Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Report on the possibilities of further improving the environmental characteristics of recreational craft engines, submitted pursuant to Article 2 of Directive 2003/44/EC, amending Directive 94/25/EC relating to recreational craft {SEC(2007)770} {SEC(2007)819}
Date: 2007-06-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European standard, engine, environmental standard, pleasure craft, technical regulations, technical standard

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 11.6.2007 
COM(2007) 313 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Report on the possibilities of further improving 
the environmental characteristics of recreational craft engines, 
submitted pursuant to Article 2 of Directive 2003/44/EC, 
amending Directive 94/25/EC relating to recreational craft 

{SEC(2007)770} 
{SEC(2007)819} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Directive  94/25/EC  (the  “Recreational  Craft  Directive”  -  RCD)  lays  down  the 
essential  requirements  for  the  design  and  construction  of  recreational  craft  to  be 
fulfilled to enable the free circulation of these products in the Internal Market. The 
RCD has been amended by Directive 2003/44/EC, which specifies harmonised limits 
for  exhaust  and  noise  emissions  craft  have  to  comply  with  to  have  free  access  to 
markets throughout the Union.  

Article 2 of Directive 2003/44/EC, requests the Commission to submit by end 2006 
“a report on the possibilities of further improving the environmental characteristics 
of engines and to consider inter alia the need to revise the boat design categories” 
and  by  end  2007  “if  deemed  appropriate,  in  the  light  of  this  report,  appropriate 
proposals  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council.”  It  also  requests  to  take 
account of the following elements “in the light of the experience gained”: 

(a) the need to further reduce emissions of air pollutants and noise in order to meet 
environment protection requirements; 

(b) the possible benefits of a system for "in-use compliance"; 

(c) the availability of cost efficient techniques for controlling emissions; 

(d) the need to reduce evaporation and spill of fuel; 

(e)  the  possibility  of  agreeing  on  international  standards  for  exhaust  and  noise 
emissions; 

(f) possible simplifications of the system for conformity assessment procedures. 

In response to this request, the Commission has undertaken the following actions: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

A stocktaking study, making a detailed inventory and comparative assessment 
of  the  current  status  and  developments  in  technology  and  legislation 
worldwide concerning the environmental performance of recreational marine 
engines. This study resulted in the identification of four possible scenarios for 
further  reducing  the  exhaust  emission  limits.  It  also  addressed  in  detail  the 
elements (a) to (f) mentioned above. 

An impact assessment study, identifying and measuring in detail the impacts 
and distributive effects of the four possible scenarios for further reducing the 
exhaust emission limits and comparing these impacts through a multi-criteria 
analysis, using the “status quo” as the baseline option for this comparison. 

A  series  of  consultation  meetings  with  stakeholders  (Member  States 
Authorities,  Industry  and  User  Associations),  to  inform  concerned  parties 
about  the  work  undertaken  and  the  progress  achieved  in  the  course  of  the 
above mentioned studies, and collect their comments on the findings. 

In  the  context  of  the  EU-US  Trans-Atlantic  Business  Dialogue,  a  round  of 
meetings  have  taken  place  between  the  Commission  services,  the  US 
Environmental Protection Agency and recreational marine industry to explore 
the  possibilities  for  aligning  future  recreational  craft  emission  legislation  in 
the US and the EU. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
2. 

OBJECTIVES 

This  Report  considers  the  possibilities  of  further  improving  the  environmental 
characteristics of recreational marine engines and the need to revise the boat design 
categories. It also addresses the elements, which the Commission is requested to take 
account of in the light of the experience gained. In line with the general objectives of 
the  Better  Regulation  Action  Plan  and  the  Community’s  guidelines  on  Impact 
Assessment,  it  aims  at  identifying  suitable  policy  options  and  considers  the 
appropriateness  of  submitting  legislative  proposals.  It  identifies  the  need  to  further 
explore  the  possibilities  for  maximising  the  emission  reduction  potential  of 
recreational  craft  and  concludes  that  depending  on  the  outcome  of  this  assessment 
the Commission could consider tabling appropriate proposals at a later stage. 

3. 

EXPERIENCE GAINED 

The  experience  gained  with  the  application  of  the  exhaust  and  noise  emission 
amendments to the RCD is very limited. This is due to the short time period between 
the date of full entry into application of these amendments and the deadline for the 
submission of this Report. The amendments have given rise to some difficulties with 
regard  to  their  timely  implementation  by  Member  States  and  their  application  by 
manufacturers and notified bodies.  

Despite the five years elapsed between the submission of the amending proposal in 
2000 and the entry into application of the amendments in 2005, it emerged that part 
of  the  industry  had  not  started  timely  to  prepare  itself  for  their  application.  As  a 
result, the transitional period of 1 year intended to enable manufacturers to sell their 
stocks  of  products  manufactured  in  line  with  the  national  rules  in  force  before  the 
adoption of the amended RCD, has been used by manufacturers and notified bodies 
to  adjust  to  the  new  conformity  assessment  procedures  and  environmental 
requirements introduced by the amended RCD.  

The delays encountered by Member States in transposing the amended RCD, on the 
one hand, and the limited number of notified bodies initially available to perform the 
conformity assessment tasks related to the emission requirements, on the other, have 
been contributing to the difficulties encountered. 

The  Commission  has  been  concentrating  on  mitigating  these  difficulties  to  the 
maximum by supporting all involved parties in implementing the amendments to the 
Directive,  and  where  necessary,  by  launching  the  appropriate  procedures  against 
Member States which had not timely notified their national implementing measures. 
These  actions  have  enabled  to  clarify  the  situation  before  the  amendments  entered 
into full application on 1 January 2006. 

In the light of this experience, careful attention should be given to the time needed by 
all  concerned  parties  to  adapt  themselves  to  any  further  changes  that  may  be 
envisaged,  as  well  as  to  the  legitimate  expectations  of  enterprises  about  the  legal 
stability and certainty they need to plan their design and production processes and the 
related  investments  in  the  light  of  any  possible  envisaged  further  changes  to  the 
Directive’s requirements. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
4. 

THE NEED AND POSSIBILITIES FOR FURTHER REDUCING EMISSIONS 

4.1. 

The impact of recreational boating on the overall and local air quality 

From  the  findings  of  the  stocktaking  study1  can  be  concluded  that  with  the  current 
emission  limits  in  force,  the  contribution  of  recreational  boating  to  the  overall  air 
pollution is minor. 

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0

f
o

n
o

i
t
u
b

i
r
t
n
o
c

e
v

i
t
a

l

e
r

]

%

[

s
n
o

i

i

s
s
m
e

t
f
a
r
c

l

a
n
o

i
t
a
e
r
c
e
r

% of total anthropogenic
em is s ions

% of road trans port
em is s ions

CO

HC

NOx

PT

air pollutant 

Figure  1: re lativ e  contribution of re cre ational craft 
e missions to ov e rall air pollution in 15 EU M S

Figure 1 shows that the estimated amount of carbon monoxide (CO), hydro-carbons 
(HC),  nitrogen  oxides  (NOx)  and  particulates  (PT)  emitted  by  a  recreational  craft 
fleet complying with the current emission limits is not significant when compared to 
the total amount of anthropogenic emissions and overall road transport emissions in 
15 EU Member States (basis: 1998 figures reported by the European Environmental 
Agency). 

Simulations have been carried out in the stocktaking and impact assessment study to 
assess  to  what  extent  a  further  tightening  of  the  current  emission  limits  could 
contribute to minimising the environmental impact of recreational boating.  

4.2. 

Identification of possible further improvements and scenario options 

The stocktaking study identified the following possibilities for improvements: 

–  For  outboard  spark  ignition  (SI)  engines,  changing  from  two-stroke  (2S) 

technology to direct injection 2S and four-stroke (4S) technology. 

–  For 

inboard  SI  engines,  updating  of 

the 
developments in other applications, in particular automotive, and possibly the use 
of oxidation catalysts as after-treatment technology. 

technology  equivalent 

the 

to 

–  For  inboard  compression  ignition  (CI)  engines,  updating  of  the  technology 
equivalent to the developments in other fields, in particular that of engines used in 
non-road mobile machinery. 

1 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/maritime/maritime_regulatory/doc/rc_study_exec_sum.pdf  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Based  on  these  technical  feasibility  considerations,  and  after  consultation  with 
stakeholders,  a  scenario  based  approach  was  developed  in  the  stocktaking  study, 
identifying following options for further reducing the exhaust emission limits: 

–  Option  1:  All  2S  and  4S  SI  engines  would  have  to  comply  with  the  Directive’s 
current  exhaust  emission  limits  for  4S  SI  engines.  CI  engines  would  have  to 
comply  with  stage  IIIA  emission  limits  for  commercial  marine  engines  used  in 
inland  waterway  vessels  as  specified  in  the  Non-Road  Mobile  Machinery 
Directive (NRMM). 

–  Option 2: All 2S and 4S SI engines would have to comply with exhaust emission 
limits  which  are  at  75%  of  the  Directive’s  current  limits  for  4S  SI  engines.  CI 
engines would have to comply with stage IIIA emission limits for general use of 
the NRMM Directive. 

–  Option 2A: Same as for Option 2, but for SI engines with a power output of less 
than  30  kW  the  Directive’s  current  exhaust  emission  limits  for  4S  SI  engines 
would apply. 

–  Option 2B: for SI engines Option 2A would apply and CI engines would have to 

comply with stage II emission limits of the NRMM Directive. 

4.3. 

Impact assessment of the scenario options compared to the baseline option  

The above scenario options and the baseline option, i.e. maintaining the Directive’s 
current  emission  limits,  have  been  submitted  to  a  detailed  impact  assessment,  to 
identify  and  measure  in  detail  the  technical,  environmental,  economic  and  social 
impacts  and  the  distributive  effects  of  these  options  and  to  compare  their  impacts 
through a multi-criteria analysis.2 

4.3.1.  Technical impact and compliance cost assessment 

The  technical  impact  of  the  scenario  options  has  been  assessed  by  identifying  for 
each engine segment the suitable key technologies for complying with the scenario 
options  and  by  calculating  the  cost  of  the  technology  changes  required,  taking  into 
account,  where  necessary,  the  need  for  converting  these  technologies  to  the  marine 
environment and their availability to the recreational marine industry. A summary of 
the detailed cost compliance analysis is annexed (see Impact Assessment Summary). 

4.3.2.  Environmental impact assessment 

The environmental impact of the scenario and baseline options has been assessed by 
developing models for marinas with a recreational craft fleet and their usage patterns 
in  typical  lake,  coast  and  inland  waterway  environments  in  the  EU.  These  models 
have been used to estimate the effect of the scenario options on the yearly amount of 
air  pollutants  emitted  by  the  recreational  craft  fleet  in  the  EU.  The  results  are 
summarised in Table 1. 

Air pollutant→ 

CO 

HC + NOx 

PT 

Total 

2 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/maritime/maritime_regulatory/directive_03_44.htm  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
↓Scenario 

kton/y 

% 

kton/y 

% 

kton/y 

% 

kton/y 

% 

Baseline option 

153,1 

Option 1 

Option 2  

Option 2A 

Option 2B 

153,1 

153,1 

153,1 

153,1 

40,9 

32,7 

28,2 

27,4 

31,5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0,6 

0,4 

0,4 

0,4 

0,4 

-20 

-31 

-33 

-23 

194,6 

186,2 

181,7 

180,9 

185,0 

-33 

-33 

-33 

-33 

-4,3 

-6,6 

-7,0 

-5,0 

Table  1:  estimated  amount  of  EU  recreational  marine  exhaust  emissions  in  kiloton  per  year  and 
emission reduction potential in % for the scenario options compared to the baseline option. 

4.3.3.  Economic, social and competitive impact assessment 

A detailed overview of the economic, social and competitive impact of the scenario 
options is provided in the Annex to this Report. Table 2 summarises the key findings 
for  the  three  engine  sectors  considered:  CI  and  SI  engines  and  Personal  Watercraft 
(PWC). 

average gross compliance cost 
(€m) 

price effect  
(%) 

employment effect  
(number of job losses) 

sector→ 

CI 

SI 

PWC 

total 

CI 

SI 

PWC 

CI 

SI 

PWC 

total 

option 1 

147,1 

6,4 

2,0 

155,5 

+4,4 

+0,7 

+1,9 

-37 

-86 

-6 

-129 

option 2 

245,2  121,0 

5,1 

371,3 

+10 

+10 

+4,9 

-85 

-86 

-16 

-187 

option 2A  245,2  104,7 

2,0 

351,9 

+10 

+7,7 

+1,9 

-85 

-86 

option 2B  150,2  104,7 

2,0 

256,9 

+4,4 

+7,7 

+1,9 

-37 

-86 

-6 

-6 

-177 

-129 

Table 2: estimated gross compliance cost, price effect and impact on employment of the four scenario 
options compared to the baseline option 

4.3.4.  Comparing the options: Multi-Criteria analysis 

In  line  with  the  Commission’s  Impact  Assessment  Guidelines,  the  four  scenario 
options and the baseline option have been compared through a multi-criteria analysis, 
based  on  following  criteria:  effectiveness  (how  well  can  the  emission  reduction 
objective  achieved),  efficiency  (direct  and  indirect  costs  of  compliance)  and 
consistency  (balance  of  positive  and  negative  impacts  -  cost/benefit  ratio).  The 
results are summarised in Table 3.  

Criterion → 

effectiveness 
(total emission reduction) 

efficiency 
(total compliance &  
social cost) 

consistency 
(cost / benefit = compliance 
& social cost per kton/y 
emission reduction) 

Option 1 

8,4 kton/y (-4.3%) 

+155,5 m€ 

-129 jobs  

+18,5 m€ 

-15,.4 jobs 

Option 2 

12,9 kton/y (-6.6%) 

+371,3 m€ 

-187 jobs  

+28,8 m€ 

-14,5 jobs 

Option 2A 

13,5 kton/y (-7.0%) 

+351,9 m€ 

-177 jobs  

+26,1 m€ 

-13,1 jobs 

Option 2B 

9,6 kton/y (-5.0%) 

+256,9 m€ 

-129 jobs  

+26,8 m€ 

-13,4 jobs 

Table 3: results of the multi-criteria analysis for the scenario options compared to the baseline option 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
From the results it emerges that each of the scenario options would have a social cost 
with 13 to 15 jobs lost for each kiloton annual pollution reduction, combined with a 
relatively  low  reduction  potential  (between  4.3%  and  7%)  on  the  contribution  by 
recreational craft to overall pollution.  

On the other hand, using methodologies developed to estimate the monetary cost of 
damage  associated  with  emissions  of  air  pollutants3,  the  monetary  valuation  of 
damage avoided by reducing emissions amount between 2500 to 8200€ for each ton 
of NOx emissions avoided per annum, and between 13000 to 51000 € for each ton of 
PT  emissions  avoided  per  annum.  These  figures  indicate  that  the  compliance  costs 
for  emission  reduction  of  these  pollutants  do  not  outweigh  the  monetary 
environmental benefits, and should be an incentive for trying to achieving a higher 
emission reduction while maintaining a positive cost/benefit ratio. 

In  view  of  the  conclusions  of  the  Brussels  European  Council  of  March  2007  on 
climate protection and the Commission’s commitment to lead this policy process, a 
maximum  effort  has  to  be  made  to  further  optimise  this  reduction  potential,  taking 
due  account  of  the  Thematic  Strategy  on  Air  Pollution  and  related  environmental 
objectives already put in place4.  

To achieve this goal the Commission intends to assess further scenarios based upon 
the  most  stringent  and  technology  driving  emission  rules  already  applied  or 
envisaged in other parts of the world, in particular in the US. Such approach would 
also have to take into account the need for EU engine manufacturers operating on the 
global  market  to  maintain  and  strengthen  their  competitive  position  vis-à-vis  third 
country  competitors.  In  balance,  careful  consideration  will  need  to  be  given  to  the 
vulnerable  position  of  EU  small  and  medium sized enterprises (SME) operating  on 
the EU market only. 

Indeed, the social impact assessment has identified that the social cost of any further 
emission reduction measures would mainly be borne by SME established in the EU, 
and case study evidence indicates that implementation of any of the scenario options 
would  seriously  endanger  the  future  on  the  only  outboard  engine  manufacturer 
genuinely  established  in  the  EU.  Therefore,  appropriate  accompanying  measures 
might  be  envisaged  to  provide  an  optimum  balance  between  maximum  emission 
reductions and minimal social costs. 

More time and study work will be needed to assess the impact and appropriateness of 
such  an  ambitious  approach  towards  minimising  the  contribution  of  motorised 
recreational craft to climate change whilst at the same time mitigating the associated 
social costs and negative impacts on the competitiveness of SME established in the 
EU.  The  Commission  will  do  this  through  a  complementary  impact  assessment 
study,  in  close  consultation  with  all  stakeholders,  and  report  back  to  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  at  a  later  stage,  with  a  view  to  establishing  whether 
proposing  legislative  measures  in  support  of  such  an  ambitious  approach  would  be 
appropriate. 

3 
4 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/cafe/activities/pdf/cafe_cba_externalities.pdf  
The references are listed in Chapter 2 of the Impact Assessment Summary  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

THE NEED TO FURTHER REDUCE NOISE EMISSIONS 

The stocktaking study has shown that further reduction of engine noise can only be 
effective for low power craft, but this category has already the lowest noise impact. 
For high power craft the noise impact is greater due to the combined effect of engine 
and hull noise. For such craft the noise impact cannot be reduced by measures on the 
engine alone and would need also noise reducing measures to the hull. As the latter 
are  not  always  technically  feasible,  the  study  concludes  that  noise  abatement  in 
environmentally  sensitive  areas  should  be  achieved  by  other  means,  such  as 
operational measures regulating the use of such craft. 

6. 

THE POSSIBLE BENEFITS OF A SYSTEM FOR “IN-USE COMPLIANCE” 

An “in-use compliance” system is aimed at verifying the durability of the engine, i.e. 
its continued compliance with the emission requirements under actual conditions of 
use.  The  stocktaking  study  concluded  that  with  the  Directive’s  current  emission 
limits durability is not an issue. Practical experience has demonstrated that in general 
durability  of  emission  abatement  measures  is  not  a  serious  problem  unless  after-
treatment  systems  are  introduced.  In  cases  where  such  measures  would  entail  a 
calibration  of  the  engine  that  may  be  considered  as  disadvantageous  by  the  user, 
there  is  a  risk  the  user  may  change  this  calibration  (tampering).  In  addition, 
calculations carried out for Euro3 motorcycles have demonstrated that the potential 
effect  of  an  in-use  compliance  system  is  limited  to  0.002  to  0.12%  of  the  total 
motorcycle emissions. It should also be noted that a system of “in-use compliance” 
would not be possible unless all EU Member States put in place a reliable system for 
registration  of  the  engines  and  the  craft  in  which  they  are  installed.  Moreover,  the 
possibilities to carry out such measurements on a small recreational craft during its 
operation  are  rather  limited  and  no  suitable  and  reliable  testing  methods  have  been 
developed  so  far  which  could  readily  be  used  in  practice.  In  view  of  the  limited 
environmental benefits and the technical and logistical difficulties associated with an 
“in-use compliance” system, it would not be appropriate to submit proposals for the 
establishment of such a system for the EU recreational craft fleet. 

7. 

THE AVAILABILITY OF COST EFFICIENT TECHNIQUES FOR CONTROLLING EMISSIONS 

The  available  techniques  for  controlling  emissions  have  been  identified  and  the 
associated  costs  have  been  addressed  in  Chapter  4.  From  the  compliance  cost 
estimates  emerge  that  emission  control  technology  that  goes  beyond  calibration  of 
existing components on the engine or replacing such components by more advanced 
ones readily available from engine applications in other sectors may be possible but 
at  considerable  cost.  In  particular  after-treatment  technology  using  oxidation 
catalysts is being developed and tested on its reliability for an application in a marine 
environment  and  may  prove  to  become  an  efficient  technique  for  maximising  the 
emission reduction potential of marine recreational craft. 

8. 

THE NEED TO REDUCE EVAPORATION AND SPILL OF FUEL 

The  main  sources  of  fuel  evaporation  in  recreational  craft  are  permeation  of 
hydrocarbons through tanks and fuel lines (70%) and diurnal breathing losses (23%). 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
These losses are due to the daily atmospheric temperature changes which cause the 
air in a fuel tank to expand and to contract, causing a release of an air/fuel mixture 
during warming-up. The technical solution to reduce the diurnal breathing losses is to 
let the fuel tank breath over a vapour recovery system, consisting of a canister filled 
with active carbon. However, the use of such canisters is not sufficiently tested and 
has not been proved effective in a marine environment, where moisture or water may 
enter into the canister and prevent it from operating correctly. Tank permeation could 
be reduced by coating the tank surfaces through fluorination or sulfonation. However 
these  techniques  represent  environmental  hazards  and  further  research  is  needed  to 
develop environmentally friendly tank coating techniques. Fuel hose permeation can 
be  reduced  by  using  appropriate  materials  for  these  hoses,  and  this  should  be 
addressed in the relevant harmonised standards developed in support of the RCD.  

Spillage of fuel mainly occurs where boat users refuel their craft by means of jerry-
cans.  This  problem  has  to  be  addressed  locally  and  in  accordance  with  the 
subsidiarity principle, the Commission considers it would be for the Member States 
to  envisage  operational  measures  where  needed  to  reduce  pollution  caused  by 
spillage. 

9. 

THE  POSSIBILITY  OF  AGREEING  INTERNATIONAL  STANDARDS  FOR  EXHAUST  AND 
NOISE EMISSIONS 

In  the  context  of  the  EU-US  Transatlantic  Business  Dialogue  attempts  have  been 
undertaken  to  explore  with  the  US  Environmental  Protection  Agency  possible 
synergies between the US and EU legislation on exhaust emissions for recreational 
craft.  However,  from  these  discussions  emerged  that  the  divergences  in  political 
objectives  and  legislative  approaches  between  the  US  and  the  EU  considerably 
reduce  the  possibilities  of  agreeing  on  transatlantic  alignment  of  future  emission 
legislation for recreational craft.  

Nevertheless,  the  Commission  considers  it  important  to  continue  monitoring  the 
future developments in the US on emission reduction legislation for recreational craft 
and  to  assess  to  what  extent  these  could  serve  as  a  basis  for  a  more  ambitious 
approach  towards  minimising  the  impact  of  recreational  marine  exhaust  emissions. 
As already mentioned before, the Commissions intends to assess the impact of such 
an approach in further detail and to report back on the outcome of that assessment at 
a later stage.  

Substantial  progress  has  been  made  on  international  standardisation  for  noise 
emission testing, based on the results of the EU funded ‘Soundboat’ research project. 
This  will  enable,  within  the  context  of  the  international  standard  ISO  14509,  to 
develop  an  alternative  and 
less-expensive  methodology  for  noise  emission 
compliance testing. As this standard is already referred to in the RCD, there will be 
no need for further legislative proposals to incorporate this methodology, which once 
adopted, will significantly reduce the burden for manufacturers to demonstrate their 
craft’s compliance with the noise emission requirements. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
10. 

POSSIBLE  SIMPLIFICATIONS  OF  THE  SYSTEM  FOR  CONFORMITY  ASSESSMENT 
PROCEDURES 

With the 2003 amendments to the RCD, the modular choice offered to enterprises for 
the  conformity  assessment  procedures  has  already  been  considerably  extended. 
However,  experience  with  this  extended  modular  choice  is  too  limited  to  asses 
whether these procedures could possibly be simplified. In addition, the Commission 
considers that the simplification of the system of conformity assessment procedures 
should be dealt with in a wider context. It recommends awaiting the outcome of the 
inter-institutional  discussions  on  the  Commission  proposal  on  the  review  of  the 
principles  governing  New  Approach  legislation,  before  considering  any  further 
specific action in the context of the RCD. 

11. 

THE NEED TO REVISE THE BOAT DESIGN CATEGORIES 

As a result of the inter-institutional discussions on the proposal to amend Directive 
94/25/EC,  an  agreement  has  already  been  reached  on  the  revision  of  boat  design 
categories A and D. Stakeholder consultation on the need for further revision of the 
boat  design  categories  has  resulted  in  diverging  views,  with  the  recreational  craft 
industry pleading against and the boating associations in favour of a further revision. 
Taking all elements and views in consideration, the Commission considers that there 
is no strong evidence to suggest that the overall safety of recreational craft could be 
improved by changing the current or by adding new boat design categories. 

12. 

CONCLUSION 

In  the  light  of  the  limited  experience  gained  with  the  application  of  the  amended 
RCD  and  taking  into  account  the  findings  of  this  report  with  regard  to  each  of  the 
elements specified in Article 2 of Directive 2003/44/EC, the Commission envisages 
to further explore the possibilities for maximising the emission reduction potential of 
recreational craft. This would require an assessment of the impact the application of 
the most stringent, technology driving emission limits for recreational craft engines 
could have on climate protection and on the competitiveness of the EU industry and 
any  accompanying  measures  that  would  be  necessary  to  mitigate  the  social  costs. 
Depending on the outcome of this further assessment the Commission could consider 
tabling appropriate proposals at a later stage. 

EN 

10 

   EN