “fishing for litter” schemes in the EU

Include fishing vessels and small recreational craft in the indirect fee regime. This measure builds on PM 2A and will require these vessels to pay a fee irrespective of delivery, so as to provide an incentive for delivery similar to the incentive given to other vessels.

Provide for a list of conditions that can be used to certify a ship as “green” in the context of the Directive (article 8(2c)), i.e. a ship whose design, equipment and operation are such that it produces reduced quantities of ship generated waste. This should facilitate the operation of certification schemes in ports to give reductions in the waste fee for such ships (already provided for in the Directive) and should promote the uptake of new technologies on board of ships to generate less waste.

Introduce a 100% indirect fee for garbage (MARPOL Annex V). This measure builds on PM 2A, but will specify that for garbage the indirect part shall be 100%, so that it should be possible that this waste can be delivered without any additional direct charges, so that a maximum incentive is provided for delivering this waste to PRF instead of discharging at sea.

5 (lack of alignment CRS), 6 (lack of transparency), 7 (fees not considered fair, non-discriminatory and reflecting costs), 8 (fishing vessels and recreational craft excluded from indirect fee)

Introduce the use of a shared methodology to establish the indirect fee part of the Cost Recovery System in ports. This measure aims to streamline the underlying principles of the indirect fee, including the relationship between fees and costs, and the “right to deliver”, without prescribing one specific system for all ports, as this would not take account of the differences in geographic location, size and administrative set up of ports in the EU. This should also increase the transparency of the CRS, in particular as regards the basis for the calculation of the fees, which should also be included in the information of the WRH Plans to be communicated to port users.

Clarify the definition of 'adequacy' of PRF, by defining the main elements of this concept in the Directive in line with international and EU Guidelines and practice.

Strengthen the requirements for consultation of port users, by clarifying in the Directive that consultation should take place in the development, as well as the monitoring and re-assessment, of the Waste Reception and Handling Plans.

Reinforce the waste hierarchy as laid down in the Waste Framework Directive. This should be done by incorporating the principles of the waste hierarchy in the process of waste processing in ports (description in the Waste Reception and Handling Plan), and more specifically by setting up systems of separate collection to facilitate subsequent re-use and recycling of waste collected in ports.

Broaden the scope of the PRF Directive to include MARPOL Annex VI waste (residues/sludge and bleed-off water from exhaust gas cleaning systems). Ports will be obliged to provide for port reception facilities capable of receiving this type of waste and include the relevant references in the WRH Plan. Ships will have to include this waste in their advance waste notification to ports, and will be obliged to pay a fee for the delivery. PRF inspections will also need to check that the Annex VI waste has been delivered on shore and not retained on board if storage capacity is insufficient. It should be noted that, although Annex VI also covers ozone depleting substances, these will not be included, as these are as normally handled by the repair yards. Wash waters from scrubbers will also not be included as these can be discharged in accordance with the relevant MARPOL Guidelines and should not be considered as waste in the sense of the Directive.

A set of measures has been defined and grouped according to the above-mentioned specific objectives. The policy measures are also linked to underlying root causes, as illustrated in the Table below.

In addition, the revision seeks to contribute to the wider objectives of the circular economy by contributing to an improvement of the waste handling process, as well as reduction of marine litter from sea-based sources.

Given that the first objective also aligns with the main aim of the Directive ("to reduce discharges of waste at sea") and the associated costs from discharges of waste at sea outweigh the costs associated with the administrative burden, as was shown in chapter two, the first objective of the reduction of waste discharges, should be considered the primary objective of the revision of the Directive, and the reduction of the administrative burden as a secondary objective.

ØFacilitation of maritime operations through a reduction of the administrative burden on ports, port users and competent authorities.

ØProtection of the marine environment through a reduction of discharges of ship-generated waste at sea;

Therefore, the objectives of the proposed revision have been defined as follows:

The PRF Directive causes substantial administrative cost, notably related to advance notification, the development of Waste Reception and Handling Plans and Inspections; a significant part of this cost is unnecessary and due to inefficiencies in the system.

Significant parts of marine litter originate from sea-based sources, which continue to discharge their waste at sea in contravention with existing discharge norms/prohibitions and the EU delivery o