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 amending Directive 2005/35/EC on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties, including criminal penalties, for pollution offences
Date: 2023-06-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: administrative sanction, environmental liability, environmental offence, international standard, marine environment, marine pollution, maritime safety, penalty, pollution control measures, pollution from ships

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 1.6.2023  SWD(2023) 164 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  amending Directive 2005/35/EC on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties, including criminal penalties, for pollution offences {COM(2023) 273 final} - {SEC(2023) 209 final} - {SWD(2023) 159 final}  
 
 
A. Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  

Directive  2005/35/EC  on  ship-source  pollution  (‘SSP  Directive’  or  ‘Directive’)  deals  with  penalties  for 
illegal discharges of oil and noxious liquid substances from ships to the sea. Illegal,  means anything that 
does not meet MARPOL standards (MARPOL - Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships).  
The Directive is one of EU’s initiatives aiming to decrease pollution to the sea from maritime transport. 
Its purpose is to incorporate international standards for ship-source pollution into EU law and to ensure 
that those responsible for discharges of polluting substances to sea are subject to penalties. The reason 
behind the Directive was largely the public concern following accidents involving the tankers Erika (1999) 
and Prestige (2002). 
Although the maritime sector provides substantial economic and social benefits to the EU, it also has an 
impact  on  the  environment  and  the  health  of  EU  citizens.  Oil  spills  are  a  concerning  source  of marine 
pollution, as they are difficult to clean up and can last for long periods in the marine environment. Other 
harmful substances released by ships as well as garbage and sewage also have a negative effect on the 
sea. They can pollute marine and coastal habitats, causing damage to the natural environment and the 
economy.  
The  Commission  carried  out  an  ex-post  evaluation  in  2022  and  found  that  the  Directive  successfully 
contributed  to  the  incorporatation  of  the  international  rules  for  ship-source  pollution  into  EU  law  and 
improved  the  detection  of  possible  pollution  from  ships.  In  particular,  the  Directive  was  the  impetus 
behind  the  creation  of  the  CleanSeaNet  service  -  an  EU-wide  oil  monitoring  system  using  satellite 
surveillance  hosted  by  the  European  Maritime  Safety  Agency  (EMSA).  However,  offenders  discharging 
polluting  substances  illegally  are  not  always  identified,  and  therefore  rarely  penalised.  A  number  of 
issues  have  been  identified  as  problematic:  (1)  the  current  scope  of  the  Directive  does  not  cover  all 
relevant polluting substances of the international regime e.g. garbage or sewage discharges into sea; (2) 
information exchange and/or expertise to effectively detect, verify and penalise pollution from ships are 
inconsistent across the EU and generally insufficient; (3) there is an unbalanced dissuasive effect of the 
penalties  currently  applied  across  EU  for  ship-source  pollution;  (4)  the  current  reporting  by  Member 
States is incomplete and results in a lack of information on ship-source pollution and related penalties 
across the EU over time.  
There  is  clear  Union  relevance  of  improving  the  Directive  to  address  this  cross-border  problem.  In  the 
absence of further EU-level action, the problem will most likely persist. With the entry into force of the 
new Environmental Crime Directive (which for the first time will have provisions on ship-source pollution), 
the  provisions  on  criminal  penalties  in  the  SSP  Directive  will  become  obsolete  and  thus  need  to  be 
removed. 

What should be achieved?  

In line with the European Green Deal, the aim is to incorporate into EU law international standards  on 
pollution by ships and to ensure that those responsible for discharges of polluting substances are subject 
to  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive  penalties.  The  specific  objectives  are  to:  (1)  incorporate 
international standards  into EU  law  by aligning the Directive with MARPOL Annexes on discharges into 
sea;  (2)  support  Member  States  by  building  their  capacity  to  detect  pollution  incidents,  verify,  collect 
evidence  and  effectively  penalise  identified  offenders  in  a  timely  and  harmonised  manner;  (3)  ensure 
that  persons  responsible  for  illegal  discharges  from  ships  are  subject  to  effective,  proportionate  and 
dissuasive  penalties;  and  (4)  ensure  simplification  and  effective  reporting  on  ship-source  pollution 
incidents and follow-up activities.   

What is the value added of EU-level action (subsidiarity)?  

Due to the frequent transboundary impact of marine pollution and the fact that perpetrators act across 

1 

 
borders, action by Member States alone would not be enough to tackle this problem. Diverging national 
approaches  in  this  area  hinder  efficient  cooperation  between  Member  States  and  allow  offenders  to 
escape penalties. The  Directive  already  goes  beyond the MARPOL standards by (1) providing a  liability 
regime  that  allows  more  effective  penalisation  of  polluters;.  and  (2)  supporting  the  Member  States  in 
identifying  the  offenders  through  digital  tools.  The  value  added  by  this  revision  is  regulating  more 
polluting substances, clarifying the existing liability regime and extending satellite surveillance to cover 
more  types  of  pollutants.  The  revision  also  aims  to  introduce  new  measures  on  penalties  without 
affecting  the  revised  Environmental  Crime  Directive.  Action  at  EU  level  would  be  more  effective  than 
action at national level because it would have a deterrent effect across borders.   

B. Solutions 

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

Three policy options  (PO) have been assessed in this  impact assessment and  propose  solutions  to the 
problem, but they vary approach, level of harmonisation and amount of discretion left to Member States. 
All policy options envisage extending the scope of the Directive to cover not only MARPOL Annexes I-II (oil 
and noxious liquid substances in bulk) – as is the case currently – but also Annex III (harmful substances 
carried by sea in packaged form), Annex IV (sewage), Annex V (garbage) and Annex VI  discharge water 
and residues from scrubbers. All options provide Member States with better information  and ensure that 
the  level  of  EMSA  support  (training,  guidance,  integrated  tools,  access  to  information  on  possible 
detections) is sufficiently high. 
PO-A  leaves  the  most  discretion  to  Member  States  on  implementing  MARPOL  standards.  Under  PO-A, 
Member States would be responsible for managing their information on ship-source pollution incidents 
and for keeping the public informed through national websites. This option follows a national approach 
on determining the type of penalty and does not regulate the level of the penalty. For PO-A, there is more 
adaptability for Member States and a minimum of EU intervention.  
PO-B focuses on strengthening cooperation between Member States mainly through common measures 
included  in  all  options  e.g.  further  optimisation  of  the  EMSA  tools  such  CleanSeaNet,  SafeSeaNet  and 
THETIS.  Under  PO-B,  the  criteria  for  levels  of  penalties  would  be  set  out.  PO-B  also  would  provide  a 
structure for cooperation  among  Member States  and strengthen  their  enforcement without introducing 
major regulatory measures or costs for Member States.  
PO-C  focuses  on  stronger  EU  regulatory  action  to  complement  cooperation  among  Member  States.  It 
obliges Member States to verify at least 60% of their CleanSeaNet alerts. PO-C is expected to generate 
higher verification costs but it provides a structure for strengthened enforcement. On penalty levels, PO-C 
would strengthen harmonisation across the EU by setting the values. 
PO-B, selected as the preferred policy option, is considered the most efficient and proportionate, likely 
to  work  well  in  a  common  framework.  There  are  however  data  gaps,  low  stakeholder  input  and  high 
uncertainty on the impacts. On coherence, all three options perform the same and can work together with 
other  EU  instruments.  In  terms  of  effectiveness,  PO-C  performs  better  than  PO-B  because  of  the 
deterrent effect of the 60% verification rate, which increases the chances of a ship being caught when 
discharging illegally in European seas. PO-B and PO-C are more effective than PO-A, specifically thanks 
to  the  benefits  of  providing  harmonised  solutions  at  EU  level,  as  compared  to  multiple  national 
approaches. PO-C is less proportionate than PO-B because of the proposed strict regulatory approach on 
penalty levels and a major mandatory verification obligation. The imposition of such a strong regulatory 
approach in PO-C is seen disproportionate given the very uncertain data and weak ex-post evaluation of 
the initiative (i.e. due to scarce data). 

What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option?  

2 

 
The involvement of stakeholders in the consulation process was generally low. There were 30  replies to 
the public consulation.  
The  preferred  policy  option  (PO-B)  is,  in  principle,  supported  by  different  stakeholders.  During  a 
stakeholder validation workshop with Member States, industry and NGOs organised in September 2022, 
when  asked  about  the  three  options,  20  out  of  27  voting  participants  selected  strengthened  Member 
State  cooperation  and  EMSA  support.  However,  opinions  differed  between  stakeholders.  Some  industry 
stakeholders consider that the Directive is not needed, as international MARPOL rules are sufficient. 
Stakeholders are broadly in favour of extending the scope of the Directive to  cover discharges into the 
sea  of  other  substances  covered  by  MARPOL.  The  public  consultation  showed  that  23  (out  of  28) 
respondents  consider  the  ‘update  of  the  Directive  to  include  amendments  to  the  MARPOL  Convention, 
putting in place stricter rules for discharges of waste from ships at sea’ as a relevant aspect that should 
be  addressed.  Of  the  51  respondents  in  the  stakeholder  validation  workshop  in  September  2022,  26 
voted to extend the scope to cover Annex I-VI. Some NGOs consider that the Directive’s scope should go 
beyond  what  is  regulated  at  international  level,  e.g.  cover  underwater  noise.  Stakeholders  agree  on 
improving the effectiveness of mechanisms to address surveillance and information exchange and they 
are in favour of EU support for Member States in this area.  

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?                                       

PO-B  (as  with  PO-A  and  PO-C)  is  expected  to  result  in  enforcement  cost  savings  for  Member  States 
estimated at EUR 1.8 million.  
PO-B  (as  with  PO-C)  is  expected  to  result  in  administrative  cost  savings  for  Member  Statesof  an 
estimated EUR 0.9 million. 
PO-B is also expected to benefit the environmentthanks to pollution prevention. Over 2025-2050, 3,411 
tonnes of oil discharges would be prevented compared to the baseline. The reduction in the external costs 
is  estimated  at  EUR  690.5  million.  Uncertainty  about  the  quantified  environmental  benefits  is  high, 
however, due to the lack of data.  
Overall,  PO-B  is  expected  to  result  in  net  benefits  estimated  at  between  EUR  558.5  and  EUR  567.4 
million.  
(N.B. All figures are relative to the baseline and expressed as net present value over 2025-2050, in 2020 
prices).  

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  

In PO-B, additional costs will fall mainly on EMSA as its workload will increase due to the development of 
new IT modules, optimised use of the existing tools, training and guidance. These adjustment costs for 
EMSA  are  estimated  at  between  EUR  122.6  and  EUR  131.4  million  over  2025-2050.  In  addition,  the 
adjustment costs for the European Commission are estimated at EUR 0.8 million. 
The  enforcement  costs  for  Member  State  administrations,  linked  to  the  extension  of  the  scope  of  the 
Directive and the feedback to the CleanSeaNet alerts, are estimated at EUR 2.5 million. 
(N.B. All figures are relative to the baseline and expressed as net present value over 2025-2050, in 2020 
prices). 

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  

The preferred policy option does not create new obligations for businesses and would thus not have an 
impact  on  their  costs.  The  extension  of  the  Directive’s  scope  to  cover  additional  substances  under 
MARPOL  may  be  relevant  for  recreational  craft  and  fishing  vessels,  sector  segments  with  high  SME 
participation.  However,  the  fact  that  this  extension  is  focused  on  the  enforcement  of  international 
standards  means  that  the  shipping  sector  must  comply  with  these  standards  with  or  without  the 

3 

 
Directive and no impact on costs is expected for the compliant SMEs.  

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  

The enforcement costs for Member State administrations are estimated at EUR 2.5 million. On the other 
hand,  PO-B  is  expected  to  result  in  enforcement  costs  savings  estimated  at  EUR  1.8  million  and 
administrative costs savings estimated at EUR 0.9 million. As a result, the net costs for Member State 
administrations are estimated at EUR 0.2 million. 
(N.B. All figures are relative to the baseline and expressed as net present value over 2025-2050, in 2020 
prices). 

Will there be other significant impacts?  

Aside  from  the  positive  indirect  impact  on  discouraging  illegal  discharges  from  ships  into  the  marine 
environment, the initiative may have a positive indirect effect on the health of people across the EU who 
live next to the sea and/or eat the fish caught in European seas  thanks to the higher quality of water. 
However, this impact is not perceived as significant. 

Proportionality 

The preferred policy option is assessed as the most proportionate to meet the overall policy objectives. 
The  focus  of  the  preferred  policy  option  is  on  improving  cooperation,  knowledge  sharing  and  data 
collection  and  goes  further  to  what  Member  States  could  achieve  themselves.  The  ships  illegally 
discharging  pollutants  will  face  more  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive  penalties  thanks  to  EU 
support for Member States with training and platforms to exchange information and experience as well 
as modern digital tools that help identify the possible polluter. 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  

The Commission will carry out an evaluation of this Directive five years from the date of transposition of 
this  amending  Directive  and  EMSA  will  carry  out  visits  to  Member  States  to  verify  operations  on  the 
ground, leading to cross-cutting analyses.  

4