COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships, repealing Directive 2000/59/EC and amending Directive 2009/16/EC and Directive 2010/65/EU
Date: 2018-01-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: administrative formalities, common ports policy, environmental protection, fishing vessel, harbour installation, marine pollution, pollution control measures, pollution from ships, vessel, waste management

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 16.1.2018  SWD(2018) 22 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council  on port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships, repealing Directive 2000/59/EC and amending Directive 2009/16/EC and Directive 2010/65/EU {COM(2018) 33 final} - {SWD(2018) 21 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet (Max 2 pages) 

Impact assessment for the revision of Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste 
and cargo residues 

A. Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  
1. Discharges of waste at sea, negatively impacting the marine environment. Yearly estimates: Oily waste 31 
000 m³, Sewage: 136 000 m³ and Garbage: 60 000 – 300 000 tonnes. 
2.  Administrative  burden  (estimated  at  127M€/year)  associated  with  implementation  of  the  Directive, 
negatively affecting maritime transport operations. 
What should be achieved?  
1. Protection of the marine environment through a reduction of discharges of ship-generated waste at sea and 
contributing to the wider objectives of the circular economy; 
2. Facilitation of maritime operations through a reduction of the administrative burden. 
What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?  
Action at EU level is necessary in order to: 
  Achieve a harmonised implementation of internationally agreed rules (MARPOL) to address the problem of 

ship source pollution; 

  Provide a level playing field for ports and port users, in order to increase competiveness of the sector. 

B. Solutions 

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If not, 
why?  

  Option 1: Baseline scenario 
  Option 2: Minimum revision: targeted initiatives and concise legal adjustments; 
  Option 3: MARPOL alignment: further alignment to MARPOL, focusing on illegal discharges of waste at 

sea. Incorporation of the PRF inspections in Port State Control; 

  Option 4: EU PRF Regime beyond MARPOL: strengthening the PRF regime beyond MARPOL: mandatory 

delivery of all waste from ships; 

  Option variants 3B and 4B: Marine Litter: specifically addressing the problem of marine litter from 

ships. Redefining the position of fishing vessels and recreational craft under the Directive. 
The preferred option is option 3B (MARPOL alignment with additional focus on marine litter). 
What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option?  
All stakeholders welcome the revision and favour further harmonisation of the rules at EU level.  
-  A  number  of  Ports  opposes  the  100%  indirect  fee  for  garbage,  and  prefers  streamlining  of  the  main  cost 
recovery principles (PO 3 and 4). 
- Port users call for more transparency of the waste fees, better consultation procedures and harmonisation of 
the exemption regime (PO 3 and 4).  
- Most stakeholders favour further alignment with MARPOL (scope and definitions) (PO 3).  
As Option 3B reconciles the 2 general objectives, it is the option supported by most stakeholders. 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  
Environmental:  A  substantial  part  of  the  illegal  waste  discharges  at  sea  is  reduced,  and  an  important 
contribution  is  made  to  the  circular  economy.  The  environmental  benefits  are  difficult  to  quantify,  but  will  be 
significant, as indicated by costs for (beach) clean-up operations and damage to the fishing sector. 
Economic: Reduction of enforcement costs of estimated 286,000 euro and approx. 6,5 million euro reduction of 
administrative burden. 
Social:  Expected  additional  employment  in  the  waste  management  sector  and  in  tourism;  increased 
environmental awareness on marine litter from sea-based sources. 
What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  

1 

 
 
 
-  Compliance  costs  from  setting  up  separate  waste  collection  schemes  in  ports,  providing  facilities  for  the 
reception of waste from scrubbers, and introducing 100% indirect fee for garbage. 
-  Operational  costs  from  operating  incentive  schemes,  organising  consultations  for  the  adoption/revision  of 
waste reception and handling plans. 
What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  

Increased business opportunities and impacts on competitiveness may be expected for: PRF operators, some 
of which qualify as SMEs; and the fishing and recreational sector, largely consisting of SMEs. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  
No. Regulatory costs are expected to be limited and off-set by expected gains in efficiency. 
Will there be other significant impacts?  
Positive impact on innovation and competitiveness, in particular from the further development of the green 
ship concept and the improvement of waste management in ports.  
Proportionality?  
The preferred policy option does not go beyond what is needed to achieve the policy objectives 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  
The revised Directive should be reviewed seven years after its entry into force, based on a set of core progress 
indicators. 

2