REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the technical feasibility for further reducing the emissions of marine propulsion engines, introducing requirements for evaporative emissions and the impact of the watercraft design categories on consumer information and on manufacturers as set out in Article 52 of the Directive 2013/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on recreational craft and personal watercraft and repealing Directive 94/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Date: 2022-07-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: combustion gases, consumer information, engine, pleasure craft, pollution control measures, pollution from ships, product design, reduction of gas emissions, technical specification

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 28.7.2022  COM(2022) 358 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the technical feasibility for further reducing the emissions of marine propulsion engines, introducing requirements for evaporative emissions and the impact of the watercraft design categories on consumer information and on manufacturers as set out in Article 52 of the Directive 2013/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on recreational craft and personal watercraft and repealing Directive 94/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the technical feasibility for further reducing the emissions of marine propulsion 
engines, introducing requirements for evaporative emissions and the impact of the 
watercraft design categories on consumer information and on manufacturers as set out 
in Article 52 of the Directive 2013/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 20 November 2013 on recreational craft and personal watercraft and repealing 
Directive 94/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Directive 2013/53/EU on recreational craft and personal watercraft1 ‘the RCD’) was adopted 
on 20 November 2013, replacing Directive 94/25/EC as amended by Directive 2003/44/EC2. 
The  RCD  aims  to  ensure  a  high  level  of  protection  of  human  health  and  safety  and  the 
environment while guaranteeing the smooth functioning of the internal market. To ensure the 
latter,  it  sets  harmonised  requirements  for  recreational  craft  and  personal  watercraft 
(‘watercraft’) and minimum requirements for market surveillance. 

Article 52 of the RCD requires that the Commission submit to the European Parliament and 
the Council, by 18 January 2022, a report on: (a) the technical feasibility for further reducing 
the  emissions  of  marine  propulsion  engines  and  introducing  requirements  for  evaporative 
emissions and fuel systems that apply to propulsion engines and systems taking into account 
the cost efficiency of technologies and the need to agree globally harmonised values for the 
sector,  taking  into  account  any  major  market  initiatives;  and  (b)  the  impact  on  consumer 
information  and  on  manufacturers,  in  particular  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises,  of  the 
watercraft design categories listed in Annex I of the RCD, which are based on resistance to 
wind  force  and  significant  wave  height,  taking  into  account  developments  in  international 
standardisation. Additionally, it is required to include an evaluation of whether the watercraft 
design categories require additional specifications or subdivisions. 

In  this  report,  the  Commission  has  assessed  the  technological  and  economic  feasibility  of 
further reducing the exhaust emissions produced by recreational craft, and introducing limits 
for evaporative emissions produced by recreational craft’s fuel systems. The Commission also 
evaluated the appropriateness of the current watercraft design categories in light of different 
weather conditions and the impact of this categorisation on manufacturers and end-users. The 
report  describes  the  current  state  of  the  art  of  sectoral  technologies  and  associated  costs, 
regardless of future regulatory and technological developments. 

1 
Directive  2013/53/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20 November 2013  on  recreational  craft  and 
                   personal  watercraft  and  repealing  Directive  94/25/EC,  OJ  L  354,  28.12.2013,  p. 90-131,  Corrigendum  to  Directive 
                   2013/53/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20 November  2013  on  recreational  craft  and  personal 
                   watercraft and repealing Directive 94/25/EC (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013). 
2 
Directive 2003/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003 amending Directive 94/25/EC on 
                   the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational  
                   craft, OJ L 214, 26.8.2003, p. 18-35. 

1 

 
 
 
                                                           
In  support  of  this  report,  the  Commission  conducted  a  review  study3  to  take  stock  of  the 
available technologies to reduce emissions from the engines and fuel systems of recreational 
crafts. The study proposed several  options to  reduce emissions, presenting an  assessment of 
the  economic  impact  of  each  of  them  in  the  form  of  a  cost/benefit  analysis.  The  study  also 
evaluated the watercraft design categories, focusing on the impact of such categorisation on 
manufacturers and final users or consumers. 

For  this  report  the  Commission  also  analysed  Member  States’  input  for  the  report  on  the 
RCD’s  application  (as  required  by  its  Article 51).  A  targeted  consultation  of  the  relevant 
sectoral stakeholders (such as the Member States’ public authorities, manufacturers’ and end-
users’ associations and notified bodies) was also carried out as a part of the study. 

2.  THE  CURRENT  LEGAL  FRAMEWORK  ON  EXHAUST  EMISSIONS, 
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS AND WATERCRAFT DESIGN CATEGORIES 

2.1 Exhaust emissions 

The exhaust emissions produced by recreational craft and their engines are currently regulated 
at  EU  level  by  the  RCD  (Article 4  and  Annex  I,  Part  B,  Point  2),  which  sets  limits  on  air 
pollutants that can be emitted by recreational marine engines. In addition, Member States, on 
the basis of Article 5 of  the  RCD and subject  to  the conditions  therein, may  restrict the use 
and speed of the motorised recreational craft in certain waters to prevent the accumulation of 
air pollutants. 

Directive 2003/44/EC4 amending Directive 94/25/EC introduced exhaust emission limits (for 
nitrogen  oxides  (NOx),  hydrocarbons  (HC),  carbon  monoxide  (CO)  and  particulate  matters 
(PT)) for combustion propulsion engines of recreational craft that are newly placed on the EU 
market. 

The  exhaust  emission  limits  were  further  reduced  by  the  RCD  to  a  level  that  reflected  the 
technical  development  of  cleaner  marine  engine  technologies  and  that  allowed  progress 
towards  harmonisation  of  exhaust  emission  limits  with  the  main  trading  partners.  The  CO 
limits, however, were raised in order to allow the significant decrease of other air pollutants, 
to  reflect  technological  feasibility  and  to  achieve  the  fastest  possible  implementation,  while 
ensuring that the socio-economic impacts on this economic sector were acceptable. 

2.1.1 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions / CO2 emissions 

GHG  emissions  from  domestic  navigation  are  already  covered  by  the  Effort  Sharing 
Regulation  (EU)  2018/8425.  However,  no  testing  procedure  exists  for  recreational  craft  to 
determine  a  representative  limit  of  either  CO2  emissions  or  of  other  GHG  emissions.  In 

3 
Review study on the Recreational Craft Directive 2013/53/EU, TNO & Panteia & Emisia, September 2021. 
4 
Directive 2003/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003 amending Directive 94/25/EC on 
                   the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational  
                   craft (text with EEA relevance), OJ L 214, 26.8.2003, p. 18-35. 
5 
Regulation (EU) 2018/842 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on binding annual greenhouse 
                   gas  emission  reductions  by  Member  States  from  2021  to  2030  contributing  to  climate  action  to  meet  commitments  
                   under the Paris Agreement and amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013, OJ L 156, 19.6.2018, p. 26-42. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                           
particular,  the  CO2  emissions  are  not  determined  only  by  engine  performance,  but  also  by 
other aspects such as propeller design, boat shape, positioning of propeller(s) and by handling 
of  the  boat.  To  come  up  with  CO2  emission  limits  for  recreational  craft,  a  ‘boat  energy 
consumption calculation tool’6, which combines the above mentioned factors, would have to 
be developed. The introduction of renewable fuels for recreational craft could also contribute 
to reducing CO2 emissions. 

2.2 Evaporative emissions 

Evaporative emissions are not currently regulated by the RCD. In the EU, these emissions are 
only addressed in the automotive sector7. However, evaporative  emissions from recreational 
craft  are  regulated  in  some  non-EU  countries,  for  example  the  United  States.  The  US 
regulations8  set  out  the  limits  for  allowed  permeation  of  evaporative  emissions  from  fuel 
tanks, fuel systems and diurnal emissions. These three types of emissions are responsible for 
98% of fuel evaporation. 

2.3 Watercraft design categories 

Directive  94/25/EC  divided  watercraft  into  design  categories  in  order  to  indicate  the  areas 
where  a  watercraft  can  operate  (category  A  –  ocean,  category  B  –  offshore,  category  C  – 
inshore, category D – sheltered waters). 

The  ability  of  a  watercraft  to  operate  in  certain  waters  was  measured  by  the  capacity  to 
withstand certain combinations of wind force and wave height. The ability to withstand more 
severe weather conditions also determined the particular conformity assessment module to be 
applied. 

To  provide  clear  information  about  the  acceptable  operating  environment  of  watercraft,  the 
RCD removed the references to the types of waters and based the watercraft design categories 
only  on  the  essential  environmental  conditions  for  navigation,  namely  wind  force  and 
significant wave height. 

TECHNICAL  FEASIBILITY  FOR  FURTHER  REDUCING  THE  EXHAUST 

3. 
EMISSIONS OF MARINE PROPULSION ENGINES 

3.1 Types of propulsion engines 

The  recreational  craft  using  the  traditional  combustion  engines  are  fitted  with  either  spark 
ignition  (SI)  propulsion  engines  (using  petrol  as  the  fuel)  or  compression  ignition  (CI) 
propulsion engines (using diesel as the fuel). 

Another differentiation stems from the positioning of the propulsion engine on the watercraft. 
In the outboard propulsion systems the engine is a separate unit that can be attached to the 

6 
Similar to the vehicle energy consumption calculation tool (VECTO) used in the automotive industry. 
7 
Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor  
                   vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to 
                   vehicle repair and maintenance information (Text with EEA relevance) OJ L 171, 29.6.2007, p. 1-16. 
8 
                   Stationary Equipment, US Environmental Protection Agency, 10.8.2008. 

40  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  Part  1060  --  Control  of  Evaporative  Emissions  from  New  and  In-Use  Non-road  and 

3 

 
 
 
                                                           
rear of recreational craft. In the inboard propulsion systems, the engine is positioned inside 
the craft. 

Furthermore,  in  the water jet propulsion system  the engine is  not  connected to  a propeller 
but to a powerful rotating pump. This pump takes the water in and spews it out at great speed, 
thus generating the move. Such propulsion systems are typically used in personal watercraft. 

Recently, two other types of propulsion system have appeared on the market, namely the pure 
electric propulsion system (where the sole source of energy supply is an electric battery that 
feeds an electric motor) and the hybrid propulsion system where a combustion engine works 
together with an electric motor (with energy stored both in a fuel tank and a battery). 

3.2 Existing technologies that can be used to reduce exhaust emissions from propulsion 
engines 

3.2.1 SI outboard engines and personal watercraft propulsion engines 

The study indicates that the real-world CO emissions generated by SI outboard and personal 
watercraft engines currently on the market are well below the RCD limit values. Furthermore, 
the NOx+HC emissions generated by best-in-class engines (i.e. the cleanest engines across the 
power  range)  are  also  significantly  below  the  limit  values.  The  study  concludes  that  further 
restriction of emission limits is possible at lower power ranges, thanks to the optimisation of 
these  engines,  achieved  by  applying  electronically-controlled  (sequential)  multi-point 
injection technology. 

The  proposed  technology  for  further  reducing  the  emissions  generated  by  four-stroke  SI 
outboard engines is the application of three-way catalytic aftertreatment. This would require 
the  redesigning  of  cylinder  block  and  the  adaptation  of  thermal  management  of  the  exhaust 
system. 

Using  this  technology  would  also  result  in  a  10%  decrease  in  fuel  consumption  and  a  70% 
reduction in NOx+HC emissions. 

3.2.2 SI inboard engines 

New  SI  inboard  engines  installed  in  recreational  craft  are  all  four-stroke  engines.  They 
already  apply  advanced  per-cylinder  fuel  injection  in  combination  with  electronic  lambda 
control and three-way catalytic aftertreatment. 

Emissions  could  be  reduced  further  by  avoiding  fuel  enrichment  calibration,  which  would 
require using more expensive alloys for valves and turbines. Emissions can also be reduced by 
limiting the maximum brake mean effective pressure (bmep)9 of these engines. Limiting bmep 
would require increasing the total displacement volume of these engines in order to retain the 
same rated engine power. It would also increase the engine’s volume and weight and possibly 
also its fuel consumption due to the higher impact of friction losses. 

9 

Brake mean effective pressure is proportional to the ratio of engine torque and engine total displacement volume. 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
3.2.3 CI inboard engines 

The  two  new  technologies  that  could  further  reduce  exhaust  emissions  from  CI  engines  are 
exhaust  gas  recirculation  (EGR)  and  selective  catalytic  reduction  (SCR).  Both  technologies 
entail  the  catalytic  exhaust  gas  aftertreatment  of  CI  engines.  Applying  these  technologies 
reduces the NOx and HC pollutants. Experience from the Non road mobile machinery sector 
shows  that  NOx-reductions  of  respectively  50%  (EGR  technology)  and  85%  (SCR 
technology) can be achieved, with the extent of the reduction depending on the engine power. 
Similarly, PT emissions could be further reduced by using the diesel oxidation catalyst and/or 
diesel particulate filter technologies. 

EGR  technology  would  require  the  widespread  use  of  low  sulphur  diesel  (max  500 ppm  of 
sulphur) for recreational craft to avoid the risk of corrosion and the fouling of metal parts of 
the  engine  when  cooling  the  recirculating  exhaust  gas.  Currently,  high  sulphur  gas  (up  to 
1 000 ppm of sulphur) is predominantly used in the sector. EGR technology would result in a 
50% reduction of NOx and a slight increase (2-3%) in fuel consumption. 

SCR  technology  is  also  sensitive  to  sulphate  salts,  whose  deposition  may  even  block  the 
catalyst function. To avoid these issues, ultra-low-sulphur diesel (less than 15 ppm of sulphur 
content) should be used. If ultra-low-sulphur diesel were not used, a considerable increase (up 
to  50%)  in  volume  and  weight  of  the  catalyst  would  be  required.  To  apply  the  SCR 
technology,  reagent  fluid  (urea-water  mixture)  needs  to  be  stored  on-board  in  a  dedicated 
tank. 

3.2.4 Electric engines 

Electric propulsion engines do not produce  exhaust emissions except in connection with the 
production of electricity charged from the grid. The vast majority of current electric engines 
for  recreational  craft  are  small  outboard  engines  with  power  up  to  5 kW.  However,  some 
manufacturers are starting to offer more powerful engines. 

The faster uptake of electric engines in the marine sector is mainly hampered by the capacity, 
size, weight and price of the batteries propelling the electric motor. Recreational craft need a 
sufficient  storage  of  electricity  to  be  able  to  operate  for  several  hours,  for  example  when 
navigating  at  sea.  The  need  of  longer  boat’s  autonomy10  requires  that  bigger  and  heavier 
lithium-ion  batteries  are  installed.  These  bigger  batteries  limit  storage  space  in  boats  and 
affect their stability and buoyancy. Therefore, a clear limitation of current battery technology 
is  that    electric  engines  are  able  to  operate  for  a  shorter  period  of  time  and  have  a  shorter 
range compared to their internal combustion counterparts in the same engine power class. 

3.2.5 Hybrid engines 

Hybrid  engine  applications  combine  a  combustion  engine,  an  electric  motor  and  a  battery 
pack.  This  combination  enables  a  boat’s  kinetic  energy  to  be  recuperated  and  stored  in  a 
battery  for  later  use.  This  practice  may  allow  the  engine  to  operate  (either  in  electric  or 
combustion mode) under conditions that enable the lowest possible fuel consumption. 

10 

More hours of operation without need to recharge. 

5 

 
 
                                                           
TECHNICAL  FEASIBILITY  FOR  INTRODUCING  REQUIREMENTS  FOR 

4. 
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS 

Evaporative emissions refer to the sum of fuel-related volatile organic compounds’ emissions 
not  deriving  from  fuel  combustion.  Specifically,  these  evaporative  emissions  emanate  from 
petrol fuel. Evaporative emissions from diesel  fuel are negligible due to presence of heavier 
hydrocarbons and low vapour pressure of diesel fuels. 

4.1 Types of evaporative emissions 

Diurnal  emissions  are  emitted  in  line  with  variations  in  temperature  over  the  course  of  the 
day. An increase in ambient temperature results in thermal expansion of the fuel and vapour 
in the fuel tank. 

Fuel  hose  permeation  emissions  concern  fuel  hoses,  and  their  formation  mechanism  is 
similar  to  the  fuel  tank  permeation  mechanism.  The  fuel  hose  permeation  phenomenon  is 
more significant for rubber hoses. 

Fuel tank permeation occurs when fuel escapes through the permeable walls of a fuel tank. 
The outer surfaces of the tanks are exposed to ambient air, so the petrol molecules permeate 
through them and are emitted directly into the air. Permeation is most common through plastic 
fuel tanks. 

4.2  Existing  technologies  that  can  be  used  to  reduce  evaporative  emissions  from  fuel 
systems 

(a) Diurnal emissions control 

Diurnal evaporative emissions occur when the fuel warms up and passes through a vent into 
the atmosphere. When the vent is closed, evaporative emissions cannot escape. Even though 
the pressure  rises with  the generated vapour, it subsides  once the fuel  cools  back down.  An 
effective way to control these emissions is to integrate a pressure relief valve to seal the fuel 
tank. 

Another way to reduce diurnal emissions is to install a carbon canister to absorb the vapour 
generated  in  the  fuel  tank.  The  carbon  canisters  work  by  activating  the  carbon  which  then 
collects and stores the hydrocarbons. . The carbon canister can also be connected to the engine 
through a purge valve, which allows ambient air to flow through the canister’ when the engine 
is  running.  Purged  fuel  vapours  are  thus  routed  through  the  engine  where  they  are  burned 
along with the fuel mixture. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
(b) Fuel hose permeation control 

Fuel hose permeation could be controlled by using barrier materials which decrease the rate 
of permeation. The barrier materials constitute an inner layer that is fixed to the inside of the 
vent, fill neck and supply/return hoses. . 

thermoplastic barriers for small outboard engines and personal watercraft; 

Typical solutions include: 
 
  nylon barriers for boats with installed fuel tanks; 
fluor elastomer used in fuel line applications. 
 

(c) Fuel tank permeation control 

Similar  to  fuel  hose  permeation  control  technologies,  fuel  tank  barrier  materials  are  used  to 
reduce tank permeation rates. Typical methods include: 

  creating a barrier layer using the sulfonating or fluorination method; 
  creating non-continuous barrier platelets by blending a low permeable resin; 
 
  using fibreglass fuel tanks, with clay nanocomposites as a barrier material; 
 

inserting a thermoplastic layer between two rubber layers; 

inserting a layer of epoxy barrier coating. 

EVALUATION  OF  THE  WATERCRAFT  DESIGN  CATEGORIES  AND  ITS 

5. 
IMPACT ON CONSUMER INFORMATION AND ON MANUFACTURERS 

5.1 Impact of watercraft design categories on manufacturers 

Manufacturers  use  watercraft  design  categories  to  calculate  a  boat’s  stability  and  structure. 
The design categories are divided according to conditions for navigation, namely wind force 
(expressed as a number or ‘grade’ on the Beaufort scale) and significant wave height11. 

A boat in a specific design category must be able to withstand cracks, damage and flooding 
caused by waves. Integrating the above two criteria into each design category ensures that the 
watercraft  is  designed  and  built  to  withstand  the  combined  effects  of  any  meteorological 
condition, no matter which of the two criteria is the dominant one. 

NATO’s  standardised  methodology12  to  measure  sea  conditions  also  uses  combinations  of 
significant  wave  height  and  sustained  wind  speed.  The  World  Meteorological  Organisation 
(WMO) 13 uses identical methodology.  

11 
12 
                   1983). 
13 

Value of one third of the highest wave height. The statistical value that approximates the visually observed wave height. 
NATO Standard STANAG 4194 NAV: Standardised wave and wind environments and shipboard of sea conditions (NATO,  

Sea states according to WMO, Doc. No 306 Volume I.1, Annex II page A-379 (WMO, 2019). 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
A comparison between the RCD methodology and the WMO methodology reveals that for the 
significant  wave  height  Hs  ≤  4 m  (set  out  for  design  category  B),  the  RCD  limits  the  wind 
force (measured on the Beaufort scale) to grade 8, whereas the WMO methodology states that 
Beaufort  grade  7  would  be  scientifically  more  precise.  The  WMO  methodology  also  sets 
lower Beaufort grades than the RCD for other significant wave height limits. In other words, 
the steps or increments between the RCD design categories are larger and more unequal than 
would  have  been  the  case  had  the  WMO  methodology  been  applied.  However,  the  current 
division of watercraft design categories and the choice of criteria is considered to be in line 
with the most recent knowledge of the WMO and their methodology on the states of sea. 

The  European  Maritime  Safety  Agency  (EMSA)  has  not  reported  any  accident  where  the 
weather  or  environmental  conditions  would  be  the  causal  factors  for  accidents  when  a 
watercraft was sailing within the limits of its assigned design category. 

Note that design category A, as set out in the RCD, does not set upper limits for wind force or 
significant  wave  height.  Instead,  it  just  states  that  abnormal  conditions  such  as  storms, 
hurricanes  and  tornados  are  excluded,  implicitly  limiting  the  design  category  A  to  exclude 
wind force of Beaufort grade 10 and significant wave heights of 8 m. However, harmonised 
standards for the design categories explicitly set upper limits for design category A. 

5.2 Impact of watercraft design categories on end-users/consumers 

Watercraft design categories, as set out in the RCD, do not inform the end users (consumers) 
about the actual state of the sea. The actual state of sea is indicated in the WMO’s sea states 
forecasts (calm, smooth, slight, moderate, rough, very rough, etc.).  It is the responsibility of 
users to know about the actual state of the sea before their departure. The WMO’s forecasts 
include  information  on  the  prevailing  direction  of  wind  and  waves,  wind  force  in  terms  of 
Beaufort  grade,  wind  gusts,  significant  wave  height,  and  maximum  wave  height  and  wave 
period. 

Some users may mix up wind force  in  terms  of  Beaufort  grade (which is  an average value) 
with the wind gust speed (which indicates the maximum possible wind). Wind gust may be up 
to 40% stronger than the referred wind speed. 

Furthermore,  users  must  have  a  correct  understanding  of  the  concept  of  significant  wave 
height, otherwise they may underestimate the safety risk by real physical conditions that will 
be encountered. For example, maximum wave height can be up to double the significant wave 
height (a value implying a range of possible wave heights rather than a single value). 

In  short,  end  users  may  confuse  the  watercraft’s  construction  capability  (indicated  by  the 
design category) to withstand certain meteorological conditions, with the actual weather and 
water conditions communicated by marine forecasts. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6. KEY RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENT 

6.1. Exhaust emissions – options and impact of emission reduction 

The review study mentioned earlier that the exhaust emissions produced by recreational craft 
and their engines can be reduced by two different  means. The first one is restricting the use 
and speed of the motorised recreational craft by the national authorities in certain places and 
at certain times. Such restriction is an efficient way for national authorities to decrease health 
and  environmental  risks  in  adverse  weather  conditions  or  in  the  areas  sensitive  to  high 
accumulation of exhaust emissions at certain peak times. The method is efficient to meet an 
immediate, short-term need to decrease air pollutants. 

The second means is to set stricter limits on the amounts of air pollutants that can be emitted 
by  the  recreational  marine  engines.  However,  such  limits  will  apply  only  to  new  products 
placed on the market and will not affect the old (more polluting) engines already in service. 
More than 80% of recreational craft’s engines currently in service were placed on the market 
before the current exhaust emission limits set out in Directive 2013/53/EU came into force. 

The  study  proposed  several  options  for  imposing  stricter  exhaust  emission  limits  on  new 
combustion  engines  placed  on  the  market.  These  options  differ  in  the  severity  of  emission 
limit reductions and associated economic and environmental impacts. 

The first possibility considered in the study is engine optimisation of low-powered engines14, 
which would enable NOx, HC and CO limits to be reduced by 30%. In fact, many engines in 
this  category  already  reach  this  level.  Therefore,  it  is  assumed  that  real-world  exhaust 
emission  decrease  would  be  lower  than  the  decrease  of  limit  values.  The  monetised 
environmental  benefits  would  break  even  with  the  investment  and  manufacturing  costs  in  9 
years. 

The  second  possibility  would  be  to  impose  stricter  limits  on  all  engine  power  ranges.  This 
would require the application of new technologies15 that restrict NOx and HC limits by 70% 
for SI outboard engines as well as by 40% (EGR technology) and by 64% (SCR technology) 
for CI inboard engines. 

Despite the greater environmental gains, these two options would require high investment and 
manufacturing  costs  which  would  be  paid  back  respectively  in  16  years  (EGR  technology) 
and in 20 years (SCR technology). In addition, the second option would also demand the wide 
availability of ultra-low  sulphur diesel  for recreational  craft as well as the change in  testing 
procedures in order to apply ‘not to exceed zone’ testing methodology16. 

The scope of reduction of exhaust emissions from new engines will also depend on the extent 
of electrification and hybridisation of engines in the sector. 

Electric engines  are  currently  competitive only  in small  power ranges. Engines with  limited 
battery capacities do not provide sufficient electric range to meet boat’s need for autonomy at 
sea. The inadequacy of  battery recharging infrastructure in marinas and the high investment 

For SI engines: those of P˂75kW, for CI engines, those of P˂37kW. 
In particular, the application of three-way catalyst after treatment system for SI outboard engines and application of EGR 

14 
15 
                   or SCR technology for CI inboard engines. 
16 

Testing of emissions over the full range of speed and load combinations commonly experienced in use. 

9 

 
 
                                                           
cost of electric engines are two factors that currently prevent effective market penetration. A 
larger  usage  of  electric  engine  applications  in  the  recreational  craft  sector  is  not  possible 
without further technological development in energy density17 of current battery technologies. 
Furthermore,  a  sufficient  network  of  charging  stations  in  marinas  is  needed.  The  uptake  of 
electrification  in  the  sector  could  be  accelerated  by  introducing  ‘emission-free’  zones,  tax 
alleviations for electric applications and higher taxes on combustion engines or fossil fuels. 

Hybrid  engine  applications18,  when  combustion  parts  are  used  in  certain  conditions19,  may 
help  reduce  fuel  consumption  by  10%  compared  to  traditional  combustion  engines  (with 
similar reductions in CO and CO2 as well as a 37% reduction in HC+NOx). 

However,  current  test  cycles,  which  have  been  developed  purely  for  testing  CI  engines,  are 
not suited to test emissions of hybrid applications20. 

The  hybridisation  of  engines  affects  the  volume  and  weight  of  the  entire  application. 
Therefore,  hybrid  solutions  will  probably  only  be  widely  used  for  outboard  engines  if 
technological development makes the electromotor and batteries suitably small in the future. 

For  inboard  engines,  the  study  states  that  hybridisation  could  account  for  up  to  10%  of  the 
market. The main obstacle to a wider uptake of hybrid solutions is that they are expected to 
cost more than combustion engines. However, the report restricts itself to the current state of 
the  art  of  available  technologies,  without  considering  future  regulatory  and  technological 
developments. 

6.2. Evaporative emissions – options and impact of introducing limits 

6.2.1. Options to introduce evaporative emission requirements in the RCD 

The review study indicates that emissions from  fuel  tanks, fuel  hoses and diurnal  emissions 
are responsible for 98% of all evaporative emissions. It also estimates that emission limits on 
evaporation  through  fuel  tanks,  fuel  hoses  and  diurnal  emissions  can  reduce  annual 
evaporative  emissions  produced  by  recreational  craft  by  up  to  30%.  This  would  mean  a 
reduction of 16 thousand tonnes of HC emissions/year21. Lower evaporative emissions would 
also reduce the loss of fuel and therefore decrease overall fuel consumption. 

The study concluded that the most appropriate option to reduce evaporative emissions would 
be to introduce the limits used in the United States for recreational craft22. The technologies 
for  reducing  the  evaporative  emissions  in  the  recreational  boating  sector  have  already  been 
developed and a decade of experience with those limits has proved that they are feasible and 
realistic.  Harmonisation  of  the  evaporative  emission  limits  between  the  EU  and  the  US  is 
supported by stakeholders. 

kWh per kg of battery. 
When the hybrid application comprises an electric motor and a catalysed SI engine. 
An  electric  propulsion  engine  is  used  at  low  speeds  (such  as  when  drifting  away  from  the  marina),  and  combustion 

17 
18 
19 
                   propulsion takes over when the engine operates between 25% and 80% of its rated power range. 
20 
21 
22 
                   control of running losses during re-fuelling. 

When the hybrid application comprises an electric motor and a CI engine. 
It presents approximately 0.15% of HC emissions produced by all EU sectors. 
Fuel  hose  and  fuel  tank  permeation  emission  control,  control  of  diurnal  emissions,  control  of  hot  soak  emissions  and  

10 

 
 
 
                                                           
Another alternative would be to reduce the evaporative emissions in line with the limits used 
in the EU automotive sector. However, it is questionable to what extent the limits set for this 
sector  would  be  appropriate  for  the  specific  characteristics  of  the  boating  sector  (such  as 
different times of engine activity during usage, or operation in wet and salty conditions). 

Because technologies have already been developed for boating environments, the evaporative 
emissions  control  requires  less  expenditure  on  research  &  development.  Nevertheless,  EU 
manufacturers  would  have  to  take  into  account  additional  fixed  expenses  for  tooling  and 
certification,  as  well  as  higher  variable  manufacturing  costs  due  to  the  need  to  apply 
additional protective layers in fuel tanks and hoses. 

According to the study, the benefits of reducing HC emissions and lowering fuel consumption 
would offset the costs of adopting the technologies after 22 years23. 

A faster payback period of 17 years would also be possible if the technology adopted involves 
permeation  control  from  fuel  hoses  alone.  This  solution  would  involve  lower  implementing 
costs,  however  the  reduction  of  annual  evaporative  emissions  would  also  be  lower  (11% 
reduction compared to a 30% reduction if all emission control measures are implemented). 

6.3. Watercraft design categories – key findings, options for modifying design categories 
and impact of possible modifications 

6.3.1. Key findings for manufacturers 

The public consultation shows that the choice of criteria24 and the watercraft design categories 
are well understood by boat manufacturers. 

The upper limits of wind force and wave height for design category A are set implicitly (by 
excluding  stormy  weather)  rather  than  explicitly  like  in  the  relevant  harmonised  standard. 
Setting  explicit  upper  limits  for  design  category  A  may  improve  the  clarity  of  information 
provided to manufacturers. 

6.3.2. Key findings for end users/consumers 

The public consultation shows that the choice of criteria and the watercraft design categories 
are  well  understood  by  end-users/consumers.  The  issues  that  seem  to  need  a  more  detailed 
technical explanation are: significant wave height definition, maximum average wind speeds, 
gust speeds and maximum wave height. If these terms are explained in the owner’s manual as 
well as in the RCD, end-users should be better able to understand the relation between their 
watercraft’s maximum construction capabilities and marine forecasts. 

23 
24 

As measured according to the current level of technology knowledge and current expenses. 
Combination of wind force and wave height. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
6.3.3. Options for modifying design categories 

The first option is to divide design categories C and D into two. New sub-categories C1/C2 
and  D1/D2  would  introduce  modifications  to  the  limits  for  maximum  wind  force  and 
significant  wave  height.  According  to  WMO  sea  state  methodology,  this  could  better 
correspond  to  weather  conditions  found  in  sheltered  waters  (mainly  category  D  boats)  and 
some  areas  of  non-sheltered  waters  (mainly  category  C  boats).  However,  the  available 
accident  reports  do  not  provide  evidence  that  the  design  category  assigned  for  certain 
meteorological  conditions  would  be  a  factor  contributing  to  accidents.  According  to  the 
review  study,  this  option  does  not  appear  to  bring  any  tangible  safety  benefits  and  would 
generate costs amounting to several millions of euro. 

The second option is  a subdivision of category C and  the specification of new ranges in  all 
categories  in  order  to  improve  scientific  and  technical  soundness.  It  would  approximate  the 
RCD design categorisation with the methodology of sea state used by the WMO.  According 
to  the  study,  although  this  option  might  bring  about  some  improvements  such  as  clearer 
information for end-users, the benefits would not outweigh the costs. 

A new division of the watercraft design categories would involve costs for manufacturers as 
well as for standardisation bodies. Manufacturers would need to re-design certain boat models 
that were previously assigned to a different category, re-certify those boats and communicate 
the changes to their customers. The study also notes that the cost of revising 23 harmonised 
standards, which contain references to the current boat design categorisation, could run up to 
several hundreds of thousands of euro. 

The  third  option  does  not  involve  modifying  the  design  categories.  Instead,  it  provides  the 
possibility to increase legal clarity in the RCD by adding the explicit definition of the upper 
limit values for design category A as defined in the relevant harmonised standard. This option 
appears  to  be  the  most  advantageous  economically  because  it  does  not  generate 
manufacturing or certification costs due to the modification of design categories. Instead, the 
explicit statement, together with explanations of the terms ‘wind force’, ‘gust wind force’ and 
‘significant wave height’, may improve the clarity of information provided to manufacturers 
as well as to end-users. 

7. CONCLUSIONS AND WAY FORWARD 

7.1 Exhaust emissions 

Conclusions 

As explained in Chapter 6.1, approximately 80% of recreational craft currently in service are 
not covered by the exhaust emissions limits introduced by the RCD (applicable since 2016). 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Therefore,  the  real-world  exhaust  emissions  from  recreational  craft  will  fall  as  the  fleet  is 
gradually replaced and equipped with modern, clean engines, including an increasing share of 
zero-emission technologies. 

A further reduction of exhaust emissions from recreational craft engines is technically feasible 
with  the  installation  of  advanced  catalyst  technologies.  Catalyst  technologies  cannot  be 
simply  carried  over  from  the  on-road  sector,  but  need  to  be  adjusted  to  the  salty  marine 
environment.  The engine manufacturers can  therefore take  advantage of  economies of scale 
only  to  a  limited  extent.  The  use  of  catalyst  technologies  on  SI  outboard  engines  and  CI 
engines of recreational craft requires a high and long-term investment (the payback period is 
16-20  years).  It  also  requires  the  availability  of  specific  diesel  fuels  with  a  low  level  of 
sulphur for recreational craft. 

Exhaust emissions could also be reduced by using electric and hybrid engines. Although this 
is technologically possible, it would still pose a challenge due to battery storage constraints, 
the cost of electric and hybrid applications and the lack of charging infrastructure. Currently, 
these applications are competitive only for low-powered motor boats and some sailing boats, 
but their uptake will increase when the above mentioned limitations are tackled. 

Further reducing exhaust emission limits from recreational craft engines in future legislation 
will not solve the immediate need to improve the ambient air in some heavily-polluted zones 
(such  as  certain  ports).  The  immediate  reduction  of  pollutants  in  sensitive  areas  is  already 
possible under the current legal framework, as Member States are free to adopt specific rules 
of  navigation  according  to  Article 5  of  the  RCD  (for  example  limitation  of  use  in  certain 
hours, limitation of speed, way of navigating). 

Way forward 

The Commission will continue to closely monitor technological and market developments as 
well  as  major  market  initiatives  to  reduce  exhaust  and  greenhouse  gas  emissions  from 
recreational  craft  and  make,  where  appropriate,  legislative  proposals  to  set  more  ambitious 
emission  standards,  including  the  support  of  low-emission  propulsion  technologies  (such  as 
electrification) used on recreational craft and personal watercraft. 

7.2 Evaporative emissions 

Conclusions 

Evaporative  emissions  from  recreational  craft  are  not  currently  regulated  under  the  RCD. 
They are mostly HC emissions and account for a very small proportion of HC emissions from 
the  transport  sector.  However,  they  can  accumulate  in  ports  and  boat  storage  spaces  when 
recreational craft are left idle. 

Introducing evaporative emission limits would be feasible, as the technologies to control these 
emissions  from  recreational  craft  exist  and  are  already  used  in  the  United  States.  It  would, 
however,  require  a  significant  financial  investment  by  European  suppliers  of  fuel  tanks  and 
hoses to adopt the technologies for controlling evaporative emissions (as indicated in Chapter 
4.2).  Assuming  that  the  costs  will  spill  over,  resulting  in  higher  prices  for  fuel  system 

13 

 
 
 
components,  the  payback  period  for  implementing  evaporative  emissions’  control  measures 
on  recreational  craft  would  be  approximately  20  years  for  the  EU  recreational  craft 
manufacturers.  Evaporative  emissions  will  naturally  decrease  alongside  the  progressive 
electrification of the engines of recreational craft. 

Way forward 

The Commission  will monitor the electrification  process  of the  engines of  recreational  craft 
and  its  impact  on  exhaust  as  well  as  evaporative  emissions  from  recreational  craft.  The 
Commission  will  also  consider  introducing  evaporative  emission  limits  as  part  of  a  future 
revision of the RCD. In this regard, it will take into account the existing US standards as well 
as the other major market initiatives. 

7.3 Watercraft design categories 

Conclusions 

As  explained  in  Chapters  5  and  6.3, the  current  division  of  the  watercraft  design  categories 
based on meteorological criteria (combination of wind force and wave height) is appropriate 
and supported by manufacturers as well as by end-users/consumers. 

A  modification  of  these  categories  would  have  a  significant  economic  impact  on 
manufacturers, end-users/consumers, and standardisation bodies, and would not improve the 
safety of recreational craft. 

Way forward 

Within  the  current  legal  framework,  the  Commission  will  continue  to  monitor  the 
implementation of the watercraft design categories. 

In a future revision of the RCD, the Commission may consider explicit stating upper limits for 
design category A and including explanations of the terms ‘wind force’, ‘gust wind force’ and 
‘significant wave height’ in the Explanatory Notes of Annex I.A. 

14