EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 26.7.2011 
SEC(2011) 959 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
Accompanying the document 
Proposal for a 
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  
 
amending Directive 94/25/EC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and 
administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft, as 
amended by Directive 2003/44/EC 
{COM(2011) 456 final} 
{SEC(2011) 958 final}  
 
EN 2   EN 1. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
The Recreational Craft Directive 94/25/EC (RCD ) regulates the placing of boats intended for 
sports or leisure purposes on the EU market. It  lays down essential safety requirements. The 
amended Directive 2003/44/EC introduced specif ic requirements for e xhaust emissions from 
recreational marine engines, in particular  hydrocarbons (HC), nitr ogen oxides (NOx) and 
particulate matters (PM) a nd craft’s noise emissions,  
Despite the fact that the contribution of recreatio nal craft to the overall air pollution in the EU 
is minor compared with other pollution source s, it can be significant in certain peak times 
(summer) for certain areas (particularly la kes and some seashores). Especially, the 
concentration of NOx may exceed the environmen tal quality standards (EQS) in these areas. 
The vast majority of RCD manuf acturers is active on the EU ma rket and the US market and 
two thirds of worldwide sales of recreational ma rine engines are realized at both markets. US 
legislation regulating the exhaust emissions is stricter than th e current EU rules. Some EU 
Member States have undertaken efforts to reduce emissions from recreational craft by 
resorting to local (national) measures for speed limits or ban of boats in specific areas. In order to better protect the environment, ensu re a global market for RCD and to prevent 
national single solutions leading to a fragmentatio n of the Internal Market it is necessary to 
assess whether the exhaust and noise emissions s hould be strengthened at  EU level. At the 
same time the vulnerable position of the SMEs should be taken into account as the 
recreational craft sector consists mainly of small and medium sized enterprises (more than 
95% of businesses are SMEs). 
2. A
NALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY  
The subsidiary principle is respected by the pr oposal, since the Direc tive already harmonises 
the placing on the market for the RCD and Me mber States cannot ta ke action individually 
with regard to safety requirements and requi rements for limiting exha ust and noise emissions. 
3. OBJECTIVES  
The overall objective of this initiative is to further improve the environmental performance of 
recreational craft and thus to better protect the environment and human health, while at the 
same time ensure equal regulator y conditions with the EU main trading partners and a smooth 
functioning of the inte rnal market for RCD. 
GENERAL SPECIFIC OPERATIONAL 
Protect environment and 
human health  Improve the environmental 
performance of recreational craft 
 
 Revise exhaust emission 
limits. 
 Revise limits for noise 
emissions 
 
EN 3   EN  
Revise safety characteristics 
of the recreational craft 
Prevent fragmentation of the internal market caused by different national requirements on the characteristics of recreational craft 
 Revise exhaust emission 
limits. 
 
Protect vulnerable 
enterprises (SMEs in particular) from the worsening their position on the market and potential job losses because of complying with the new legislation.  
 Introduce mitigating 
measures for the most vulnerable recreational craft market operators in Europe (SMEs).  
 Improve the functioning of the 
internal market  
   
Provide the EU recreational 
craft industry as well as citizens with legal certainty.  
 Align the RCD with the NLF 
  
Promote the approximation of 
the emission limits worldwide Reduce additional 
compliance costs from different regulatory regimes Revise exhaust emission 
limits. 
  
 
4. POLICY OPTIONS  
A wide range of options to achieve the abov e mentioned objectives has been taken into 
consideration. Some options as self regulation for exhaust emissions (voluntary code of the 
industry) or discontinuing exis ting EU action by repealing th e exhaust and noise emission 
limits from the Directive and a labelling requir ement only have been discarded at an early 
stage as they are obviously not suited to tackle the identified  problems. The following options 
have been retained for further analysis. 
 
 
EN 4   EN A. Exhaust emission limits for engines 
Option 1 - No change  
The existing exhaust emission limits in the Directive remain. 
Option 2 - Stricter exhaust emission limits (Stage II) 
The possibility of introducing a new stage II of exhaust emission limits  has been assessed. 
Five possible scenarios have been analysed. Sc enario 1 is based on the harmonisation of Stage 
I limits for all petrol (SI) engines and aligns the limits for diesel (CI) engines with the existing 
rules in the Non Road Mobile Machinery Directive 97/68/EC (NRMM). Scenarios 2-4 
concern an alignment of the SI engine limits with  the US standards and CI engine limits with 
the EU NRMM legislation with different levels  of stringency. Scenario 5 harmonises the 
limits with the US for SI and CI engines. Scenario 5 as the most suitable scenario was selected for further evaluation and became Option 2 in the analysis of impact. 
Option 3 - Stricter exhaust emission limits (St age II) combined with mitigating measures 
for the industry 
This option is based on Option 2 but further di vided into 3 Sub-options containing mitigating 
measures to limit negative economic and social effects of higher emission limits. 
Sub-option 3.1 – Use of a flexibility scheme 
An option to mitigate the effects of stricter exhaust emission rules might be the introduction 
of a flexibility scheme as established in Art. 4 of Directive 97/68/EC.T his would allow engine 
manufacturers to place on the market a fixed limited number of recreational marine engines 
compliant with the previous stage of emissions, s till after the entry into force of new emission 
limit values.  
Sub-option 3.2 – Use of a transitional peri od for all engine manufacturers (3 years) 
This option foresees to provide a three years transitional period after the entry into force of 
the Directive in order to allow industry to ad apt the engines to the new technologies. The 
period would start from the entry into force of the Directive, meaning that approximately two 
years would overlap with the transposition period of the Directive, leaving one extra year for 
adaptations. 
Sub-option 3.3 – Use of a transitional peri od for all engine manufacturers + a specific 
transitional period for small and medium si zed engine manufacturers placing on the EU 
market the SI outboard engines ≤ 15 kW (3+3 years) 
This option combines a transitional period as a general mitigating measure for the engine 
manufacturers with a specific measure directed  on SME’s as those are proved to be (by the 
SME test) the most vulnerable in  terms of compliance costs.  
 
 
 
EN 5   EN B. Noise emission limits for engines .  
Option 1 - No change  
The existing noise emission limits in the Directive remain. 
Option 2 – Stricter no ise emission limits 
The current EU noise emission limits regulatin g the sound emitted by the recreational craft 
would be tightened. 
C. Alignment of the RCD with the New Legislative Framework  
Consequently to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 and of  Decision 768/2008/EC, 
the Recreational Craft Directive has to be br ought in line with the principles of New 
Legislative Framework. It means basically the inclusion of obligations  of economic operators, 
the competences of conformity assessment bodies  and market surveillance authorities, new 
conformity assessment modules and the status of CE marking. 
5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
A. Impact of stricter exhaust emissions limits  
Option 1 - No change of limits 
There are two main concerns related to the im pacts of this option: environmental and trade 
concern. Firstly, NOx concentrations may exceed the environmental quality standards in coast 
marinas for the short term. Secondly, if the curr ent limits would continue to apply, the engine 
manufacturers may be tempted to install more  polluting engines complying with the Stage I 
instead of the cleaner but more expensive engi nes complying with the US standards. Secondly 
this option entails the risk of a fragmentation of  the Internal Market due to the likely adoption 
of diverse regional regulati ons for speed limits etc. 
Option 2 – Stage II of the exhaust emissions limits  
The restriction of the exhaust emission levels  aligning the EU and the US limits for the 
recreational marine engines would bring an  environmental improvement but also high 
compliance costs for the engine manufacturers.  
Value of damage avoided / year compared to Option 1  
 Average annual 
damage savings 
(M€) / tonne of 
emissions (NOx)  Average annual 
damage savings 
(M€) / tonne of 
emissions (PM)  
Option 2 - Stage II  9,5 M€ - 45,5 M€ 3,2 M€ - 18,2 M€ 
 
 
 
EN 6   EN Estimation of total compliance costs / year  
 CI Engines SI Engines 
Option 2 - Stage II   5,7 M€ - 19 M€ 5,1 M€ - 10,6 M€ 
 
Option 3 – Stage II of the exhaust emission s limits combined with various kinds of 
mitigating measures for engine manufacturers 
Complying with stricter emission standards will entail additional costs. Therefore measures to 
mitigate economic and social costs have been assessed. 
Sub-option 3.1 – Use of a flexibility scheme 
The use of the flexibility scheme has not been retained. It is designed for a special situation 
where an original equipment manufacturer ne eds additional lead ti me for adjusting the 
machinery design to new developed engines but  not for the engine manufacturer as such. 
Sub-option 3.2 –– Use of a transitional period for all engine manufacturers 
The aim of this option to grant a transitional period of three years to manufacturers reflects 
the flexibilities granted in the US as well as  the time when the exhaust emission limits will 
become fully applicable in the US. The produc tion of majority of engine manufacturers 
should comply with these limits already. 
Value of damage avoided / year compared to Option 1  
 Average annual 
damage savings 
(M€) / tonne of 
emissions (NOx)  Average annual 
damage savings 
(M€) / tonne of 
emissions (PM)  
Sub-option 3.2 - Stage II + Additional transition period  7,1 M€ - 34,2 M€ 2,4 M€ - 13,7 M€ 
Estimation of total compliance costs / year  
 CI Engines SI Engines 
Sub-option 3.2 - Stage II + Additional trans. period  2 M€ - 8 M€ 1,8 M€ - 5 M€ 
Use of a transitional period allows companies to mitigate the negative economic impacts of 
stage II limits and is at the same time not burde nsome in terms of administration. However, an 
SME test has been carried out as it might not be fully adapted for the special needs of SMEs. 
The SME test has revealed that complying wi th the new emission limits entails additional 
compliance and partly administrative costs. SMEs do not have the liquidity and an access to finance compared to bigger companies to finance these investments. The stakeholders’ consultations showed that SME SI engine manu facturers producing low power engines will be 
the ones to have serious difficulties to comp ly with the Stage II limits. Low power SI 
 
EN 7   EN outboard engines (i.e. P N ≤ 15 kW) are affected as it requires high investment to develop such 
an engine which complies with the more stri ngent emission limits. Due to the lower revenue 
of low power engines, the payback time is longe r than for the high power engine categories.  
Sub-option 3.3 – Use of a transitional peri od for all engine manufacturers + a specific 
transitional period for small and medium si zed engine manufacturers placing on the EU 
market the SI outboard engines ≤ 15 kW (3+3 years). 
The environmental impact of this mitigating m easure is estimated at about 6,16 tons/year of 
HC+NOx emissions more comparing to Sub- option 3.2. It would repr esent 0,015 % of the 
total annual HC+NOx emissions. This figure does  not make a real difference in the overall 
annual exhaust emissions from r ecreational crafts. With the addi tional transitional period of 3 
years, the small and medium sized SI engine manufacturers will not be forced to discontinue 
this production. The worldwide market share of small and medium sized SI engine 
manufacturers is about 0,5%. Therefore th e additional mitigating measure to those 
manufacturers has a marginal effect on the market. 
Comparison of the options  
 Average annual 
emission change 
of HC+NOx (%)  Average annual 
emission change 
of PM (%)  Average annual 
emission change 
of CO (%)  
Option 2 – Stage II of the limits -26,51% -45,08% 20,56% 
Sub-option 3.1 – Stage II + 
Flexibility scheme -23,96% -28,20% 17,99% 
Sub-option 3.2 – Stage II + 
Additional transitional period -19,88% -33,81% 15,42% 
Sub-option 3.3 – Stage II + 
Additional transitional period + 
Specific time for SI engine SMEs -19,78% -33,81% 15,36% 
Net economic benefit (sav ings/costs analysis) 
  Net benefit (M€) 
Option 2 – Stage II of the limits 1,9 M€ - 34,1 M€  
Sub-option 3.1 – Stage II + Flexibility scheme 4,8 M€ - 34,6 M€  
Sub-option 3.2 – Stage II + Additional transitional period 5,7 M€ - 34,9 M€  
Sub-option 3.3 – Stage II + Additional transitional period + Specific 
derogation for SME SI engine manufacturers 5,7 M€ - 34,8 M€  
 
EN 8   EN Comparison of the social impact measured in units / year  
  Total job losses for CI 
engines  Total job losses for SI 
engines  
Option 2 – Stage II of the limits less than 100  less than 100  
Sub-option 3.1 – Stage II + Flexibility 
scheme less than 10  less than 100  
Sub-option 3.2 – Stage II + Additional 
transitional period job losses unlikely  less than 100  
Sub-option 3.3 – Stage II + Additional 
transitional period + Specific derogation 
for SME SI engine manufacturers job losses unlikely  job losses unlikely  
Basically all options meet the general objectives as they firstly lead to the decrease of air 
pollutants in the environment and secondly th ey provide the common legislative framework 
for the engine manufacturers opera ting within the EU market and thirdly ensure the alignment 
of engine emission requirements with the US . However, Option 2 does not sufficiently meet 
the specific objective to protect small vulnerabl e enterprises from wors ening their position on 
the market. Sub-option 3.3 takes account of this.  
Sub-option 3.3 is the most effici ent compromise for SMEs in te rms of environmental effects 
combined with economical and social losses . Therefore it became the preferred option.  
B. Impact of the noise emissions limits for engines  
Option 1: Impact of no policy change 
Keeping the current noise emission limits will guarantee the maintaining of the internal 
market due to harmonisation of noise limits, but at the same time also save compliance costs 
for companies which will not have to invest  in new technologies to  achieve the required 
emission limits. It allows achieving greater e nvironmental benefits through tailor-made, 
national, measures, specifically designed for the areas in which craft operates in each country.  
Member States would enjoy a leeway to design specific measures which would allow them to 
effectively restrict noise, since noise emitted by recreational craft is not the sole result of engines' noise.  
Option 2: Impact of stricter noise emissions limits  
Noise from the boat does not entirely result fr om the boat's noise emissions but rather, they 
are a result of a combination of factors (use/spe ed of boat, noise of the engine, noise of the 
hull, subjective criteria linked to the area, the person listening etc.).  The weight of these 
factors varies for each particular boat. Since th e Directive can only act on the noise emission 
from the boats measured in sterile conditions, it can modify a limited source of the total noise felt by the user/bystanders. Restricting of just on e factor (such as noise emissions of engines) 
would not bring expected decrease of overall noise while it would impose high compliance 
costs on the manufacturers.  
 
EN 9   EN Overall sound reductions that can be obt ained from reducing noise from engines   
Type of engine  Sound reduction of the engine 
(in dB) Total craft’s sound reduction 
obtained (in dB) 
Outboard P N > 40 kW -6 / -8 -3 
Outboard 10 < P N < 40 kW -4 / -5 -3 
Outboard P N < 10 kW -4 / -5 -3 
PWC P N > 40kW -4 
-3 -3 
-2 / -1 
 
C. Impact of the measures aligning the Recreational Craft Directive with the New 
Legislative Framework (NLF)  
The impact should be mostly positive, since th e horizontal provisions ar e clarifying certain 
issues which are subject to uncertainty for the moment. Legal certainty will be for the benefit of all parties: economic operators, national and the EU administration as well as consumers. 
Certain new obligations set for economic operators, can have an economic impact in terms of new costs for the economic operators.  
6. MONITORING
 AND  EVALUATION 
The main tool is market surveillance by the competent authorities of Member States. The 
Commission will detect problems of regarding the correct application of the Recreational 
Craft Directive trough: 
• The regular reports that Member States have to send to the Commission, 
• The ADCO group meetings, 
• The information exchange systems provi ded by Art. 23 of Regulation 765/2008/EC 
framework,  
• The group of notified bodies that coordi nates the common application of the 
conformity assessment rules.