Europaudvalget 2018
KOM (2018) 0033
Offentligt
1845875_0001.png
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Strasbourg, 16.1.2018
SWD(2018) 21 final
PART 2/2
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
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
{COM(2018) 33 final} - {SWD(2018) 22 final}
EN
EN
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
Table of contents
Annex 1 – Procedural information concerning the process to prepare the impact assessment
report and the related initiative................................................................................................. 2
Annex 2 – Synopsis report of stakeholder consultation .......................................................... 10
Annex 3 – Affected stakeholders ............................................................................................. 24
Annex 4 – Analytical models used in preparing the impact assessment ................................. 26
Annex 5 – Total waste volumes and illegal discharges .......................................................... 332
Annex 6 – MARPOL discharge norms and relevant amendments ........................................... 47
Annex 7 – EMSA Assessment of the enforcement options...................................................... 52
Annex 8 – Regional differences ................................................................................................ 79
Annex 9 – Calculation of administrative burden and enforcement costs ............................. 104
Annex 10 – Glossary of terms ................................................................................................ 114
1
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0003.png
Annex 1 – Procedural information concerning the process to prepare the impact
assessment report and the related initiative
Lead DG: Directorate General Mobility and Transport
Agenda Planning
Reference AP N°
2017/MOVE/1
Short title
Revision of Directive on port reception
facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo
residues
Foreseen
adoption
Autumn 2017
(Commission
proposal)
Organisation and timing
The Inter Service Steering Group (ISSG) for the Impact Assessment was set up in October
2015 and includes the following DGs and Services: SG, SJ, GROW, ENV, MARE, as well as
EMSA (European Maritime Safety Agency).
Five meetings were organised between October 2015 and May 2017. Further consultations
with the ISSG were carried out by e-mail.
The ISSG approved the Inception Impact Assessment which was published in December
2015. The ISSG also discussed the main milestones in the process, in particular the
consultation strategy and main stakeholder consultation activities, the task specifications to
launch the contract for the external IA support study, key deliverables from the support study,
and the draft impact assessment report before the submission to the Regulatory Scrutiny
Board.
Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board
The Regulatory Scrutiny Board ("RSB") received the draft version of the present Impact
Assessment report on 24 May 2017. Further to the meeting with the RSB on 21 June 2017,
the RSB gave a positive opinion with reservations on 23 June 2017. The opinion included
recommendations, which have been addressed in the revised IA report as explained in the
table below.
Comments from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Main considerations
Further considerations
1.
The report does not
sufficiently explain the
added value of the
Directive compared
to the MARPOL
Convention.
The report should further explain
the
context of the Directive and its
added value to MARPOL.
It
should specifically clarify the legal
objectives and enforcement regimes
of the Directive compared to
MARPOL.
To understand the problem
definition, the report should clarify
the
EU value added for the last 15
years
and the
development of the
MARPOL Convention and IMO
in the period where no amendments
How these issues have been addressed in
the IA Report
Further explanation on the relationship with
MARPOL and EU added value of the
Directive has been inserted in
section 1.1.2
(EU context), together with a table
providing for a comparison between the two
instruments.
Section 1.1.1
(International context)
includes an overview of the relevant
amendments to MARPOL in the past 15
years; references to these amendments have
also been included in footnote 2.
2
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0004.png
have been made to the Directive. It
should explain issues relating to
enforcement
and assess them in
more detail. The presentation of the
baseline
in section 2.4 should use
this analysis. The services
could consider giving a counter-
factual assessment like the cost of
non-Europe (a no policy
option): this could reinforce the
justification for the Directive
overall and for future amendments
in line with MARPOL and IMO
amendments.
The EU added value is not only in
enforcement, but also in
implementation
of
the main (MARPOL) obligations. Both
issues have been explained in more detail in
section 1.1.2 and section 2.4.
A counter-factual assessment does not seem
necessary nor appropriate at this point in
time, given that the
REFIT Evaluation
made a detailed assessment of the Directive,
and concluded that the Directive has been
relevant, effective and efficient (be it partly)
and has had clear EU added value. This is
explained in section 1.2, and further
references to the outcome of the REFIT
Evaluation have been included.
The respective magnitude and order of
importance of 1/ waste being discharged at
sea and 2/ administrative burden have been
made more explicit in the introduction of
section 2.1.
Furthermore, in
Chapter 4 (objectives),
it
has been explained why objective 1
("reduction of discharges of waste at sea")
ranks as the primary objective and the
reduction of administrative burden as the
secondary objective.
Section 2.1.1
(waste discharged at sea)
explains why every tonne of waste
discharged by ships should be avoided,
taking into account adverse effects on the
marine environment, with reference to
significant costs in relation to beach clean-
up, oil recovery operations and damage to
the fishing sector. Given the environmental
vulnerability of all sea regions to garbage,
this is most apparent for garbage, but also
applies to the other waste categories.
The report includes additional explanations
in section 5.3., with an additional table
comparing the different policy options to
MARPOL. As explained in
section 5.3.3.
the MARPOL alignment option
does not
equal full alignment
with the Convention,
as this would mean retracting fundamental
obligations, such as the WRH Plans,
exemption regime and the fee systems,
which have proven to be effective and
useful (REFIT Evaluation and previous
assessments).
A discarded policy option has been included
in a
new section 5.2.2
in the report which is
"full alignment with MARPOL", providing
the reasons/explanation why this is not
considered a viable option.
The problem description should
clarify the respective
magnitude
and order of importance
of the
two problems
(ship-
generated waste and administrative
burden). The report should
reflect this in the hierarchy of
objectives.
It should also better explain the
importance of further reducing
waste disposal at sea, given the
already good performance on the
collection of oily waste and sewage.
2.
The report lacks a
clear description of how
far the policy options are
in line with, or go
beyond, the MARPOL
Convention in terms of
scope and content.
The report needs to further develop
and explain the
content of the
policy options.
It should
specify
in how far the policy
options are in line with the
MARPOL Convention
or deviate
from it, i.e. go beyond in scope and
content, in particular regarding
enforcement. For
option 3,
the
report should explain whether the
revision of the Directive would be a
mere alignment with the
convention,
or would add
additional aspects
not covered by
MARPOL.
3
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0005.png
Furthermore, the report should
explain how, under the various
policy options, the Directive
will meet its objectives in
maritime
areas bordered by non-EU
countries and how the
Directive will interact with
MARPOL and with regional
agreements.
3.
The impact analysis
does not demonstrate the
proportionality of the
policy options, in
particular the extension
of fees to fishing and
recreational vessels.
Moreover, the assessment
focuses exclusively on
administrative costs,
ignoring compliance
costs and investment
costs.
The impact analysis should clarify
the
scale of the environmental
benefits:
this would allow their
comparison to the costs of the
policy options.
[…]
In particular, the analysis should
show the relation between the costs
of the
extension of the scope of the
Directive to fishing &
recreational
vessels (option 3b)
and the expected environmental
benefit of further reducing marine
litter.
The report should present
orders of
magnitude of compliance and
investment costs:
this would
clarify their importance
relative to administrative costs. It
would also allow a more
meaningful comparison with
the benefits of the policy options.
The Report explains for the different options
in
section 6.2.7
(third countries) – where
relevant – how these may influence the
relation with bordering non-EU countries
(this is particularly relevant for application
of the mandatory delivery obligation, which
may play out differently for the options 3
and 4).
It has been explained in
section 7.1
for each
one of the options that they they are
proportionate in relation to intended
objectives.
More elements of a cost-benefit have been
introduced in section 6.1 (environmental
impacts), showing the order of magnitude of
expected benefits from a 1% increase of
garbage deliveries to port.
Compliance costs, including investment
costs/impacts, are described in qualitative
terms in the report (section
6.2.2).
The same
section also explains why these costs are not
expected to be significant and how in some
cases will even be reduced by the proposed
measures. The comparison in
table 10 (p.
58)
also shows that the enforcement and
administrative costs are expected to be the
more important than the compliance costs.
Additional efforts have been made to gather
the relevant quantitative data from the ports
on
setting up separate collection systems
and
establishing NSF for garbage.
However, limited feedback was received, as
it concerns commercially sensitive data.
Data from DG ENV study on separate waste
collection in EU MS has been quoted in
section 6.2.2,
and it has been explained why
these figures cannot be applied (directly) in
the context of waste management in ports
and for calculating compliance costs from
setting up separate collection of waste from
ships.
At the same time it has been noted that the
obligation to provide for separate collection
already stems from the Waste Framework
Directive (where "technically,
environmentally and economically
practicable") and compliance costs cannot
be (fully) attributed to the proposed revision
of the PRF Directive.
4
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0006.png
4. Other issues
The report should
systematically
explain stakeholders' views
throughout the main text,
including crews and port staff, in
particular regarding the value-
added of the Directive and
their views on the policy options.
More references to the stakeholder views
have been introduced in the different parts
of the report. In relation to working
conditions on board (considered in
section
6.3.2
– social impacts, working conditions
on sea), reference has been made to
discussions in the TIA workshop and best
practice examples from a recent Workshop
on waste in Dutch fishing ports (March
2017) to illustrate how the proposed
measures may impact working conditions
on board/involvement of crew on board
fishing vessels.
Data limitations have been more clearly
explained in
section 8
of the report, as well
as the way in which these are addressed
through option 3b (waste notification, waste
receipt, reporting into SSN and reporting of
inspection results in THETIS).
The report should address the
data
limitations
encountered in the
evaluation and the impact
assessment. It should assess
whether the initiative should
include additional
measures to
ensure the adequate data
availability
for the monitoring and
evaluation.
Evidence used in the impact assessment
The IA report and the options considered in the IA report were developed based on the
following documents and evidence:
Commission documents
Commission Notice 2016/C 115/05 providing Guidelines for the interpretation of
Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship generated waste and cargo
residues (31/3/2016);
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: REFIT
Evaluation of Directive 2000/59/EC (31/3/2016), COM(2016)168final;
Commission Communication COM(2009)8 "Strategic goals and recommendations for
the EU’s maritime transport policy until 2018";
Commission Communication "Towards a circular economy: a zero waste programme
for Europe", COM(2014)398fin
European Sustainable Shipping Forum, 5th Meeting of the Sub-group on Port
Reception Facilities (25/05/2016), meeting minutes.
ESSF sub-group on Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (2016), report.
Documents from EMSA
EMSA technical assessment on the list of open issues in the context of the IA for the
revision of the PRF Directive (January 2017); supplement on enforcement (March
2017), available upon request;
EMSA Technical Recommendations for the implementation of Directive 2000/59/EC
(25/11/2016), available on
http://www.emsa.europa.eu/news-a-press-centre/external-
5
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0007.png
news/item/2875-technical-recommendations-on-the-implementation-of-directive-
2000-59-ec-on-port-reception-facilities.html
;
EMSA Guidance for Ship Inspections under the Port Reception Facilities Directive
(25/11/2016), available on
http://www.emsa.europa.eu/news-a-press-centre/external-
news/item/2876-guidance-for-ship-inspections-under-the-port-reception-facilities-
directive-directive-2000-59-ec.html
;
EMSA study on the delivery of ship generated waste and cargo residues to port
reception facilities in EU ports (Ramboll, August, 2012), available on
http://www.emsa.europa.eu/publications/technical-reports-studies-and-
plans/item/1607-study-on-the-delivery-of-ship-generated-waste-and-cargo-residues-
to-port-reception-facilities-in-eu-ports.html
;
EMSA Note on the inclusion of MARPOL Annex VI in the scope of Directive
2000/59/EC (June 2012), available upon request;
EMSA note on the revision of MARPOL Annex V and related Guidelines (January
2012), available upon request;
EMSA working document (2
nd
draft) on the obligation or granted exception for a ship
to deliver its waste (article 7, Directive 2000/59/EC) (October 2011), available upon
request;
EMSA Workshop report on Port Reception Facilities for ship-generated waste and
cargo residues (April 2011), available upon request;
EMSA report of an informal meeting with industry on cargo residues (March 2011),
available upon request;
EMSA horizontal assessment report – Port Reception Facilities (December 2010),
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/consultations/doc/prf/emsa-report.pdf
;
EMSA paper on the identification of ships producing reduced quantities of ship-
generated waste (September 2008),
http://www.emsa.europa.eu/implementation-
tasks/environment/port-waste-reception-facilities/items.html?cid=147&id=714
;
EMSA assessment of international instruments covering cargo residues (June 2008),
available upon request;
EMSA Note on Article 9 on exemptions under Directive 2000/59/EC (January 2008),
available upon request;
EMSA Workshop report on the handling of cargo residues (December 2007), available
upon request;
EMSA Workshop report on the Implementation of Directive 2000/59/EC on Port
Reception Facilities for Ship-generated Waste and Cargo Residues (September 2007),
available upon request;
EMSA study on ships producing reduced quantities of ship-generated waste – present
situation and future opportunities to encourage the development of cleaner ships
(HPTI, ISSUS, October 2007)
http://www.emsa.europa.eu/implementation-
tasks/environment/147-port-reception-facilities/714-study-on-the-certification-of-ship-
recycling-facilities81.html
;
EMSA technical report assessing Waste Reception and Handling Plans adopted in
accordance with article 5 of Directive 2000/59/EC (2007), available upon request;
EMSA Workshop report on the cost recovery systems of Directive 2000/59/EC
(March 2006)
http://www.emsa.europa.eu/workshops-a-events/188-workshops/564-
the-cost-recovery-systems-of-the-directive-20059ec-on-port-reception-facilities-for-
ship-generated-waste.html
;
EMSA technical report evaluating the variety of cost recovery systems adopted in
accordance with article 8 of Directive 2000/59/EC (2006), available on
6
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0008.png
http://www.emsa.europa.eu/workshops-a-events/188-workshops/564-the-cost-
recovery-systems-of-the-directive-20059ec-on-port-reception-facilities-for-ship-
generated-waste.html
;
EMSA study on the availability and use of port reception facilities for ship-generated
waste (Carlbro, December 2005),
http://www.emsa.europa.eu/publications/technical-
reports-studies-and-plans/item/235-a-study-on-the-availability-and-use-of-port-
reception-facilities-for-ship-generated-waste-summary.html
IMO Documents
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as
modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (Marpol 73/78);
MEPC.1/Circ.671, adopted on 20 July 2009 (Ref. T5/1.01), Guide to good practice for
port reception facilities providers and users;
Circular MEPC.1/circ.834, adopted at the 66th meeting of the Marine Environment
Protection Committee, April 2014;
IMO, 2012, Guidelines for the Implementation of MARPOL Annex V (resolution
MEPC.219(63));
Resolution MEPC.200(62), adopted on 15 July 2011, Amendments to the Annex of
the Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships, 1973 (Special Area Provisions and the Designation of the Baltic
Sea as a Special Area under MARPOL Annex IV);
Resolution MEPC.201(62), adopted on 15 July 2011, Amendments to the Annex of
the Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships, 1973 (Revised MARPOL Annex V);
Resolution MEPC.281(70) (Adopted on 28 October 2016) Amendments to the 2014
Guidelines on the method of calculation of the attained energy efficiency design index
(EEDI) for new ships (Resolution MEPC.245(66), as amended by Resolution
MEPC.263 (68))
External studies and literature
Panteia, PwC, 2015, Ex-post Evaluation of Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception
facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues;
Eunomia, (2016), report for DG ENV, Study to support the development of measures
to combat a range of marine litter sources for DG ENV;
GHOST, (2016), Hands-on Manual to prevent and reduce abandoned fishing gears at
sea, ;
Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear, (2009) United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO);
Panteia (2015), Study on the Analysis and Evolution of International and EU
Shipping;
OECD (2011), Strategic Transport Infrastructure Needs to 2030;
CLIA (2015), Cruise industry outlook 2016;
UNCTAD shipping statistics;
https://www.statista.com
;
Shipping statistics and market review 2016, volume 60 - No. 8, (2016), ISL;
7
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0009.png
http://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-industry-analysis/orderbook-data.html;
Report from ESSF sub-group on Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (2016);
DNV-GL (2013), An outlook for the maritime industry towards 2020 – future
development in maritime shipping;
Ensys Energy & Navigistics consulting (2016), Marine Fuels Outlook Under
MARPOL ANNEX VI;
Eunomia, (2015), Support to the Waste Targets Review, Analysis of new Policy
options
Werner, S., Budziak, A., van Franeker, J., Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Maes, T., Matiddi,
M., Nilsson, P., Oosterbaan, L., Priestland, E., Thompson, R., Veiga, J. and
Vlachogianni, T.; 2016; Harm caused by Marine Litter. MSFD GES TG Marine Litter
- Thematic Report; JRC Technical report; EUR 28317 EN; doi:10.2788/690366;
Newman, S., Watkins, E., Farmer, A., ten Brinck, P., Schweitzer, J-P., The Economics
of Marine Litter, Chapter 14 in (eds.) Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M.,
Marine
Anthropogenic Litter,
(2015), Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar-
und Meeresforschung, Eprint ID 37207, ISBN 978-3-319-16510-3 (eBook), p. 373,
referring to Mouat, J., Lozano, R.L. & Bateson, H. (2010), Economic Impacts of
marine litter, KIMO International, pp.105.
UNEP OSPAR (2009). Marine litter in the North-East Atlantic Region: Assessment
and priorities for response. London, United Kingdom;
Unger, A., Harrison, N., Fisheries as a source of marine debris on beaches in the
United Kingdom, (2016), Marine Pollution Bulletin, 107, pp.52-58;
EEA, Report no. 2/2013 'Managing municipal solid waste – a review of achievements
in 32 European countries';
CE Delft (for EMSA), (2016), The Management of Ship-Generated Waste On-board
Ships, EMSA/OP/02/2016, Delft, CE Delft, January 2017;
http://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/downloads/case-study-1-the-story-of-capannori/
Cefas, (2017), Review of Marine Litter Management Practices for the Fishing Industry
in the N-East Atlantic Area, Cefas
EU Legislation
Directive 2000/59/EC of the European parliament and of the Council of 27 November
2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (OJ
L332, 28.12.2000, P. 0081 – 0089);
Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November
2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues -
Commission declaration (OJ L 332 , 28.12.2000 P. 0090)
Commission Directive (EU) 2015/2087 amending Annex II to Directive 2000/59/EC
(OJ L 302, 19.11.2015, p.99);
Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002
establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system and
repealing Council Directive 93/75/EEC (OJ L 208, 5.8.2002, p.10)
Directive 2009/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on port State
control (OJ L 131, 28.5.2009, p. 57);
Regulation (EU) 2017/352 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15
February 2017 establishing a framework for the provision of port services and
common rules on the financial transparency of ports (OJ L57, 3.3.2017, p. 1);
8
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November
2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3);
Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September
2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements
(OJ L255, 30.9.2005, p. 11);
Directive 2009/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 21 October
2009 amending Directive 2005/35/EC on ship-source pollution and on the introduction
of penalties for infringements (OJ L 280, 27.10.2009, p. 52);
Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008
establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental
policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19);
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October
2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ
L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1) (Water Framework Directive);
Directive 2010/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October
2010 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the
Member States and repealing Directive 2002/6/EC (OJ L 283, 29.10.2010, p.1);
Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating to a reduction in the sulphur
content of certain liquid fuels and amending Directive 93/12/EEC (OJ L 121, 11. 5.
1999, p. 13);
Directive 2012/33/EU of the European parliament and of the Council of 21 November
2012 amending Council Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of
marine fuels (OJ L 327, 27.11.2012, p.1);Directive 2008/98/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain
Directives (OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p.3) (Waste Framework Directive)
External expertise
The Commission sought external expertise through a contract for a support study with Ecorys.
From the deliverables of this contract, the IA report used in particular the information
provided in the case studies and targeted stakeholder consultation, the calculation of the
"waste gap" for the baseline, the environmental vulnerability assessment, as well as the
qualitative assessment of impacts. As a complement to this work, DG MOVE carried out
further quantification of the potential impacts, with the technical assistance of EMSA and
based on the data provided by DG MARE and DG ENV.
9
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0011.png
Annex 2 – Synopsis report of stakeholder consultation
1. Introduction
In the context of the Impact Assessment for the revision of Directive 2000/59/EC on port
reception facilities for ship generated waste and cargo residues ("the PRF Directive"), the
European Commission (DG MOVE) has undertaken a number of stakeholder consultation
activities. Part of these activities were conducted in the context of the Impact Assessment
support study (by Ecorys), which was launched in May 2016 to assist the Commission in the
Impact Assessment of the options for the revision of the PRF Directive. This report provides
an overview of the different stakeholder groups that were engaged in consultation activities,
as well as a summary and analysis of the responses received. All aspects of the Impact
Assessment were included in the consultation of stakeholders (problem definition, EU
dimension, options/measures and potential impacts). In particular, the consultation activities
were instrumental in getting a better view of the extent to which the problem drivers identified
in the ex-post evaluation of the PRF Directive (Panteia, 2015) contribute to the main
problems, and the extent to which the proposed policy measures are adequate to address these
problem drivers.
The following consultation activities have been conducted:
a) Meetings of the “PRF subgroup”, which was established under the European
Sustainable Shipping Forum to assist the Commission with the implementation of the
Directive as well as the future revision, bringing together the main stakeholders (ports,
port users, PRF operators, MS authorities, NGOs, etc.). The Group has had 7 meetings
between February 2015 and February 2017, the last three of which focused primarily
on the Impact Assessment.
b) An Open Public Consultation (OPC), conducted from July to October 2016;
c) Targeted (impact) surveys addressed to the ports and port users, conducted in the
Autumn of 2016;
d) Interviews with key stakeholders;
e) Case studies conducted in 5 ports in different EU regions;
f) An Expert Workshop organised with DG REGIO in March 2017 in the context of a
Territorial Impact Assessment.
The outcome of these consultation activities has provided valuable feedback for the
Commission’s Impact Assessment report.
2. Consultation methods
2.1. Work of the “PRF subgroup” within the context of ESSF
The PRF subgroup was established in December 2014 to advise the European Commission on
issues related to the implementation and operation of Directive 2000/59/EC, as well as on the
need and scope of a possible revision of the Directive. The Subgroup has provided a wide
stakeholder platform for sharing best practices and experience with the implementation and
enforcement of the PRF Directive. In addition, the PRF Sub-group has provided direct input
and expertise to the impact assessment process for the options of the planned revision.
10
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0012.png
ESSF PRF Subgroup
PRF Sub-Group set up under the European Sustainable Shipping Forum brings together the
main stakeholders, i.e. representatives from shipping companies, ports, port reception facility
operators, terminal operators, Member State competent authorities, NGOs. The following
organisations are members of the Subgroup:
Maritime and Coastguard Agency (UK), Department of Transport (UK), Public Waste
Agency of Flanders, Transport Safety Agency(FI), Ministry of Shipping, Maritime Affairs &
the Aegean of the Hellenic Republic (EL), Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Transport and
Infrastructure (HR), Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (NL),
Miljoministeriet (DK), Swedish Transport Agency (SE), Ports of Stockholm (SE), Executive
Agency "Maritime Administration" (BG), Port services and Ecology Directorate, Bulgarian
Ports Infrastructure Company (BG), SHIP-SERVICE SA, Environmental Protection
Department (PL), Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications (EE), Ministry of
Transport, Communications and Works(CY), Maritime Ports and Inland Waterway Transport
Sub-Directorate, Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy (FR), ESPO
Ports of Stockholm, ESPO Port of Amsterdam, ESPO Port of Barcelona, ESPO Port of
London Authority, ESPO, Finnish Port Association, Irish Ports Association, Danish Ports
Association, Baltic Ports Organization, FEPORT, PORT Deltalinqs, FEPORT Voltri
Terminal Europa SpA (Genoa), FEPORT Port of Kiel, ECSA German Shipowners'
Association (VDR), ECSA Environmental affairs, Koninklijke Vereniging van Nederlandse
Reders (KVNR), ECSA Union of Greek Shipowners (UGS), ECSA Costa Crociere, ECSA,
ECSA DFDS A/S, CLIA Europe, CLIA Europe, CIN SNAM SpA, MAERSK,
INTERTANKO, Euroshore International, SEAS AT RISK, WASTE FREE OCEANS,
EGCSA ,EGCSA the Nord Group, Behörde für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt Hamburg
(BSU), C/O HANSESTADT BREMISCHES HAFENAMT, FEPORT, ECOIMSA-
TRADEBE , Veolia Southampton, MAC, Euroshore International, Hellenic Environmental
Center, Antipollution S.A.
Seven meetings of the Group were conducted between February 2015 and February 2017;
whereas, the first meetings were more focused on the implementation of the Directive and the
REFIT Evaluation, the last three meetings focused more on the Impact Assessment for the
revision of the Directive. Issues that were discussed in the various meetings of the Group
included the following: defining the adequacy of PRF, harmonization of fee systems, the use
of existing standards and forms, exemptions for ships in regular and scheduled traffic, the
delivery of waste from fishing vessels and the link with marine litter, the enforcement of the
mandatory delivery obligation, and the application of the waste hierarchy in the context of
ship-generated waste.
The subgroup has also established links to other Subgroups within the ESSF, in particular the
Scrubber Subgroup, which produced a report on the issue of waste from exhaust gas cleaning
systems to support the Impact Assessment for the PRF revision.
Furthermore, three Correspondence Groups were set up to further develop certain key issues:
1. A Correspondence Group on the Cost Recovery Systems, which produced a list of
recommendations to the Commission with an assessment of the expected impacts from the
recommended measures;
2. A Correspondence Group on exemptions, which has provided important input to the impact
assessment on how to improve the current exemption regime;
3. A Correspondence Group on the issue of Ozone Depleting Substances.
11
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0013.png
2.2. Open Public Consultation
The Open Public Consultation (OPC) on the Impact Assessment for the revision of the PRF
Directive was launched by the European Commission on 13 July 2016 and remained open
until 16 October 2016. The main objective of the OPC was to get a better view of the extent to
which the identified problem drivers contribute to the illegal discharge of waste at sea and of
whether the proposed policy measures are appropriate to address these problems drivers.
The Commission received 79 responses
1
. The respondents came from fifteen different
Member States as well as from two non-EU countries:
Respondent country of residence
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Greece
Denmark
Germany
Belgium
France
Netherland
s
United
Kingdom
Bulgaria
Poland
Finland
Spain
other
European…
Italy
Sweden
The results of the OPC reflect the views from the stakeholders that are most likely to be
affected by a revision of the Directive. The respondents were almost exclusively interested
parties with a high level of expertise. Indeed, out of 81 respondents, only 5 filled in the survey
under their personal capacity and only 5 of the respondents did not belong to one of the
identified key stakeholder groups. In addition, all but 3 of the respondents indicated that they
had a good knowledge of the topic of PRF and the issues at stake. However, as with all such
open surveys, the results cannot be considered as representative of the opinions all EU
stakeholders. One third of the responses were provided by ports (i.e. Port Authorities and Port
Associations – 26 respondents), which appear to be the group most interested in the revision
of the PRF Directive. The port users also participated in the consultation (i.e. Shipowners and
their Associations – 13 respondents), as well as the port reception facilities operators and their
associations (10 respondents), Member States authorities (11 respondents) and a number of
Non-Governmental Organisations (4 respondents).
Moreover, as part of the public consultation, seven position papers were received from a
variety of stakeholders including industry associations and private companies.
Table 1: Classification of stakeholders responding to the public consultation
Stakeholder category
European
&
Associations
National
shipping
Number of responses
4
9
% of responses
5%
11%
Ship-owners/operators
1
Two additional responses were sent in after the submission deadline, and were taken also into account
separately, bringing the total number of respondents to 81.
Estonia
Latvia
12
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0014.png
Stakeholder category
Port associations
Port authorities
PRF operators associations
PRF/ waste operators
Member State (all relevant agencies,
including ministries and inspectorates)
National government from non-EU
Member State (including acceding and
candidate countries)
Environmental and all other NGOs
Other (private
associations)
Personal Capacity
Total
sector
&
industry
Number of responses
3
23
2
8
11
2
% of responses
5%
28%
2%
10%
14%
2%
4
10
5
81
5%
12%
6%
100%
2.3. Targeted surveys
i.
Port Stakeholders
The targeted survey for port stakeholders was launched on 07 October 2016 and remained
open until 26 November 2016. There were 78 respondents to the surveys; however, 59% of
the questions were only partially completed. Representatives of the port sector made up the
biggest group of respondents (34 respondents i.e. 43%); 15 were port-users (19%); 10
respondents represented the PRF operators (13%) and 14 respondents were competent
authorities (18%). Stakeholders were asked to assess the expected impacts of each policy
measure.
ii. Fisheries
The targeted survey for fisheries was launched on 7 October 2016 and remained open until 09
November 2016. There were 48 respondents to this survey, of which half replied on an
individual basis and half on behalf of an organisation. 65% of the questions in the survey were
only partially completed.
2.4. Interviews with key stakeholders
5 exploratory interviews were conducted at the beginning of the Impact Assessment Support
Study. Subsequently 45 interviews (around half of them in the context of a case study, see
next point) have been conducted with stakeholders representing the various sectors affected.
The main objective was to obtain their views on the possible measures and their expected
impacts. The interviews have provided in depth information and filled data or knowledge gaps
left by the surveys.
13
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0015.png
Stakeholders targeted through surveys and interviews
The targeted surveys and the interviews conducted by the contractors in charge of the Impact
Assessment support study aimed at a wide coverage of stakeholder types. The following
stakeholders were among the ones contacted:
- Port associations: ESPO, Baltic Ports Organisation, ABP, NAPA
- Individual port authorities, including members of the above associations, covering different
segments, locations and size categories
- European associations of port users: ECSA, CLIA, Interferry, Intertanko, Intercargo, EBA,
Fonasba
- National associations of port users: EU ship owner associations and selected third countries
(flag states)
- Individual ship owners / operators
- Associations of PRF operators: Euroshore (port waste reception operators), Feport (terminal
operators), SIGTTO, port specific associations (e.g. Deltalinqs)
- Individual PRF operators: waste reception operators members of Euroshore
- Member States: all MS's relevant agencies (ministries or inspectorates)
- Other organisations: IMO, EMSA, sea basins organisations (HELCOM, OSPAR, Barcelona
& Bucharest Conventions), REMPEC (assisting Mediterranean countries implementing
MARPOL), UNEP (implementing Barcelona Convention), environmental and other NGOs
- Fisheries sector: Europeche, KIMO
- Marinas and nautical sector: EBA
2.5. Case studies conducted in 5 ports in different EU regions
The following five ports were selected for the case studies to represent ports in the different
European Sea Basins:
Copenhagen (Baltic Sea)
Antwerp (North Sea)
Constanta (Black Sea)
Genoa (Mediterranean)
Le Havre (Atlantic).
The five selected ports cover both smaller ports (Genoa, Constanta) as well as larger ports
(Antwerp, le Havre), as well as different port types ranging from mostly passenger ports
(Copenhagen) to ports with a specific focus on cargo (Antwerp). These ports were also
selected based on differences in:
Waste type and volume actually collected;
Applied waste notification system;
Applied cost recovery system;
Role and responsibilities regarding waste handling in the port;
Ownership and operation;
Contractual framework;
Impact of the PRF Directive.
14
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0016.png
The case studies consisted in a combination of desk research, surveys (with close-ended
questions about the current situation and open-ended questions about potential impacts of
measures) and interviews with a balanced range of stakeholders.
2.6. Territorial Impact Assessment through an expert Workshop (DG REGIO)
An expert workshop was organised by Directorate General of Regional and Urban Policy (DG
REGIO) in collaboration with Directorate General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE)
on 17 March 2017. This workshop applied the TIA tool of the ESPON 2020 Cooperation
Programme and was attended by 17 participants including experts from different regions in
the EU. The results of the territorial impact assessment expert workshop on revision of the
PRF Directive are summarised in annex 8 of this IA.
Territorial Impact Assessment workshop
Representatives of the following organisations took part in the workshop for the purpose of
the Territorial Impact Assessment:
Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions of Europe, Neptune Lines Shipping and
Managing Enterprises S.A., Union of Greek Ship-owners (EL), Carnival Cruise, Autorità di
Sistema Portuale del Mare Tirreno Centro Settentrionale, (IT) ECASBA: Federation of
National Associations of Ship Brokers and Agents, Port of Rotterdam Authority (NL),
Regional Government of Madeira, Madeira Ports Administration Board (PT), Environmental
Investigation Agency (EIA) representing Seas at Risk, Grand Port Maritime du Havre (FR),
Port of Harlingen (NL), Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution
(Bucharest Convention), KIMO the Netherlands and Belgium, part of the international KIMO
network, Department of the Environment – University of the Aegean University (EL), Baltic
Ports.
3. Results of consultation activities
3.1. Stakeholder concerns over the current PRF Regime
The following concerns were raised by stakeholders in all different consultation activities, but
predominantly by participants in the ESSF PRF Subgroup:
Data limitations as regards waste deliveries, waste discharges, adequacy of facilities,
and number of inspections undertaken;
The lack of incentives for ships that minimise their waste on board;
The waste hierarchy of reduction, reuse, recycling, recovery and disposal not being
fully implemented in the ports; lack of separate collection of waste from ships;
Problems with reporting cargo residues prior to the cargo being landed;
Competition between ports on waste fees and waste handling processes;
The lack of transparency in ports, especially on the fee structure and the link between
fees and costs;
The need and feasibility of issuing a waste receipt to ships;
Difficulties in harmonising the fees structure at EU level;
Problems in electronic reporting;
The definition of short sea shipping (SSS) and the administrative burden for ships
engaged in SSS from having to comply with the Directive;
15
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0017.png
Problems in calculating the Sufficient Storage Capacity on board of a vessel and
uncertainty over whether the next port of call has adequate PRF in place.
Both the open public consultation and the targeted consultation confirmed five main problem
drivers i.e.
adequacy, incentives, enforcement, definitions
and
exemptions.
The lack of
incentives and insufficient enforcement of the mandatory delivery were considered the most
important problem drivers, followed by the lack of adequate port reception facilities, and the
lack of harmonised exemption criteria. Inconsistent and outdated definitions in the Directive
were considered less problematic.
As regards the various policy measures for a possible revision of the PRF Directive, the
respondents evaluated five packages of various policy measures (twenty eight in total). The
majority of the stakeholders evaluated the policy measures as effective or very effective
2
.
3.2. Summary of the input – basic conclusions as regards the identified problem
drivers and expected impacts of the proposed policy measures
In general, the consultation revealed that stakeholders across the board, including ports users,
operators and NGOs, widely support action at EU level. However, the views of the
respondents vary as regards the preferred action to address the main problems, i.e. waste
discharged at sea and the unnecessary administrative burden associated with the
implementation of the PRF Directive. With regard to the five main problem drivers the
following conclusions have been drawn:
3.2.1 Incentives
The most important driver is the issue of incentives. In this regard, the majority of the
stakeholders (55 out of 81, i.e. 69%) acknowledged that the
relationship between fees
charged to ships and the actual costs
of port reception facilities is unclear or not sufficiently
transparent. In the OPC, the port users unanimously supported this view, as well as the vast
majority of the Member States and PRF operators. Furthermore, 65% of the port stakeholders
supported this view in the OPC (17 out of 26 Port Authorities and Port Associations).
In addition, 51 respondents to the OPC (63% of the total) indicated that a
lack of alignment
in the implementation of cost recovery systems
is an ‘important’ or ‘very important’
2
Please refer to the published “Summary of the Open Public consultation” for an analysis of the responses for
each policy measure.
16
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
contributing factor to the problem of (cost) incentives not being sufficient for users to deliver
waste and cargo residues to port reception facilities.
There was also general agreement that the introduction of a
shared methodology to calculate
the indirect fees
may lead to fewer variations between ports in terms of the level of
incentives provided, as ports would be incentivising delivery of waste in a similar way. A
more harmonised application of the indirect fee is also expected to result in a higher level of
incentives for delivery in individual ports. However, at an aggregated EU level, no significant
changes in volumes of waste discharged at sea were expected. This is confirmed by
respondents in the targeted survey: 13 respondents out of the 20 (i.e. 65%) respondents
replying to the question expected no impact from this measure. Providing a methodology and
guidelines to the ports for calculation of costs related to ship waste management was
welcomed by most ports and port users. Respondents to the targeted survey expected this
policy measure to be neutral for investment (50%, i.e. 10 out of 20 respondents to the
question), operational costs (38%, i.e. 10 out of 26 respondents) and administrative costs
(33%, i.e. 9 out of 27 respondents).
Applying a
100% indirect fee system for garbage
is expected to provide positive impact on
waste delivered in ports: 14 out of the 23 respondents who expressed an opinion in the
targeted survey (i.e. 61%) confirmed that this policy measure may result in increase of
deliveries, whereas only 3 of them indicated that it would lead to a decrease of the quantities
of garbage delivered in ports. Moreover, providing incentives for reducing the amount of
waste produced on board (green
ship concept)
was expected to have a positive impact on the
European manufacturing industry. In this regard, 5 out of 9 of the respondents who expressed
an opinion in the targeted survey expect an increase of competitiveness and innovation while
expecting a neutral impact (10 out of 25, i.e. 40%) or a slight increase (9 out of 25, i.e. 36%)
in the administrative burden.
With regard to the calculation of the waste fee, some ports list the cost breakdown provided
by the waste operator directly in the WRH plans, while others try to include other types of
cost into the fee, e.g. administrative costs. As indicated by the
case studies,
it is up to each
port to decide on the payment flow for waste handling services and to calculate the height of
the waste fee. Consequently, the picture is unclear due to the many payment and invoicing
systems implemented. In this regard, as confirmed by the ports in the case studies, ‘PRF
shopping’
occurs frequently. It is considered a good idea to provide a methodology and
guidelines to the ports for calculation of costs related to ship waste management. It can be
very difficult to calculate the costs when external waste operators are involved in some of the
waste operations, and the port itself in others, as it has been confirmed by one of the case
study ports.
Further to the above, the ESSF/PRF-SG/Correspondence Group (CG) on
Cost Recovery
Systems (CRS)
provided eight final recommendations to the Commission for streamlining the
underlying principles of the CRS, including: (1) defining the cost elements of PRF; (2)
defining the significant contribution referred to in article 8 of the Directive; (3) providing a
method to calculate the 30% significant contribution; (4) including the "right to deliver"; (5)
improving transparency; (6) harmonising criteria for “green ships”; (7) adding the type of
trade as a new differentiation criterion for the application of fees and (8) introducing auditable
PRF service levels. Generally, it was stressed that there should not be an aim for full
harmonization, i.e. prescribing one particular cost recovery system for all EU ports, as it is
necessary to respect regional differences between ports. Nevertheless, it was acknowledged
17
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
that there is a need for more alignment on how the different principles of article 8 should be
interpreted and applied.
3.2.2 Enforcement
The issue of the enforcement not being effective was considered as the second most important
driver. In this regard, the majority of the respondents in the OPC (56 out of the 81
respondents, i.e. 70%) indicated that the unclear definition of ‘sufficient
storage capacity’
is
an important or very important contributor to the problem of ineffective enforcement. More
than 60% of the respondents also indicated a number of additional contributing factors, such
as the inconsistency between mandatory discharge requirement (for ‘all’ ship-generated
waste) and the MARPOL discharge norms, in particular when the next port of call is a non-
EU port, as well as the insufficient use of the waste notification forms by the relevant
authorities, which causes that this data is not used for selecting ships for inspection. In
addition, the insufficient reporting and exchange of information were mentioned.
As regards the requirement for a
waste receipt,
6 out of the 16 respondents who expressed an
opinion in the targeted survey indicated that this would decrease discharges of waste at sea,
while the majority expected a moderate increase of waste delivered to port reception facilities.
In addition, 11 out of 23 respondents expressing an opinion expected an increase in
administrative burden from this measure, while the same number (i.e. 11) expected the
measure to have no impact at all. Likewise, most respondents (13 out of 23) expect a neutral
effect for operational costs. The case studies confirmed that, most (larger) ports already have
implemented this measure, as it is recommended under MARPOL.
As regards
clarifying the definition of 'sufficient storage capacity'
(as the basis of
providing an exception to the delivery obligation), 6 out of 18 (i.e. 33%) of the respondents to
the targeted survey expected that this would result in a decrease of the volume of waste
discharged at sea or not to have any effect at all (8 respondents i.e. 44%). Some of the
respondents (6 out of 24, i.e. 24%) expected an increase of administrative burden, while
others (3 out of 24, i.e. 12%) expected this to result in a decrease in administrative burden. It
is also noted that 5 out of a total of 23, i.e. 22% of respondents thought that this would result
in an increase of operational costs. From the case studies it is noted that port authorities
monitoring waste notifications do not encounter many cases of storage capacity limits
reached. However, as indicated by the ports participating in the case studies, fixed definitions
and/or detailed guidelines on how to respond to ships not delivering waste would be
welcomed. One port highlighted frustrations among stakeholders because of the different
practices applied for defining “sufficient storage capacity”, and because of the fact that
sometimes the ship has to pay despite only delivering small volumes of waste ("application of
the indirect fee").
As regards the
replacement of the 25% minimum inspection requirement with a risk-
based approach,
in total, 8 of the 14 respondents who expressed an opinion in the targeted
survey (mainly PRF operators and port authorities) think that this measure would result in less
waste discharged at sea. Most of the respondents expect a moderate increase in the delivery of
waste to port reception facilities. Although 6 of the respondents indicated that they expect an
increase of the administrative burden from this measure, 11 believed that this was not the
case. Only 2 of them expect an actual decrease in administrative burden from this approach.
18
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0020.png
The case studies have indicated that
data is not systematically exchanged between ports or
Member States.
In addition, it was mentioned that unnecessary administrative burden is
caused by inconsistent or insufficient implementation of the PRF Directive.
3.2.3 Adequacy
The third most important driver is the issue of adequacy of PRF. In this regard, the
respondents in the OPC identified a number of contributing factors, in particular: the
increased use of exhaust gas cleaning systems, which requires adequate reception of the
sludge generated by these systems; the fact that the Waste Reception and Handling (WRH)
plans do not properly reflect the waste hierarchy, and the lack of consultation of all port users
in the development and implementation of WRH plans.
In the targeted survey, 30 respondents (73% of the 35 expressing an opinion) indicated an
expected increase in the amount of scrubber waste delivered to ports from
broadening the
scope of the Directive to include MARPOL Annex VI waste.
Similarly, the majority (16
out of the 24 expressing an opinion, i.e. 63%) expected a decrease of discharges of scrubber
waste at sea. At the same time, the majority of the respondents also believe that this measure
will lead to an increase of the administrative burden
3
, as well as the operational costs
4
. The
vast majority of the respondents expressing an opinion (15 out of 17 respondents, i.e. 88%)
expect an increase of business for PRF operators as a result of this policy measure, which
would also require the PRF operators to invest in additional reception capacity. However,
from the case studies it appears that in the five ports reviewed, it would only require simple
adjustments, at low investment costs. The five case studies have underlined two key aspects:
(i) uncertainty about the delivery of future scrubber waste volumes; and (ii) required
investments and operational costs to be strongly dependent on current facilities and systems in
place. The interviewees indicated that, so far, they have seen little or no demand for scrubber
waste delivery, and stated that it is highly uncertain if this will increase in the near future.
In case of
reinforcing the waste hierarchy
as laid down in the Waste Framework Directive,
it should be noted that the majority of respondents (22, i.e. 66% of the 33 who responded to
the question, mainly port authorities and ship operators) in the targeted survey believed that
this would result in an increase of the administrative burden, while only 3 expect a decrease.
Moreover, about half of the respondents expressing an opinion in the targeted survey (17 out
of 30, mainly port authorities and PRF-operators) thought this would increase their
operational costs, while 7 (23%) expected a decrease. The same trend is confirmed as regards
the investment costs expected from this measure. More than two thirds of the respondents (17
of the 23 who expressed an opinion)
5
expect an increase of their investment costs, while 6
(26%) expect no change in costs. A positive effect of this measure in terms of an increase of
business for the PRF operators is also expected by two thirds of the respondents (12 out of
18). The five case studies underlined the potential of reinforcing the waste hierarchy, although
not much impact on waste delivery is expected.
As regards a possible
strengthening of the requirements for systematic consultation of
stakeholders in the development and updating of WRH plans,
the potential of resulting in
a decrease of waste discharges was questioned by most stakeholders (only 9 out of 22
respondents expressing an opinion, i.e. 41% expect a decrease in waste discharges against 13
3
23 out of 35 respondents, i.e. 53%, expect an increase in their administrative burden while 31% believe that
they will have a neutral effect.
4
The respondents (75%) expect an increase in their operational costs as a result of this measure.
5
Most respondents to this question are either port authorities or PRF-operators.
19
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0021.png
i.e. 59% who expect no significant result at all or even an increase). On the other side, it was
acknowledged that PRF are considered to be more adequate to meet the needs of the ships
visiting the ports, if the port users are actively involved in the process of developing and
evaluating the WRH plans. However, the operational costs are expected to be low for most
stakeholder groups involved, which is also confirmed by the respondents to the targeted
survey (32 in total), of which 15 (i.e. 47%) expect no impact, and 4 (i.e. 13%) mentioned a
decrease. Around 9 out of 32 (i.e. 28%) of the respondents still expect an increase in costs
from this measure. As regards the impact on administrative burden the respondents, almost
half expect an increase of administrative burden (15 out of 32, i.e. 47%). In all five ports of
the case studies some form of stakeholder engagement in updating the WRH plans is already
applied. Therefore, strengthening the requirements for systematic consultation of stakeholders
in the development and updating of WRH plans is not expected to cause significant
administrative burden.
In terms of
improving the definition of 'adequacy'
in line with international guidance, the
stakeholders evaluated the hypothesis that if port reception facilities become more adequate,
especially if they are able to cater for all types of waste, it would become easier for ship
operators to deliver their waste to a facility. Almost 35% of the respondents (8 out of a total of
23) to the targeted survey are of the opinion that the volumes discharged at sea will decrease.
This view is mainly held by the PRF operators. Another 52% of the respondents, (12 out of a
total of 23) mainly consisting of port authorities, as well as ship operators/agents, indicated
that volumes discharged at sea will
not
be influenced by this measure. Overall, the majority of
the stakeholders indicated that the volumes delivered to PRF (for all waste categories) will
neither increase nor decrease from having more adequate facilities in place. On administrative
burden, opinions varied, but 45% (14 out of a total of 31) of the respondents did not expect
any effect from this measure.
The stakeholders identified the issues of definitions and exemptions as less important drivers
resulting in waste being discharged at sea. On the other side, many stakeholders
6
indicated
that these drivers are important contributors to the problem of administrative burden.
3.2.4 Definitions
In total, 57 out of 81 (i.e. 70%) of all respondents in the OPC indicated that differences in
definitions are an ‘important’ or ‘very important’ contributor to the problem of administrative
burden and 53 (i.e. 65%) of the respondents indicated that reporting forms which are no
longer up to date also constitute an ‘important’ or ‘very important’ factor adding to the
administrative burden. However, the targeted survey has not confirmed these results as,
according to the majority of the respondents, aligning the definitions with MARPOL will not
influence the administrative burden, as the majority of the respondents (12 out of 25, i.e. 48%)
do not expect this to have any effect.
As regards a possible
alignment and updating of the waste notification and waste receipt
forms,
more than 50% of the respondents in the targeted survey indicated that they do not
expect any impact from this measure on volumes delivered to port reception facilities. At the
same time, 11 out of 24, (i.e. 46%) of the respondents also do not expect any impact of this
measure on administrative burden, against 5 (i.e. 21%) (predominantly port authorities) who
expect an increase in the administrative burden and 7 (i.e. 29%) (predominantly ship-owners
6
see OPC results.
20
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0022.png
and operators) a decrease. However, the case studies have indicated a potential reduction of
administrative burden due to this measure.
As regards
aligning the definitions for cargo residues and ship-generated waste
used in
MARPOL, the case studies also confirmed a potential reduction of administrative burden due
to this measure. Four out of the five ports indicated that any alignment between EU legislation
and MARPOL is welcomed, as it will result in a reduction of the administrative burden in
general and for ships coming from outside the EU in particular.
3.2.5 Exemptions
Inconsistent application of exemptions is considered to have a high impact on administrative
burden as indicated by 55 out of 81(i.e. 68%) of the respondents in the OPC. For the possible
development of
common criteria for exemptions
most respondents in the targeted survey
(10 out of 18, i.e. 56%) expect a neutral effect on waste discharges, as well as on waste
deliveries to port (53%-60% of responses, depending on waste category). With regard to the
administrative burden, responses in the targeted survey
7
were not conclusive; 7 (i.e. 28%) of
the respondents expect no impact on administrative burden, whereas 9 (i.e.36%) expect an
increase, and 5 (i.e. 20%) expect a decrease in administrative burden. However, within the
same context, the case studies indicated that several ports provide large numbers of
exemptions and that exemption criteria are applied differently between ports. It appears that
the number of exemptions given can be significant, not only because of the high numbers of
scheduled traffic calls (e.g. ferries), but also because of the current (lenient) interpretation of
the criteria and conditions provided in the Directive. Furthermore, as regards the possibility of
granting exemptions to vessels which are operating exclusively within one port, the five case
studies indicated that these vessels are mostly already exempted under the regime of article 9
of the Directive.
3.3. Summary of input for fisheries and recreational crafts
With regard to the issue of waste from fishing vessels and its relevance in the wider context of
marine litter, within the context of the ESSF/PRF subgroup an expert panel
8
discussed the
matter, and also commented on the proposed policy measures for improving the delivery of
waste from fishing vessels to PRF. Although, generally, there was limited support for
bringing fishing vessels into the scope of the notification requirement as well as the PRF
inspection regime, there was general agreement on the proposal to apply the
No Special Fee
(100% indirect fee) to fishing vessels,
i.e. delivery of all their waste to PRF without having
to pay any additional (direct) charges. The port stakeholders responding to the general
targeted survey expected an increase of the volume of waste delivered in ports because of the
incentive measures proposed for fishing vessels and small recreational craft.
Many
respondents (13 out of 19 expressing an opinion, i.e. 68%) point to an increase of the volume
of garbage delivered to port reception facilities. 11 out of 23 (i.e. 48%) of the respondents
expressing an opinion to the targeted survey expect the measure to result in an increase of the
administrative burden, whereas 7 out of 10 expressing an opinion (i.e. 70%) expect an
increase in the investment costs. On the other side, 6 out of 14 (i.e. 43%) of the respondents
expressing an opinion expect the measure to lead to additional business for PRF operators.
As regards
bringing fishing vessels and small recreational craft into the PRF inspection
regime,
the ports interviewed expressed their doubts about the feasibility of this measure,
7
8
In total, 25 respondents answered this question.
Including representatives from the port and fishing sector, as well as from a regional sea organisation.
21
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0023.png
especially concerning the reporting requirement for these vessels. However, it should be noted
that the ports interviewed are not fishing ports.
The stakeholders responding to the
targeted survey for fisheries
have highlighted the
following:
92% of the respondents
9
indicated that they regularly deliver waste generated on board and
67% indicated
10
that they regularly deliver waste collected in nets ("passively fished waste").
At the same time, the majority of the respondents noted that all the ports where they are
calling regularly, accept their waste but 8 out of 12 respondents (i.e. 67%) of them also
indicated that it is sometimes difficult or costly to dispose of end-of-life nets. With regard to
the question whether waste fees depend to some extent on the actual volumes delivered the
replies were, in general, divided (yes/no), with an equivalent rate of those not being able to
reply to this question. Some factors discouraging the delivery of fishing gear from the vessel
or the delivery of waste collected in nets (including abandoned or lost fishing gear) were
highlighted i.e. the costs, inconvenience, bureaucracy and lack of enforcement. The same
factors were highlighted as discouraging the delivery of ship generated waste. However, the
responses to the targeted survey are not conclusive as there are equivalent rates of opposite
views.
Although there are opposite views on the proposed measures for the fishing sector, the
majority of the respondents (14 out of 18, i.e. 78%) were in favour of the introduction of the
possibility to
deliver waste caught in nets or deliberately retrieved from sea free of
charge.
The majority of the respondents (9 out of 18, i.e. 50%) consider the introduction of a
measure requiring fishing vessels to notify ports in advance of the waste they are bringing
ashore as negative while some (5, i.e. 28%) believe that there will be a neutral effect and only
a few respondents (3, i.e. 17%) expect a positive effect from the advance waste reporting.
However, as regards the introduction of a measure to include fishing vessels in the specific
inspection requirements and control procedures to verify the compliance with the delivery
obligation, the majority (9 out of 18, i.e.50%) believe that this will have a positive impact,
with 6 (i.e. 33%) of the respondents viewing this negatively.
3.4. Summary of input from the Territorial Impact Assessment
The main conclusions from the Expert Workshop, and the application of the
TIA Quick
check,
can be summarised as follows (see also Annex 8):
The experts generally expect positive effects from a revision of the Directive on Port
Reception Facilities for Ship Generated Waste and Cargo Residues on territorial development.
However, especially in the field of governance, a minority of experts is sceptical about its
effective implementation and are afraid of additional administrative burden challenging
fisheries, the harbour economy and the ship transport sector.
The positive effects are quite equally distributed to all coastal regions. However, especially
some of the Eastern and Southern European coastal regions could benefit more than others
from the revision of the Directive:
The EU regions neighbouring the Black Sea in Romania and Bulgaria are expected to
experience a more significant positive impact on economic growth, especially in the
tourism sector, as a catching up effect. An efficient implementation of the Directive
9
10
11 out of a total of 12 respondents to this question.
8 out of a total of 12 respondents to this question.
22
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
could also increase their governance effectiveness due to learning effects also for other
fields.
The increased quality of the environment could especially induce a more positive
impact on tourism in Greek and Southern Italian regions in the Mediterranean Sea,
also resulting in a higher positive impact on economic growth in Greek coastal
regions.
An effective implementation of the revised PRF Directive could have a positive
impact on the governance effectiveness in the Eastern European coastal regions
bordering the Baltic Sea. In addition, a higher positive impact on economic growth can
be expected.
The outermost regions could benefit especially in economic terms from the revised
Directive: economic growth is expected, in particular from an increase in tourism.
These effects could contribute to reduce "out-migration" and "brain-drain".
4. Use of consultation results
The findings from the consultation activities have been used to analyse the problems, define
the right policy measures and/or fine-tune the proposed measures, and assess the impacts of
these measures.
Input from the stakeholders has facilitated the verification of the information from existing
reports, studies and assessments, as well as of the data collected (waste delivery data, data on
waste generated on board, data on illegal discharges at sea). The responses have provided DG
MOVE with a better view of the extent to which the identified problem drivers contribute to
the illegal discharge of waste at sea and allowed for a more detailed assessment of impacts of
the policy measures.
In conclusion, the different consultations have provided a useful insights in the functioning of
the PRF regime, its main problems and how best to address these through the revision, from
those stakeholders with a high level of expertise and knowledge.
Where relevant, references have been made in the Impact Assessment Report to the outcome
of the stakeholder consultations.
23
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0025.png
Annex 3 – Affected stakeholders
Stakeholder
Ports
Description
'…a place or a
geographical area
made up of such
improvement works
and equipment as to
permit, principally, the
reception of ships,
including fishing
vessels and
recreational craft.'
(Directive 2000/59/EC,
art. 2)
Port authorities
Harbour Masters
Port associations
Key interests
Ensure that reception facilities are
provided that are adequate to receive
the waste from ships
Develop Waste Reception and
Handling Plans
Organise the necessary consultations
with the port users to better
understand operational needs
Operate the fee systems to recover
the cost from ships and deal with
exemption requests. Tasks may be
divided between the harbour master
and the port authority.
Share
the
monitoring
and
enforcement responsibilities with the
Member State competent authorities,
e.g. in the area of assessing
exemption
requests,
waste
notification and inspections.
Member State
competent
authorities
Maritime
Implementation and enforcement of the
Transport/Environment requirements
under
the
Directive
departments at national 2000/59/EC.
or regional level,
Assessment
and
approval
of
national Inspection
exemption requests
bodies
Assessment and approval of the
WRH Plans
Assessment of waste notifications
Conducting inspections
Operators of the
port reception
facilities,
including
terminal
operators
Companies operating
under a consession or
licence in the port
Implementation of the waste reception and
handling plans (Article 5 Directive
2000/59/EC.)
24
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0026.png
Ship owners
Shipping companies
and their Agents Ship
operators
(including fishing
vessels and pleasure
craft)
Harmonisation of PRF Directive
definitions and exemptions
Cost-efficient port operations
(vis-à-vis time spent at port and financially)
Fishing industry
Fishing companies
drawing on EU-water
fishing stocks, and
their Regional bodies
(Advisory Councils)
Improvement of fishing stocks in
terms of quality and quantity
Sustainability of the fishing sector
resulting from healthy marine
ecosystems
Healthy living environments
Marine ecosystem services
Tourism
EU citizens
EU citizins in coastal
regions and islands,
often represented by
NGOs
25
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0027.png
Annex 4 – Analytical models used in preparing the impact assessment
The Impact Assessment relies on analytical tools for the calculation of its baseline and of the
potential impacts of its options. In this annex, these analytical tools are presented, including a
description of what they consist in, how they have been developed, and what their strengths
and limitations are.
1. MARWAS model
1.1 Purpose
The contractor in charge of the IA support study, Ecorys, has requested the Danish
consultancy company Port Environment to run a series of data analyses on ship generated
waste, using the dedicated computer program MARWAS.
The main purpose of the MARWAS analyses is to have an indication of the waste (types and
volume) which is expected to be delivered to a port and compare it to the actual waste
delivery figures obtained directly from the 29 ports that provided such data. The difference
between the figures obtained from the MARWAS analysis and by the ports form the waste
gap. The waste gap indicates the waste volumes per waste type which might be illegally
discharged at sea. MARWAS estimates the waste types and volume generated based on all the
voyages to a given port from a previous port of call.
1.2. Principles
The MARWAS model is built on a data base manager, which processes data from the Lloyds
Maritime Intelligence Services (LMIS). Using comprehensive data on the parameters
influencing waste generation and the number of voyages and ships in a given period,
MARWAS predicts the types and calculates the amounts of waste generated on board the ship
during the voyage from the last port of call.
The MARWAS model was originally developed to process data obtained from the LMIS. For
this study, however, on behalf of the European Commission, ECORYS has requested that data
obtained from SafeSeaNet (SSN) and MARINFO be used instead. The SSN & MARINFO
data are not directly compatible with MARWAS and some manual adjustments had to be
made.
The MARWAS model was subsequently run for the 29 ports
11
for which port delivery data
was also obtained, so as to allow for an equal comparison between the MARWAS estimates
and the waste delivery data from ports regarding ship-generated waste. In order to increase the
reliability of the outcomes and to correct for variations over the years, data was aggregated
over a 5-year period (2011-2015).
1.3. Assumptions
11
Antwerp, Gent, Zeebrugge, Vama, Burgas, Dubrovnik, Split, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Rauma, Turku, Le Havre,
Marseille, Hamburg, Kiel, Cork, Genoa, Ravena, Ventspils, Riga, Amsterdam, Groningen/Delfzijl, Rotterdam,
Szczzecin, Swinoujscie, Constantza, Galati, Koper, Algeciras
26
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0028.png
Before running a MARWAS analysis, a number of assumptions (waste generation factors)
have to be entered into the software. These assumptions influence the estimates. As
mentioned in the CE Delft study (2016), waste generation factors can vary for different kinds
of waste generation and up to several hundred percent depending on a number of issues e.g.
maintenance level and ship category. In the MARWAS analysis made by the contractor,
different assumptions have been used for 16 ship categories and up to five sizes
12
. The
MARWAS calculations cover three waste categories (Annex I oily waste, Annex IV sewage
and Annex V household garbage).
Formulas and statistics are based on IMO recommendations, literature and consultations with
ship masters, engineers, port operators, ship owners etc. However, as the waste generation and
the way it is treated on board is a function of human behaviour, there is no precise and fixed
relation to calculate them.
1.4. Limitations
Data:
Data on ship movements have been provided by EMSA for most EU ports. However,
due to differences in the data format between the data provided by EMSA and the data which
is normally used in MARWAS (LMIS data), significant data adjustments had to be made, i.e.
the consultants determined manually port positions and port ID numbers. Furthermore, there
were some data missing from major ports (Bremerhaven, Venice, Tallinn) and a range of
inconsistencies in the data provided e.g. missing data on the previous port of call. This
information is vital in order to calculate the length of voyage and waste generated. To
overcome the missing data and data inconsistencies, comprehensive MARWAS software
adjustments were carried out
13
.
MARWAS:
MARWAS is designed to process data provided by Lloyds (LMIS) and estimates
the waste generation from the previous port of call to the port in question. This means that
MARWAS does not take into account the situations where the calling ship accumulates waste
on board or keeps the waste on board for delivery in the next port. However, as data is taken
into account over 5 years, these differences are anticipated to level out.
For
garbage,
MARWAS estimates only household waste. Other types of waste categorised as
garbage are not estimated and included in the MARWAS figures e.g. various types of wood
and packaging material, as this type of garbage is very individual from ship to ship. The
amount of waste delivered at the port reception facilities is more than twice as large as the
amount of household waste generated on board as modelled by MARWAS. Therefore the
MARWAS model was insufficient on its own and had to be complemented by other sources
in order to properly estimate the waste gap for garbage.
2. Environmental vulnerability analysis
2.1. Purpose
A report, "Environmental vulnerability analysis of ship generated waste in European waters"
(2017), was prepared by the contractor Ecorys as a part of the Impact Assessment support
12
The list of values used in function of the various ship characteristics are detailed in the annex 3 "Method for
calculation of waste generation" of the IA support study.
13
See Annex 3 of the IA support study for details of the data processing steps.
27
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0029.png
study. The report develops environmental indices for each waste type and each sea area in
order to rank the severity of the environmental impact of a unit (e.g. 1 tonne) of each waste
type on each sea area. It represents an environmental weighting of a tonne of waste. A tonne
of garbage (including plastics) will cause a different environmental damage than a tonne of
sewage, for example.
This analysis is used in combination with the assessment of the volumes of waste potentially
discharged at sea ("waste gap"), both in the description of the baseline and in the assessment
of environmental impacts. The calculations of the scores per sea basins are detailed in annex
8.
2.2. Principles
The environmental damage of the discharge of a particular waste type from ships is a
combination of the amount of waste discharged and the vulnerability of the marine
environment to this particular type of waste. The environmental damage can be determined
using the following formula: Environmental Damage = Mass flow of waste type x
Vulnerability
European Seas are regulated at EU level through the Water Framework Directive (WFD)
14
and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
15
. They constitute the legal framework
to protect and restore clean water across Europe and ensure its long-term, sustainable use.
Status and goals are defined through assessments and monitoring of a series of quality
elements. They describe biological, hydro-morphological, physical and chemical elements
and indicators. The fundamental concept of environmental assessment is rooted in the MSFD
and WFD as well as in other basic EU and international documents
16
.
The same concept is applied in the vulnerability study. The approach of the environmental
vulnerability assessment is compatible with EU-wide methodologies for the assessment of the
quality of the marine environment. It follows the same concept of selecting a relevant feature
(corresponding to receptors in the MSFD) to assess the impact that waste discharge has on the
feature and then accumulating the impacts on all features into an overall impact assessment. It
applies methods and results that have been developed and agreed upon among several
Member States' authorities in earlier EU-funded projects of regional scale (Be AWARE
2015
17
, BRISK 2012
18
).
14
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a
framework for Community action in the field of water policy
15
Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a
framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework
Directive)
16
USEPA, 2017: US Environmental Protection Agency –
Risk Assessment
website:
https://www.epa.gov/risk
EU, 2007:European Commission. Interpretation manual of European Union habitats, EUR July 2007. DG
environment. Nature and biodiversity, 2007
17
The BE-AWARE project was a two year initiative (2012-2014), co-financed by the European Union, which
aimed to quantitatively identify the risk and magnitude of mineral oils spills, in the Bonn Agreement area and
undertake a qualitative risk assessment for hazardous and noxious substances.
https://www.bonnagreement.org/be-aware
18
The overall aim of the BRISK project (2009-2012) is to increase the preparedness of all Baltic Sea countries to
respond to major spills of oil and hazardous substances from shipping.
http://www.brisk.helcom.fi/
28
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0030.png
In line with the WFD and the MSFD, the environmental vulnerability study is based on the
scientific relation between selected environmental features (descriptors) which represent the
marine environment, such as species, habitats and human activities, on the one side, and the
impact by the different waste types. The next step in this concept is to describe the way in
which the features are affected by the impact of concern – here it is the impact of waste. A
scientific and systematic relation between impact and receptors is often not easy to determine
and therefore often based on assessments that to a certain degree always include some
subjectivity.
The following approach to determine environmental vulnerability is applied:
Step 1: Identification of vulnerability features.
Step 2: Scoring of each of the identified sensitive features from low, medium, high to
very high vulnerability based on fixed and agreed criteria, see below. The following
vulnerability scores were used: Score 4 (= very high), Score 3 (=high), Score 2
(=moderate/medium), Score 1 (= low).
Step 3: Assessment of total environmental vulnerability of an area by adding all
individual scores of the features.
Table 1: Illustration of the steps of the environmental vulnerability analysis
Step 3: Total
Step 1:
Step 2: Environmental scores
environmental
Features
score
Criterion 1
Criterion 2
Criterion m
Score (1-4)
Score (1-4)
Score (1-4)
Sum of scores
Feature 1
Score (1-4)
Score (1-4)
Score (1-4)
Sum of scores
Feature 2
Score (1-4)
Score (1-4)
Score (1-4)
Sum of scores
Feature n
Total
environmental
Grand total
vulnerability
Step 1:
In the former regional projects (Be AWARE 2015 , BRISK 2012), features ('descriptors')
comprised biological species, types of protected areas, human activities and different habitat
types, in total between 8 and 49 features. They were aggregated into four groups:
Species (Sensitive populations, life‐cycle and life stage aspects)
Habitats (Shoreline and coastal habitats and open sea habitats)
Protected areas (Coastal and marine protected areas under, inter alia, the EC Habitats
and Birds Directive, RAMSAR Convention and OSPAR Convention)
Socio-economic effects on human activities (Fisheries, aquaculture, tourism and
recreation, coastal communities and heritage site, coastal facilities with water intakes,
ports, mineral extraction zones and renewable energy)
In the analysis made for the purpose of this Impact Assessment, the four categories above are
identified as environmental features. Sensitivity is determined by taking a wide range of
parameters into account. The analysis builds upon the overall results of earlier detailed
studies, where available, e.g. for the Baltic Sea and the North Sea Also for the Mediterranean
29
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0031.png
Sea, maps of environmental sensitive areas are available. For the remaining sea areas, the
general findings on correlation between environmental sensitive areas and certain
geographical feature (archipelagos, shallow areas, coastal areas) are applied. In order to
properly assess sensitivity of a given sea area, it is necessarily to include knowledge on spatial
and temporal distribution of sensitive species or habitats. General distribution patterns
collected in previous projects are used.
Step 2:
Ecological vulnerability to oil spill and pollutants in general is determined on a scale from 1
to 4: Score 4 (= very high), Score 3 (=high), Score 2 (=moderate/medium), Score 1 (= low).
The scoring describes how vulnerable a specific feature identified above is regarding the
different waste types. In broad terms, the scoring defines the relative environmental
vulnerability towards a unit load (e.g. 1 ton per year) of a specific waste type.
The determination of the environmental score is based on the following criteria:
‘Fate of pollutants’: In terms of natural degradation and removal, onshore as well as in
open water.
‘Impact of pollutants’: In terms of physical and toxic effects, tainting, and population
and lifecycle considerations.
‘Length of interruption’: Describing socio‐economic impact in terms of the length of
interruption of a human activity or service.
‘Compensation possibility’: Whether or not economic compensation can be sought for
a damaged feature.
Step 3:
For each combination of features (e.g. Species) and criteria (e.g. Fate) a score between 1 and
4 is determined. The sum of all scores gives the total environmental score for each sea area
(found in the right lower cell in a matrix for all waste types).
Based on an environmental description of the four European sea areas and on a description of
how the three waste types affect the environment, the aggregated environmental vulnerability
for ship generated waste in four European sea areas are given.
Table 2: Matrix used for the determination of environmental vulnerability towards each
specific waste type
Length of
Possible
Fate
Impact
Sum
interruption compensation
Species
Habitat
Protected area
Socio-ec.
Total
environmental
Total score
vulnerability
2.3. Assumptions
30
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0032.png
In short, assumptions are made on:
The vulnerability of sea areas (based on species and habitats present and their
resilience).
The impact of different types of pollution on these.
The scoring has been made by an expert in marine biology
19
. It has been tested and peer-
reviewed: a second alternative and independent scoring has been carried out by another
marine biologist, who took part in the development of the BRISK and BE AWARE projects
but who was not directly involved in the present project.
It resulted that the differences between the assessments carried out by the two experts are
minor and have a maximum deviation of 3 points out of 20-30, corresponding to maximum
10-13%. In 50% of the indices, the two experts gave identical values. This indicates that the
assessment method is stable enough for the present purpose.
2.4. Limitations
Different views and arguments may exist on the method and scoring used. Some uncertainty
concerning score values may arise from this. In order to assess and limit this subjectivity, an
alternative and independent set of scores have been elaborated to compare the resulting
environmental weight, as explained above.
The method used for the purpose of this vulnerability assessment intends to provide
indications in the context of the impact assessment. However it is not in line with the
methodologies which are currently being developed in DG ENV in the context of the Marine
Strategy Framework Directive.
19
Full results and details of the 3 steps are available in annex 8.
31
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0033.png
Annex 5 – Total waste volumes and illegal discharges
1.
Oily waste (MARPOL Annex I)
Definition
MARPOL Annex I waste covers oily ship generated waste, which includes oily bilge water,
oily residues (sludge) and dirty ballast water and oily cargo residues; mostly being tank
washings. This type of waste is mostly generated by merchant shipping, as a result of the
consumption of heavy fuel oil. Ship engines running on marine diesel or LNG hardly generate
any oily waste. Therefore, the fisheries and recreational sector do not contribute much to the
generation of this waste category. In addition, oily cargo residues and tank washings are also
included under MARPOL Annex I.
MARPOL discharge regime
Under Annex I, the discharge of oily waste is only allowed under very strict conditions (see
Table 1 in Annex), for example the oil has to be treated before discharging by filtering
equipment which is in line with the requirements laid down in Annex I. Essentially,
discharging of oily waste into sea is only allowed when the oily waste is filtered and
significantly diluted, so that it cannot cause harm to the marine environment.
Primary waste generation
MARWAS has calculated the amount of primary waste generated would to be in the order of
700,000 m3 per year for the 29 ports analysed. When aggregating this to the total EU
merchant shipping, at most about 2 mln m3 of primary oily waste is generated.
The generation of oily waste from fisheries vessels and recreational craft is limited as in those
segments, diesel is the dominant fuel instead of HFO. Estimates for oily waste generation
indicate less than
600 kg
of oil per annum per medium size fishing vessel
20
and about
5 kg
oil
per average recreational craft
per annum
21
.
Typically larger sized ships, with higher primary waste generation, have on-board treatment
facilities, but there is a limit to the waste reduction potential through treatment of around 30%
(for engine sludge) to 40% (for engine bilge). Typically smaller sized ships have no or lower
treatment potential. The MARWAS model has applied assumptions for this for 16 vessel
types and 5 size classes. For fisheries and recreational boating, as vessels are typically small
and volumes of oily waste generated per vessels are very low, in line with MARWAS it is
assumed that no on-board treatment is taking place.
Delivery volumes and waste gap
Regarding the
delivery of oily waste
at PRFs, waste delivery data collected for 29 larger EU
ports indicate that volumes of oily waste delivered to port reception facilities have doubled
between 2004 and 2008, and have remained stable since, as shown in
Figure 1.
20
http://www.engines.man.eu/global/en/marine/engines-for-commercial-shipping/overview/Overview.html and http://www.mtu-online.com/fileadmin/fm-
dam/mtu-usa/mtuinnorthamerica/white-papers/WhitePaper_PrevMaintenance_Marine.pdf
21
manual.pdf
http://www.yanmarmarine.com/theme/yanmarportal/UploadedFiles/Marine/productDownloads/Pleasure-operation-manual/JH5/JH5_EN_operation-
.
.
32
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0034.png
Figure 1 ANNEX I oily waste SGW delivered in 1000 ton (left axis) and per unit of GT
calls (right axis)
Source: delivery data collected by Ecorys from 29 merchant shipping ports
Waste delivery data correlated for the amount and size of ships calling at the ports (measured
by Gross Tonnage (GT) of all ships called) shows a similar pattern.
A comparison of net oily waste generated (taking account of treatment and legal discharges)
estimates made for merchant shipping using MARWAS with delivery data from ports
indicates that the
gap between net waste generated and waste delivered
at a port reception
facilities is about 2.5%, as illustrated in Table 1. This finding is confirmed by interviews with
representatives from ports and PRF operators.
Volumes of net oily waste generated and delivered in 29 EU ports, in 1,000 m
3
(average annual volumes 2011-2015)
Volume generated
Volume delivered
Delivery gap
1,226
1,195
2.5%
Source: MARWAS calculations (generation), and port delivery data (collected by Ecorys)
Table 1
For the fisheries and recreational sector, no data on oily waste delivery is available. Therefore,
taking into account these sectors, the delivery gap is potentially higher.
Aerial surveillance data on oil spills detected in surface water indicate that the amount of oily
waste discharged into sea has significantly decreased since the introduction of the PRF
Directive (EMSA (2014), Bonn Agreement (2012)), as illustrated below.
33
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0035.png
Figure 2
Trends in possible oil spills detected
Source: EMSA (2014), Pollution Preparedness and Response Activities.
Note that these concern “possible’ oil spills, as not all dark areas on images collected are
necessarily oil
Information from PRF operators (Deloitte, 2016) indicates that oily waste, having a
commercial value, is typically kept on board to be delivered in a port where market conditions
are most favourable (relating to oil prices, demand for oily waste). Such conditions may be
found within but possibly also outside the EU.
Conclusion on Annex I waste
Based on a number of sources, it can be concluded that the illegal discharge of oily waste into
the sea has substantially decreased over time. Sources include the MARWAS analysis, the CE
Delft study on ship-generated waste (2016), a review of delivery data of 29 larger ports, the
ex-post evaluation (Panteia, 2015) and validation through case studies and interviews.
Notwithstanding the apparent progress in delivery, some oily waste that should be delivered
in EU ports is not, indicating potential discharges into sea, causing harm to the marine
environment. The gap between oily waste generated and treated versus the waste delivered in
ports is estimated at
2.5%.
2.
Sewage (MARPOL Annex IV)
Definition
Under MARPOL, sewage is defined as drainage and other wastes from any form of toilets and
urinals, medical premises, spaces containing living animals, or other waste waters mixed with
the above.
Discharge regime
MARPOL Annex IV regulates the discharge of sewage. The regulations in Annex IV prohibit
the discharge of sewage into the sea, except when the ship has in operation an approved
sewage treatment plant or when the ship is discharging comminuted and disinfected sewage
using an approved system, at a distance of more than three nautical miles from the nearest
land. Sewage, which is not comminuted or disinfected, can be discharged at a distance of
34
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
more than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land. Specific discharge prohibitions apply to
special areas (see Table 2, in attachment).
MARPOL allows for discharging when the ship operates 12 nautical miles away from shore,
provided the sewage is treated or comminuted and disinfected, so that the harm to the marine
environment is minimised. As the discharges should take place under certain minimum sailing
speeds and maximum discharge rates, the sewage will be diluted, further reducing its potential
environmental impact.
It is observed that the on-board treatment of sewage is significant and can be up to 100% for
the larger sized modern cruise ships (those that generate the largest amount of primary
sewage). A calculation using the MARWAS model shows that of all primary sewage
generated by merchant ships, typically 80-100% is treated on board and/or legally discharged.
As per MARPOL annex IV, these should be approved sewage treatment plants
(MEPC(227)64). Besides minimal treatment, more advanced physical, chemical and
biological treatment systems are gradually gaining importance.
Sewage generation on board and MARWAS estimates
MARWAS assumes a sewage generation of 80 litres/person/day. CE Delft (2016) estimates a
waste production of 10-60 litres /person/day of sewage, based on interviews and a survey on a
handful of selected ships. An older source indicates 38 litres/person/day (Lester &
Weeden,2004). Eunomia (2016) refers to estimates by Butt (2007) of 20-40 litres/person/day.
An analysis by Helcom (2014) for cruise ships in the Baltic Sea arrives at an estimated 170
litre/person/day (possibly this includes ‘grey water’ i.e. from showers, galley etc. but the
report does not specify this). The support study has estimated total primary (non-treated)
sewage generated by EU merchant shipping to be up to approximately 29 mln m3 per year.
Calculations of MARWAS for 29 larger ports provide a volume of sewage to be delivered,
after treatment and legal discharge,
of about
500,000 m3 per year.
Aggregating this to all
EU merchant ports would give a volume of approximately
1.5 mio m3.
The fisheries and recreational sector also generates sewage, and typically those ships do not
have on-board treatment facilities. Recreational vessels also typically operate within 12
nautical miles from shore. Furthermore, these segments are operating in port significant
proportions of time (about 50% for fisheries vessels, and about 55% for recreational vessels),
where they cannot discharge and therefore are normally delivered to PRF (or even not
generated on board as recreational boaters will use shore toilet facilities). Estimates on the
basis of the European recreational and fisheries fleet indicate a sewage generation of 1-1.5
mln m3 from the recreational boating sector, and about 1 mln m3 from the fisheries sector,
both thus of similar order of magnitude as the merchant shipping sector. See annex X for
assumptions underlying these figures.
Delivery and gap
The
port delivery data for sewage
in
Figure
shows a strong increase (75%) in sewage
delivered from 2004 to 2005. which coincides with the revision and entry into force of
MARPOL Annex IV (revision date: April 1, 2004 and entered into force on 1 August 2005).
Since then, a decrease of between 2005 to 2008 was observed, with one possible explanation
being that existing ships were required to comply with the provisions of the revised Annex IV
five years after the date of entry into force of Annex IV, namely since 27 September 2008.
Since 2008, a slight increase is observed. Note that the increasing cruise liner traffic to MS
ports does not seem to influence this pattern significantly, which might be explained by the
35
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0037.png
improvements of sewage treatment technologies on board. It should be noted however, that it
is not certain that all ports have registered their cruise liner sewage delivery as part of their
data, as some ports have special arrangements with cruise liners. Waste delivery data
correlated for the GT calling the ports show a similar pattern.
Figure 3. ANNEX IV SGW sewage delivered – in 1000 ton (left axis) and per unit of GT
calls (right axis)
Source: delivery data collected by Ecorys from 29 merchant shipping ports
Lack of registration of delivered sewage e.g. from cruise liners (individual arrangements),
insufficient knowledge on “treatment on board” facilities and other legal discharges do
however reduce the transparency regarding where and how much sewage is delivered to ports
although some areas begin to map the sewage delivery more systematically, e.g. in the Baltic
Sea
22
.
When comparing the remaining volumes with volumes delivered to 29 ports, a
sewage
delivery gap
of
7-17%
is observed, indicating that this part of sewage is not delivered, so
potentially discharged illegally. The uncertainty relates to varying estimates of sewage
generation on-board ships. Table presents the estimated figures for a high and low scenario.
Table 3
Volumes of sewage generated and delivered, in 1000 m3 (average annual
volumes 2011-2015), EU merchant ports
Scenario
Generated waste
Delivered waste
Waste gap
High
1,471
1,226
17%
Low
1,471
1,362
7%
Source: MARWAS calculations (generation), and port delivery data (collected by Ecorys for
29 ports and aggregated to EU level)
The limited delivery observed is confirmed in a study by HELCOM (2014) for the Baltic Sea,
which reveals that
only 30% of cruise ship calls involve sewage delivery.
Reasons provided
for this include statements on unreasonably high costs as, well as low capacity for waste
delivery in some ports.
22
http://www.helcom.fi/action-areas/shipping/sewage-from-ships/overview-report/.
36
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
As delivery by the fisheries and recreational boating sector is currently note being reported,
data on volumes delivered by these categories of vessels is not available.
Conclusion on Annex IV waste
Based on ship-generated waste estimates from CE Delft (2016), MARWAS calculations,
delivery data from 29 ports, Helcom (2014), case studies and interviews, it is concluded that,
for merchant shipping, of the sewage that is to be delivered to port, approximately 7-17% is
not received by port reception facilities and potentially discharged illegally, affecting the
marine environment. For the recreational and fisheries sector, while volumes of sewage
generated are similar to those of the merchant sector, not data on delivery are available to
assess whether the gap for these sectors is similar or, possibly, higher.
3. Garbage (MARPOL Annex V)
Definition
Annex V covers garbage, including domestic waste, plastics, food waste, cooking oil, animal
carcasses, fishing gear, operational waste and incinerator ashes. In addition annex V waste
also includes cargo residues; mostly tank washings from dry bulk.
MARPOL Discharge regime
Under MARPOL, it allowed for Annex V to legally discharge of specific types of garbage.
For example food waste, animal carcasses and cleaning agents can still be legally discharged
at sea (mostly when the ship is beyond 12 nautical miles from the nearest coast). All other
garbage, including plastics, domestic wastes, cooking oil, incinerator ashes, operational
wastes, and fishing gear cannot be legally discharged under MARPOL (see Table 3 in the
Annex).
Primary waste generation
For household waste, MARWAS assumes a generation of 3 kg/person/day. For other garbage
categories, however, the model does not provide estimates. The EUNOMIA study (2016)
provides the most extensive estimates of waste generation for all Annex V waste types on an
aggregate level and per waste category (see below).
37
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0039.png
Table 4. Annex V on-board waste generation estimates for 2013 (tons) by sub-category
and ship segment
Sector / Shippi Fishin Cruis Passeng Recreatio Nav Total %
waste
ng
g
es
er
nal
y
stream
Annex V
43,53
8,76 507,4
74,443
86,717 123,016 170,928
58%
domestic
1
9
06
type waste
Annex V
122,52
122,5
solid
/
/
/
/
/
14%
1
21
CR
Annex V
218,4
218,4
– fishing /
/
/
/
/
25%
67
67
gear
Annex V
Other
32,60
operationa 27,074 4,305 /
360
/
867
4%
6
l
type
waste
Total
224,03 266,3
9,63 881,0
86,717 123,376 170,928
8
03
6
00
%
25%
30%
10%
14%
19%
1%
Source: EUNOMIA, 2016.
The data show that the contribution of the various shipping segments differs between waste
categories, where typically passenger ships (cruise, ferries, recreational boating) cover the
majority of domestic waste (garbage), while cargo ships are the main responsible for
MARPOL Annex V cargo residues and other operational waste. It should be noted that that
the figures presented only cover cargo residues from dry bulk. In calculating the figures,
Eunomia already corrected for legal discharges of food waste. If an average treatment of 25%
is assumed (see below), the gross waste generation would be an approximate 1.2 mln tons for
all shipping sectors, and about 0.3 mln for merchant shipping alone. Fishing and recreational
vessels together account for about half of the total annex V waste generation.
Treatment and legal discharge
Food waste accounts for approximately 17% of total annex V domestic waste (Eunomia).
Furthermore, fishing vessels, passenger ferries and recreational vessels are unlikely to have
incinerators on board, but about a quarter of the shipping sector, in particular cruise vessels,
do. This is in line with the MARWAS model, which assumes no treatment for small
specialised vessels, and 20-30% on-board treatment of garbage for larger sized ships. For
cruise ships, treatment (usually incineration) is assumed to be up to 80%, an estimate
confirmed by Butt (2007) who indicates that on cruise ships, 75%-85% of residual waste is
incinerated.
Delivery and gap
Data on Annex V waste delivery to 29 ports show an increase in waste delivery by merchant
ships since the implementation of the PRF Directive, as reflected in Figure , showing volumes
higher than the amounts of waste generated as estimated by Eunomia (see
38
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0040.png
Table
above).
Figure 4. ANNEX V garbage delivered – in 1000 ton (left axis) and per unit of GT calls
(right axis)
Source: Data from waste deliveries from 29 EU ports
In order to estimate the
delivery gap for garbage,
a comparison was made between total waste
generated with waste delivered, using their delivery estimates from studies done by Panteia
(2015, REFIT Evaluation) and Ramboll (2012), indicating a
significant gap between
generation and delivery of about 33%
(order of 900,000 tons generated vs 600,000 tons
delivered), as shown in Figure 5 below.
Figure 5 Delivery estimates based on EMSA/Ramboll (2012) and DG Move/Panteia
(2015); Generation estimate (Eunomia) - tonnes
Source: Eunomia (2016)
At the same time, time series data from marine litter monitoring programmes (OSPAR, 2012)
do not indicate a reduction of the amount of marine litter in European seas.
39
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0041.png
Figure 6. Marine litter found on European shores (number of items per 100m of
coastline)
Source: OSPAR (in Panteia, 2015)
It should be noted that given the high share of marine litter from land-based sources, the
above developments cannot be directly linked. However, a study by Sá et all (2015)
finds
evidence that significant higher concentrations of Annex V waste float near dense
shipping routes
(operational waste and packaging material), compared to the areas with little
shipping traffic, indicate a significant contribution of the (merchant) shipping sector to waste
at sea.
For the fisheries sector, more specific estimates exist in relation to fisheries equipment,
including so-called abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG), ranging up
to 220,000 tons per year for the EU as a whole (calculations based on Eunomia, 2016). Data
from fishing for litter programmes initiated over the past decade suggest that the amount of
ALDFG is gradually decreasing, but still a lot of ‘old’ ALDFG is in Europe’s seas. ALDFG is
to be passively fished and delivered to port, which is supported by fishing for litter
programmes or independently.
Plastics are the most abundant debris found in the marine environment and comprise more
than
half of marine litter in European Regional Seas. Figures estimated point at 54,000 to 145,000
tonnes of plastic per year entering the marine environment from land-based sources
(Eunomia, 2016). Visual surveys and surface trawls indicate a stock of plastics floating near
the surface to be in the order of 268,000 tons, to which European seas are accounting at least
30% (Five Gyres Institute, 2014 as reported in Eunomia, 2016). These figures do not take into
account plastics that sink or to micro-plastics that cannot be visually observed, indicating that
the overall stock of plastics in the marine environment is significantly larger.
Analyses of the
origins of marine litter
found in European seas and on shore indicate that a
substantial part originates from ships, but various sources use different estimates, caused by
different measurement methods.
40
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0042.png
Table 5 Share of marine litter from sea based sources
Source
Baltic Sea North
Mediterranean
East
Sea
Atlantic
Ocean
Conservancy
20%
(2012) – waste
count
Idem,
weight
corrected
(Eunomia, 2016)
Arcadis (2012)
18%
48%
16%
-
Of
which
51%
88%
58%
fishing sector
-
Of
which
49%
12%
42%
other
shipping
Black
Sea
EU
average
12%
32%
50%
48%
52%
34%
65%
35%
Eunomia (2016) discusses the limitations of data and methods applied by Ocean Conservancy
and Arcadis, and, also referring to other sources (Van Franeker et al., 2010 and Ioakeimidis et
al., 2014),
assumes a general split of 20-40% of marine litter being derived from sea-
based sources.
Conclusion on Annex V waste
The amount of marine litter found in European seas remains at a rather constant level and
time series of marine litter on European shores indicate that the problem has persisted since
the implementation of the PRF Directive. Although land-based sources are dominant in
generating marine litter, sea-based sources actively contribute to the problem with an
estimated EU average 32% and values up to 50% for some sea basins. It is estimated that the
fishing and recreational sectors are relatively large sea-based sources contributors, with shares
of 30% and 19% respectively according to Eunomia (2016) (the balance provided by
merchant shipping), and 65% for fisheries alone according to Arcadis (2012). Although
garbage delivered in ports has increased since the introduction of the PRF Directive, a
significant delivery gap thus remains.
4. Waste from exhaust gas cleaning systems and ozone depleting substances (MARPOL
Annex VI)
Definition
Under MARPOL Annex VI strict requirements regarding emission levels are adopted. A
range of waste types are included in Annex VI, such as waste from exhaust gas cleaning
systems (scrubbers) and ozone depleting substances (ODS). The analysis concentrates on
waste from scrubbers, as ODS is mainly handled through repair yards, which fall outside the
scope of the Directive.
MARPOL discharge regime
Under MARPOL Annex VI strict requirements regarding emission levels are adopted (see
Table 6). Scrubbers are one of several possibilities to comply with low emission standards
41
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0043.png
required in Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs). Currently, Annex VI waste is not
regulated by the PRF Directive.
Primary waste generation
Scrubbers are one of several possibilities to comply with low emission standards, but their use
comes with the generation of so-called scrubber sludge; categorised under MARPOL Annex
VI. Currently, Annex VI waste is not regulated by the PRF Directive.
This type of waste is mainly generated by merchant shipping, as their ship engines run on
heavy fuel oil for which abatement measures are required, at least in Sulphur Emission
Control Areas (SECA). Fisheries and recreational boating hardly contribute to the generation
of Annex VI waste.
This waste category is currently generated in limited volumes only, due to the fact that the
number of ships with on-board scrubbers is still relatively small. Volumes of waste generated
have not been studied widely, but from a recent survey completed by an expert group on
exhaust gas cleaning Systems (EGCS Subgroup under the European Sustainable Shipping
Forum), some indications can be derived. According to the data presented, approximately 400
scrubbers have been installed on board of vessels. It is indicated that these concern both open
loop and closed loop scrubbers. Open loop scrubbers take in sea water, use it for scrubbing,
then treat it and discharge it back into sea, whereas closed loop scrubbers use fresh water from
a holding tank that, after use and treatment, is used again, while the treatment gives wash
water bleed-off and sludge.
The same survey provides indications that closed loop scrubbers would generate 1kg of dry
matter per MWh, or 20 kg/MWh sludge in total (assuming 5% dry matter content). For an
average ship with
A 15MW engine, operating 4,000 hours per year, this would imply 60 tons of dry matter or
1.2 mln tons of sludge (appr. 1,200 m
3
). Open loop scrubbers are reported not to generate any
sludge.
The expert group has also reported that closed loop scrubbers bleed-off about 0.3 m
3
/MWh. If
we assume an average RoRo ship to have installed power of 15 MW, this gives 4.5m
3
of
waste per hour. Assuming an average engine running time of 4,000 hours per year, one ship
would thus generate 18.000 m3/year. The total volume of scrubber waste generated for all
ships then depends on the share of systems that are operating in closed loop.
23
If 5% of the
current 400 scrubbers would operate in closed loop mode, the total volume of waste generated
amounts to 24,000 m
3
sludge (1,200 m
3
dry matter), with 360,000 m
3
of bleed-off being
generated.
The expected growth of this type of waste in the future with a growing uptake potential of
scrubbers, driven by regulatory measures including SECA zones in Europe, and announced
global sulphur content limits. Any estimate on volume is, however, premature, as it is
uncertain how the shipping sector will respond to upcoming legislation (i.e. investing in
exhaust gas cleaning systems – EGCS and choosing between open-loop or closed-loop
systems, or switching to cleaner but more expensive fuels). The recent CE Delft study (2016)
also concluded that it has proven difficult to provide estimates of volumes generated on-board
ships for this type of waste.
23
A verification of these figures and assumptions has been asked from EGCSA, but has not been
received.
42
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
Treatment and legal discharges
The EGCS survey indicates that currently the majority of scrubbers sold are systems operating
in open loop, which discharge wash waters and do not generate sludge. However, specific
figures on the share of open loop scrubbers and the time they are operated in open loop mode
have not been provided. The survey also indicates that closed loop systems still have some
discharge (0.1-0.3 m3/MWh, although they are also stated to be able to operate with zero
discharge for limited periods, depending on storage of bleed off water).
Delivery and gap
Data on delivery of Annex VI waste is not available, as this category is currently not
separately included in the PRF Directive. Therefore no gap can be calculated. In absolute
terms, the amount of potential waste to be delivered would currently be small as the number
of scrubbers currently in use is very low, and a large share of these are open-loop scrubbers
legally discharging into sea.
Conclusion on Annex VI waste
While the current volumes of Annex VI waste generation are limited, environmental
legislation will drive the demand for increased use of exhaust gas treatment systems, causing
a growing volume of Annex VI waste generation. An important factor is the ratio of closed vs
open loop scrubbers.
5. Cargo residues
Cargo residues have been defined under the Directive as "remnants of any cargo material on
board in cargo holds or tanks which remain after unloading procedures and cleaning
operations are completed and shall include loading/unloading excesses and spillage. As such
they include both cargo residues as defined in MARPOL Annex V, as well as tank washings
falling under MARPOL Annexes I (oily tank washings) and II (tank washings containing
noxious liquid substances).
The issue of cargo residues is very different from ship-generated waste and more complex.
Cargo residues fall outside the scope of both Article 7 (delivery obligation) and Article 8
(fees) of the Directive, and are regulated under Article 10 (referring to MARPOL) instead. In
contrast to ship-generated waste, cargo residues can vary widely. They may also still have a
commercial value and therefore usually remain the property of the cargo owner. At the same
time, depending on the type of residue, they may require special handling, equipment or
treatment. As a result, cargo residues are normally a matter for the terminal operators and
shippers to handle, rather than being under the direct competence of the port authorities. The
costs are normally covered by the cargo owners (although the ship and/or its agent may also
be involved). PRF providers are also used, in case the cargo owners are not interested and/or
the terminals cannot take the residues.
The PRF Directive provides in Article 10 that cargo residues are to be delivered to a port
reception facility in accordance with the provisions of MARPOL. MARPOL allows for
discharges of Annex I and II tank-washings under strict conditions (ref. XX), and a general
prohibition of CR discharges of cargo residues under Annex V, with the exception of non-
harmful categories of residues and under predefined conditions.
43
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
Regarding oily tank washings under Annex I CE Delft (2016) concludes that these are only
generated on oil tankers, whereas cargo residues are mostly generated by cargo ships (mainly
dry bulk carriers). The amount generated depends on several factors such as the type of cargo,
the handling equipment and the efficiency of the stevedores. Results from interviews
concluded that the amounts generated per washing, per cargo tank, ranged from 1 to 2 m
3
(CE
Delft, 2016).
The inventory of waste delivery to ports has found that data on cargo residues is lacking in
many ports, which is attributed to the fact that cargo residues are often delivered to terminal
operators rather than PRF operators. As a result, data provided regarding the delivery of cargo
residues is quite limited and shows strong fluctuations between years, for both types (oily and
solid residues in tank washings). Conclusions on any delivery gap cannot be given as a result
of above-mentioned limitations. However, as cargo residues have a residual value and thus
delivery implies revenues instead of costs, it is generally regarded that this is a sufficient
incentive to deliver cargo residues and not discharge them into the sea. Nonetheless, volatile
commodity market prices affect the attractiveness of delivering cargo residues; if the market
price is low, there is less of an incentive to deliver cargo residues. This is currently the case
for oily residues due to the low oil prices.
Summarising the data on each waste category, the following table has been composed (see
next page).
44
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0046.png
Table 1: Amount of ship generated waste generated and delivered annually, and the resulting "waste gap"
Annex I - oily waste
Merchant shipping
Primary
waste
generation
(1)
1,977,000 m
3
All, including fishing and
recreational craft
2,061,000 m
3
Merchant: 1,997,000 m
3
Fishing vessels: 55,000 m
3
Recreational craft: 9,000 m
3
38%
24
of (1) = 751,000 m
3
80-100% of (1) – assuming
average 95% = 25,878,000 m
3
Merchant shipping
27,240,000 m
3
Annex IV - sewage
All, including fishing and
recreational craft
29,240,000 m
3
Merchant: 27,240,000 m
3
Fishing vessels: 1,000,000 /
1,500,000 m
3
Recreational craft: 1,000,000
m
3
Merchant shipping: average
95% = 25,878,000 m
3
,
Fishing vessels: 50% =
500,000 / 750,000 m
3 25
:
Recreational craft: 55% =
550,000 m
3
2,312,000 m
3
/ 2,562,000 m
3
Merchant: 1,362,000m
3
Fishing vessels: 500,000 /
750,000 m
3
Recreational craft: 450,000
m
3
1,226,000 m
3
Unknown, as waste delivery
data for fishing ports and
marinas are unknown
Range from 286,000 to
404,000 tonnes
29
Merchant shipping
Not provided
Annex V - garbage
All, including fishing and
recreational craft
Not provided
Annex VI -scrubber waste
All (only applicable for
merchant shipping)
400 vessels with scrubbers on
board, generating wash
waters, sludge and bleed-off
Treatment/le
gal discharge
(2)
Close to zero from fishing
and recreational craft, thus
limited to merchant shipping,
i.e. 759,000 m
3
Not provided
Not provided
26
Legal discharge from
scrubbers operating in open-
loop mode: 95% of 400
vessels (380)
Remaining to
be delivered
(3) = (1) –
(2)
1,226,000 m
3
1,290,000 m
3
Merchant: 1,226,000 m
3
Fishing vessels: 55,000 m
3
Recreational craft: 9,000 m
3
1,362,000 m
3
434,000 tonnes
27
881,000 tonnes
Merchant: 434,000 tonnes
Fishing vessels: 266,000
tonnes
Recreational craft: 171,000
tonnes
28
Range from 580,000 to
820,000 tonnes
24,000m
3
sludge
360,000 m
3
bleed-off
(generated by scrubbers
operating in closed-loop
mode, i.e. 5% of 400)
Unknown
Actually
delivered (4)
1,195,000 m
3
Unknown, as waste delivery
data for fishing ports and
marinas are unknown
24
25
26
27
28
29
38% estimate is based on the most relevant ship categories used in MARWAS.
The waste deducted from waste produced for fishing and recreational craft is based on time of fishing vessels and recreational craft in ports.
Details of the calculations can be found in the Eunomia study, section 2.6.5.2, which has estimated that approximately 20% of Annex V waste is incinerated on-board; this is confirmed
by MARWAS which assumes 20-30% on-board treatment of garbage for large ships, and no treatment on board of small specialised vessels.
Based on data from Eunomia (2015), including the identified sectors: shipping; cruises; and passenger.
The balance of waste generated (10,000 tonnes) is created by navy.
To get insight in the delivery data of the merchant sector, the total delivered waste volumes are applied to the share of waste produced by merchant shipping (thus considering a
common garbage delivery pattern per sector).
45
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0047.png
Delivery gap
(3) – (4)
31,000 m
3
(2.5%)
Unknown, but consisting of
31,000 m
3
caused by
merchant shipping and a
contribution from fishing
vessels and recreational craft
between 0 and 64,000 m
3
136,000 m
3
(10%)
Unknown
Between 30,000-148,000
tonnes (7-34%)
Between 60,000-300,000
tonnes (7-34%)
Unknown
Source: MARWAS (Annex I-IV waste); Annex V waste estimates are based on Eunomia (2016)
46
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0048.png
Annex 6 – MARPOL discharge norms and relevant amendments
Waste category
MARPOL Annex I
30
Ships outside special Ships within special
areas
areas
31
Oily bilge water
Oily residues
(sludge)
Other
Applicable to ships >
400 GT
Discharge only
permitted when:
* the ship is
proceeding en route;
* the oily mixture is
processed through an
oil filtering
equipment meeting
the requirements of
regulation 14 of this
Annex;
* the oil content of
the effluent without
dilution does not
exceed 15 parts per
million;
* the oily mixture
does not originate
from cargo pump-
room bilges on oil
tankers
* the oily mixture, in
case of oil tankers, is
not mixed with oil
cargo residues
Applicable to ships >
400 GT
Discharge only
permitted when:
* the ship is
proceeding en route
* the oily mixture is
processed through an
oil filtering
equipment meeting
the requirements of
regulation 14.7 of this
Annex
* the oil content of
the effluent without
dilution does not
exceed 15 parts per
million
* the oily mixture
does not originate
from cargo pump-
room bilges on oil
tankers
* the oily mixture, in
case of oil tankers, is
not mixed with oil
cargo residues
Offshore platforms
and all ships within
500 m of such
platforms
Discharge prohibited
30
http://www.marpoltraining.com/MMSKOREAN/MARPOL/Annex_I/r15.htm
and
http://www.bsh.de/en/Marine_data/Environmental_protection/MARPOL_Convention/Discharge_regulations_i
n_Annex_I.pdf
31
The following European waters are special zones: Mediterranean Sea, Baltic Sea, Black Sea and North
Western European Waters (Annex I).
47
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0049.png
Waste category
MARPOL Annex IV
32
Ships outside special Ships within special
areas
areas
33
Sewage
Discharge in
principle prohibited
unless ship has in
operation an
approved sewage
treatment plant or
when the ship is
discharging
comminuted and
disinfected sewage
using an approved
system at a distance
of more than three
nautical miles from
the nearest land.
Sewage which is not
comminuted or
disinfected may be
discharged at a
distance of more than
12 nautical miles
from the nearest land
Of the EU waters,
only Baltic Sea is
appointed as special
area. Currently
regulation is not yet in
force.
If in force only
applicable to
passenger ships. The
following applies:
discharge of sewage
from passenger ships
within the special area
will generally be
prohibited under the
new regulations,
except when the ship
has in operation an
approved sewage
treatment plant which
has been certified by
the Administration
Offshore platforms
and all ships within
500 m of such
platforms
See rules ‘ships
outside special areas’
Waste category
MARPOL Annex V
34
Ships outside
Ships within special
special areas
areas
35
Food waste
comminuted or
ground
Food waste not
comminuted or
ground
32
Discharge permitted
≥3 nm from the
nearest land and en
route
Discharge permitted
≥12 nm from the
nearest land and en
Discharge permitted
≥12 nm from the
nearest land and en
route
Discharge prohibited
Offshore platforms
and all ships within
500 m of such
platforms
Discharge permitted
≥12 nm from the
nearest land
Discharge prohibited
http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/Sewage/Pages/Default.aspx,
especially MEPC.157(55) and MEPC.227(64)
33
The following European waters are special zones: the Baltic Sea (Annex IV)
34
http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/Garbage/Documents/2014%20revision/
Annex%20V%20discharge%20requirements%2007-2013.pdf
35
The following European waters are special zones: Mediterranean Sea, Baltic Sea, Black sea and North Sea
(Annex V)
48
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0050.png
Waste category
MARPOL Annex V
34
Ships outside
Ships within special
special areas
areas
35
Offshore platforms
and all ships within
500 m of such
platforms
Discharge prohibited
Cargo residues
not contained in
wash water
Cargo residues
1
contained in wash
water
361
route
Discharge permitted
≥12 nm from the
nearest land and en
route
Discharge prohibited
Cleaning agents and
additives
1
contained
in cargo hold wash
water
Discharge permitted
Cleaning agents and
additives
1
contained
in deck and external
surfaces wash water
Carcasses of
animals carried on
board as cargo and
which died during
the voyage
All other garbage
including plastics,
domestic wastes,
cooking oil,
incinerator ashes,
operational wastes
and fishing gear
Mixed garbage
Discharge only
permitted in specific
circumstances
37
and
≥12 nm from the
nearest land and en
route
Discharge only
permitted in specific
circumstances
2
and
≥12 nm from the
nearest land and en
route
Discharge permitted
Discharge prohibited
Discharge prohibited
Discharge prohibited
Discharge permitted
as far from the
nearest land as
possible and en route
Discharge prohibited
Discharge prohibited
Discharge prohibited
Discharge prohibited
Discharge prohibited
When garbage is mixed with or contaminated by other substances
prohibited from discharge or having different discharge requirements,
the more stringent requirements shall apply
36
These substances must not be harmful to the marine environment.
37
According to regulation 6.1.2 of MARPOL Annex V, the discharge shall only be allowed if: (a) both the port of
departure and the next port of destination are within the special area and the ship will not transit outside the
special area between these ports (regulation 6.1.2.2); and (b) if no adequate reception facilities are available at
those ports (regulation 6.1.2.3).
49
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0051.png
Waste
category
Ozone
Depleting
Substances
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOx)
MARPOL Annex VI
Ships outside special areas
Ships within special areas
Prohibited
n = engine’s rated speed (RPM)
Tier I – Construction on or after 1
January 2000
n < 130 →emission limit 17.0
n = 130 – 1999 → emission limit
45.n-0.2 (e.g. 720rpm – 12.1)
n> 1999 → emission limit 9.8
Tier II – Construction on or after 1
January 2011
n < 130 →emission limit 14.4
n = 130 – 1999 → emission limit
44.n-0.23 (e.g. 720rpm – 9.7)
n> 1999 → emission limit 7.7
Tier III – Construction on or after
2016
n < 130 →emission limit 3.4
n = 130 – 1999 → emission limit 9.n-
0.2 (e.g. 720rpm – 2.4)
n> 1999 → emission limit 2.0
The same Tier I limits will apply to
those existing marine diesel engine
with a power output of more than
5,000 kW and a per-cylinder
displacement at or above 90 litres
installed on a ship constructed
between 1st January 1990 and 1st
January 2000. A certified approved
method must be provided following
the requirements set in the NOx
Technical Code.
The IMO Marine Environment
Protection Committee at its 66th
session agreed to set the Tier III
requirements to be applied to the
marine diesel engines installed on:
* ships constructed on or after 1st
January 2016 and which operate in
the North American ECA or the
United States Caribbean Sea ECA,
both designated for the control of
NOx emissions.
* ships constructed on or after the
date of adoption by the committee of
a new ECA, or a later date as may be
specified in the amendment
designating the new NOx Tier III
ECA.
Sulphur
oxides and
Particulate
Matter (SOx)
Volatile
Outside an ECA established to limit
Inside an ECA established to limit
SOx and PM emissions:
SOx and PM emisions:
- 3.50% m/m on and after 1 January
- 1.00% m/m on and after 1 July
2012
2010
- 0.50% m/m on and after 1 January
- 0,10% m/m on and after 1 January
2020
2015
This regulation only applies to tankers and VOC from tankers are regulated in
50
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0052.png
Waste
category
organic
compounds
(VOC)
Ship board
Incinerators
MARPOL Annex VI
Ships outside special areas
Ships within special areas
ports or terminals. The relevant Government designates which ports and
terminals at which VOC emissions from tankers are to be regulated.
Shipboard incineration of the following substances shall be prohibited:
- Annex I, II and III cargo residues of the present convention and related
contaminated packing materials;
- Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs);
- Garbage, as defined in Annex V of the present Convention, containing more
than traces of heavy metals;
- Refined petroleum products containing halogen compounds;
- Sewage and sludge oil not generated on board;
- Exhaust gas cleaning system residues.
Regulation 16 permits incineration of:
- PVC - plastics (where type approved to do so) (Reg.16.3)
- Sewage sludge and sludge oil permitted in boilers but not when in ports,
harbours and estuaries (Reg.16.)
- Incinerators installed before 24 May 2005 on domestic shipping can be
excluded by the Administration (Reg. 16.6.2)
- Operating manual, training, and temperature control (Reg. 16.7 - 16.9)
Shipboard Incinerators installed after 1 January 2000 must be type approved
and certified to meet prescribed emission standards.
Shipboard incineration must only take place in a shipboard incinerator except
for incineration of sewage sludge and sludge oil generated during normal
operation of a ship, which may also take place in the main or auxiliary power
plant or boilers, but in those cases, must not take place inside ports, harbours
and estuaries.
51
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0053.png
Annex 7 – EMSA Assessment of the enforcement options
Paper by EMSA starting on the next page.
52
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0054.png
EMSA's assistance with Directive
2000/59/EC on Port Reception Facilities
(PRF)
Technical assessment on the list of open questions
(Supplement on enforcement)
Date: 12/05/2017 (version 5)
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0055.png
1.
Introduction
This is a complementary analysis to EMSA’s technical assessment on a given list of open questions addressed in
view of the forthcoming impact assessment for the revision of the PRF Directive.
The analysis focusses on a new risk based approach for PRF inspections in the context of the revision of the PRF
Directive and it provides two alternative enforcement scenarios each tailor made to address the enforcement part
of policy options number 3 and number 4 of the IA Support Study.
2.
2.1
Risk based approach for PRF inspections
Introduction to the Issue
In relation to enforcement, the following should be taken into account:
References to the PSC regime are outdated and should be amended. In particular, the mechanism to
calculate annual inspection commitment for PRF inspections is outdated and should be revised;
THETIS EU, which is available since April 2016 and serves as a platform to record and exchange
information on the results of individual compliance verifications under Directive 2000/59/EC, may also be
used to facilitate enforcement of the PRF Directive;
There are no specific and accurate data on the number of actual PRF inspections conducted by the
Member States annually. It may be assumed that a certain part of the total number of the PSC inspections
may have also covered PRF requirements. However, so far, previous findings
38
and the limited use of the
dedicated THETIS-EU - PRF module
39
indicate that, enforcement efforts by the Member States may well
remain a problematic area for implementation of the PRF Directive.
In view of the revision of the PRF Directive, the enforcement part (i.e. the so-called “PRF inspection”) may be
streamlined and evolved on a risk-based approach aiming at more effective inspections and more efficient use of
resources. In this regard, the hereunder analysis provides two alternative proposals each tailor made to address
the different respective needs of each of the alternative policy options (PO/3 or PO/4)
40
described in the IASS.
2.2
2.2.1
Options for the enforcement provisions under the revised Directive
General
The current PRF Directive regulates a number of requirements to ensure the accomplishment of the purpose of the
Directive
41
. In the enforcement part (Article 11), it requires from MS to ensure that:
A)
A sufficient number of PRF inspections is carried out and
B)
During a PRF inspection compliance with the “delivery obligation” under Articles 7 and 10 is verified.
In this regard:
A)
The sufficient number of inspections (inspection commitment) is defined in Article 11.1(b) of the PRF Directive,
setting up the minimum number of inspections equal to 25% inspection requirement set out in Directive 95/21/EC.
For the year 2016, this provision would mean that a total number of
19453 “PRF inspections”
would need to be
conducted by the Member States
42
.
38
39
Refer to the Enforcement part (Theme III) of EMSA’s Horizontal Analysis of Port Reception Facilities (Directive 2000/59/EC), December 2010.
In 2016 only
1166 “PRF inspections”
were recorded in THETIS-EU.
40
I.e. PO3: “MARPOL alignment and better enforcement” or PO4: “EU PRF Regime beyond MARPOL”.
41
I.e. to reduce the discharges of SGW and CR into the sea, especially illegal discharges, from ships using ports in the EU, by improving the
availability and use of PRFs for SGW and CR.
42
See Annex I to this report.
54
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0056.png
However, after the recast of the Directive 95/21/EC the above calculation has been abolished and the new PSC
Directive
43
has established a “risk-based inspection regime”. In comparison to the old (95/21) regime the number of
the PSC inspections has fallen from 23679 in 2010 (last year of old regime) to around 17800 in 2016
44
.
In conclusion, the current PSC regime demands less number of inspections than the current PRF enforcement
regime but the PSC inspections are conducted on a risk-basis, they follow detail procedures and they are all
reported in THETIS. Although the PRF inspections in most Member States are conducted within the framework of
the PSC inspections this is not the case for all Member States, their actual annual number is not clear and, in any
case, their results are not reported in THETIS or in THETIS-EU
45
.
B)
A PRF inspection must verify that the ship complies with specific PRF requirements stemming from the PRF
Directive. It may be part of another inspection (e.g. part of a PSC or a FS inspection) or it may be conducted solely
as an inspection for checking compliance with the PRF Directive. Of course, the more demanding and complicating
the requirements of the PRF inspection are, the more difficult is to be part of another enforcement regime because
of the additional burden on the inspector and potential difficulties to match the respective requirements and
procedures.
One must take into account that, different policy options i.e.
PO3
providing for an alignment with MARPOL or
PO4
providing for an EU PRF regime beyond MARPOL call for different enforcement regimes accordingly.
2.2.2
Policy Option 3 (“MARPOL alignment and better enforcement”) – Port State Control
inspections according to the PSC Directive plus Flag State inspections
2.2.2.1 The PSC enforcement regime may also cover the PRF regime
The PRF inspection has a wider scope of application than a PSC inspection but, at the same time, it has a limited
number of items to be checked during the inspection, while the PSC inspection is a random inspection that may
cover (or not) a very broad number of items and not necessarily the MARPOL requirements. In addition, the PSC
Directive does not cover the specific provisions of the PRF Directive with regard to the “delivery obligation”,
exceptions etc, therefore, a PSC inspection cannot be considered per se as a PRF inspection unless the PSCO
combines the PSC inspection with the additional control of the specific requirements of the PRF Directive.
As already mentioned, a PRF inspection may be part of another enforcement regime. In this context, it is evident
that
the PSC enforcement regime
may substantially
46
cover the PRF enforcement requirements if the PSC
Directive is amended to incorporate these requirements ensuring that a PSC inspection will also include the
specific “PRF inspection”. Annex II provides a detailed comparison between the two regimes (PRF vs PSC) in
order to have a better understanding of the adjustments that may be necessary for combining PSC and PRF
inspections.
Provided that the PSC Directive is amended accordingly, the PSC regime may enforce effectively the PO3 principal
to align the scope of the EU mandatory delivery requirement with MARPOL
47
. Under PO3, the “EU delivery
obligation” addresses what cannot be discharged legally according to MARPOL
48
. In this regard, the PSC regime
will cater for the proper enforcement of the EU PRF regime i.e. advanced waste notification (AWN),
risk-based
selection of ships
for inspection and
compliance with the obligation to deliver
to ensure compliance with
MARPOL requirements.
43
44
Directive 2009/16/EC.
However, the number of individual ships inspected has risen from 14577 to 14757. This indicates that more ships are inspected, but the
frequency of inspections per ship has reduced. Numbers refer to the whole Paris MOU region. Total EU inspections are
15186.
45
Not mandatory reporting to THETIS-EU and a very small number has been reported up to now.
46
But not fully, as its scope does not include Flag State inspections or inspections on domestic vessels, fishing vessels and recreational crafts.
47
The delivery obligation will reflect the MARPOL discharge prohibition, i.e.: what cannot be discharged under MARPOL shall be delivered to
PRF by ships calling in EU ports
48
On the contrary, under PO4 the “EU delivery obligation” addresses all the SGW/CR produced on board a ship regardless whether they can be
legally discharged under MARPOL. See below section 2.2.3.
55
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0057.png
Amendment of the PSC Directive
1) Advanced Waste Notification
It should be noted that the PSC Directive already covers the
AWN,
turning a ship to priority II and making it eligible
for a PSC inspection in case of failure to comply with AWN requirements. In addition to this, a competent authority
may impose a penalty in accordance with the provisions of the PRF Directive. Therefore, no additional regulation
for AWN is necessary.
2) Risk-based selection system of ships for inspection
The PSC Directive already has a
risk-based approach for selection of ships
and this will cater also for the
purposes of the PRF Directive in the sense that a Member State may report a ship as potentially harming the
marine environment (e.g. in case of no delivery of SGW/[CR]) and then turn it into
priority I for selection for a
mandatory additional PSC inspection.
The selection system could be further streamlined if a specific “unexpected
factor”
is added in Annex I of the PSC
Directive: “- Ships which have not complied with the obligation to deliver their SGW [or CR] in accordance with the
PRF Directive”. This would turn the ship automatically to Priority II and eligible for a PSC additional inspection.
It should be noted that the addition of a new unexpected factor would not pose any inconsistencies to the PSC –
Paris MOU system because, within the framework of the PO3, non delivery of non-dischargeable SGW/[CR] (when
an exception cannot be granted) implies a potential breach of MARPOL and, consequently, the ship may be
considered to pose a threat of harm to the marine environment. Therefore, an additional more detailed inspection
(or expanded inspection depending on ship’s type and inspector’s professional judgement) is appropriate to focus
on compliance with MARPOL and the EU PRF requirements
49
.
If the ship has failed to comply with the notification requirements/AWN, as already mentioned in paragraph (1)
above, it may be selected for an additional more detailed (or expanded inspection depending on ship’s type and
inspector’s professional judgement
50
) to verify compliance with the EU PRF requirements (and MARPOL).
3) Combining PSC with PRF inspection
The main adjustment that needs to be made is to ensure the control of the “obligation to deliver” according to
Article 7 or Article 10 of the current PRF Directive
51
, within the context of a PSC inspection.
For this purpose, it would be appropriate to
expand the scope of the “initial PSC inspection”
to cater also for a
verification of the delivery of SGW/[CR] according to the PRF Directive, mainly by checking the certificates and
documents of the ship (e.g. Oil Record Book, Garbage Record Book, Ship’s logs e.t.c.), checking the submitted
Advanced Waste Notification Form
52
and checking, if available, previous waste delivery receipts.
There are two consecutive steps to follow:
-
First
the PSCO shall assess the ship’s operation in relation to Article 7 and Article 10 of the PRF Directive.
If compliance with the PRF Directive requirements of Article 7 or 10 is not confirmed
53
this shall constitute a
clear ground for a more detailed inspection to verify compliance with the EU PRF requirements (i.e. Article
7 or 8 of the PRF Directive). In the context of this inspection, if non-compliance with the EU Directive can
49
50
See below paragraph (3).
See Annex I, part II.3B(c) of the PSC Directive.
51
The references to current Articles will be adjusted to the revised Directive.
52
In accordance with Article 6 of the PRF Directive.
53
I.e. delivery has not occurred in previous port of call (and no exception can be confirmed) or the ship has declared no waste to be delivered
ashore while the PSCO finds that there is no sufficient dedicated storage capacity on board for the coming voyage.
56
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0058.png
-
be substantiated
54
, then the PSCO will follow the standard PSC procedures (recording of deficiency,
possible detention
55
, e.t.c.).
Second
the PSCO, in accordance with Article 7 of the PRF Directive will decide for the delivery of SGW at
the port of inspection or (if sufficient dedicated storage capacity exists
56
) will grant an exception. If the
decision of the PSCO is for the ship to deliver SGW in the port’s PRF then a ship related message should
be recorded in THETIS indicating that the ship has to deliver its SGW in a PRF. This will be useful for the
next PSC inspection where verification can be made.
Failure to deliver the SGW/[CR] will constitute a deficiency and the ship may also be detained until it delivers all
SGW/[CR]. It may also lead to a penalty for the breach of the respective requirements of the PRF Directive.
The penalty could be imposed irrespective of whether the non-delivery has occurred in a port of the Member
State or in a port of another Member State
57
.
In summary
58
,
the PSC Directive will be amended to:
1.
add a specific “unexpected” factor” in Annex I
(“Ships
which have been reported not complying
with the obligation to deliver their SGW [and/or CR] in accordance with Articles X and X of the
Directive 20XX/XX/EU”(Currently Articles 7 and 10 of the Directive 2000/59/EC”);
2. the definition of the “initial PSC inspection” in Article 2.11 refers to “the
checks required by Article 13.1”.
Therefore,
Article 13.1 will be amended
by adding an additional bullet-point as
“(d) verifies that the ship
is in compliance with Articles X and X of the Directive 20XX/XX/EU”(Currently Articles 7 and 10 of
the Directive 2000/59/EC”;
3.
Amend Article 13 paragraph (3)
as follows: “A more detailed inspection shall be carried out, including
further checking of compliance with on-board operational requirements, whenever there are clear grounds
for believing, after the inspection referred to in point 1, that the condition of a ship or of its equipment or
crew does not substantially meet the relevant requirements of a Convention
or of the relevant EU
maritime legislation”;
4.
Amend paragraph (1) of Article 19
as follows: “1. The competent authority shall be satisfied that any
deficiencies confirmed or revealed by the inspection are, or will be, rectified in accordance with the
Conventions
and the relevant EU maritime legislation”.
5.
Amend Annex V
to include in section (A) two new clear grounds i.e. “20.
Evidence from the check of
ship’s certificates and documents and/or the submitted Advanced Waste Notification that the ship
has not complied with Articles X and X of the Directive 20XX/XX/EU”(Currently Articles 7 and 10 of
Directive 2000/59/EC”)
and “21.
ships with overriding or unexpected factors as listed in Annex I”;
6.
Amend Annex X
to add a new subparagraph: “3.12.
Areas under Directive 20XX/XX/EU”(Currently
Directive 2000/59/EC). Failure to comply with Article X of the Directive 20XX/XX/EU”(Currently
Article 7 of Directive 2000/59/EC)”
7.
THETIS
needs to be adapted to cater for the PRF requirements.
(All references to figures should be adapted to the revised PRF Directive).
These amendments would ensure that all PSC inspections would also look on the PRF enforcement (i.e. for 2016,
a number of 15186 PRF inspections would have been conducted). The PRF Directive (especially Article 7 and
54
For example: a)
such a case would be if there is a ship related message from previous inspection that the ship had to deliver all SGW/[CR]
before departure and the ship has not complied with this
or b)
if there is an alert from another Member State that the ship did not deliver SGW in
accordance with Article 7 of the PRF Directive and, after checking ship’s documents, the PSCO confirms that indeed the ship did not deliver its
waste.
55
There might be a need for specific guidance on recording deficiencies or detaining a ship on the basis of an EU legal requirement.
56
The concept of “sufficient storage capacity” will need to be defined in relation to MARPOL i.e. to include also the possibility for legal
discharges under MARPOL for the coming voyage. Moreover, Member States will need to define the competent authorities and procedures for
granting an exception (because not all the ships calling at a port of a Member State will be inspected by the PSC authorities). Otherwise, the
decision to deliver or not SGW/CR will be left to the Master of the ship.
57
This implies that the revised PRF Directive should have a specific provision
allowing for the Member State of the next port of call to
impose a penalty if a delivery in the previous port of call has not occurred (and there was no exception granted).
58
See also Annex III for a schematic description of the PSC-PRF inspections.
57
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0059.png
Article 10) would need to be revised in line with the above analysis to guide the PSCOs during the PSC-PRF
inspection.
2.2.2.2 Additional Enforcement Regime
As already explained, the PSC regime may substantially cover the PRF enforcement requirements but its scope
cannot coincide with the current scope of the PRF Directive. There are two options:
first
to rely solely in the PSC
Directive or
second
to provide for an additional enforcement regime to cover potential Flag State inspections and
domestic vessels equivalent to the current PRF regime. The additional regime may also cover the cases where a
MS conducts PRF inspections on board foreign flagged vessels not within the context of the PSC Directive (i.e. the
PRF inspector is not a PSCO
59
).
(N.B.: The fishing vessels and recreational crafts will be considered separately as “Policy option variants: with or
without additional focus on marine litter” and they may be added either to PO3 or PO4 or not added at all
60
).
2.2.2.2.(1) Flag State inspections
The PSC enforcement regime will ensure that a large number of PRF inspections will be conducted and recorded
in THETIS. However, inspections by the Flag State shall remain a possibility as it is the prerogative of a Flag State
to inspect any ship in its Register at any time.
Therefore, it is sensible (but not necessary) to provide also for a possibility to perform “PRF Flag State
Inspections”. Although the FS inspections of ships on international voyages will cover the same ships covered by
PSC inspections, the Member States may use the possibility to conduct also a PRF inspection during a normal FS
inspection and to record the results in THETIS-EU.
The number of the “FS-PRF inspections” will be added to the number of the PSC-PRF inspections
61
thus improving
enforcement of the PRF provisions. Reporting in THETIS-EU will increase awareness regarding the compliance
with the PRF Directive requirements.
It should be noted that the FS inspections may be undertaken within or out of the EU. However, FS-PRF
inspections may only be conducted when a ship is in a port of a Member State preferably
62
to a port of the Member
State whose flag is flying to avoid potential conflicting decisions on the obligation to deliver between PSC and FS
inspections.
It is not possible to estimate the total number of inspections to be conducted under the Flag State regime as the
FS-PRF inspection would be in the discretion of the Member States. Nevertheless, it may be regulated that if a
Member State performs a FS-PRF inspection it shall record the inspection to THETIS-EU (mandatory reporting of
the FS-PRF inspections).
Notwithstanding the FS-PRF inspections of ships on international voyages the Member States should also enforce
the PRF provisions on board domestic vessels.
2.2.2.2.(2) Inspections on domestic vessels
For the Domestic vessels a separate PRF enforcement regime is necessary as these vessels cannot be covered
by the PSC regime. EMSA does not have a clear picture of the total number of the domestic vessels in the Member
States. The MARINFO data base provides some indicative figures but it should be noted that only ships above
59
This would create additional burden to ships given that the PSC Directive regime will already cover foreign flagged ships. It may however, be
a way out if Member States require this possibility.
60
See below chapter 3.
61
N.B.: every PSC inspection will be also a PRF inspection.
62
But not necessarily as in this case the Port State will have the decisive role.
58
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0060.png
100GT are recorded and the actual number of all the domestic vessels (irrespective of size), might be significantly
larger.
In the MARINFO data base there are
2959
potentially “domestic” vessels in the EU
63
.
THETIS-EU could be used either on voluntary or on mandatory basis to report PRF inspections on board
domestic vessels
(in case of mandatory reporting a threshold of e.g. 100GT would seem necessary for a realistic
reporting of the PRF inspection and for avoiding excessive administrative burden).
Furthermore, a minimum inspection obligation of
at least 20%
of all domestic vessels above 100GT may also be
introduced. This percentage is equal to the one already used in similar legislation (i.e. the Sulphur Directive) and
safeguards that there will be also for domestic vessels a minimum number of inspections conducted per annum. In
this case, Member States would need to provide a list of all the active
64
seagoing domestic vessels above 100GT.
In this regard, a mandatory system of inspections for domestic vessels would comprise
around 600 PRF
inspections
annually reported in THETIS-EU.
Probably the optimum solution would be to require from Member States to establish control procedures, to the
extent required, for domestic vessels to ensure compliance with the applicable requirements of this Directive and to
report inspections in THETIS-EU (no mandatory minimum threshold for inspections).
2.2.2.3 Pros and Cons
The option “Port State Control inspections according to the PSC Directive plus Flag State inspections” aims at the
application of the MARPOL convention through the provisions of the EU legislation
65
.
In this regard, amending the PSC Directive in a way that a PRF inspection becomes part of every PSC inspection
may facilitate the enforcement of the PRF Directive and, ultimately, the enforcement of MARPOL provisions against
illegal discharges.
In the context of this proposal, all initial PSC inspections will be also covering the requirements of the PRF
Directive. In addition, if relevant clear grounds (or relevant unexpected/overriding factors) exist, the PSCOs will
ensure a more detailed verification of PRF compliance and respective actions will be undertaken in accordance
with the provisions of the PSC Directive. In other words, the PRF Directive is to become like a “relevant instrument”
of the PSC Directive and will be applied through PSC inspections.
Therefore, an immediate benefit of this proposal will be that through the PSC inspections the selection of ships will
be made on a risk basis, a significant number of inspections will be conducted annually (16000+), detailed follow-
up procedures will be in place and all the inspections and results will be recorded in a database.
In comparison to the current legislative requirements the option entails fewer inspections (i.e. around 16000 per
annum instead of around 19500 and, therefore, less administrative burden
66
. It will also cover more effectively the
domestic vessels than the current PRF Directive and will ensure a more effective and efficient enforcement regime
because of the risk based approach and the use of existing resources (PSCOs) which are already familiar with
MARPOL implementation.
Notwithstanding the existing PRF legislation, the actual implementation of the provisions for the enforcement of the
PRF Directive may well be below the minimum requirements. As regards inspections, in most of the Member States
they were carried out within the Port State Control framework, but the check-lists used by the PSC inspectors
normally did not contain any elements specific to the PRF Directive
67
. In addition, although THETIS-EU is available
63
64
All above 100GT. No fishing vessels included. Data for 2015.
I.e. authorised/certified to conduct sea voyages.
65
PRF and PSC Directives.
66
Full incorporation of the PRF inspection in the PSC inspection will also entail time savings in comparison to today’s regime.
67
Refer to the Enforcement part (Theme III) of EMSA’s Horizontal Analysis of Port Reception Facilities (Directive 2000/59/EC), December 2010.
59
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0061.png
since April 2016 only
1166
“PRF inspections” were recorded in THETIS-EU within 2016. Therefore, in comparison
to the current actual situation
68
, the proposed new PSC-PRF regime might entail additional administrative burden to
the Member States in the sense that actual enforcement of the legislative requirements will become more effective.
However, any new regime which secures better enforcement would entail additional administrative burden
compared to what is (not) happening today.
There is a possibility for some assumptions in order to calculate the additional administrative burden:
It should be taken into account that in the context of the PSC inspection the PSCOs already control the relevant
MARPOL requirements as appropriate. Because of the proposal, there may be a slight increase of the burden of
each PSC inspection related mostly to the initial control of the data in AWN and in THETIS for verifying compliance
with Article 7 of the PRF Directive and to possible follow-up actions if deficiencies revealed.
In this regard, we may assume that, under normal conditions (i.e. the ship requests to deliver its waste) around 5
minutes would be the additional time for a PSCO to control the specific PRF requirements. If the ship does not
deliver all the waste ashore then the PSCO will need to evaluate if there is sufficient dedicated storage capacity for
the coming voyage. This could take up to 15 minutes for performing the necessary calculations. As an average, we
may assume that on each initial PSC inspection an addition of 10 minutes may be needed because of the PRF
requirements.
Of course, it is not possible to estimate the time for a more detailed inspection if clear grounds are revealed as this
would depend on the merits of each case. In any case, this is already the current situation in the PSC inspection
regime.
However, the proposed amendment of the PSC Directive does not cover the current obligation of the Member
States according to the PRF Directive
69
to “ensure that the information notified by masters in accordance with
Article 6 be appropriately examined”. In other words, the Member States would still need to establish a mechanism
to ensure the examination of all AWN submitted. This is not part of the inspection process but it is an important task
ensuring the maximum benefit from the AWN and may reveal clear grounds for a PSC inspection. If this is done by
the PSC authorities or another authority it should be left to the discretion of the Member States.
There may be a negative approach from those Member States that are currently using a separate enforcement
regime to implement the PRF Directive in the sense that this regime will not be needed anymore. According to the
latest EMSA’s visits to Member States
70
seven (07) Member States are using a separate PRF regime. However,
four (04) of them also use the PSC regime
71
. A possible solution would be to use these resources for conducting
Flag State inspections particularly on domestic vessels, fishing vessels and recreational crafts but maybe also for
examining all the AWN submitted and informing the PSC authorities in case clear grounds revealed.
In summary, the option of amending the PSC Directive ensures a risk-based selection system, reliable reporting
and harmonised application of the relevant procedures. In addition, it generates less administrative burden to the
Member States and to ships as there is no increase in the total number of inspections conducted on board ships
but only a slight burden to the current PSC inspection. As long as the procedures for the “PRF inspection within the
PSC inspection” will be kept as simple as possible and close to the current PSC procedures, then the burden to
each PSC inspection will be minimum related mostly to the initial control of the data in AWN and in THETIS for
verifying compliance with Article 7 of the PRF Directive
72
calculating if sufficient dedicated storage capacity exists
on board.
68
69
I.e. limited enforcement efforts by the Member States.
Article 12(1d).
70
I.e. second cycle of visits (2012-2016), for the monitoring of the implementation of the PSC Directive.
71
I.e. only 3 MS exclusively use other authorities than the PSC authorities to implement the PRF Directive. See
Annex VII
of this report.
72
Figure to be adjusted to the revised Directive.
60
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0062.png
2.2.3
Policy Option 4 (“EU PRF Regime beyond MARPOL”) – Dedicated PRF inspection regime
2.2.3.1 The need for a dedicated “PRF enforcement regime”
As described in the Executive Summary of the draft IASS the Policy Option 4 (PO4) seeks to strengthen the
mandatory delivery of all waste under the PRF Directive, thereby going beyond the scope of MARPOL, and also
aiming to address (at least part of) the "legal discharges" (mainly sewage and small quantities of oily waste).
The enforcement of the aforementioned policy option would require a dedicated EU enforcement regime to control
delivery of all SGW/CR regardless of the MARPOL discharge provisions. It is uncertain how effective an EU
enforcement regime beyond MARPOL would be but it would be necessary to secure stricter control of all
SGW/[CR], better information sharing among the Member States, a dedicated PRF targeting mechanism for
selection of ships for inspection and a tailor made PRF inspection procedure to secure the delivery of all SGW/[CR]
beyond the requirements of MARPOL.
2.2.3.2 “PRF targeting mechanism”
Selection of ships for inspection to verify compliance with the provisions of Directive 2000/59/EC for ships other
than fishing vessels and recreational craft authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers would be conducted
both for ships flying the flag of the Member State and ships flying the flag of another State (FS and PS inspections).
The whole regime may be organised under the same principles of the enforcement regime of the Sulphur Directive.
Introduction of a dedicated PRF targeting system would be necessary:
Article X - Union risk based targeting mechanism
73
1. Based on the results of inspections foreseen by paragraph 1 of Article Y, associated findings,
waste alerts and pre arrival notification conveyed from the SSN Network, ships other than fishing
vessels and recreational craft authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers calling in EU
Member States shall, in the inspection database, be attributed to a priority for inspection.
2. The relevant priority shall be determined by alerts created by the Member States and by a
combination of the following generic and historical parameters:
a. ships which have not complied with the notification requirements in Article C(Currently
Article 6);
b. ships for which the examination of the information provided by the master in accordance
with Article C(Currently Article 6), has revealed other grounds to believe that the ship does
not comply with this Directive;
c. Ships which have never been inspected before, within the context of this Directive;
d. Ships which have been reported by port authorities or other competent bodies that they
have not complied with Articles A (Currently Article 7) and B (Currently Article 10);
e. Ships which have been the subject of a report, by the master or a crew member, for not
complying with Articles A (Currently Article 7) and B (Currently Article 10) unless the
Member State concerned deems the report to be manifestly unfounded.
3. Taking into account the above parameters and to facilitate the selection process in case of multiple
ships in port, the following four priorities for inspection are proposed:
a. A Ship is considered as PRF Priority 1 (PRF1) and shall be inspected if it has an alert
created by the last port of call when there is clear evidence that the ship has proceeded to
sea without having complied with Articles A (Currently Article 7) and B (Currently Article
10);
b. A ship is considered as PRF Priority 2 (PRF2) and may be inspected if three or more of the
criteria noted in paragraph 2 are met.
73
The targeting mechanism may well be included in an Annex to the Directive or it may be adopted by an IA or DA and may be elaborated
further.
61
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0063.png
c. A ship is considered as PRF Priority 3 (PRF3) and may be inspected if one or two of the
criteria noted in paragraph 2 are met.
d. A ship is considered as normal priority and may be inspected if none of the criteria noted in
paragraph 2 are met.
2.2.3.3 “PRF inspections”
A PRF inspection should be an in-depth investigation for ensuring that the ship was in compliance with the EU
requirements for delivery of all SGW/CR and that, within EU waters, has not made any discharges (whether
allowed or not by MARPOL). For this reason, a dedicated PRF inspection procedure should be established and
formalised on the basis of today’s EMSA’s guidance for ship inspections under the PRF Directive.
An additional element to enhance effectiveness of the dedicated “EU PRF enforcement regime” would be to
introduce a mandatory requirement for all EU PRFs to issue a “waste
delivery receipt
74
” and for all ships using EU
PRFs to keep on-board these receipts for at least two years.
Furthermore, it is proposed to introduce a system to calculate the
annual PRF inspection commitment per
Member State
adhering the same principles implemented for the enforcement of the Sulphur Directive through the
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/253 and in particular Article 3. This rule will offer certainty to
Member States on how many PRF inspections should perform and on the same time will allow for better monitoring
of the Member States’ enforcement efforts. However, for the PRF inspections a 20% inspection rate should be
proposed to be closer, as far as possible, to the current (legal) level of inspections of the PRF Directive
75
.
Article Y - Inspection commitment to verify compliance with the provisions of Directive [20XX/XX/EC] on
Port Reception Facilities
1. Member States shall carry out inspections to verify compliance with Articles A (Currently Article 7)
and B (Currently Article 10) of at least 20 % of the total number of individual ships calling in the
relevant Member State per year. The total number of individual ships calling in a Member State shall
correspond to the average number of ships of the three preceding years as reported through
SafeSeaNet.
2. Inspections performed on ships registered in the Member State will be taken into account equally if
the result is recorded in THETIS EU
3. Member States shall comply with the frequencies specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 by selecting
ships on the basis of a Union risk-based targeting mechanism in THETIS EU and of specific alerts
on individual ships reported in THETIS EU.
4. Member States shall ensure that the information related to inspections performed in accordance
with paragraphs 1 and 2 are transferred to the inspection database as soon as the inspection report
is completed or the detailed assessment of factors relating to the ship's compliance with this
Directive, such as the accuracy of any information provided in accordance with Article C (Currently
Article 6), has taken place.
The inspection commitment per Member State if the proposed Article was to be implemented in 2017 can be found
in Annex IV of the present assessment. It should be noted however that these figures are generated from the
current SSN data and may not cover all smaller ships (below 300GT) or domestic vessels. For these ships the
Member States should establish control procedures to ensure compliance with the applicable requirements of the
PRF Directive.
2.2.3.5 “Inspection Data Base”
74
See Annex V for an analysis of the application of this requirement particularly in relation to unmanned PRFs. To note however, that regulating
for unmanned PRFs would increase further the complexity of the whole inspection system.
75
I.e. 25% of individual ships and around 19500 inspections.
62
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0064.png
A dedicated module in THETIS EU would be necessary to serve as a platform to record and exchange information
on the results of individual compliance verifications under the PRF Directive as well as to convey relevant
information (waste notification) from SafeSeaNet.
Article Z – Inspection Data Base
1. EMSA shall develop, host and maintain an inspection database (THETIS EU) set up in accordance
with this Directive
2. THETIS EU shall:
a. serve as a platform to record and exchange information on the results of inspections under
Directive 20XX/XX/EC;
b. provide data for the Union risk based targeting mechanism;
c. set up the priorities for inspections in accordance with the generic and historical
parameters of Article Y;
d. calculate the inspection commitments for each Member State in accordance with the
provisions of Article X;
3. Member States shall take the appropriate measures to ensure that the provisions of paragraph 3 of
Annex III of Commission Directive 2014/100/EU in relation to pre arrival waste notification are met.
2.2.3.5 Pros and Cons
The option of a “dedicated “PRF enforcement regime” will require additional inspection efforts and, therefore,
additional resources, for all the Member States, even for those that already have a separate “PRF inspection
regime” because it will formalise the selection system and will provide minimum targets.
The tailor made selection system, waste alerts and the detailed reporting in THETIS-EU would facilitate EU
requirements going beyond MARPOL.
In addition, it would serve better the current obligation of the Member States according to the PRF Directive to
“ensure that the information notified by masters in accordance with Article 6 be appropriately examined”. A
dedicated PRF regime would safeguard the examination of all AWN submitted.
If a dedicated PRF inspection is to be conducted then significant time would be needed for the inspector to control
the relevant ship’s documents (e.g. certificates, ORB, GRB, ship’s logs, plans, tables e.t.c.) and to have a look
around to get acquainted with the overall condition of the ship particularly in the engine room, cargo holds, ballast,
bunker, waste bins e.t.c. We may assume that at least one (01) hour would be needed for the inspector to get
acquainted with the ship and to check ship’s documents on top of the 10 minutes for controlling only the specific
PRF requirements
76
.
Of course, it is not possible to estimate the time for a detailed inspection if non-compliances are revealed as this
would depend on the merits of each case. However, it may be assumed that, as an average, at least 2 hours may
be needed for the whole PRF inspection.
In addition to the above, a separate PRF inspection would be added to the current number of the PSC inspections
and would entail additional logistics (transportation costs for the inspectors, different time windows engaging more
of the ship’s crew time e.t.c). In theory, the PSC regime might still be used to conduct the PRF inspections (as an
extension to the PSC inspection). However, in practice, it would be extremely difficult to combine the different
selection procedures and targeting as well as the different inspection procedures and the separate reporting in
THETIS-EU.
76
We assume 10 minutes on the basis of the analysis already conducted under section 2.2.2.3 above.
63
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0065.png
For this reason, although the total number of the PRF dedicated inspections (estimated
77
to
17220)
would not be
significantly higher compared to the total number of the combined PSC-PRF inspections of PO3 (estimated
78
to
15186)
however, this would entail significantly higher administrative burden for the Member States and for the
industry as this number would be added to the number of the current PSC inspections.
3.
Fishing vessels and recreational crafts (Policy
option
variants: With or without additional focus on marine
litter)
3.1
General
In the draft IASS a variant option is defined to specifically address the issue of marine litter (MARPOL Annex V
waste) from ships and will group all the measures that can effectively make a contribution to reaching the overall
reduction target set in the circular economy. Two variants will be distinguished:
1.
Approach based on incentives: as fishing vessels and small recreational craft can be held accountable for
a significant part of the marine litter from sea-based sources, these vessels should be included in the indirect fee
regime of the Directive. In addition, the passively fished waste could be brought under the scope of the Directive,
and arrangements put in place that this type of waste can be delivered on shore free of charge.
2.
Approach based on enforcement and incentives (more stringent variant): this variant will include the
incentive part mentioned above, but
will also address the enforcement of the waste delivery obligation for
fishing vessels and recreational craft.
The current regime can be strengthened by including specific targets for
these vessels in the Directive, including the vessels in the THETIS-EU module for reporting the inspections. This
variant also includes the reporting of fishing vessels, and should consider the differentiation based on GT or length.
Hereunder an analysis of the fishing fleet and the recreational crafts in the EU is provided with some alternative
proposals for selecting the optimum one for becoming the enforcement part of the policy option variant “with
additional focus on marine litter”.
3.2
Fishing Vessels
3.2.1 The fishing fleet in the EU
In accordance with the data in the EU fishing fleet registry
79
the composition of the EU fishing fleet is as follows:
The total number of EU fishing vessels
80
is
83,378
with a total
1,581,636GT.
There are:
Below 100GT: ………………………
80,376
vessels representing
501,730GT
Between 100 GT and 500 GT : .........2,689
Between 500 GT and 1000 GT : ……..137
Between 1000 GT and 5000 GT : ……161
More than 5000 GT : ……………………15
3,002
fishing
vessels
above
100GT
1,079,906
GT
77
78
Calculation for year 2017. See Annex IV.
Actual number of PSC inspections in 2016.
79
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleet/index.cfm?method=Search.SearchAdvanced&country
80
On 22 March 2017. Norway – Iceland are exempted.
64
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0066.png
In the MARINFO database
81
the total number of EU fishing vessels
82
above 100GT is
2990.
Therefore, it may be
assumed that the data for fishing vessels above 100GT are relatively accurate
83
.
From all the EU fleet there are
7918
fishing vessels with more than 15 meters LOA
84
. They represent 1,330,440GT.
There are 9213 fishing vessels equipped with VMS
85
representing 1,299,249GT.
These data clearly show that less than 3.6% of all the EU fishing vessels are above 100GT. Furthermore, 9.5% of
all the EU fishing vessels are above 15 meters LOA and around 11% are equipped with VMS.
However, in terms of Gross Tonnage the whole EU fishing fleet counts for 1,581,636GT. The vessels above 100GT
represent more than
68%
of the total EU fishing fleet tonnage. The vessels above 15 meters LOA represent almost
84%
of the total EU fishing fleet tonnage. The vessels equipped with VMS represent more than
82%
of the total EU
fishing fleet tonnage
86
.
3.2.2 Alternative proposals for strengthening the enforcement on fishing vessels
In accordance with the PRF Directive, Member States shall establish control procedures, to the extent required, for
fishing vessels (and recreational craft authorised to carry no more than 12 passengers) to ensure compliance with
the applicable requirements of the PRF Directive.
On top of this requirement
and taking into account the above figures, we may use one of the aforementioned
thresholds for a mandatory inspection regime for fishing vessels. The threshold, the frequency of the inspections
and the percentage of the vessels to be inspected in relation to each Member State’s fleet, will define the total
number of mandatory inspections.
In this regard, the following alternative options may be proposed
87
:
A) All fishing vessels above 100GT flying the flag of a Member State shall be inspected at least once per
year by this Member State or by a Port Member State
(eligible 3.6% of all EU fishing vessels/68% of the total
EU fishing fleet tonnage).
This option entails around
3000 inspections per year
(see Annex VI for an analysis of the inspection burden per
Member State). Fishing vessels above 100GT must have a MARPOL Annex V garbage management plan and may
have an IMO number.
The inspections could be recorded in THETIS-EU (on a mandatory or voluntary basis). Advanced Waste
Notification would also be possible but it may entail a significant administrative burden to smaller vessels which
normally conduct short voyages. The obligation to inspect all fishing vessels above 100GT annually may also entail
significant administrative burden for the Member States particularly in case of vessels operating in remote areas,
small ports or islands.
B) Member States shall inspect annually at least 20% of all fishing vessels above 100GT flying their flag
(eligible 3.6% of all EU fishing vessels/68% of all fishing fleet tonnage, same target group as above option).
The percentage is equal to the one already used in similar legislation (i.e. the Sulphur Directive). This option entails
around
600 inspections per year
(see Annex VI for an analysis of the inspection burden per Member State).
A more stringent option would be for the Member States to inspect annually at least 30% of all fishing vessels
above 100GT flying their flag. It would entail 900 inspections per year.
81
82
See Annex VI for an analysis of the number of fishing vessels per Member State.
Norway – Iceland are exempted.
83
However, these figures do not include fishing vessels flying a flag of a third country (non-EU) that may be based in EU Member States.
84
Length Overall.
85
Vessel Monitoring System.
86
N.B. 260 fishing vessels above 15 meters LOA (56,137GT) found in the database not equipped with VMS (22 March 2017).
87
N.B.: The legal wording of the proposals should be looked at with DG MARE.
65
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0067.png
The inspections could be recorded in THETIS-EU (on a mandatory or voluntary basis). Advanced Waste
Notification would also be possible but it may entail a significant administrative burden to smaller vessels which
normally conduct short voyages.
The option gives more flexibility to the Member States to select the vessels for inspection in a more convenient way
(e.g. in bigger ports not on remote areas) while at the same time imposes less administrative burden to both the
administrations and the industry.
C) Member States shall inspect at least 20% of all fishing vessels above 15 meters LOA flying their flag
(eligible 9.5% of all EU fishing vessels/82% of the total EU fishing fleet tonnage).
This option entails around
1,600 inspections per year.
Inspections could be recorded in THETIS-EU (on a
mandatory or voluntary basis). Advanced Waste Notification might also be possible but it would entail a significant
administrative burden to the whole enforcement system (SSN – PRF Inspectors for evaluating the AWN) because
of the significant increase of the total number of vessels reporting on a daily basis, without providing significant
benefits. Fishing vessels above 15 meters LOA must have a VMS on board and they need to report regularly their
catch. In this regard, it might be possible to amend the respective EU legislation
88
to cater also for a waste report
which could be used by the relevant authorities
89
.
A more stringent option would be for the Member States to inspect annually at least 30% of all fishing vessels
above 15 meters LOA flying their flag. It would entail 2400 inspections per year.
In both cases, selection of vessels for inspection could be made on the basis of a targeting mechanism to be
developed.
In the light of the above, the most realistic scenario seems to be
option (B).
This option, covers an important part
of the fishing fleet (68% of the total tonnage), focussing on vessels posing the biggest threat. In addition, it
comprises only ‘Flag State inspections’ and gives the flexibility to the Member States to select the most
convenient/efficient inspections for complying with the 10% obligation. Although it generates a relatively small
annual number of inspections the target group is around 3000 vessels (the biggest ones) and thus it may have an
important effect in better enforcement. This option is also the most realistic one if AWN is considered necessary for
fishing vessels as it covers a relatively small number of vessels in comparison to option C. However, also in this
case, it would worth exploring the possibility to provide waste notification through the established electronic
reporting of the fishing vessels (VMS) in order to avoid, if possible, an additional layer of reporting and the
respective administrative burden.
3.3
Recreational Crafts
In the MARINFO database the total number of active recreational crafts is
3668.
However, not all of them are
connected to the EU (only 850 have registered a port call in Europe, in one year time - 2015
90
).
All of the
850 ships called in the EU
were above 100GT and had an IMO number.
In accordance with the PRF Directive, Member States shall establish control procedures, to the extent required, for
(fishing vessels) and recreational craft authorised to carry no more than 12 passengers to ensure compliance with
the applicable requirements of the PRF Directive.
On top of this requirement
and taking into account the above figures we may use 100GT as a threshold for a
mandatory inspection regime for recreational crafts.
In this regard, the following proposal could be made:
88
I.e. Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 404/2011 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1224/2009 establishing a Community control system, for ensuring compliance with the rules of
the Common Fisheries Policy
of 20 November 2009
89
DG MARE would need to be consulted.
90
EMSA does not have data for years after 2015.
66
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0068.png
Member States shall inspect at least 20% of the total number of individual crafts calling in the relevant
Member State per year. The total number of individual ships calling in a Member State shall correspond to
the average number of ships of the three preceding years
(eligible 850 vessels but no accurate/detailed data
available).
This proposal entails around
170 inspections per year
and the inspections may be recorded in THETIS-EU (on a
mandatory or voluntary basis). Advanced Waste Notification would also be possible but it may entail a significant
administrative burden if vessels conduct short voyages. Selection of vessels for inspection may be done on the
basis of a targeting mechanism to be developed.
However, and taking into account, the lack of credible data, the relatively small number of annual inspections and
the small targeted group, the proposal to include a mandatory inspection regime for recreational crafts cannot be
supported adequately.
67
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0069.png
Annex I Calls, ships and 25% rule per Member State as if
Directive 95/21 was still in force
91
;
Country
Description
ATA
Port Call ID
(Count Distinct)
IMO
Number
(Count Distinct)
25%
rule
Belgium
2016
24449
5470
1368
Bulgaria
2016
3085
1357
339
Croatia
2016
4870
978
245
Cyprus
2016
2416
821
205
Denmark
2016
17355
2485
621
Estonia
2016
5944
1336
334
Finland
2016
20846
1404
351
France
2016
42707
5733
1433
Germany
2016
41949
5150
1288
Greece
2016
32608
4446
1112
Iceland
2016
2625
356
89
Ireland
2016
12444
1460
365
Italy
2016
38077
5730
1433
Latvia
2016
6490
1978
495
Lithuania
2016
3383
1581
395
91
No calls by ships flying national flag, no Fishing vessels.
68
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0070.png
Malta
2016
3331
945
236
Netherlands
2016
36771
7013
1753
Norway
2016
43610
2848
712
Poland
2016
13430
2444
611
Portugal
2016
8607
2466
617
Romania
2016
5452
1992
498
Slovenia
2016
2134
737
184
Spain
2016
80901
10029
2507
Sweden
2016
32052
2694
674
United Kingdom
2016
88368
9564
2391
Totals
Totals
573904
81017
20254
Total without Norway and Iceland =
19453
69
kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel
1845875_0071.png
Annex II
Comparison between a “PRF Inspection” and a “PSC
inspection”:
PRF Inspection (Dir
2000/59)
To enforce compliance
with the PRF waste and
Cargo Residue landing
requirements of the PRF
Directive.
PSC Inspection (Dir
2009/16)
To enforce compliance
with International
Conventions (e.g.
MARPOL) and
regulations.
(Art.1: “…compliance
with
international and relevant