REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL REFIT Evaluation of Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues
Date: 2016-03-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: evaluation method, harbour installation, load, marine pollution, pollution from ships, project evaluation, vessel, waste, waste management, water protection

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 31.3.2016  COM(2016) 168 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL REFIT Evaluation of Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues  
 
 
REFIT Evaluation of Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-
generated waste and cargo residues 

Structure: 

1. Introduction 

1.1 Directive 2000/59/EC and its role in addressing ship-source pollution 

1.2 Assessment and monitoring 

2. The main findings from the Evaluation 

2.1 Has the Directive been relevant in view of its objectives? 

2.2 Has the Directive been effective in reaching its objectives? 

2.3 Has the Directive achieved its objectives in an efficient way? 

2.4 Does the Directive generate EU added value? 

2.5 Is the Directive coherent with other pieces of relevant EU legislation? 

3. The Commission’s views 

3.1 Availability of adequate port reception facilities 

3.2 Delivery of waste to port reception facilities 

3.2.1 Monitoring and enforcement  

3.2.2 Use of incentives 

3.3 Administrative burden 

3.3.1 Inconsistent definitions and forms 

3.3.2 Different procedures for Exemptions 

3.4 Quality of the study 

4. Next steps 

4.1 Short/medium term measures 

4.1.1 Revision Annex II of the Directive 

4.1.2 Development of Interpretative Guidelines 

4.1.3 Development of the Common Information and Monitoring System 

4.2 Legislative revision of the Directive 

2 

 
 
 
1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Directive 2000/59/EC and its role in addressing ship-source pollution 

Operational  discharges  of  waste  from  ships  form  a  significant  threat  to  the  marine 
environment. To reverse this trend, the EU adopted Directive 2000/59/EC1 on port reception 
facilities  for  ship-generated  waste  and  cargo  residues  (“the  PRF  Directive”).  The  PRF 
Directive aims "to reduce the discharges of ship-generated waste and cargo residues into the 
sea,  especially  illegal  discharges  from  ships  using  ports  in  the  EU,  by  improving  the 
availability and use of port reception facilities" (Article 1).   

The PRF Directive is instrumental in achieving the objective of zero waste maritime traffic, as 
defined in the Commission Communication on the EU maritime transport policy until 20182. 
It also contributes to the proper implementation of the EU waste hierarchy, by applying the 
principles  of  EU  waste  law  in  the  context  of  the  reception  and  handling  of  the  waste  from 
ships,  as  well  as  to  the  reduction  of  marine  litter  from  sea-based  sources.  As  such  the  PRF 
Directive supports the objectives and targets as defined in the Circular Economy Package3 and 
in the 7th Environment Action Programme4. 

The PRF Directive is based on the requirements contained in the International Convention for 
the  Prevention  of  Pollution  from  Ships  (the  MARPOL  Convention).  MARPOL  requires  the 
Contracting  Parties5  to  provide  for  port  reception  facilities  for  waste  from  ships  that  is  not 
allowed to be discharged into the sea. Those facilities must be adequate to meet the needs of 
ships using the port, without causing undue delay. 

Further to the MARPOL obligations in relation to port reception facilities, the PRF Directive 
provides a number of additional requirements for port users and operators, in particular: 

  Development of waste reception and handling plans in ports; 
  Advance Notification of waste by ships before entry into port; 
  Mandatory delivery of ship-generated waste; 
  Payment of fees by ships for the reception of their ship-generated waste; 
  Exemptions for ships engaged in scheduled traffic with frequent and regular port calls; 
 
  Development of an information and monitoring system. 

Inspections to verify that ships comply with the delivery requirements; 

These key elements seek to ensure that EU ports provide for adequate port reception facilities, 
as established by the waste reception and handling (WRH) plans, and to ensure that all ships 

1 OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p.81. 
2 COM(2009)8 "Strategic goals and recommendations for the EU’s maritime transport policy until 2018": http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/197854.  
3 COM(2015) "Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the Circular Economy": http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0614; section 5.1 refers to the planned revision of Directive 2000/59/EC and how this should address 
the issue of marine litter from ships. 
4 Decision No 1386/2013/EU of 20 November 2013; the EU also made international commitments for the reduction of marine litter, ref: 
Rio+20 conference and implementation of Sustainable Development Goals. 
5 i.e. Contracting Parties to the MARPOL Convention: 152 states, representing 99.2% of the world's tonnage. 

3 

 
 
 
                                                            
deliver  their  ship-generated  waste  and  cargo  residues  in  the  reception  facilities  in  the  ports, 
through  mandatory  delivery  and  an  appropriate  cost  recovery  system.  The  reporting  of 
information  on  (intended)  waste  delivery  from  the  ship  to  the  ports  is  a  key  element  for 
ensuring  effective  planning  of  waste  reception  and  monitoring  of  mandatory  delivery.  For 
this, the PRF Directive requires the use of a notification form, identifying the ship-generated 
waste and cargo residues to be delivered and/or remaining on board based on the exception of 
sufficient  storage  capacity.  To  further  safeguard  the  smooth  operation  of  maritime  transport 
and avoid undue burden on ships that are engaged in scheduled traffic with regular port calls, 
these  ships may be  exempted  from some of  the obligations of the Directive under specified 
conditions.  The  PRF  Directive  also  provides  for  a  monitoring  and  enforcement  system, 
largely  based  on  inspections.  The  establishment  of  an  information  and  monitoring  system 
should  in  the  first  place  contribute  to  the  identification  of  ships,  which  have  not  delivered 
their ship-generated waste and cargo residues.  

1.2 Assessment and monitoring 

The  Commission  has  assessed  the  implementation  and  effectiveness  of  the  PRF  Directive 
over  time.  In  a  first  phase,  implementation  reports  were  received  from  all  Member  States6. 
Subsequently,  several  workshops  and  discussions  were  organised  with  stakeholders  and  the 
European  Maritime  Safety  Agency  (EMSA)7  prepared  a  horizontal  assessment  report 
following a cycle of visits to Member States to verify the  implementation of the Directive8.  
In 2014, the Commission decided to undertake a REFIT Evaluation of the PRF Directive and 
to that end launched an evaluation study, which was completed in May 20159. The objective 
of  the  REFIT  evaluation  was  to  assess  the  implementation  and  effectiveness  of  the  PRF 
Directive.  The  evaluation  addressed  questions  on  the  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
European added value and coherence of the PRF Directive.  

This report will present the study's main findings in relation to those questions, followed by 
the Commission views, as well as the recommended next steps. 

2. THE MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE EVALUATION  

The findings of the evaluation that are presented below have in some cases been made on the 
basis of assumptions that the impacts, as well as the benefits and costs can be fully attributed 
to the PRF Directive. In other instances data limitations have necessitated the application of 
comparable indicators for waste discharged at sea, or extrapolation of waste delivery volumes 
to  EU  level,  which  has  had  an  impact  on  the  robustness  of  the  data  presented  and  the 
conclusions which are drawn on this basis. 

2.1 Has the Directive been relevant in view of its objectives? 

6 Status reports on the implementation of Directive 2000/59/EC, which were submitted by Member States in 2006. 
7 Workshop reports can be found at: http://www.emsa.europa.eu/implementation-tasks/environment/port-waste-reception-facilities.html 
8Horizontal  Assessment  Report 
– 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/consultations/doc/prf/emsa-report.pdf 
9 Ex-post evaluation of Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, final report 
(Panteia/PwC, May 2015), available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/studies/doc/2015-ex-post-evaluation-of-dir-2000-59-
ec.pdf 

Facilities  Directive 

Port  Reception 

2000/59/EC), 

(Directive 

EMSA, 

2010, 

4 

 
 
                                                            
The maritime transport sector contributes substantially to the presence of oily waste, sewage 
and  garbage  in  the  marine  environment.  It  is  estimated  that  operational  discharges  of  ships 
make  up  45%  of  the  estimated  total  sum  of  oil  flowing  into  the  marine  environment 
annually10. Sewage produced on board is particularly relevant as a waste type for passenger 
transport,  with  estimates  ranging  from  40-50  litres  of  sewage  per  passenger  per  day11.  On 
average 20% of marine litter (garbage) in the marine environment is of ship-based origin, with 
substantial  differences  between  the  different  sea  basins12.    Through  the  requirement  of 
adequate  port  reception  facilities,  as  well  as  the  mandatory  delivery  of  waste  to  those 
facilities,  the  PRF  Directive  aims  to  minimise  the  risk  that  ships  discharge  at  sea.  The 
combination of the mandatory delivery of waste and the provision of adequate port reception 
facilities on the one hand and incentives to influence delivery behaviour of port users on the 
other hand has proven relevant in view of the Directive’s environmental objectives. 

  The  obligation  to  provide  for  adequate  port  reception  facilities    coupled  with  the 
provision of mandatory discharge of waste to port reception facilities are relevant and 
necessary for achieving the overall objectives of the Directive, in that they correspond 
to generating fewer discharges of ship-generated waste and cargo residues at sea.  

2.2 Has the Directive been effective in reaching its objectives? 

The  availability  of  adequate  port  reception  facilities  and  their  operation  and  planning  have 
generally improved  with the introduction of regularly updated waste reception and handling 
plans. Based on the stakeholder surveys and previous EMSA reports13, it has been concluded 
that the capacity of ports in the EU to receive and handle the different waste types covered by 
the  Directive  has  improved  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Directive.  Ports  in  the  EU  are 
nowadays  generally  able  to  receive  and  handle  the  different  waste  types,  with  some 
exceptions  as  regards  oily  cargo  residues  and  some  specific  types  of  hazardous  waste.  No 
detailed assessment has, however, been made of the extent to which the pre-existing situation 
has  been  improved  as  a  result  of  the  Directive.    Despite  the  general  improvements  of  port 
reception facilities, some issues remain problematic in the context of adequacy, in particular 
as  regards  the  delivery  of  garbage  (separation  of  solid  waste  on  board  versus  no  separate 
collection on land), capacity issues with regard to sewage and the reception of waste that falls 
under  MARPOL  Annex  VI  (residues  from  exhaust  gas  cleaning  systems).  Furthermore,  the 
Directive has not been able to ensure the full engagement of all relevant stakeholders through 
appropriate  consultation  of  those  plans.  Port  users  are  often  not  sufficiently  involved  in  the 
development, implementation and revision of the plans, so that their needs are not fully taken 
into consideration. 

The  PRF  Directive  has  contributed  to  higher  volumes  of  garbage  (MARPOL  Annex  V) 
delivered to EU ports. The data indicate that in 2013 vessels are delivering more than double 
the amount of garbage delivered in 2004. Volumes of sewage delivery (MARPOL Annex IV) 

10 GESAMP 2007, Report No. 75: Estimates of oil entering the marine environment from sea-based activities. 
11 Butt, N. 2007, “the impact of cruise ship-generated waste on home ports and ports of call: Marine policy 31. 
12 website DG ENV, EC: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/decsriptor-10/index_en.htm 
13 EMSA(2010) Horizontal Assessment Report – Port Reception Facilities (Directive 2000/59/EC); EMSA (2012), Study on the delivery of 
ship-generated waste and cargo residues (Ramboll). 

5 

 
 
                                                            
to port reception facilities have been relatively stable, and overall a negative trend was found 
for oily waste (MARPOL  Annex  I)  delivered to ports, with  a steep  decline  from 2008 until 
2010, after which the amount of oily waste delivered remained generally at the same level. At 
the  same  time  the  estimated  discharges  of  oily  waste  at  sea  have  gone  down  considerably, 
based on trends in the monitoring and detection of potential oil spills, which went down from 
an  average  of  10.77  spill  detections  per  1000km2  in  2008  to  an  average  of  3.89  spill 
detections  in  2013.  This  trend  is  also  influenced  by  technological  developments  in  ship 
engines and fuels which are reducing the amount of oily waste on board ships. The increased 
volumes of garbage delivered to ports indicate a positive effect of the PRF Directive as to its 
objective  to  reduce  discharges  at  sea.  An  external  factor  that  is  influencing  the  trend  on 
sewage deliveries, is the increased capacity of cruise ships to treat sewage on board. 

The  variations  in  waste  delivery  are  partly  influenced  by  the  cost  recovery  systems  put  in 
place  by  ports.  These  systems  vary  substantially  between  ports  and  regions  in  the  way  as 
regards  the  minimum  indirect  contribution  in  order  to  provide  the  required  incentive  not  to 
discharge  at  sea. It  has  been  demonstrated that considerably  less  waste  is  delivered  to  ports 
that apply the 100% direct fee system, by which waste fees are fully charged on the basis of 
the  volumes  delivered.  Deliveries  of  oily  waste  under  these  systems  in  the  period  under 
review  (2004-2013)  only  constitute  half  of  the  volumes  delivered  under  the  other  cost 
recovery systems, whereas volumes of garbage delivered under the direct cost systems do not 
even constitute one third of the garbage volumes delivered under the other systems in place in 
EU ports. The large variety of cost recovery systems found across the various Member States, 
in  particular  the  way  in  which  the  fee  for  waste  disposal  is  being  calculated,  leads  to  less 
transparency  for  port  users  and  gives  rise  to  the  perception  that  fees  for  port  reception 
facilities are too high.  

At the same time, there are substantial differences between ports and regions with respect to 
the interpretation and application of the mandatory delivery of ship-generated waste, as well 
as the application of the exemptions for ships that are involved in scheduled traffic. Whereas 
in some ports the waste delivery requirement is implemented strictly, in others the competent 
authorities do not require the delivery of all ship generated waste as foreseen by the Directive, 
and  tend  to  make  an  exception  for  the  delivery  of  sewage,  which  can  be  discharged  at  sea 
under  the  operational  requirements  of  MARPOL.  Differences  in  the  implementation  of  the 
exemption regimes, in particular in applying the criteria for granting an exemption, have an 
impact on the effectiveness of the waste management operations and may cause undue delay 
to ships. The data also show that there is insufficient guarantee that delivery arrangements are 
in place, as required by the Directive in case of exemptions, which results in a reduction of 
waste deliveries to ports.  Data support that these differences have created limitations to the 
overall effectiveness of the Directive in terms of a reduction of waste deliveries, but are not 
detailed enough to provide the extent to which this has happened. 

  The PRF Directive has only been partially effective to achieve the intended goals. 

2.3 Has the Directive achieved its objectives in an efficient way? 

6 

 
 
Although the benefits of the PRF Directive are apparent, i.e. all waste that is not discharged at 
sea can be considered a direct benefit to society, quantification of the benefit is a challenge. 
The Evaluation compared the benefits of “garbage not discharged at sea”, which were based 
on an estimation of clean-up costs14, to the annual costs related to the implementation of the 
PRF  Directive15,  which  were  primarily  associated  with  the  requirement  of  the  waste 
notification and the development of the waste reception and handling plans. The comparison 
has  shown  that  the  benefits  largely  outweigh  the  costs  of  implementation.  The  difference 
between benefits and costs, estimated at 71 million EURO annually, is primarily based on the 
avoidance  of  garbage  discharges  at  sea  and  would  be  significantly  larger  if  benefits  from 
avoiding oily waste and sewage discharges were also included in the estimation. It should also 
be noted that these are very general estimates, as further described in the study report.16 

However,  it  was  found  that  ports  and  inspection  authorities  make  insufficient  use  of  the 
information  reported  through  the  advance  waste  notification  and  that  the  information  is  not 
systematically exchanged between the competent authorities of Member States to provide the 
basis  of  efficient  monitoring  and  enforcement.  This  raises  legitimate  questions  on  the 
proportionality  of  this  measure.  At  the  same  time,  the  reporting  of  the  waste  notification 
through the National Single Window set up under the Directive 2010/65/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing 
from ports of the Member States (the Reporting Formalities Directive), became mandatory in 
June 2015. The National Single Window is expected to reduce time spent by ships and port 
authorities on advance notifications thus reducing the administrative burden. In addition, it is 
expected  to  improve  the  exchange  of  information  between  competent  authorities.    The 
development and evaluation of the waste reception and handling plans is considered an issue 
for  a  large number  of  smaller  ports17,  which  often  lack  the  resources to  draft  detailed  plans 
covering all the aspects as required in the Directive. Assessments have shown that less than 
half  of  the  plans  from  smaller  ports  included  an  assessment  on  the  need  for  port  reception 
facilities and descriptions of the type and quantities of waste accepted. This raises important 
questions  about  the  feasibility  for  smaller  ports  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  the 
Directive, also justifying further consideration of the impact on the position of smaller ports in 
view of the overall objectives of the Directive.  

  Even  though  the  costs  associated  with  the  implementation  of  the  Directive  are 
generally  outweighed  by  the  benefits  generated,  the  costs  are  not  always 
proportionate to what is being gained from complying with the Directive.  

2.4 Does the Directive generate EU added value? 

Incorporating the international (MARPOL) requirements into EU law allows for harmonising 
their  implementation  in  Member  States,  as  well  as  effective  compliance  control  within  the 
EU. Furthermore, the Directive provides a number of additional obligations, in particular the 
mandatory  delivery  of waste  in  ports.  As  such,  the  PRF  Directive is  designed to  offer  clear 

14 Estimated clean-up costs amounted to 297.0 million EURO. 
15 Estimated implementation costs amounted to approximately 226.0 million EURO. 
16 See:  http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/studies/doc/2015-ex-post-evaluation-of-dir-2000-59-ec.pdf  p.p. 70 ++ 
17 According to EMSA studies in 55% of the Member States waste reduction handling plans have not been developed or implemented in 
particular in fishing and recreational ports, and in a smaller number in small commercial ports.  

7 

 
 
 
                                                            
EU added value beyond MARPOL in creating common provisions for ports and their Member 
States  in  response  to  the  MARPOL  requirements.  These  provisions  have  the  objectives  not 
only  of  banning  illegal  discharges  at  sea,  but  also  of  reducing  the  overall  operational 
discharges.  This  is  done  through  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of  the  common 
provisions of the PRF Directive, as well as through the regular exchange of good practices. In 
practice,  however,  Member  States  have  interpreted  key  elements  of  the  PRF  Directive  in 
different  ways,  in  particular  the  principle  of  mandatory  delivery,  the  requirements  on  cost 
recovery  systems  and  the  provisions  on  inspections.  Due  to  these  divergent  practices  in 
implementation  and enforcement, the PRF Directive does not  realise its full potential added 
value  at  EU  level.  This  shortfall  is  significant,  given  that  the  differences  in  implementation 
result  in  different  levels  of  waste  delivered  to  ports.  As  a consequence,  the  objective  of  the 
Directive is not attained to the same level in all Member States, thereby also undermining the 
added value of the Directive compared to the international obligations. 

  Although  the  PRF  Directive  offers  EU  added  value,  this  has  not  been  fully 

achieved as intended. 

2.5 Is the Directive coherent with other pieces of relevant EU legislation? 

The PRF Directive complements Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  on  ship-source  pollution  and  on  the  introduction  of  penalties,  including  criminal 
penalties, for pollution offences, which bans illegal discharges of MARPOL Annex I and II 
and requires that those responsible are subject to appropriate penalties. Furthermore, the PRF 
Directive  is  generally  coherent  with  the  objectives  set  by  EU  environmental  legislation,  in 
particular  the  Directive  2008/56/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council 
establishing  a  framework  for  community  action  in  the  field  of  marine  environmental  policy 
(Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive)  and  the  Directive  2008/98/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  waste  and  repealing  certain  Directives  (the  Waste 
Framework Directive). The Directive is instrumental in achieving progress on the indicators 
monitored  in  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive,  including  the  reduction  of  marine 
litter  from sea-based sources.  In  spite of this, a number of incoherencies exist in  relation to 
more  specific  provisions  of  EU  waste  legislation.  In  view  of  international  developments 
towards more environmentally sustainable practices on-board ships, the different approaches 
employed on land under EU waste legislation have caused inefficiencies in the collection and 
handling  of  the  waste  in  port  reception  facilities.  In  addition,  there  are  a  number  of  other 
discrepancies between the PRF Directive and land-based waste legislation, notably in the area 
of  competences  at  national  and  local/municipal  level  and  definitions  of  the  different  waste 
types,  which  have  a  negative  influence  on  the  collection  and  handling  of  waste  by  port 
reception facilities on the one side and the delivery of waste by port users on the other side. . 

A more specific issue has been identified in relation to the Council Directive 1999/32/EC as 
regards  the  sulphur  content  of  marine  fuels,  as  amended  by  Directive  2012/33/EU,  which 
necessitates adequate reception facilities for the waste from ships using exhaust gas cleaning 
systems. The PRF Directive does not include this specific waste type (MARPOL Annex VI) 
in  the  scope  of  ship-generated  waste  and  therefore  cannot  perform  this  supportive  function. 

8 

 
 
 
This is considered an important omission as the Member States are under pressure to deliver 
on their MARPOL obligations and fully implement Directive 2012/33/EU.  

Finally  the  coherence  with  the  Reporting  Formalities  Directive  was  examined,  taking  into 
account  the  mandatory  reporting  of  the  waste  notification  into  SafeSeaNet  through  the 
National Single Window, which has been operational since June 2015. However, the existing 
inconsistencies in waste definitions between the PRF Directive and MARPOL have resulted 
in  the  development  of  complicated  reporting  forms  and  procedures  to  comply  with  the 
different  requirements  at  international  and  EU  level.  These  could  be  simplified  to  a  large 
extent, if the inconsistencies were removed. 

  Despite  the  fact  that  the  PRF  Directive  contributes  to  the  same  objectives  as 
pursued by other relevant EU legislation based on different legal approaches, the 
identified 
the  practical 
implementation  of  the  PRF  Directive  which  is  therefore  only  partially  coherent 
with other EU legislation. 

inconsistencies  affect  considerably  complicate 

3. THE COMMISSION’S VIEWS 

In  this  chapter  the  Commission  will  present  its  views  on  the  different  findings  and 
conclusions  from  the  study,  as  well  as  on  the  quality  of  the  study  and  the  soundness  of  the 
evidence collected. 

The Commission has identified a number of key problems that will need to be addressed in 
order to ensure that the Directive can deliver on its main objective: reducing discharges into 
the sea in order to protect the marine environment. These issues broadly fall in the following 
three categories: 

1.  The availability of adequate port reception facilities; 
2.  The delivery of ship-generated waste to port reception facilities; 
3.  The administrative burden associated with the functioning of the Directive. 

3.1 The availability of adequate port reception facilities  

Adequate port reception facilities are a sine qua non condition for increasing the delivery of 
waste  onshore  and  reducing  discharges  at  sea.  The  Commission  recalls  that  the  Directive 
describes  “adequacy”  of  reception  facilities  as  being  “capable  of  receiving  the  types  and 
quantities  of  ship-generated  waste  and  cargo  residues  from  ships  normally  using  a  port”. 
However,  there  still  remain  questions  around  the  exact  meaning  of  this  concept,  as  well  as 
problems in terms of the reception and handling of waste. In particular, the following issues 
are posing a challenge to ensuring adequacy of the facilities: 

-  The increased use of exhaust gas cleaning systems, also referred to as "scrubbers", to 
reduce  air  pollution  from  ships,  as  required  since  2012  under  Council  Directive 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1999/32/EC  as  regards  the  sulphur  context  of  marine  fuels18,  necessitates  adequate 
reception  of  the  waste  generated  by  these  systems  in  port  receptions  facilities. 
However,  the  mandatory  discharge  requirements  of  the  Directive  is  currently  not 
applicable to the waste generated by scrubbers; 

-  Waste  segregated  on  board  in  accordance  with  international  norms  and  standards 
(mainly  ISO  standards)  is  not  separately  collected  on  land.  This  inconsistent 
application discourages compliance with the international norms for the segregation of 
waste on board of ships.  

-  waste reception and handling plans developed by ports and approved by the relevant 
(local) authorities do not always sufficiently take into account the waste hierarchy as 
required by the Waste Framework Directive19, as it is not properly reflected in the PRF 
Directive,  which  also  leads  to  inefficiencies  between  ships  and  ports.  The  great 
differences  in  the  size  of  ports  in  the  EU  may  further  contribute  to  this  inconsistent 
application. 

-  Port users are not always properly consulted on a continuous basis in the development 
and  implementation  of  waste  reception  and  handling  plans.  Although  the  Directive 
expressly requires consultation of the relevant parties at the stage of development of a 
new plan, it is  less  clear  on consultations at  the stage  of evaluation and re-approval. 
The lack of consultation often contributes to perceived inadequacies in port reception 
facilities.  

3.2 The delivery of waste to port reception facilities 

The delivery of all ship-generated waste to port reception facilities is one of the cornerstones 
of  the  PRF  Directive  and  can  be  ensured  through  strict  monitoring  and  enforcement  of  the 
mandatory delivery of ship-generated waste, as well as through the use of effective incentives. 

There are still substantial differences between the various ports and between Member States 
in the interpretation and implementation of these elements of the PRF Directive, in particular 
the  scope  of  the  mandatory  delivery  principle  and  the  inclusion  of  sewage,  the  mandatory 
principles in the cost recovery systems and the provisions on enforcement.  

3.2.1 Monitoring and enforcement 

The  relationship  between  the  Directive's  mandatory  delivery  requirement,  which  applies  to 
"all"  ship  generated  waste,  and  the  MARPOL  discharge  norms,  in  particular  when  the  next 
port of call is a non-EU port, remains unclear. Furthermore, the exception from the mandatory 
delivery requirement based on "sufficient storage capacity" has also led to confusion among 

18 Directive 1999/32/EC was amended by Directive 2012/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012. 
19 The EU Waste Framework Directive prescribes that waste legislation and policy of the EU Member States shall apply the waste 
management hierarchy, whereby waste prevention, followed by re-use and recycling are given priority over recovery and disposal. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
port  users  and  port  authorities.  The  existing  ambiguities  have  resulted  in  inconsistent 
monitoring and enforcement of one of the key elements of the Directive. 

PRF  inspections  should  in  the  first  place  be  based  on  the  information  notified  through  the 
advance waste notification. Since Member State authorities do not always use the information 
notified  for  this  purpose  or  do  not  share  the  information  with  the  enforcement  bodies,  it 
becomes  difficult  to  select  ships  for  inspection  based  on  the  criteria  laid  down  in  the 
Directive.  

Although  the  Directive  provides  that  PRF  inspections  may  be  conducted  within  the 
framework of the Port State Control Directive20, the inspections under PRF are not Port State 
Control  inspections  (i.e.  they  go  beyond  checking  the  international  requirements  and 
certificates).  The  correct  application  and  enforcement  of  the  Directive  has  to  be  ensured, 
applying  specific criteria and using checklists based on the PRF Directive. This  has created 
legal uncertainties and is an important cause for the fact that in reality less PRF-compliance 
inspections  are  being  conducted  than  required  by  the  PRF  Directive.  At  the  same  time  the 
minimum 25% inspections referred to in the Directive is no longer in line with the approach 
for Port State Control inspections, which provides for the effective targeting of vessels based 
on their risk profile. 

Finally, not all port authorities keep track of the specific amounts of waste delivered to their 
port over time, as the electronic means for doing this are generally not in place and there is no 
legal requirement to do so. Ports that collect this information act on the basis of their own data 
needs,  using  their  own  units  of  measurement,  which  complicates  the  monitoring  of 
compliance and progress with the overall objectives and requirements of the PRF Directive.  
In  particular,  this  data  is  necessary  to  be  able  to  monitor  compliance  with  the  mandatory 
discharge requirement of the Directive, as well as to assess the effectiveness of the Directive 
in terms of amounts and types of waste delivered to PRF.  

3.2.2 Use of incentives  

The  Directive  requires  that  the  costs  of  port  reception  facilities  to  be  covered  through  the 
collection  of  a  fee  from  ships.  In  order  to  ensure  that  the  cost  recovery  systems  provide  no 
incentive  for  ships  to  discharge  their  waste  into  the  sea,  all  ships  have  to  contribute 
significantly to the costs of the facilities, irrespective of their actual use of the facility ("the 
indirect contribution"). At the same time, ports have the possibility to differentiate on basis of 
the  category,  type  and  size  of  the  ship,  as  well  as  on  the  basis  of  the  environmental 
performance and operation (reduced fees for ships producing reduced quantities of waste).  

Although  generally  there  is  a  need  for  more  alignment  on  how  the  different  principles  and 
incentives of Article 8 are interpreted and applied, the Commission is of the opinion that the 
local and regional differences between ports call for a certain flexibility in terms of the type of 
cost  recovery  system  in  place,  provided  that  the  requirement  of  the  indirect  contribution  is 
respected.  

Furthermore,  the  non-transparent  nature  of  the  fees,  and  the  basis  of  their  calculation,  is  an 
issue of concern, since this leads to the fees not being perceived as "fair, non-discriminatory 

20 Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on port State control (OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p. 57). 

11 

 
 
 
                                                            
and  reflecting  actual  costs",  as  required  by  the  Directive  (Article  8  (3)).  Irrespective  of  the 
type  of  cost  recovery  system  in  place,  ports  need  to  be  transparent  in  the  calculation  of  the 
costs  charged  to  port  users  for  waste  handling21.  Often,  however,  the  relationship  between 
fees charged to ships and the costs of PRF is unclear.  

3.3 Administrative burden 

The costs for stakeholders to comply with the PRF Directive, which are mostly linked to the 
costs  of  inspection  and  the  advance  waste  notification  are    are  outweighed  by  the  benefits.. 
However,  there  is  still  potential  for  reducing  the  administrative  burden  faced  by  the  main 
stakeholders, i.e. port users and port operators/authorities.  

3.3.1 Inconsistent and incomplete definitions  

There are differences in definitions used in the Directive and those contained in the MARPOL 
Convention.  This  is  particularly  the  case  for  the  definition  of  "ship-generated  waste"  in  the 
Directive, which only covers certain categories of waste contained in MARPOL (Annex I, IV 
and V), and the definition of "cargo residues" which apart from the MARPOL Annex V cargo 
residues  also  covers  the  remnants  of  cargo  material  after  cleaning  operations,  and  thus  also 
tank washings falling under MARPOL Annex I and II.  

The current misalignment between the Directive and MARPOL creates confusion among the 
different actors in implementing the Directive, while at the same time complicates compliance 
with  the  MARPOL  norms  and  requirements.  For  example,  the  differences  in  definitions 
hinder  the  full  alignment  with  the  IMO  circular  for  the  waste  notification,  as  there  are 
significant differences in the different categories of waste and cargo residues. This creates an 
unnecessary  administrative  burden  for  port  users  being  confronted  with  different  forms  and 
reporting requirements depending at which port they call. 

3.3.2 Different procedures for exemptions 

Different procedures are employed to evaluate exemption requests across the EU, which may 
increase  the  administrative  burden  on  port  users,  while  limiting  the  potential  for  relevant 
authorities in different Member States to cooperate. 

The parameters for granting exemptions under Article 9 of the Directive are not well defined 
and leave room for different interpretation and application by MS. Different criteria are thus 
employed  to  evaluate  exemption  requests  across  the  EU,  which  leads  to  an  increased 
administrative  burden  on  port  users,  while  limiting  the  potential  for  relevant  authorities  in 
different  Member  States  to  coordinate  the  exemptions  granted  to  vessels.  The  poor 
coordination  is  also  due  to  an  insufficient  exchange  of  information  between  competent 
authorities  in  the  Member  States,  which  may  lead  to  problems  when  assessing  whether  the 
conditions for granting exemptions are fulfilled. The inconsistent application and the lack of 

21 As also provided for in the Commission Communication "Ports: an engine for growth" (COM(2013) 295), as well as in the accompanying 
proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework on market access to port services and financial transparency (COM(2013) 296). 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
information  exchange  result  in  a  disproportionate  administrative  burden  on  both  port  users 
and Member State authorities. 

3.4 Quality of the study 

The  Evaluation  study  fully  addresses  and  responds  to  the  evaluation  questions.  Data 
limitations  and resulting limitations in the analysis have been clearly described.  
For the evaluation study a wide range of relevant studies and reports on the functioning of the 
Directive  has  been  assessed,  and  the  analysis  has  provided  comprehensive  insights  on  the 
functioning of the Directive. Data extracted from these reports have been correctly presented, 
and the quality of the data was checked and ascertained. All relevant stakeholders have been 
consulted  through  targeted  consultations.  The  conclusions  in  the  study  are  based  on 
transparent criteria and sound analysis. 

Data gaps exist for volumes of waste discharged at sea. Proxy indicators were used to assess 
garbage discharge and oil spills. These indicators however, cover potential discharges and did 
not  allow  assessing the contribution  from  ships  to  the  generation  of  marine  litter  versus  the 
contribution from land-based sources, nor do they give an exact estimation of waste discharge 
leading to a potential over-estimation. No indicator could be identified for sewage discharge 
leading to an underestimation of waste discharge. The benefits were calculated on the basis of 
the costs of clearing beaches from garbage leading to a potential underestimation of costs. 

Limitations exist in relation to the data on waste delivery volumes. Even though a sample of 
ports representative of size and geographical location has been used to assess waste delivery 
volumes, the ports chosen are not necessarily representative for waste deliveries. This results 
into lack of robustness of the extrapolated waste delivery volumes at EU level. 

The  costs  of  using  port  reception  facilities  were  often  not  disclosed.  Thus,  there  are 
limitations  on  assessing  the  largest  cost  factor,  the  cost  of  waste  delivery,  reception  and 
handling. 

Both  discharge  at  sea  and  waste  delivery  volumes  were  used  in  the  cost/benefit  assessment 
which  therefore  only  gives  an  indication  of  the  cost/benefit  relation  but  not  a  reliable 
calculation of occurring costs and benefits.  

In  relation  to  administrative  burden  qualitative  data  from  questionnaires,  interviews  and 
reports  allowed  the  identification  of  factors  that  lead  to  administrative  burden,  however, 
quantitative data are missing to assess the extent of the burden. 

4. FOLLOW UP ACTION 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Commission envisages a two-stage approach for responding to the problems identified: 1. 
a  short/medium  term  response,  mainly  through  soft  law,  and  2.  a  longer-term  response, 
through a full legislative revision of the Directive.  

4.1. Short/medium term measures 

A number of measures are being considered for the short to medium term. These include a 
revision of the waste notification contained in Annex II of the Directive, the development of a 
set of interpretative Guidelines, as well as the further development of an EU wide information 
and monitoring system. 

4.1.1 Revision of Annex II of the Directive (waste notification) 

To address the lack of data on the actual delivery of waste to port reception facilities, as well 
as  the obsolete categories contained in the waste notification form, a Commission Directive 
was adopted to amend Annex II of the PRF Directive22. This measure is based on Article 15 
of the Directive, which allows for the Annexes of the Directive to be amended, to bring them 
in  line  with  IMO  measures,  as  long  as  the  amendment  does  not  broaden  the  scope  of  the 
Directive. The objective of this revision was to bring Annex II in line with the latest changes 
in  Annex  V  of  MARPOL,  which  introduced  a  new  categorization  of  garbage,  and  to 
incorporate  information  on  types  and  quantities  of  waste  delivered.  However,  it  should  be 
noted that full alignment with MARPOL is only possible through a legislative revision, as this 
would involve changing some of the definitions in the Directive. 

4.1.2 Development of Interpretative Guidelines 
To address the differences in interpretation and implementation of the main provisions of the 
Directive,  the  Commission  is  developing  some  Guidelines  on  the  interpretation  of  the  PRF 
Directive. In these Guidelines the Commission will set out its views on how certain concepts 
and obligations in the Directive should be implemented. In particular, the Guidelines would 
cover the adequacy of port reception facilities (Article 4); the development and monitoring of 
the waste reception and handling plans (Article 5); the implementation and enforcement of the 
mandatory  delivery  of  ship-generated  waste  (Article  7  and  Article  11);  as  well  as  the 
application of exemptions (Article 9)23.. 

4.1.3 Development of the Common Information and Monitoring System 
To achieve an effective exchange of information between Member State authorities and allow 
for a proper monitoring and enforcement of the Directive, the Commission has asked EMSA 
to  further  develop  the  system  as  required  by  Article  12(3)  of  the  Directive  by  building  as 
much  as  possible  on  existing  databases,  which  are  used  for  this  purpose.    This  concerns  a 
further integration of reporting into the SafeSeaNet system (SSN), as well as the development 
of a separate module for PRF inspections within THETIS (The Port State Control information 
system) and linking this module to SSN. The information that will become available through 

22 Commission Directive (EU) 2015/2087 of 18 November 2015 amending Annex II to Directive 2000/59/EC, OJ L 302, 19.11.2015, p. 99. 
23  In  parallel,  EMSA  will  provide  additional  technical  guidance  and  best  practices  developed  in  Member  States  on  the  application  of  this 
Directive as part of "Technical Recommendations on Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception for ship generated waste and cargo residues". 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
the revised waste notification of Annex II (see above) is expected to facilitate the operation of 
the system and make the monitoring of the Directive more effective.  

4.2 Legislative revision of the Directive 

Some of the shortcomings identified in the Evaluation of the Directive can only be addressed 
through a legislative proposal.  
To this end the Commission has started the process of conducting an Impact Assessment that 
will analyse and measure the different options for such a proposal. 

15