COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-07-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: engine, environmental protection, maritime safety, noise, pleasure craft, small and medium-sized enterprises

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} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
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 specific requirements for exhaust emissions from 
recreational  marine  engines,  in  particular  hydrocarbons  (HC),  nitrogen  oxides  (NOx)  and 
particulate matters (PM) and craft’s noise emissions,  

Despite the fact that the contribution of recreational craft to the overall air pollution in the EU 
is  minor  compared  with  other  pollution  sources,  it  can  be  significant  in  certain  peak  times 
(summer)  for  certain  areas  (particularly  lakes  and  some  seashores).  Especially,  the 
concentration of NOx may exceed the environmental quality standards (EQS) in these areas. 

The vast majority of RCD manufacturers is active on the EU market and the US market and 
two thirds of worldwide sales of recreational marine engines are realized at both markets. US 
legislation  regulating  the  exhaust  emissions  is  stricter  than  the  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,  ensure  a  global  market  for  RCD  and  to  prevent 
national single solutions leading to a fragmentation of the Internal Market it is necessary to 
assess  whether  the  exhaust  and  noise  emissions  should  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. 

ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY 

The subsidiary principle is respected by the proposal, since the Directive already harmonises 
the  placing  on  the  market  for  the  RCD  and  Member  States  cannot  take  action  individually 
with regard to safety requirements and requirements for limiting exhaust 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 regulatory conditions with the EU main trading partners and a smooth 
functioning of the internal market for RCD. 

GENERAL 

SPECIFIC 

OPERATIONAL 

Protect 
human health  

environment 

and 

Improve  the  environmental 
performance  of  recreational 
craft 

Revise 
limits. 

exhaust 

emission 

Revise 
emissions 

limits 

for  noise 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Improve the functioning of the 
internal market  

Prevent fragmentation of the 
internal market caused by 
different national 
requirements on the 
characteristics of 
recreational craft 

Revise  safety  characteristics 
of the recreational craft 

Revise 
limits. 

exhaust 

emission 

(SMEs 
from 

vulnerable 
Protect 
in 
enterprises 
particular) 
the 
worsening  their  position  on 
the  market  and  potential  job 
losses because of complying 
with the new legislation.  

Introduce 
mitigating 
the  most 
for 
measures 
vulnerable  recreational  craft 
market  operators  in  Europe 
(SMEs).  

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 

additional 
Reduce 
compliance 
from 
different regulatory regimes 

costs 

Revise 
limits. 

exhaust 

emission 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

A  wide  range  of  options  to  achieve  the  above  mentioned  objectives  has  been  taken  into 
consideration.  Some  options  as  self  regulation  for  exhaust  emissions  (voluntary  code  of  the 
industry)  or  discontinuing  existing  EU  action  by  repealing  the  exhaust  and  noise  emission 
limits  from  the  Directive  and  a  labelling  requirement  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 

3 

   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. Scenario 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 (Stage II) combined with mitigating measures 
for the industry 

This option is based on Option 2 but further divided 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.This would allow engine 
manufacturers to place on the market a fixed limited number of recreational marine engines 
compliant with the previous stage of emissions, still after the entry into force of new emission 
limit values.  

Sub-option 3.2 – Use of a transitional period 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  adapt  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  period  for  all  engine  manufacturers  +  a  specific 
transitional  period  for  small  and  medium  sized  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 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
B. Noise emission limits for engines.  

Option 1 - No change 

The existing noise emission limits in the Directive remain. 

Option 2 – Stricter noise emission limits 

The  current  EU  noise  emission  limits  regulating  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  brought  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  impacts  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 current 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 engines 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 regulations 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 

annual 
Average 
damage  savings 
(M€) 
/  tonne  of 
emissions (NOx) 

annual 
savings 

Average 
damage 
(M€) 
emissions (PM) 

tonne  of 

/ 

Option 2 - Stage II 

9,5 M€ - 45,5 M€ 

3,2 M€ - 18,2 M€ 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Estimation of total compliance costs / year 

Option 2 - Stage II  

5,7 M€ - 19 M€ 

5,1 M€ - 10,6 M€ 

CI Engines 

SI Engines 

Option  3  –  Stage  II  of  the  exhaust  emissions  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  needs  additional  lead  time  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  production  of  majority  of  engine  manufacturers 
should comply with these limits already. 

Value of damage avoided / year compared to Option 1 

Average 
annual 
damage  savings 
/  tonne  of 
(M€) 
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 burdensome 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  with  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 manufacturers producing low power engines will be 
the  ones  to  have  serious  difficulties  to  comply  with  the  Stage  II  limits.  Low  power  SI 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
outboard engines (i.e. PN ≤ 15 kW) are affected as it requires high investment to develop such 
an engine which complies with the more stringent emission limits. Due to the lower revenue 
of low power engines, the payback time is longer than for the high power engine categories.  

Sub-option  3.3  –  Use  of  a  transitional  period  for  all  engine  manufacturers  +  a  specific 
transitional  period  for  small  and  medium  sized  engine  manufacturers  placing  on  the  EU 
market the SI outboard engines ≤ 15 kW (3+3 years). 

The environmental impact of this mitigating measure is estimated at about 6,16 tons/year of 
HC+NOx  emissions  more  comparing  to  Sub-option  3.2.  It  would  represent  0,015  %  of  the 
total  annual  HC+NOx  emissions.  This  figure  does  not  make  a  real  difference  in  the  overall 
annual exhaust emissions from recreational crafts. With the additional 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  the  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 

Sub-option 3.1 – Stage II + 
Flexibility scheme 

Sub-option 3.2 – Stage II + 
Additional transitional period 

Sub-option 3.3 – Stage II + 
Additional transitional period + 
Specific time for SI engine SMEs 

-26,51% 

-45,08% 

20,56% 

-23,96% 

-28,20% 

17,99% 

-19,88% 

-33,81% 

15,42% 

-19,78% 

-33,81% 

15,36% 

Net economic benefit (savings/costs analysis) 

Option 2 – Stage II of the limits 

Net benefit (M€) 

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 

7 

   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 they provide the common  legislative framework 
for the engine manufacturers operating 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 vulnerable enterprises from worsening their position on 
the market. Sub-option 3.3 takes account of this.  

Sub-option 3.3 is the most efficient compromise for SMEs in terms 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  environmental  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 from the boat's noise emissions but rather, they 
are a result of a combination of factors (use/speed 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 the 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 one 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 

8 

   EN 

 
  
Overall sound reductions that can be obtained from reducing noise from engines  

Type of engine  

Sound reduction of the engine 
(in dB) 

Total craft’s sound reduction 
obtained (in dB) 

Outboard PN > 40 kW 

-6 / -8 

Outboard 10 < PN < 40 kW 

-4 / -5 

Outboard PN < 10 kW 

-4 / -5 

PWC PN > 40kW 

-4 
-3 

-3 

-3 

-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  the  horizontal  provisions  are  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 provided by Art. 23 of Regulation 765/2008/EC 
framework,  

The  group  of  notified  bodies  that  coordinates  the  common  application  of  the 
conformity assessment rules. 

EN 

9 

   EN