kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Europaudvalget 2018
KOM (2018) 0033
Offentligt

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}

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

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

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.

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.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

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),

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.

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.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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.

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

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

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.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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-

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel



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

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

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel



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;

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel



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);



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.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

. The respondents came from fifteen different

Member States as well as from two non-EU countries:

Respondent country of residence

20%

15%

10%

Greece

Denmark

Germany

Belgium

France

Netherland

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

% of responses

11%

Ship-owners/operators

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

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

% of responses

28%

10%

14%

12%

100%

2.3. Targeted surveys

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.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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;

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel



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

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’

Please refer to the published “Summary of the Open Public consultation” for an analysis of the responses for

each policy measure.

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

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’

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.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

, as well as the operational costs

. 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)

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

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.

The respondents (75%) expect an increase in their operational costs as a result of this measure.

Most respondents to this question are either port authorities or PRF-operators.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

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

see OPC results.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

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

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,

In total, 25 respondents answered this question.

Including representatives from the port and fishing sector, as well as from a regional sea organisation.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

indicated that they regularly deliver waste generated on board and

67% indicated

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

11 out of a total of 12 respondents to this question.

8 out of a total of 12 respondents to this question.

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.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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.

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

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.)

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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



kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

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

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

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

. 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

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

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.

See Annex 3 of the IA support study for details of the data processing steps.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

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)

and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

. 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

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

, BRISK 2012

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

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)

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

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

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/

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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)

Sum of scores

Feature 1

Score (1-4)

Sum of scores

Feature 2

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

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

. 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.

Full results and details of the 3 steps are available in annex 8.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Annex 5 – Total waste volumes and illegal discharges

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

and about

5 kg

oil

per average recreational craft

per annum

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.

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

manual.pdf

http://www.yanmarmarine.com/theme/yanmarportal/UploadedFiles/Marine/productDownloads/Pleasure-operation-manual/JH5/JH5_EN_operation-

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

(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.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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%.

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

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

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

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

When comparing the remaining volumes with volumes delivered to 29 ports, a

sewage

delivery gap

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

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.

http://www.helcom.fi/action-areas/shipping/sewage-from-ships/overview-report/.

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).

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

nal

stream

Annex V

–

43,53

8,76 507,4

74,443

86,717 123,016 170,928

58%

domestic

type waste

Annex V

122,52

122,5

–

solid

14%

Annex V

218,4

– fishing /

25%

gear

Annex V

–

Other

32,60

operationa 27,074 4,305 /

360

867

type

waste

Total

224,03 266,3

9,63 881,0

86,717 123,376 170,928

25%

30%

10%

14%

19%

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

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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%

which

51%

88%

58%

fishing sector

which

49%

12%

42%

other

shipping

Black

Sea

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

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

). 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

/MWh. If

we assume an average RoRo ship to have installed power of 15 MW, this gives 4.5m

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.

If 5% of the

current 400 scrubbers would operate in closed loop mode, the total volume of waste generated

amounts to 24,000 m

sludge (1,200 m

dry matter), with 360,000 m

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.

A verification of these figures and assumptions has been asked from EGCSA, but has not been

received.

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.

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

(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).

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

All, including fishing and

recreational craft

2,061,000 m

Merchant: 1,997,000 m

Fishing vessels: 55,000 m

Recreational craft: 9,000 m

38%

of (1) = 751,000 m

80-100% of (1) – assuming

average 95% = 25,878,000 m

Merchant shipping

27,240,000 m

Annex IV - sewage

All, including fishing and

recreational craft

29,240,000 m

Merchant: 27,240,000 m

Fishing vessels: 1,000,000 /

1,500,000 m

Recreational craft: 1,000,000

Merchant shipping: average

95% = 25,878,000 m

Fishing vessels: 50% =

500,000 / 750,000 m

3 25

Recreational craft: 55% =

550,000 m

2,312,000 m

/ 2,562,000 m

Merchant: 1,362,000m

Fishing vessels: 500,000 /

750,000 m

Recreational craft: 450,000

1,226,000 m

Unknown, as waste delivery

data for fishing ports and

marinas are unknown

Range from 286,000 to

404,000 tonnes

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

Not provided

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

1,290,000 m

Merchant: 1,226,000 m

Fishing vessels: 55,000 m

Recreational craft: 9,000 m

1,362,000 m

434,000 tonnes

881,000 tonnes

Merchant: 434,000 tonnes

Fishing vessels: 266,000

tonnes

Recreational craft: 171,000

tonnes

Range from 580,000 to

820,000 tonnes

24,000m

sludge

360,000 m

bleed-off

(generated by scrubbers

operating in closed-loop

mode, i.e. 5% of 400)

Unknown

Actually

delivered (4)

1,195,000 m

Unknown, as waste delivery

data for fishing ports and

marinas are unknown

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).

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Delivery gap

(3) – (4)

31,000 m

(2.5%)

Unknown, but consisting of

31,000 m

caused by

merchant shipping and a

contribution from fishing

vessels and recreational craft

between 0 and 64,000 m

136,000 m

(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)

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Annex 6 – MARPOL discharge norms and relevant amendments

Waste category

MARPOL Annex I

Ships outside special Ships within special

areas

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

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

The following European waters are special zones: Mediterranean Sea, Baltic Sea, Black Sea and North

Western European Waters (Annex I).

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Waste category

MARPOL Annex IV

Ships outside special Ships within special

areas

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

Ships outside

Ships within special

special areas

areas

Food waste

comminuted or

ground

Food waste not

comminuted or

ground

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)

The following European waters are special zones: the Baltic Sea (Annex IV)

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/Garbage/Documents/2014%20revision/

Annex%20V%20discharge%20requirements%2007-2013.pdf

The following European waters are special zones: Mediterranean Sea, Baltic Sea, Black sea and North Sea

(Annex V)

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Waste category

MARPOL Annex V

Ships outside

Ships within special

special areas

areas

Offshore platforms

and all ships within

500 m of such

platforms

Discharge prohibited

Cargo residues

not contained in

wash water

Cargo residues

contained in wash

water

361

route

Discharge permitted

≥12 nm from the

nearest land and en

route

Discharge prohibited

Cleaning agents and

additives

contained

in cargo hold wash

water

Discharge permitted

Cleaning agents and

additives

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

and

≥12 nm from the

nearest land and en

route

Discharge only

permitted in specific

circumstances

and

≥12 nm from the

nearest land and en

route

Discharge permitted

Discharge prohibited

Discharge permitted

as far from the

nearest land as

possible and en route

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

These substances must not be harmful to the marine environment.

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).

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Annex 7 – EMSA Assessment of the enforcement options

Paper by EMSA starting on the next page.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

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.

2.1

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

and the limited use of the

dedicated THETIS-EU - PRF module

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)

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

. In the enforcement part (Article 11), it requires from MS to ensure that:

A sufficient number of PRF inspections is carried out and

During a PRF inspection compliance with the “delivery obligation” under Articles 7 and 10 is verified.

In this regard:

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

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.

I.e. PO3: “MARPOL alignment and better enforcement” or PO4: “EU PRF Regime beyond MARPOL”.

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.

See Annex I to this report.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

However, after the recast of the Directive 95/21/EC the above calculation has been abolished and the new PSC

Directive

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

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

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

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

. Under PO3, the “EU delivery

obligation” addresses what cannot be discharged legally according to MARPOL

. 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.

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.

Not mandatory reporting to THETIS-EU and a very small number has been reported up to now.

But not fully, as its scope does not include Flag State inspections or inspections on domestic vessels, fishing vessels and recreational crafts.

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

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.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

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

) 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

, 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

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

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

See below paragraph (3).

See Annex I, part II.3B(c) of the PSC Directive.

The references to current Articles will be adjusted to the revised Directive.

In accordance with Article 6 of the PRF Directive.

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.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

be substantiated

, then the PSCO will follow the standard PSC procedures (recording of deficiency,

possible detention

, 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

) 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

In summary

the PSC Directive will be amended to:

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”;

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”;

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”.

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”;

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)”

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

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.

There might be a need for specific guidance on recording deficiencies or detaining a ship on the basis of an EU legal requirement.

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.

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).

See also Annex III for a schematic description of the PSC-PRF inspections.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

(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

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

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

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

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.

See below chapter 3.

N.B.: every PSC inspection will be also a PRF inspection.

But not necessarily as in this case the Port State will have the decisive role.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

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

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

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

. 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

. In addition, although THETIS-EU is available

All above 100GT. No fishing vessels included. Data for 2015.

I.e. authorised/certified to conduct sea voyages.

PRF and PSC Directives.

Full incorporation of the PRF inspection in the PSC inspection will also entail time savings in comparison to today’s regime.

Refer to the Enforcement part (Theme III) of EMSA’s Horizontal Analysis of Port Reception Facilities (Directive 2000/59/EC), December 2010.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

since April 2016 only

1166

“PRF inspections” were recorded in THETIS-EU within 2016. Therefore, in comparison

to the current actual situation

, 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

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

seven (07) Member States are using a separate PRF regime. However,

four (04) of them also use the PSC regime

. 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

calculating if sufficient dedicated storage capacity exists

on board.

I.e. limited enforcement efforts by the Member States.

Article 12(1d).

I.e. second cycle of visits (2012-2016), for the monitoring of the implementation of the PSC Directive.

I.e. only 3 MS exclusively use other authorities than the PSC authorities to implement the PRF Directive. See

Annex VII

of this report.

Figure to be adjusted to the revised Directive.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

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.

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.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

” 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

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”

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.

I.e. 25% of individual ships and around 19500 inspections.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

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.

We assume 10 minutes on the basis of the analysis already conducted under section 2.2.2.3 above.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

For this reason, although the total number of the PRF dedicated inspections (estimated

17220)

would not be

significantly higher compared to the total number of the combined PSC-PRF inspections of PO3 (estimated

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.

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:

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.

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

the composition of the EU fishing fleet is as follows:

The total number of EU fishing vessels

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

Calculation for year 2017. See Annex IV.

Actual number of PSC inspections in 2016.

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleet/index.cfm?method=Search.SearchAdvanced&country

On 22 March 2017. Norway – Iceland are exempted.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

In the MARINFO database

the total number of EU fishing vessels

above 100GT is

2990.

Therefore, it may be

assumed that the data for fishing vessels above 100GT are relatively accurate

From all the EU fleet there are

7918

fishing vessels with more than 15 meters LOA

. They represent 1,330,440GT.

There are 9213 fishing vessels equipped with VMS

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

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

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.

See Annex VI for an analysis of the number of fishing vessels per Member State.

Norway – Iceland are exempted.

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.

Length Overall.

Vessel Monitoring System.

N.B. 260 fishing vessels above 15 meters LOA (56,137GT) found in the database not equipped with VMS (22 March 2017).

N.B.: The legal wording of the proposals should be looked at with DG MARE.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

to cater also for a waste report

which could be used by the relevant authorities

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

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:

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

DG MARE would need to be consulted.

EMSA does not have data for years after 2015.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Annex I Calls, ships and 25% rule per Member State as if

Directive 95/21 was still in force

;

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

Ireland

2016

12444

1460

365

Italy

2016

38077

5730

1433

Latvia

2016

6490

1978

495

Lithuania

2016

3383

1581

395

No calls by ships flying national flag, no Fishing vessels.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

573904

81017

20254

Total without Norway and Iceland =

19453

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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

Community

legislation…”).

To any ship of a foreign

flag and its crew calling at

a port or anchorage of a

Member State to engage

in a ship/port interface

(fishing vessels, pleasure

yachts not engaged in

trade and warships

excluded).

Failure to submit AWN is

an unexpected factor i.e.

the ship becomes eligible

for a PSC inspection

(Priority II).

Fair share of the

inspections between the

MS and number of

inspections based on a

risk approach.

Comments

PSC inspection is broader then

the PRF inspection and may

cover (or not) the MARPOL

discharge requirements if clear

grounds revealed or in case of

overriding - unexpected factors.

Objective

Scope

To all ships, (including

fishing vessels and

recreational crafts),

irrespective of their flag,

calling at, or operating

within, a port of a

Member State (very few

exceptions basically

warships).

Pre-arrival submission of

AWN. Failure to submit

may lead to enforcement

actions (mandatory

delivery, penalty etc).

Obsolete and confusing

targets for the number of

inspections.

Notification

Requirements

PRF inspection may be

conducted on board almost all

ships (including domestic vessels,

fishing vessels & recreational

crafts) either flying the flag of the

MS or a foreign flag.

PSC inspection may only be

conducted on board ships flying a

foreign flag (fishing

vessels/yachts excluded).

A PSC additional inspection may

be triggered by a failure to submit

an AWN according to the PRF

Directive.

PRF old 25% rule (2016):

19453

inspections (fishing vessels &

recreational crafts excluded from

this number as there are no

quantified inspection

commitments for these vessels).

PSC nbr of inspections (2016):

15186inspections.

A PSCO may be a PRF inspector

without any additional

qualifications.

A PRF inspector cannot be a

PSCO (unless properly trained

and authorised)

The PSC selection of ships for

inspection already covers the

AWN requirement of the PRF

Directive while it may also cover

the rest of the PRF Directive’s

requirements if MS report or

accuse a ship as potentially

harming the marine environment.

The PRF inspection always

focuses on the “delivery

obligation” of SGW and CR.

The PSC inspection may never

come to control the MARPOL

Inspection

Commitment

Inspectors

No qualifications for PRF

inspectors.

PSCOs must have

documented training and

experience.

Inspection

items

Generic selection

scheme for ships for

inspection (fishing

vessels & recreational

crafts excluded):

— ships which have not

complied with the

notification requirements;

— ships for which the

examination of the

information provided by

the master in accordance

with Article 6 of the PRF

Directive has revealed

Highly sophisticated

and risk based selection

scheme.

Enforcement/control of

ship’s log books and of

the Certificates &

Documents according to

MARPOL (Initial

inspection).

Enforcement of the

MARPOL requirements

for discharge of SGW/CR

(in case of MD or

Expanded inspection).

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Follow-up

measures

other grounds to believe

that the ship does not

comply with the PRF

Directive.

Control of ship’s log

books and of the

Certificates & Documents

according to MARPOL

(e.g. IOPPC, ORB, GRB

etc).

Enforcement of Articles

7 & 10 of the PRF

Directive (“delivery

obligation” and possible

exceptions on the basis

of the concept of “existing

sufficient dedicated

storage capacity”).

Exemptions (from the

obligation to deliver) in

accordance with Article 9.

Establish an

appropriate information

and monitoring system to

improve the identification

of ships which have not

delivered their SGW/CR

(THETIS-EU has been

developed since April

2016 on a voluntary

basis).

Warning or simple

request to comply with

any non-conformity, such

as re-notification.

Formal request to

deliver SGW before the

vessel leaves, for

example, when there is

insufficient storage

capacity for the ships

SGW for the next journey.

Hold the ship to ensure

notification and delivery

of all or part of the SGW.

Inform the next port of

call for a more detailed

assessment.

Penalties for the

breach of the provisions

of the Directive

N.B.: a More Detailed

inspection is to be

conducted whenever

there are clear grounds

for believing that the ship

does not meet the

requirements of a

Convention (i.e.

MARPOL) or in case of

overriding - unexpected

factors (in this case either

a MD or an Expanded

inspection).

Mandatory Inspection

database (THETIS) and a

detailed system for

reporting inspections and

follow-up measures.

requirements for discharge of

SGW/CR and will never control

the “discharge obligation”

according to the PRF Directive.

Recording of

deficiencies against

MARPOL

Detention

Penalties for the breach

of the provisions of the

Directive

Holding a ship or recording a non-

compliance according to the PRF

Directive has not the same

consequences as a detention or a

deficiency according to the PSC

Directive (affecting SRP, Flag &

ROs and Banning).

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Annex III: Diagram of combined PSC-PRF inspections.

Selection

of ships

before

boarding

Unexpected/Overr

iding factors

1)AWN was not

submitted

Unexpected/

Overriding

(PRF) factors

exist

2) Evidence of no

delivery---->Ship

Enforcement Actions

A penalty may be

imposed

eligible for

inspection

PSC additional inspection

may

be conducted

Unexpected/

Overriding

factors for

PRF

Ship Reported by

a MS for PRF

reasons----->

Mandatory

inspection

PSC additional inspection (MD or EI):

1) to verify compliance with the PRF Directive

(MD or Expanded Inspection)

2) PSCO to decide if the ship can proceed to the

next port of call without delivering SGW/CR

Deficiencies/

Detention

If clear grounds

for PRF found

during the initial

PSC inspection

PSC More Detailed Inspection

1) PSCO to verify compliance with PRF Directive

2) PSCO to decide if the ship can proceed to the

next port of call without delivering SGW/CR

1. Issue an exception

2. Demand

delivery/THETIS alert

PSC initial

inspection

No clear

grounds for PRF

found during

the initial

inspection

PSCO to decide if the ship can

proceed to the next port of

call without delivering

SGW/CR

Initial inspection concluded

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Annex IV: Annual PRF inspection commitment for sea

going ships per Member State if the provisions of the new

proposal (EU dedicated PRF enforcement regime) were to

be implemented in 2017

Member

State

2014

Total

Individual

Ships

2015

Total

Individual

Ships

2016

Total

Individual

Ships

Average

Total

Individual

Ships

2017 PRF

Inspection

Obligation

Belgium

5242

5265

5538

5348

1068

Bulgaria

1465

1370

1388

1407

280

Croatia

634

1005

1024

887

176

Cyprus

801

847

849

832

166

Denmark

2770

2825

2873

2822

564

Estonia

1422

1333

1361

1372

274

Finland

1503

1486

1539

1509

300

France

6028

6014

5930

5990

1198

Germany

5340

5127

5360

5275

1054

Greece

4615

4899

4848

4787

956

Iceland

332

353

359

348

Ireland

1473

1460

1513

1482

296

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Italy

6174

6374

6353

6300

1260

Latvia

2070

1985

2005

2020

404

Lithuania

1565

1649

1606

320

Malta

1078

1129

1145

1117

222

Netherlands

8033

7967

8031

8010

1602

Norway

3207

3316

3727

3416

682

Poland

2531

2616

2531

2559

510

Portugal

2805

2933

2560

2766

552

Romania

2025

2044

2024

2031

406

Slovenia

646

752

739

712

142

Spain

10467

10693

10710

10623

2124

Sweden

2743

2714

2703

2720

544

United

Kingdom

10180

10225

10385

10263

2052

Total

86202

17220

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Annex V: Mandatory Waste receipt: how to address the

problems in smaller/unmanned ports?

On the case of the unmanned PRFs, EMSA has acknowledged that “without adding considerable costs to

unmanned facilities the provision of a receipt cannot be made mandatory”. Therefore, either the new PRF Directive

will require a - costly - mandatory waste delivery receipt for all cases or will

exempt

the unmanned PRFs from

issuing receipts (N.B.: in this case there may be a need to define what an unmanned facility is).

Should the 2

option is decided, then in the case of unmanned PRFs, the Inspectors in the next port of call may

have to rely solely on the information entered into the Record Books on-board the ship and the information

provided by the ship on the advanced waste notification form. However, in practice, there is no credible way to

verify only through an ex post-delivery inspection if the delivery has actually taken place and the entries in the

Record Books and the Waste Notification Form are true.

A practical approach to have some level of control and enforcement would be:

1. To regulate an obligation for ships to

report waste delivered information

(by the ship representative

electronically in the NSW).

and

2. a) To regulate in the new Directive an obligation for all the Member States which allow the use of

unmanned facilities, to conduct a defined number of

unexpected inspections

when a ship calls to a

port/berth with unmanned PRFs for verifying in advance of the delivery, that the WNF is true.

This would be part of the MS’s annual inspection obligation commitment and would constitute a specific

percentage (e.g.

20% of the total annual number of individual ships calling in the MS’ unmanned

PRFs per year).

The total number of individual ships calling in a MS’s unmanned PRFs shall correspond to

the average number of ships of the three preceding years as reported through SafeSeaNet/THETIS-EU.

Unexpected Inspections could be combined with:

b) an obligation for the operator of the unmanned PRF to conduct a minimum number of

verifications

verify that the reported delivery of SGW by the ship has actually taken place. (In practice, this means that a

ship would need to be targeted, according to its pre-notification report and then the quantities actually

delivered to be recorded by the operator of the unmanned PRF either with presence or not of a ship

representative. The verifications could be done in person or by using e.g. electronic measurements or

photos activated by a photocell e.t.c., for minimising administrative burden);

(a minimum percentage e.g. 20% of the total number of the deliveries of SGW in each unmanned facility

may be proposed based on the average number of deliveries from ships during the three preceding years

as reported through SafeSeaNetTHETIS-EU.

The

targeting mechanism

could be enhanced with a ‘ship related message’ indicating that a ship is bound for a

port with unmanned PRF or that the last port of call was a port with unmanned PRF, for selecting ships either for

unexpected inspections or verifications.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Annex VI: Annual PRF inspection commitment for fishing

vessels above 100GT per Member State if all vessels

should be inspected once a year or if a 20% inspection

commitment per annum is introduced.

FLAG_NAME

Number of fishing vessels

(all vessels to be

inspected annually)

ANNUAL

INSPECTION

(10% Rule)

Ireland

181

Poland

Croatia

Denmark

168

United

Kingdom

360

Estonia

Germany

Finland

Spain

680

136

France

423

Greece

Latvia

Malta

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Romania

Belgium

Cyprus

Sweden

Bulgaria

Portugal

225

Italy

189

Netherlands

195

Lithuania

TOTAL

2990

600

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Annex VII: PRF Directive - Inspection Authorities in

Member States

PRF Directive - Inspection Authorities in Member States

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

PSC

Responsible?

YES

Partly

YES

NO (see

comment)

YES

If NO who is responsible?

FPS Mobility and Transport - Environmental control

In cooperation with Cyprus Port Authority. Port fees include the

collection of waste

Separate report produced in each inspection

Port Supervision Department - Environmental inspectorate

Federal States - Harbour Police and Administration

PSCOs during PSC inspections - In addition local HCG authorities

On behalf of the Environmental Agency

Ministry of Enviroment through ICG personnel

Responsibility lies with the Ministry of Enviromental Protection. Para

33 of Cabinet Regulation No 455 provides that "compliance of

Regulation may be controlled by PSC"

Klaipeda State Seaport Authority - Environment Protection

Department of Klaipeda Region

Ports and Yachting Directorate, TM

Partly the Norwegian Coastal Administration

Environmental Protection Inspectorate in Maritime Office

Port Authority (PSC acts under MARPOL)

RNA- APMC

(In respect of Articles 6, 7 and 11)

Lithuania

Malta

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

United

Kingdom

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Annex 8 – Regional differences

In this Impact Assessment, the territorial dimension of the problem and the differentiated

territorial impacts of the options considered have been taken into account. This has been done

in several ways: by conducting a Territorial Impact Assessment in cooperation with DG

REGIO, and by analysing the environmental vulnerability different sea basins to different

types of waste discharged at sea. The results of these two exercises are summarised in this

annex.

Part I: Territorial Impact Assessment for the Revision of Directive 2000/59/EC on Port

Reception Facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues

1. Principle

A Territorial Impact Assessment (TIA) was carried out following the "ESPON TIA quick

check" method

. A TIA aims at showing the regional differentiation of the impact of EU

policies. The “ESPON TIA quick check” approach combines:

1) expert judgement on the potential effect of the amended PRF Directive (exposure)

2) a set of indicators describing the characteristics of European regions (territorial

sensitivity).

This combination of exposure and territorial sensitivity results in potential territorial impacts

(cf. following figure). This approach is based on the vulnerability concept developed by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Figure 1: Exposure x territorial sensitivity = territorial impact

Source: ÖIR, 2015.

“Territorial sensitivity” describes the baseline situation of the region according to its ability to

cope with external effects. It is a characteristic of a region that can be described by different

indicators independently of the directive analysed. “Exposure” describes the intensity of the

The ESPON TIA tool is available at:

http://tiatool.espon.eu/tia/

; (username: Guest and password: ToR-guest).

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

potential effect caused by the amended legislation on a specific indicator. Exposure illustrates

the experts’ judgement, i.e. the main findings of the expert discussion at the TIA workshop.

The results of the guided expert discussion are judgments about the potential impact of an EU

policy in different thematic fields (economy, society, environment, governance) for a range of

relevant indicators. These results are fed into the ESPON TIA Quick Check web tool. The

web tool translates the combination of the expert judgments on exposure with the different

sensitivity of regions into maps showing the territorial impact of EU policy on NUTS3 level.

These maps serve as a starting point for the further discussion on the different impacts of a

concrete EU policy on different regions. Consequently, the experts participating in the

workshop provide the main input for this quick check on territorial effects of an EU policy

proposal.

The workshop on the revision of the Directive 2000/59/EC on Port Reception Facilities for

Ship Generated Waste and Cargo Residues (PRF Directive) was held on 17

of March 2017

in Brussels and brought together 17 experts representing different stakeholders, as e.g. port

administrations, ship owners, NGOs and environmental institutions, regional authorities and

European institutions such as DG REGIO, DG MOVE, the CoR and ESPON EGTC. Two

moderators from the ÖIR, provided by ESPON, prepared and guided the workshop and

handled the ESPON TIA tool.

2. Process

2.1. Identifying the potential territorial effects considering economy-, society-,

environment- and governance-related indicators – drafting a conceptual model

In the first step of the TIA workshop, the participants discussed about the potential effects of

the revision of the PRF Directive on the development of regions, in the fields of economy,

society, environment and governance. The participants identified potential linkages between

the revision of Directive and the effects on territories including interdependencies and feed-

back-loops between different effects (see figure below).

Figure 2: Workshop findings: Conceptual model of the potential territorial effects from a

revision of Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship generated waste and

cargo residues on the development of regions

Source: Territorial impact assessment expert workshop, Brussels 17

March 2017

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

During the workshop session the following issues were discussed:

Environment



The planned revision of the Directive will reduce littering at sea. Consequently, it will

generate strong positive effects on the maritime environment and decrease the

pollution of the sea. These potential positive effects were analysed in the study on the

environmental vulnerability analysis of ship-generated waste (COWI, Ecorys 2016).

(The ESPON TIA quick check approach does not allow picturing effects other than

those on territorial units.)



Less waste discharged at sea will also reduce the waste being washed up on the

coastlines and littering of the beaches. This would reduce the disturbance of

ecosystems and protected areas along the coasts of mainland and islands.



More collected and correctly treated ship-generated waste could increase the recycling

rates and reduce the ecological footprint. Consequently, it will reduce the need for new

resources in terms of metabolism.



However, when the collected waste is not treated correctly, it could be brought to

landfills in the coastal regions and islands causing the respective negative effects on

the environment.



The “green ship concept” would foster resource cycles on ships which could help to

reduce the ship-generated waste and accordingly reduce the waste that needs to be

delivered to harbours and be prepared for re-use, recycling and other recovery.



Positive effects on air quality are expected.



The amendment of the Directive (resulting in more effective implementation and

enforcement) will contribute to increase the environmental awareness especially in

ports and on ships.

Economy



A more effective collection of ship-generated waste and the reduction of sea littering

can increase the attractiveness of islands and coastal regions. This could have a

positive effect on tourism and consequently on the economic development of these

regions.



More collected ship-generated waste in the ports could lead to more activities related

to waste treatment and recycling which could increase the GDP in the green

technologies sector.



Increased recycling rates will lead to a higher value of the collected waste, which

could affect the value chains positively in line with the circular economy concept. For

instance the collected plastic bottles could be recycled in the textile production or

similar products.



The increased amounts of ship-generated waste in the port regions could stimulate the

need for new recycling solutions. This could result in an increasing investment in

research in the fields of recycling and green technologies.



Often public authorities and especially municipalities collect “stranded waste” from

the beaches. Due to the reduction of the amount of “stranded waste” the need for its

collection by public authorities will be reduced and consequently public budgets will

be relieved.

Society



The improved environmental situation in the sea and along the coastline could

potentially create new job opportunities in tourism and consequently could reduce out-

migration, especially from islands.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel



Due to the positive economic effects, employment in the service sector and in fishery

and agriculture could increase.

Governance



When the implementation of the amended Directive is done in an efficient way, the

administrative costs of government could decrease. However, if new administrative

burden is created, administrative costs will increase.

2.2 Identifying the types of regions affected

The experts agreed that in general all coastal regions would be affected by the modification of

the Directive, as the Directive covers all ports. Additionally, it was agreed that islands would

be especially affected in some aspects.

2.3. Picturing the potential territorial effects through relevant indicators

In order to assess the potential effects pictured in the conceptual model, suitable indicators

need to be selected related to the economy, environment, society and governance parameters

that the experts discussed. The experts chose indicators that are relevant for coastal regions.

For some indicators the experts suggested to assess the effects on islands separately. The

availability of data for all NUTS 3 regions is posing certain limitations to indicators that can

be used. Experts therefore chose in some cases indicators that, despite being relevant to the

revision of the Directive, were not their first choice.

2.4. Judging the intensity of the potential effects

The participants of the workshop were asked to estimate the potential effects deriving from

the modification of the PRF Directive. They judged the potential effect on the territorial

welfare along the following scores: strong advantageous effect / weak advantageous effect /

neutral or unknown effect / weak disadvantageous effect / strong disadvantageous effect on

territorial welfare.

2.5. Calculating and mapping the potential “regional impact” – Combining the expert

judgement with the regional sensitivity

The principle described above is applied: the effects deriving from a particular policy measure

(exposure) are combined with the characteristics of a region (territorial sensitivity) to produce

potential territorial impacts.

The result of the territorial impact assessment is presented in maps, showing potential

territorial impacts based on the combination of the expert judgement of the exposure with the

territorial sensitivity of a region, described by an indicator at NUTS3 level. For some

indicators that are available at NUTS2 a regional breakdown to NUTS3 was conducted by

using proxy indicators. Whereas expert judgement is a qualitative judgement (i.e. strong

advantageous effect on territorial welfare/weak advantageous effect/no effect/weak

disadvantageous effect/strong disadvantageous effect), the sensitivity is a quantitative

indicator.

3/ Potential regional impacts identified

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

3.1. Impacts on environment-related indicators

The experts in the workshop selected 2 indicators as being relevant to capture the

environmental effects of the revision of the PRF Directive:

‐

Protected areas (NATURA 2000)

‐

Pollutants in air (PM10)

The effect of the revised PRF Directive on both of these environmental indicators is expected

to be advantageous. All experts expect positive environmental impacts to stem from the

revised Directive. These positive impacts are assumed to affect more strongly EU regions

with a large share of protected areas under the Natura 2000 programme. These regions are

mainly situated along the Bulgarian and Romanian coast of the Black Sea, on the Italian and

Spanish coast of the Mediterranean Sea, the Spanish regions on the Atlantic coast, the

Norwegian regions, the German coastal regions and almost all coastal regions of the Baltic

Sea. Other coastal regions would face a moderate positive impact.

The majority of the participants of the workshop also judged that a weak advantageous effect

could be expected of the modification of the PRF Directive on the air quality. Linked with the

current sensitivity of the coastal regions (measured in PM10 pollutants in the air), this weak

advantageous effect could result in a minor positive impact in almost all coastal regions.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Map 1: Result of the expert judgement: Protected areas (NATURA 2000) in coastal regions

potentially affected by the revision of Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for

ship generated waste and cargo residues expert judgement: strong advantageous effect

Source: Territorial impact assessment expert workshop, Brussels 17

March 2017

3.2. Impacts on economy-related indicators

The experts in the workshop selected 6 indicators as being relevant to capture the economic

effects of the revision of the PRF Directive:

‐

Passenger ship transport economy: Percentage of passenger ships and cruise ships in

main ports

‐

Cargo ship transport economy: Percentage of cargo vessels in main ports

‐

Port economy: Total number of vessels (all types) in main ports

‐

Tourism: Tourist Intensity

‐

Economic growth (GDP/capita)

‐

R&D Climate (R&D expenditure)

Most workshop participants expected a strongly advantageous effect on the transport

economy for passenger ships and cruise ships. Regions where the transport by passenger ships

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

is highly important would be more affected by regulations changing the preconditions for the

passenger-ship transport economy than regions, where the passenger-ship transport economy

has less relevance. Combining this sensitivity with this strongly advantageous effect expected

by the experts would result in a moderate to high impact in port regions.

The majority of the experts participating in the TIA workshop expected an advantageous

effect on the cargo ship transport economy. Regions where the transport with cargo vessels is

highly important would be more affected by legislation changing the preconditions for

operating cargo vessels than regions, where the cargo-ship transport economy has less

relevance. A highly positive impact could be expected in the coastal regions of countries in

the North and North-West of Europe, as especially in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the UK and

Ireland. Also the coastal regions of Romania and Bulgaria in the Black Sea could benefit from

a highly positive impact. The impact on regions of the Atlantic coast of France and Spain, as

well on the European Mediterranean coast, differs from region to region.

Map 2: Result of the expert judgement: Cargo ship transport economy in coastal regions

potentially affected by the revision of Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for

ship generated waste and cargo residues – expert judgement: weak advantageous effect

Source: Territorial impact assessment expert workshop, Brussels 17

March 2017

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

The majority of the workshop participants expected an advantageous effect on the economy of

ports. A hypothesis is made that the bigger the harbour and the more vessels are in-coming,

the higher the sensitivity of the port economy is towards changes in the regulations. Almost

all coastal regions would face a minor positive impact.

The experts agreed that a better environmental quality, especially less littering on the sea near

the coast and on the beach will have definitely positive effects on tourism. The positive effect

on islands was seen as even more advantageous. It would mainly benefit the coastal regions in

the South East of Europe (Greece, South Italy, Romania), with a moderate positive impact.

All other coastal regions would face a minor positive impact. If the effect on islands was

strongly advantageous, the potential territorial impact would be even stronger, ranging

between high and very high (Italian and Greek islands in the Mediterranean Sea).

Map 3: Result of the expert judgement: Tourist intensity in coastal regions potentially affected

by the revision of Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship generated waste

and cargo residues – expert judgement: weak advantageous effect

Source: Territorial impact assessment expert workshop, Brussels 17

March 2017

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

The participants definitely saw a potential positive effect from the modifications of the PRF

Directive and its improved implementation on the economic growth of coastal regions.

Regions with lower GDP per capita are expected to benefit more from directives such as the

PRF aiming at GDP growth increase. Especially the Eastern European coastal regions in the

Baltic Sea and the Black Sea and some regions in Greece could potentially benefit with a high

positive impact, whereas most other regions would have a moderate impact.

The experts discussed that a higher volume of delivered waste by ships could call for new and

more innovative ways to handle the ship-generated waste. This could stimulate additional

investments in research in the fields of waste recovery and recycling. Consequently, the

participants saw a potentially advantageous effect of the modification of the PRF Directive on

the R&D climate. Regions with an already highly innovative climate and with a greater share

of enterprises engaged in product and/or process innovation activities are considered to be

more sensitive to legislation influencing innovation than others. As the centres of innovation

are mainly not located in coastal regions, almost all coastal regions would face just a minor

impact on the R&D climate caused by the need of new technologies in the recovery, re-use

and recycling of ship-generated waste.

3.3. Impacts on social-related indicators

The experts in the workshop selected 3 indicators as being relevant to capture the social

effects of the revision of the PRF Directive:

‐

Employment in the tertiary sector

‐

Employment in Fishery and Aquaculture

‐

Out-migration/brain drain/“shrinking” of regions

The experts agreed that the modifications of the PRF Directive would cause positive effects

on the employment in the tertiary sector. It is assumed that regions with a greater share of

employment in the tertiary sector are likely to be more affected by the resulting changes in the

level of employment than regions with a lower share. The following map shows the potential

territorial impact from the revision of the PRF Directive based on the employment in the

tertiary sector in coastal regions, combining the expert judgement with the territorial

sensitivity. Most coastal regions would gain a moderate positive effect. In the coastal regions

of Greece, only a minor positive impact is expected, because in these regions the service

sector is less developed.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Map 4: Result of the expert judgement: Employment in the tertiary sector in coastal regions

potentially affected by the revision of Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for

ship generated waste and cargo residues – expert judgement: weak advantageous effect

Source: Territorial impact assessment expert workshop, Brussels 17

March 2017

Whereas the majority of the voting participants (10 out of 13) saw a potential advantageous

effect of the modification of the PRF Directive and its improved implementation on the

employment in fishery and aquaculture, a minority of three experts judged the effects on

fishery and aquaculture as weakly disadvantageous. It is assumed that regions with a higher

share of employment in fishery and aquaculture are more sensitive to legislation aiming at

changing the conditions in these sectors than others. About 90 % of the regions with a

relevant share of the employment in fishery and aquaculture would face a minor positive

impact, whereas the remaining 10 % would face a moderate positive impact.

According to the experts’ opinion, the improved environmental situation in the sea and along

the coastline as well as potential new job opportunities in tourism could theoretically reduce

the out-migration from coastal regions and especially from islands. However, only a few

experts considered that the revision of PRF Directive could have a concrete effect on

migration patterns. 8 out of 17 experts expressed an opinion about the impact of the Directive

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

on this indicator. The effect is expected to be positive for coastal regions, and even more so

for islands. It is assumed that regions experiencing out-migration and brain drain will benefit

more from actions aimed at their reduction. A weak advantageous effect on out-migration and

brain drain would lead to a moderate positive impact in most coastal regions. Some coastal

regions on Norway, in Romania and in the West of Greece could gain even a high positive

impact. Most islands would gain a very high positive impact.

3.4. Impacts on governance-related indicators

The experts in the workshop selected 2 indicators as being relevant to capture the governance

effects of the revision of the PRF Directive:

‐

Government effectiveness

‐

Ability to deal with additional waste

The experts discussed that an efficient and correct implementation of the modified PRF

Directive could reduce administrative burdens and decrease administrative costs. However, an

insufficient implementation would bring about new administrative burdens and would

increase administrative costs as well. 14 experts judged the expected effects on government

effectiveness as advantageous and 2 as weakly disadvantageous in coastal regions

(respectively 10 and 2 in islands). The sensitivity of the government effectiveness is measured

by the Regional Competiveness Index. Regions with a low Regional Competiveness Index

will benefit more from an improvement of government effectiveness by implementing new

standards of administration than regions that already have high standards of their

administration. If the above mentioned Directive is implemented efficiently, the Eastern

European regions of the Baltic Sea in Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland; the Black Sea regions in

Romania and Bulgaria; and the Italian and Greek regions in the Mediterranean Sea could gain

the highest positive impact on government effectiveness. Most of the other regions would also

gain a high positive impact.

Map 5: Result of the expert judgement: Government effectiveness in coastal regions

potentially affected by the revision of Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for

ship generated waste and cargo residues – expert judgement: strong advantageous effect

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Source: Territorial impact assessment expert workshop, Brussels 17

March 2017

The participants judged the modifications of the PRF Directive and its improved

implementation on the ability to deal with additional waste differently for coastal regions and

for islands. For coastal regions the effects were judged as positive overall. For islands the

judgement was more diverse: 9 experts judged the potential effects of the revised PRF

Directive advantageous whereas 3 judged them as weakly disadvantageous. The ability to deal

with additional waste delivered by ships due to a more effective implementation of the

Directive could be linked to the existing experience in treating generated waste. The more

experience in waste disposal a region already has, the higher its ability to handle additional

waste correctly. As no data exist at regional level on the experience in treating ship-generated

waste, the amount of municipal waste generated in thousand tonnes within one region was

established as a proxy indicator. For the coastal regions the majority of the experts expect a

weakly advantageous effect. This would lead to minor positive impacts on most coastal

regions. Some coastal regions in the South and East of Spain could gain a moderate positive

impact. Most islands would gain a moderate or high positive impact.

4. Conclusions and policy implications

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

4.1. Findings based on the results of the TIA Quick check

The experts expect predominantly positive effects on territorial development from a revision

of the Directive on Port Reception Facilities for Ship Generated Waste and Cargo Residues.

Many positive effects are quite equally distributed to all coastal regions. However, especially

some of the Eastern and Southern European coastal regions could more than others benefit

from a more effective Directive regulating ship-generated waste:



The EU regions neighbouring the

Black Sea in Romania and Bulgaria

could

experience a relatively higher positive impact on economic growth and especially on

tourism as a catching-up effect. An efficient implementation of the Directive could

also increase their governance effectiveness due to learning effects also for other

fields.



The increased environmental quality could especially induce a more positive impact

on tourism in

Greek and Southern Italian regions in the Mediterranean Sea

enabling also a higher positive impact on economic growth in Greek coastal regions.



An effective implementation of the revised PRF Directive could bring a more positive

impact on the governance effectiveness to the

Eastern European coastal regions in

the Baltic Sea.



Additionally, a higher positive impact on economic growth can be expected.



As far as data are available, the TIA shows that the outermost regions could benefit

especially in

economic aspects

from the revised Directive. Due to a catching-up effect

they could get a relatively higher positive impact on economic growth and especially

tourism intensity.

These effects could contribute to reduce "out-migration" and

"brain-drain".

4.2. Findings and recommendations from the expert discussion

After linking the results of the expert judgements on the effects with the sensitivity of the

regions towards these effects, the experts discussed on conclusions and policy implications.



Additional focus on a differentiation between the sea basins

The experts are familiar with the existing regional differences in the implementation of the

current Directive with respect to the different European sea regions. In particular, the

intensive exchange and collaboration in certain sea regions, e.g. in the Baltic Sea or the

Mediterranean Sea, is noteworthy. The TIA reflects this situation only partly. For future

investigation, more focus should be given to these differences by sea basin.



A differentiated approach for the ports of small islands and small coastal ports

Experts discussed the idea of a differentiated approach with regard to the infrastructure that

would be needed for ports of small islands and small coastal ports to receive and treat waste

from cruise ships and fishing boats that would bring disproportionate burden for investment in

waste reception infrastructures. According to the Commission, the current Directive leaves

sufficient flexibility to adopt a differentiated approach to address these challenges. In

addition, the possibility of making these investments eligible for the Cohesion Fund was

suggested as an option.

The effects of the indirect fee and the wish for more transparency and

harmonisation

The principle of an indirect fee is that the fees for the delivery of generated waste have to be

paid to the harbour authority, independently of whether waste is delivered to the harbour or



kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

not. This should encourage ships to deliver their waste. However, the indirect fee is calculated

differently for each harbour. This situation causes several problems:



Some ships opt for an avoidance strategy and deliver their garbage to non-EU

countries where fees are lower, or those ports where no indirect fee is charged.

Negative effects on the environment are likely to arise, as in the Non-EU countries

some ports do not provide facilities to treat the garbage correctly.



Cargo ships calling to several ports within a short time period without producing a

huge amount of waste are forced to pay the fee, even if no relevant waste is produced.

This increases the costs for this type of shipping.



There are possibilities to define exemptions from the indirect fee for ships in regular

and scheduled traffic, but these definitions differ among the Member States. This

results in a distortion of competition between Member States and types of ships.



Due to the different implementation of the Directive, the calculation of the indirect fee

differs among Member States. This results in different prices for the same amount of

waste in different ports. Consequently, ships are encouraged to go to ports with lower

fees ("PRF shopping").

Due to these “imbalances” most of the experts called for

more transparency

of the

calculation of the indirect fee and for a

better harmonisation

of the implementation of the

Directive.

The need to strengthen the value chain after the delivery of the ship-generated

waste

In some ports there is no separate collection and treatment of the waste that has been

previously segregated on board the ship; instead, the waste is discarded together in one waste

bin and probably not recycled but brought to landfills, causing negative effects on the

environment. This discourages the ship crew who has treated the waste correctly in line with

the demands of international standards and the EU waste legislation.

The experts representing ship owners and shipping companies emphasise the need to put

concrete attention on the link between waste leaving the vessel and its treatment on land.



Public money for collecting litter

At the moment, fishing vessels do not fall under the indirect fee obligation of the Directive.

The waste that is passively fished at sea (such as the abandoned, lost and otherwise discarded

fishing gear - ALDFG, plastic bottles, etc.) is not included in the scope of the PRF Directive.

As a result, the fishing vessels have to pay separately for any such waste they want to deliver

on shore. This provides a disincentive for collecting marine litter at sea and delivering this

waste to PRF. The modification of the PRF Directive could foresee that in the future the

indirect fees should include fishing vessels, so that they can deliver all their garbage without

having to pay any additional direct charges, and that this fee shall also include the passively-

fished waste. This should reduce this type of waste being dumped at sea. Additionally, it was

discussed whether other sources of finance, as e.g. money from the EU fisheries fund, could

be used for offering the right economic incentive to fishermen for collecting the waste from

the sea and delivering this waste to PRF.



kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Part II: Environmental vulnerability analysis

1. Principle

The environmental vulnerability analysis is used as an input for the analysis of the problem

and of the potential impacts of options in the Impact Assessment. 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 vulnerability analysis used for this Impact Assessment takes into account

regional difference as assessments are made separately for four European water basins

according to their specific features and vulnerability.

In line with the WFD and the MSFD, the environmental vulnerability study is based on the

scientific relation between selected environmental features (descriptors) that 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 waste.

An environmental damage analysis has been carried out for three types of ship-generated

waste, namely:



Oily waste (liquids, solid waste, containers etc. with oil residue)



Sewage (waste water from sanitation, kitchen and laundry facilities)



Garbage (solid waste)

The environmental impact of ship-generated waste is assessed for the following European

Waters:



Baltic Sea



Eastern Atlantic Ocean



Mediterranean Sea



Black Sea

The vulnerability analysis applies methods and results that have been developed and agreed

upon among several Member States authorities in earlier EU-funded projects of regional

scale

. The approach is compatible with EU-wide methodologies for the assessment of the

quality of the marine environment, as developed under the Marine Strategy Framework

Directive (MSFD).

The different waste types will have different environmental impacts, which can be weighted

accordingly. That will aid to focus on waste types of particular interest and concern.

In the BRISK and BEAWARE projects, the following approach to determine environmental

vulnerability was developed and agreed upon:



Step 1:

Identification of vulnerability features (descriptors) to be mapped.



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

BE AWARE, 2015. Environmental and socio-economic vulnerability.

http://www.bonnagreement.org/site/assets/files/17082/technical_sub_report_2_vulnerability_analysis-1.pdf

BRISK, 2012. http://www.brisk.helcom.fi/publications/en_GB/publications/

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel



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.

For more information on the different steps and the method used, please refer to annex 4.

2. Vulnerability characteristics of the waters

Below is a summary of the characteristics of the regions as basis for determining the

vulnerabilities towards each waste type (to the extent possible) and hence the overall

vulnerability.

2.1. Baltic Sea

The Baltic Sea is a large brackish sea. It receives fresh water from many large and small

rivers, while salt water only can enter from the North Sea along the bottom of the narrow

Danish straits (Little Belt, Great Belt and the Sound between Denmark and Sweden). These

conditions create a pronounced salinity gradient from southwest to northeast, where salinities

can range from 20 PSU in the southern Kattegat to < 1 PSU in the innermost parts of the

Bothnian Bay and the Gulf of Finland

The pronounced salinity gradient is the most important factor for the Baltic Sea ecosystems.

Relatively few organisms are adapted to the stressful brackish conditions and the biodiversity

of brackish ecosystems are therefore low compared to open oceans. The number of benthic

fauna species is about 2,000 at the saline Danish west coast, approximately 800 species are

found in the Sound and less than 100 in the brackish waters of the northern Baltic proper,

while fewer than 20 inhabit the seabed of the Bothnian Sea. In the BRISK project

vulnerability mapping related to oil spills from marine traffic, generally showed a relatively

low vulnerability in open waters compared to relatively high vulnerability in shallow and

coastal waters, and an increase in vulnerability towards the coastlines with a few hotspots,

where sensitive areas were located with high vulnerability. There was little variation between

seasons.

2.2 East Atlantic Ocean

The East Atlantic Ocean in this context comprises the Greater North Sea, the English Channel

and the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast region. The area is one of the busiest maritime areas.

Offshore activities, related to the exploitation of oil and gas reserves, and maritime traffic are

very important. The northern part is relatively shallow with sediments mainly composed of

mud, sandy mud, sand and gravel. The southern part of the region includes the continental

shelf and slope, and parts of the abyssal plain with features such as seamounts, banks and

submarine canyons. The region is situated in temperate latitudes with a climate strongly

HELCOM (2009). Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea-An integrated thematic assessment on biodiversity and nature

conservation in the Baltic Sea. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No 116 B.

http://www.helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP116B.pdfIPIECA, 1994: Vulnerability mapping for oil spill

response. IMO/IPIECA Report. Series Volume 1.

BRISK, 2012. http://www.brisk.helcom.fi/publications/en_GB/publications/

EU, 1998: European Environment Agency:

Environmental Risk Assessment – Approaches, Experiences, and

Information Sources. 1998

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

influenced by the inflow of oceanic water from the Atlantic Ocean. Hundreds of fish species

are known to inhabit the area, many with high economic value for fisheries. Some 10 million

seabirds are present during most of the year.

Species of cetaceans and seals occur regularly over large parts of the area. The coastline is

highly varied with fjords, estuaries, sandbanks, bays, or intertidal mudflats. In the southern

part, rocky cliffs, shingles and rocky shores are found as well as sandy and muddy beaches

and coastal lagoons. Major activities in the region include fishing, the extraction of sand and

gravel, and offshore activities related to the exploitation of oil and gas reserves.

1.3. Mediterranean Sea

The Mediterranean Sea is a series of deep basins connected to each other. It has a mean depth

of 1500 m and is only connected to the Atlantic Ocean through the Gibraltar Strait, which is

22 km wide and has a depth of 320m

. The strait significantly restricts water exchange. The

limited water exchange, combined with high temperatures, results in large evaporation and,

because the loss of water from evaporation exceeds input of water from rainfall and rivers, the

salinity of the Mediterranean is relatively high.

The biological productivity in the region is generally low. However, the biological diversity is

high with many endemic species

. The continental shelf is generally very narrow, but the

coastal marine area from the shore to the outer extent of the continental shelf, contains rich

ecosystems and the few areas of high productivity in the region. The reasons for the high

habitat diversity are the steep depth gradient in the basin and the latitudinal range causing

climatic conditions to range from sub-tropical to temperate. Marine ecosystems in the

Mediterranean are important for fisheries and tourism.

Coastal and marine ecosystems of the Mediterranean include rocky shores, brackish water

lagoons, estuaries, wetlands, sea grass meadows and deep water benthic systems including

seamounts and cold-water coral reefs and pelagic systems

1.4. Black Sea

The Black Sea is the world's largest inland water basin, which is only connected to the

Mediterranean Sea through the shallow Bosporus Strait. The average depth of the Black Sea

exceeds 2000 m except in the North-Eastern Sea of Azov. The Black Sea receives freshwater

from five large rivers and very small amounts of salt water enter the Black Sea from the

Mediterranean Sea. These conditions result in a constant stratification of water masses and an

extremely slow water renewal. Hypoxic conditions and high concentrations of hydrogen

sulphide exist below 200m depth.

The biodiversity of the Black Sea is low, both because of natural conditions due to little

exchange with other sea areas and due to pressure from several issues including

eutrophication/nutrient enrichment, changes in marine living resources and chemical pollution

(including oil). There have been extensive fisheries in the Black Sea, which has declined in

later years.

Tomczak M., Godfrey JS. 1994. Regional Oceanography: An introduction. Pergamon Press

UNEP/MAP, 2012. State of the Mediterranean Marine and Coastal Environment, UNEP/MAP – Barcelona

Convention, Athens, 2012.

Ibid.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Pollution, loss of biodiversity and coastal degradation have been identified as the major issues

affecting the environmental state of the Black Sea. Eutrophication has changed the structure

of the Black Sea ecosystem. Oil pollution threatens the Black Sea coastal ecosystems and the

levels of pollution are unacceptable in many coastal areas and river mouths.

3. Characteristics of waste types

In order to allocate vulnerability scores to each type of ship-generated waste, each type of

waste was characterised in terms of chemical characteristics and potential type of impact on

the marine environment. This is outlined below.

3.1. Oily waste

This chapter is on oil waste and does not include larger accidental oil spills. Oily waste may

contain various kinds of hydrocarbons, but volatile compounds will evaporate before the

waste enters the marine environment and persistent long-chained oil residue will therefore not

be present. On that basis, it is valid to assess fate and impact of oily waste based on the most

common oil compounds, which could be total hydrocarbon (THC), or polyaromatic

hydrocarbons (PAH).

3.2. Sewage

Sewage is interpreted as treated or untreated wastewater discharged from ships. The impact of

sewage will be determined as an increase of nutrient concentration in water bodies likely to be

affected in a relevant period after release (1 day- week). IMO and the Baltic countries have

agreed that from 2021 sewage in the Baltic Sea from passenger ships (>12 passengers) are

only allowed to be discharged after treatment.

3.3. Garbage

Garbage is defined as any persistent material discarded into the sea. Plastic is estimated to

account for 50-80 % of waste stranded on beaches, floating on the ocean surface and on the

seabed

. According to MARPOL Annex V definition, garbage is defined to include:



Food waste



Cargo residues contained or not contained in wash water



Cleaning agents and additives contained or not contained in wash water



Animal carcasses



All other waste including plastics, synthetic ropes, fishing gear, waste bags,

incinerator ashes, clinkers, cooking oil, floating dunnage, lining and packing materials,

paper, rags, glass, metal, bottles, crockery and similar refuse.

The impact of garbage on the marine environment in this report is focused on the impact from

plastic, including digestion or entanglement of litter by animals and aesthetic impacts (e.g.

plastic on shore).

4. Vulnerability analysis

Barnes, D, Galgani, F, Thompson, RC and Barlaz, M (2009). Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris

in global environments. Phil.Trans R Soc.B , 364, pp.1985-1998.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

In the following, environmental scores of the four selected feature groups are presented for

each waste type and sea region.

4.1. Oily waste

The impact of oily wastes does not include effects such as oiled birds etc., since it can be

assumed that the oily waste (not spills) is not in free phase (as slicks) but soaked up in textiles

etc. in relatively small amounts.

Table 1.1 lists the vulnerability scores of oily waste for the Baltic Sea. The rationale behind

scoring of the Baltic Sea and the North Sea are almost identical under the assumption that the

two regions are similar in response. Based on available literature

100

it can be assumed that oil

components in oily waste discharged to the marine environment hence disappear quickly

(within days). Only limited amounts of PAHs will enter the water, where they are likely to be

degraded naturally through physical, chemical and potentially biological processes. It is

assumed that impacts will be limited to the water column, primarily on plankton or other

small pelagic organisms. Only small amounts of oil compounds from oily waste will reach the

sea floor or the coast. The impact scores on habitats and protected areas in the Baltic Sea are

estimated a little lower than those on species, as most habitats and protected areas are coastal

and oily waste is less likely to reach the coast since larger ships sail in a distance from it and

oily waste will weather and fate on its drift ashore. That is not the case for the North East

Atlantic, where protected areas are found in the central North Sea, and that is reflected in the

score values for impacts on protected areas (Table 1.2).

A main argument for the relatively high impact score is the potential effects that PAH may

have on marine life. Many PAHs are known to be potentially lethal to organisms or lead to

long-term chronic effects on the population level

101

Length of interruption of socio–economic activities or services are most likely short, as the

discharges of oily waste are presumed to be low amounts in short pulses mainly in open sea.

In combination with low probabilities of placing a responsibility to potential pollution from

oily waste, compensation possibilities are most likely very limited.

Table 1.1. Vulnerability scores and resulting environmental vulnerability of oily waste in the

Baltic Sea

Oily waste

Species

Habitat

Protected

area

Socio-

economic

Sum

100

Fate

Impact

Length of

interruption

Possible

compensation

Sum

ITOPF, 2017: http://www.itopf.com/knowledge-resources/documents-guides/document/tip-2-fate-

ofmarine-oil-spills/

101

OSPAR, 2009. Assessment of impacts of offshore oil and gas activities in the North-East Atlantic. OSPAR

commission, Offshore industry series.

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Table 1.2. Vulnerability scores and resulting environmental vulnerability of oily waste in the

North East Atlantic Ocean

Oily waste

Species

Habitat

Protected

area

Socio-

economic

Sum

Fate

Impact

Length of

interruption

Possible

compensation

Sum

The rationale behind the vulnerability score of the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea

(Table 1.3 and Table 1.4) are to a large degree similar to the Baltic and Eastern Atlantic. The

assumption that impacts are mainly occurring in the water column, lower the impact score

value for the Mediterranean Sea because of its oligotrophic nature. This implies that the

encounter rate between oily wastes and organisms in general is lower in the Mediterranean

Sea than in the other sea regions and therefore less organisms will potentially be affected.

This is done by lowering the impact score with one unit in each feature.

Table 1.3. Vulnerability scores and resulting environmental vulnerability of oily waste in the

Mediterranean Sea

Oily waste

Species

Habitat

Protected

area

Socio-

economic

Sum

Fate

Impact

Length of

interruption

Possible

compensation

Sum

Table 1.4. Vulnerability scores and resulting environmental vulnerability of oily waste in the

Black Sea

Oily waste

Species

Habitat

Protected

area

Socio-

economic

Sum

Fate

Impact

Length of

interruption

Possible

compensation

Sum

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

4.2. Sewage

The impact of sewage has been determined as an increase of nutrient concentration in water

bodies likely to be affected in a relevant period after release (1 day- week).

Table 2.1 lists vulnerability scores and the resulting environmental weight of sewage in the

Baltic Sea.

Table 2.1. Vulnerability scores and resulting environmental vulnerability of sewage in the

Baltic Sea

Sewage

Species

Habitat

Protected

area

Socio-

economic

Sum

Fate

Impact

Length of

interruption

Possible

compensation

Sum

The 'fate of sewage discharged in the Baltic Sea' is scored as 2 for species and protected areas.

It is assumed that sewage will quickly be diluted in the water column and nutrients from the

sewage will be taken up by phytoplankton within days. Species in open water may therefore

be exposed to local elevated nutrient concentrations for short periods. This applies also for

protected areas near potential discharges, as they are vulnerable to added nutrients. Habitats

are mostly coastal and they are assigned a low score value of 1, since nutrients from sewage

most likely have been diluted or taken up before they can affect the areas.

'Impacts of discharged sewage in the Baltic Sea' are assigned a score value of 2 for species,

habitats and socio-economic features. The Baltic Sea is already under pressure from

eutrophication and is sensitive to additional nutrients. Protected areas are scored with a value

of 1, corresponding to their expected long distance from sewage discharges.

'Length of interruption' are assigned a score value of 1, except for socio-economic features, on

the grounds they are potentially more vulnerable to sewage discharge, e.g. near beaches or

other places of high tourism value, which can be closed for health reasons. Possible

compensation is assigned a score value of 1 for all features, because of an expected temporary

impact with low probability of assigning blame.

Table 2.2. Vulnerability scores and resulting environmental vulnerability of sewage in the

East Atlantic Sea

Sewage

Fate

Impact

Length of

Possible

Sum

interruption compensation

Species

Habitat

Protected

area

Socio-

economic

Sum

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Table 2.2 shows vulnerability score values and environmental weight of sewage waste in the

North East Atlantic Sea. Fate of sewage is assumed the same as described for the Baltic Sea

following the same argumentation and it receives the same score values.

Impact is set to have a score value of 1, except for protected areas since the North East

Atlantic is not as eutrophicated as the Baltic Sea and any sewage discharge is assumed to

quickly be diluted and taken up by plankton organisms. Protected areas are given a score

value of 2, because they are found in central parts of the region and are potentially more

impacted by nutrients from sewage.

Length of interruption are assigned a score value of 1, because of the quick fate of sewage and

relatively low impact. 'Possible compensation' is assigned a score value of 1 for all features,

because of an expected temporary impact with low probability of assigning blame.

Table 2.3. Vulnerability scores and resulting environmental vulnerability of sewage in the

Mediterranean Sea

Sewage

Species

Habitat

Protected

area

Socio-

economic

Sum

Fate

Impact

Length of

interruption

Possible

compensation

Sum

In Table 2.3 is the vulnerability scores and environmental weight of sewage in the

Mediterranean Sea. Fate and impact of sewage is scored a value of 2. That is a reflection of

the general oligotrophic conditions in the Mediterranean Sea as opposed as the more

eutrophicated Baltic Sea and East Atlantic Sea. Biological productivity in an oligotrophic sea

area is more nutrient-limited than in a eutrophic sea area and pulses of nutrient releases from a

sewage discharge may have a longer fate and stronger impact.

Score values of length of interruption and possible compensation are set to 1, based on the

identical arguments for sewage discharge in the North East Atlantic Sea.

Table 2.4. Vulnerability scores and resulting environmental vulnerability of sewage in the

Black Sea

Sewage

Species

Habitat

Protected

area

Socio-

economic

Sum

Fate

Impact

Length of

interruption

Possible

compensation

Sum

100

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Table 2.4 lists the vulnerability score values for sewage waste discharge in the Black Sea. In

general, the rationale for the scoring follows that of the scoring of the Baltic Sea. Except for

length of interruption, where it is assumed lower in the Black Sea area, compared to the Baltic

Sea.

The above scores for sewage are based on the assumption of equal persistence in the marine

environment compared with the other investigated waste types (oily wastes and garbage). This

assumption is necessary in order to carry out a general investigation as the present. The

persistence of sewage, however, is remarkably shorter (hours) compared to the persistence of

oil wastes (weeks/months) and the persistence of garbage (hours-decades). This implies that

sewage discharged far away from vulnerable areas (shore, shallows, archipelagos) will be

diluted and/or transformed by biological processes. The total discharge of sewage hence is to

be corrected in order to obtain the discharge that potentially can affect environmental

vulnerable areas. Recent scientific work

102

indicates that nutrient discharge in the open areas

of the North Sea has limited effect on the eutrophication. The effective discharge is expected

to be of the same order of magnitude as the illegal discharge assessed by MARWAS.

4.3 Garbage

The impact of garbage is focused on digestion or entanglement of litter by animals and

aesthetic impacts (e.g. plastic on shore).

Table 3.1 lists vulnerability scores and the resulting environmental weight of garbage in the

Baltic Sea, East Atlantic Sea, Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea.

Table 3.1. Vulnerability scores and resulting environmental vulnerability of garbage in the

Baltic Sea, East Atlantic Sea, Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea

Garbage

Species

Habitat

Protected

area

Socio-

economic

Sum

Fate

Impact

Length of

interruption

Possible

compensation

Sum

The scoring is done under the assumption that the vast majority of garbage is plastic. The fate

of plastic is a slow degradation, where macro plastic is degraded to micro plastic and

eventually total degraded on a time scale of centuries

103

. It is globally distributed, although

plastic seems to accumulate in enclosed seas, such as the Mediterranean Sea and the Black

102

OSPAR, 2017:

http://qsr2010.ospar.org/media/assessments/p00440_supplements/p00440_suppl_4_disc

harges_of_wastes.pdf

103

Li WC, Tse HF, Fok L. 2016. Plastic waste in the marine environment: A review of sources, occurrence and

effects. Science of the Total Environment, 566–567, 333–349.

101

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Sea

104

. It is also assumed that length of interruption and possible compensation are similar in

the investigated sea regions. On that basis, the four sea regions receive the same vulnerability

score and environmental weight in relation to garbage. The rationale behind is presented in

the following.

Macro plastic is generally defined as having a size >25 mm and organisms can be entangled

in it or ingest particles. Micro plastic is assessed to be even more harmful as they can

accumulate in food webs and potentially act as carrying vectors of hydrophobic

contaminants

105

. For these reasons, fate score values are set to 4.

Impact from garbage in the Baltic Sea is scored based on possible impacts from entanglement

and/or ingestion by marine species, in particular marine mammals, sea birds and fish. Both

entanglement and ingestion are commonly found, although entanglement is more frequently

observed than ingestion

106

. Effects of entanglement on populations are rarely possible to

assess, but some reports show significant long-term effects

107

. Effects on the marine

environment from ingestion and related exposure to contaminants carried by plastic are

unclear, although the ubiquitous and increasing presence of plastic raises concerns

108

. On this

basis, impact scores are set to a value of 2 for species, habitats and protected areas. For socio-

economy, the value is set to 3, due to potential aesthetic effects from garbage on beaches,

nature reserves etc.

Length of interruption is assigned a score value of 1 for species and habitats, due to relatively

low impact from garbage. The score value for habitats and socio-economy are set to 2, due to

potential aesthetic effects from garbage on beaches, nature reserves etc.

Possible compensation is assigned a score value of 1 for all features, because of an expected

low impact with low probability of assigning blame.

5. Summary and sensitivity analysis

In the table below are summarized the environmental weights for each ship-generated waste

type per sea region.

Table 5.1. Summary of environmental vulnerability for ship-generated waste in four regions

of European Seas

Environmental

weight

Baltic Sea

East Atlantic Sea

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea

Oily waste

Sewage

Garbage

104

Galgani F, Hanke G, Maes T. 2015. Global Distribution, Composition and Abundance of Marine Litter. In:

Marine Anthropogenic Litter, (Eds. M. Bergmann, L. Gutow, M. Klages). Springer Open Access.

105

Li WC, Tse HF, Fok L. 2016. Plastic waste in the marine environment: A review of sources, occurrence and

effects. Science of the Total Environment, 566–567, 333–349.

106

Ibid.

107

Kühn S, Rebolledo ELB, Franeker JA van. 2015. Deleterious Effects of Litter on Marine Life. In: Marine

Anthropogenic Litter, (Eds. M. Bergmann, L. Gutow, M. Klages). Springer Open Access.

108

Ibid.

102

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Different views and arguments may exist on the methodology and scoring used in this report.

Some uncertainty concerning score values may arise from this. In order to use these

uncertainties constructively in the project, an alternative and independent set of scores have

been elaborated to compare the resulting environmental weight in order to assess the

uncertainties of the subjective aspect of the scoring method.

A different marine biologist who was not a part of the present project conducted the

alternative scoring. He is experienced in this kind of environmental scoring procedure through

in participation in the similar earlier projects (BRISK and BE AWARE projects).

Table 5.1. Comparison between environmental vulnerability of the project and an alternative

scoring

Environmental

weight

Oily waste

Project

score

Alternative

score

Sewage

Project

score

Alternative

score

Garbage

Project

score

Alternative

score

Baltic Sea

East Atlantic

Sea

Mediterranean

Sea

Black Sea

The above table indicates that the differences in the assessments carried out by different

experts are minor and have a max deviation of 3 points out of 20-30, corresponding to

maximum 10-13%. In 50% of the indices, the two experts gave the identical values. This

indicates that the assessment method is stable enough for the present purpose.

103

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Annex 9 – Calculation of administrative burden and enforcement costs

I. Calculation of administrative costs from complying with the current Directive

(Baseline)

A. Administrative burden:

The following calculations provide an update of the administrative burden caused by the PRF

Directive as this had been estimated by the “Ex-Post evaluation of Directive 2000/59/EC on

port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (Panteia)”.

1. Estimation of cost of developing WRH plans (table 1)

Hourly wage costs

Daily wage costs,

Number of days

(Eurostat data for

derived from Eurostat

required for

Public

(based on 8 hours)

developing

109

administrations/2015)

21.98

175.84

30 (min)

21.98

175.84

220 (max)

Costs for

developing

WRH

Plan

5275

38685

2. Estimation of annual cost of updating WRH plans (table 2)

Hourly wage costs

(Eurostat data for

Public

administrations/2015)

21.98

Daily wage costs,

derived from Eurostat

(based on 8 hours)

175.84

Number of days

required for

updating

110

16 (min)

40 (max)

Costs for

updating WRH

Plan

3865

7034

In order to arrive at annual costs of developing and updating WRH plans, the following

assumptions have been made (according to Panteia methodology):



On average

10,000 EURO is spent on developing WRH plans.

We have taken a

value below the average of the values listed in Table 1, as we think there may be a bias

towards the values being based on somewhat larger ports (as inputs were taken from

Panteia survey, which has few responses from small ports).



On average

4,000 EURO is spent annually on updating WRH plans,

again using a

value below the average, following the same reasoning as above.



We assume that a new WRH plan has a useful life time of 15 years, after which the

WRH plan will be newly developed.



We assume there are 1,500 ports in the EU

111

Ex-port evaluation (Panteia, 2015): “In the consultation, port authorities were asked to indicate how much

time they spent to develop WRH plans. Those that answered to this question in the stakeholder consultation

indicated that they spent

between 30 and 220 days on developing the WRH plan

and

between 16 and 40 days

per year to update the WRH plan.

Time spent on the WRH plans largely depends on the size of the port”.

110

See footnote 1.

109

104

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

On the basis of the above-mentioned assumptions, the total annual costs for WRH plans for

port users are:

3. Total annual costs for WRH plans for ports (table 3)

Activity of WRH

plan

Development

Update

Total

Number of ports

Average annual

costs (EURO)

667

112

4000

Total annual costs

(EURO)

1,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

1500

4. Estimates of costs for Member States to approve WRH plans (table 4)

Hourly wage costs (Eurostat

data for public

administrations/2015)

21.98

2015 number of port calls

(Eurostat)

2,224,608

Annual hours (OECD EU

Average annual hours

actually worked for 2015)

1696

Number of staff needed

113

111.23

Calculated average annual

wage cost EU for public

administration

37278

Estimated costs

4,146,432

5. Application for an Exemption (port users) (table 5)

Hourly wage costs

(Eurostat)

Daily wage costs

114

derived from

Eurostat

(based on 8 hours)

212.8

Number of days

required for

applying

115

Costs for

Applying for an

exemption

2,128 euro

26.6

Average number of exemptions granted per year:

Today, there are reports from only 7 Member States (2 of them have also reported in SSN).

Some of the data is fragmented, possibly obsolete and difficult to extract the final number of

exemptions. However, we may assume that 710 exemptions from 7 MS may correspond to

2,333 exemptions

from all 23 maritime EU MS

116

. Therefore:

2,333 exemptions x 2,128 euros =

4,964,624 euro

annual costs for port users.

6. Assessment and granting exemptions (competent authorities) (table 6)

111

112

113

According to Panteia.

10000 euros/15 years = 667 euros.

In the Panteia study it was found that one desk officer, on average, handled the administrative costs that follow

from roughly 20,000 port calls i.e. 1 officer per 20,000 port calls.

114

Assuming that one officer will be responsible for compiling the application file.

115

The assumption takes into account the preparation of the application file, communication between ship and shipping company,

communication with Port Authorities/PRF operators/administrations, collection of necessary information from all relevant stakeholders e.t.c.

Participants in the Correspondence Group on Exemptions established under the ESSF/PRF SG have offered information on the average time

which ranges from 15 minutes (but not including time spent from ship Agents) to 1 month. The

10 days assumption

is a conservative

average within these limits.

116

Y = 23 x 710/7 = 2333.

105

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

The same assumptions may be used for calculating the cost incurred by the Competent

Authorities for assessing and granting exemptions:

Hourly wage costs

(Eurostat

data for public

administrations/2015)

21.98

Daily wage costs

117

derived from

Eurostat

(based on 8 hours)

175.84

Number of days

required for

assessment

118

Costs for

Assessing and

granting an

exemption

5,275 euro

2,333 exemptions x 5.275 euros =

12,306,575 euro

annual costs for Competent Authorities.

7. Advance waste notification

7.1 Port users

Regarding the information obligations of the PRF Directive, stakeholders indicated

119

that it

generally takes between 30-60 minutes to complete and submit the advance waste

notification, but an average sized cruise ship spends roughly 8 man-hours to retrieve and/or

estimate the necessary information on the amounts of waste to discharge. Passenger vessels

that are not cruise ships face similar difficulties as cruise ships, though not as substantially;

therefore an assumption of 4 hours has been made for this category.

85% of port calls were freight vessels, with an estimated average time of 1 hour work.

Passenger vessels (14%) around 4 hours, and cruise ships (1%) around 8 hours.

The

division as noted above was applied to the 2015 Eurostat statistics of port calls in the EU,

against an average wage cost in the Maritime transport sector of €26,6 (also by Eurostat).

The large share of freight transport in the number of annual port calls (85% in 2013) and the

relatively small share of cruise ships (1%) and other passenger transport (14%) have been

weighed in our calculation, resulting in

total annual costs of 89.9 million EURO:

Estimated administrative burden on port users (reporting) (table 7A)

Number of

Sector – share in Number of

Hourly

hours

overall port calls port calls/2015

wage

required for

(Eurostat)

costs/2016

notification

(Eurostat)

Freight – 84%

1,868,671

26.6

Passengers

– 333,691

26.6

15%

Cruise ships – 22,246

26.6

117

118

Estimated total

costs

49,706,649

120

35,504,722

121

4,733,949

122

Assuming that one officer will be responsible for checking the application file.

The assumption takes into account the initial examination of the application file, communication with the applicants (ship and shipping

company), communication with Port Authorities/PRF operators/administrations, collection of necessary information from all relevant

stakeholders etc. It is also based on the outcome of the CG for exemptions established under the ESSF/PRF SG. The participants indicated a

range of time spent from one week to 45 days or several weeks. 30 days seems to be a sensible average in this regard.

119

Panteia study.

120

Y = 1 x 26.6 x 1,868,671 = 49,706,649.

121

Y = 4 x 26.6 x 333,691 = 35,504,722.

122

Y = 8 x 26.6 x 22,246 = 4,733,949.

106

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Total

100%

2,224,608

89,945,320

7.2 Port/competent authorities

Once transmitted to the port authority, the advance notification form needs to be processed,

creating an administrative burden on the side of the port/competent authority. The port of

Piraeus indicated

123

that they have one person who is working full time on the

management/assessment of the advance notification forms, which comes down to roughly 10

minutes per port call

124

. Calculations are presented in Table 7B:

Estimated administrative burden on authorities (assessment) (table 7B)

Number

of Number of

Hourly

wage

costs Estimated total

hours

port calls/2015

(Eurostat

Costs

required for

(Eurostat)

data for public

(Y = 2224608 x 0.16 x

process

administrations/2015)

21.98 = 7,823,501)

0.16

2,224,608

21.98

7,823,501

8. Inspection – providing documentation and collaboration (port users)

The Panteia study had assumed

125

that “on average, 2.27% of all port calls are subject to

inspection” This assumption gave a number of 51,961 inspections annually. However, this

this figure is far higher than the actual figure of Port State Control inspections (the number of

the all EU PSC inspections under the regime of the repealed PSC Directive was around

20,000 inspections annually - for 2016 the figure would have been

19,453)

126

Therefore, calculations have been based on approximately

19,500

inspections, and one 1 hour

work for the crew member to accompany the inspector (according to Panteia

127

19,500 hours x 26.6 euro

128

518,700 euro

(based on the 25% yearly inspection target).

Alternatively, we have 1166 inspections recorded in THETIS-EU for 2016 so:

1166 x 1 hour = 1166 hours x 26.6 euro =

31,016 euro

(actual cost).

Inspection – reporting results from inspections (Competent Authorities)

The enforcement costs for the competent authority were based on the same calculation, but

the EU average hourly wage costs for public administration were used.

Therefore, we calculate 19,500 inspections x 1 hour (according to Panteia) = 19,500 hours x

21.98 euro

129

428,610 euro

(based on the 25% inspection target)

Alternatively, we have 1166 inspections recorded in THETIS-EU for 2016 so:

1166 x 1 hour = 1166 hours x 21.98 euro =

25,629 euro

(actual cost)

123

124

Panteia study.

Panteia study

125

Based on data collected in the stakeholder consultation.

126

See EMSA’s Technical assessment on the list of open questions (Supplement on enforcement)/Annex I.

127

Based on the information collected in additional interviews and the stakeholder consultation, an inspection lasts generally no more than

one hour, and

requires a crew member to accompany the inspectors.

128

Hourly wage cost in the Maritime transport sector for 2016.

129

Eurostat for year 2015.

107

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

The following table summarises the results (in million euro):

Administrative costs

Total annual costs for WRH plans

Costs for Member States to approve WRH plans

Application for an Exemption

Assessment and granting exemptions

Advance waste notification – reporting

Advance waste notification – assessment

Inspection – providing documentation and

collaboration

Inspection – reporting results from inspections

Total

Stakeholder

Ports

Competent authorities

Port users

Competent authorities

Port users

Ports / competent

authorities

Port users

Competent Authorities

Annual

costs

7.0

4.1

5.0

12.3

89.9

7.8

0.5

0.4

127

B. Enforcement costs (Inspections undertaken – cost of the Inspectors):

Two approaches can be applied for calculating these costs:

I. based on the

25% target

in the Directive:

19,500 inspections

130

x 1 hour

131

= 19,500 hours x 21.98 euro

132

428,610 euro.

II. based on the number of

inspections actually reported

(in THETIS-EU):

1,166 inspections x 1 hour (according to Panteia) = 1,166 hours x 21.98 euro =

25,629 euro.

See EMSA’s Technical assessment on the list of open questions (Supplement on enforcement)/Annex I.

The 1hr estimated time for an inspection has been derived from the Panteia ex-post evaluation.

132

Hourly wage costs (Eurostat data for public administrations/2015).

130

131

108

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

II. Quantification of the impacts of the Policy Measures

(Impact on administrative burden and enforcement)

The following calculations provide an estimate of the impact of various proposed policy

measures/options for the revision of the PRF Directive.

1. Policy measures on Inspections (PM-3D.1, 3D.2, 3E)

A. Enforcement costs

PM-3D.1 Incorporate the PRF inspections in the PSC Regime (amending Directive

2009/16/EC)

PSC regime:

In the year 2016, 15,186 inspections were conducted in the EU Member States under the PSC

Regime. It is assumed that under normal conditions (i.e. the ship requests to deliver its waste),

it would take a Port State Control Officer (PSCO) approximately

5 minutes additional

time

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. If we

take a conservative approach (based on the maximum time assumption), 15 minutes would

have to be added to each initial PSC inspection for checking compliance with the PRF

requirements

133

Additional cost of 15 minutes per PSC inspection = 21.98 euros

134

x15 min./60 min. = 5.5

euros;

Total annual cost:

15,186 inspections x 5.5 euros =

83,523 euro

A separate regime for domestic vessels

would be complementing the PSC regime

(checking 20% of all individual domestic vessels each year i.e. 600 inspections

135

Total (PRF) annual cost of domestic inspections:

600 inspections x 2 hours (average time

for a fully dedicated PRF inspection) x 21.98 euros =

26,376 euro

Total annual inspection cost for PM-3D.1: 83,523 euros + 26,376 euros = 109,899 euro



Estimated cost savings

in comparison to 25% target in the Directive: 428,610 euro -

109,899 euro =

318,711 euro.



Estimated cost increase

in comparison to the cost of inspections actually reported (in

THETIS-EU): 109,899 euro - 25,629 euro =

84,270 euro.

PM-3D.2 Develop a dedicated EU PRF targeting mechanism:

The annual number of the PRF dedicated inspections is estimated at

17,220

136

It should be noted that all the other ‘PRF related’ actions (e.g. checking ship’s documents, checking the tanks and garbage tins etc) will be

part of the PSC inspection so no additional time has been calculated).

134

Hourly wage costs (Eurostat data for public administrations/2015).

135

See EMSA’s Technical assessment on the list of open questions.

136

See EMSA’s Technical assessment on the list of open questions.

133

109

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

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 etc.), as well as to get acquainted with the overall condition of the ship

particularly in the engine room, cargo holds, ballast, bunker, waste bins etc. It is assumed that

at least one (1) hour would be needed for the inspector to assess the overall condition of the

ship and to check the ship’s documents in addition to the 10 minutes for controlling specific

PRF requirements. 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. Therefore, we may

assume an average of

2 hours

for each PRF inspection to be conducted.

Total annual inspection cost for PM-3D.2: 17,220 x 2 hours x 21.98 euros = 756,991 euro



Estimated cost increase

in comparison to 25% target in the Directive: 756,991 euro -

428,610 euro =

328,381 euro.



Estimated cost increase

in comparison to the cost of inspections actually reported (in

THETIS-EU): 756,991 - 25,629 euro =

731,362 euro.

PM-3E Bring fishing vessels and small recreational craft into the PRF inspection

regime:

Member States will be required to inspect annually at least 20% of all

fishing vessels above

100GT

flying their flag, i.e. around 600 inspections per year

137

Cost of inspections: 600 inspections x 2 hours x 21.98 euros =

26,376 euro

Member States will be required to inspect annually at least

20% of all individual

recreational crafts above 100GT

calling in their ports i.e. around

170 inspections

per

year

138

Cost of inspections: 170 inspections x 2 hours x 21.98 euros =

7,473 euro

Total annual inspection cost of PM-3E (vessels >100GT):

26,376 euros + 7,473 euros =

33,849 euro

An alternative approach for targeting recreational craft has also been developed, which is

based on the vessel's length overall, i.e. a threshold of 24meters LOA

139

. There are currently

around 3,000 recreational crafts above 24meters LOA in the EU (source: DG MARE).

Requiring Member States to inspect annually at least 20% of all individual recreational crafts

above 24meters LOA calling in their ports will mean around 600 inspections per year.

Therefore in this case:

Total number of inspections of fishing vessels and small recreational crafts: 600 inspections +

600 inspections = 1,200 inspections.

See EMSA’s Technical assessment on the list of open questions.

However, this figure may be underestimating the actual number of recreational crafts calling in the EU. See EMSA’s Technical

assessment on the list of open questions.

139

Length Overall

137

138

110

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Total annual inspection cost of PM-3E: 1,200 inspections x 2 hours x 21.98 euro = 52,752

euro (based on 24 LOA threshold for recreational craft)

B. Administrative costs of inspections (costs for crew involved, administrative burden):

It is assumed that each inspection requires a crew member to accompany the inspectors.

PM-3D.1 (incorporate PRF Inspections in PSC regime):

PSC:

Users (ship’s crew) additional time is estimated to 15 minutes (0.25 hours) per PSC

inspection. Cost/PSC = 15,186 inspections x 0.25 hours x 26.6 euro

140

100,987 euro

Domestic vessels:

600 inspections x 2 hours (average time for a fully dedicated PRF

inspection) x 26.6 euro =

31,920 euro

Total administrative cost for port users (ships) of PM-3D.1: 100,987euros + 31,920 euros

132,907 euro



Estimated cost savings

in comparison to 25% target in the Directive: 518,700 euro –

132,907 euro =

385,793 euro.



Estimated cost increase

in comparison to the cost of inspections actually reported (in

THETIS-EU): 132,907 euro - 25,629 euro =

107,278 euro.

PM-3D.2 (dedicated PRF Inspection regime):

Dedicated PRF:

Users (ship’s crew) additional time is estimated to 2 hours per PRF

inspection. Therefore:

Total administrative costs PM-3D.2:

17,220 inspections x 2 hours x 26.6 euro

141

916,104

euro



Estimated cost increase

in comparison to 25% target in the Directive: 916,104 euro -

518,700 euro =

397,404 euro.



Estimated cost increase

in comparison to the cost of inspections actually reported (in

THETIS-EU): 916,104 euro - 25,629 euro =

890,475 euro.

PM-3E (inspection regime for fishing vessels and recreational craft):

fishing vessels & recreational crafts (above 100GT):)

additional time for port-users (ship’s

crew) is estimated at 2 hours per PRF inspection.

Total administrative costs PM-3E=

770 inspections x 2 hours x 26.6 euro

142

40,964 euro.

I.e. hourly wage cost in the Maritime transport sector of €26,6 (Eurostat).

142

I.e. hourly wage cost in the Maritime transport sector of €26,6 (Eurostat).

140

141

111

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

(If the 24 meters LOA threshold is applied for recreational crafts this will result in 600

inspections per year on these crafts. This means 1200 inspections x 2 hours x 26.6 euro =

63,840 euro).

2. Policy measures on Exemptions (PM-5A)

PM-5A Harmonising exemption procedures for ships in scheduled and regular traffic:

Harmonising exemption procedures for ships in scheduled and regular traffic includes the

introduction of a standard exemption certificate and electronic exchange of information of the

exemptions through SafeSeaNet.

a) The ESSF/PRF-SG/“Correspondence Group on exemptions”, has shared experiences and

input on expected time and cost savings, including the recent introduction of an online

application tool in one of the EU MS for the evaluation and granting of exemptions in all their

seaports. The new system in place has resulted in a reduction from (up to) 45 days needed for

the exemption process to 20 days, which corresponds to 25 days of time saving, or a 56%

reduction of the time needed for assessing and granting an exemption. Therefore, taking a

conservative approach

143

and based on an average time of 30 days for assessing and granting

an exemption, the proposed measures may reduce the time for competent authorities to

complete the process with

10 days.

This corresponds to a reduced cost for assessing and

granting an exemption i.e.

3,517 euro.

Hourly wage costs

(Eurostat

data for public

administrations/2015)

Daily wage costs

144

derived from

Eurostat

(based on 8 hours)

Number of days

required for

assessment

145

Current

average

time

21.98

175.84

Reduced

time

Costs for

Assessing and

granting an

exemption

Current Review

situation (PM-5A)

3,517

euro

(30 – 10) = 5,275

euro

The updated annual costs for competent authorities with PM 5A is calculated as follows:

2,333 exemptions

146

x 3,517 euro =

8,205,161 euro

Potential cost savings annually:

12.3 million euro

147

- 8.2 million euro = 4.1 million euro

b) Also on the ship's side, this measure should lead to more clarity on eligibility,

documentation to be provided and

reduced time for obtaining an exemption.

The cost

associated with the application for an exemption was estimated to be

2128 euro

(see table on

the quantification of the administrative burden). However, given limited data available, it is

143

144

As some competent authorities already have IT applications in place, a more conservative approach in terms of time savings is warranted.

Assuming that one officer will be responsible for checking the application file.

145

See the Calculation of administrative burden caused by the PRF Directive – table 6.

146

Based on the number of exemptions reported through SSN and to the Commission in 2015.

147

See the Calculation of administrative burden caused by the PRF Directive – chapter 6.

112

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

difficult to indicate expected time and cost savings for the crew member involved in the

process.

3. Policy measures on aligning the Advance Waste Notification (PM-4B)

In table 7A (see above) the current administrative burden on port users because of the advance

waste notification has been calculated:

Estimated current administrative burden on port users (reporting) = 89,945,320 euro

A possible alignment and updating of the PRF Directive’s waste notification form, with

MARPOL (IMO Circular 834) as foreseen in PM-4B will provide some benefits mostly with

regard to cargo residues, Annex II and Annex VI waste which are currently different or not

included in the ‘EU’ form.

It may be assumed that for freighters around

5% time savings

will occur (mostly because of

the alignment on cargo residues). For cruise and passenger vessels we may assume only

savings

because cargo residues are not applicable. Based on these assumptions, the following

calculation is made of the time saved from the alignment of the advance waste notification:

Freighters: 1 hour x 5% = 0.05 hours savings;

Passenger ships: 4 hours x 1% = 0.04 hours savings;

Cruise ships: 8 hours x 1% = 0.08 hours savings.

Estimated administrative burden on port users (reporting) / updated after alignment

with MARPOL

Number of

hours

required for

notification

1-0.05 =

0.95

4-0.04 =

3.96

8-0.08 =

7.92

Total

Sector – share in Number of

overall port calls port calls/2015

(Eurostat)

Freight – 84%

Passengers –

15%

Cruise ships –

100%

1,868,671

333,691

22,246

2,224,608

Hourly

wage

costs/2016

(Eurostat)

26.6

Estimated total

costs

47,221,316

148

35,149,675

149

4,686,609

150

87,057,600

Estimated cost savings

from aligning the PRF Directive with MARPOL definitions of Ship

Generated Waste and Cargo Residues = 89,945,320 - 87,057,600 =

2,887,720 euro

148

149

Y = 0.95 x 26.6 x 1,868,671 = 47,221,316.

Y = 3.96 x 26.6 x 333,691 = 35,149,675.

150

Y = 7.92 x 26.6 x 22,246 = 4,686,609.

113

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Annex 10 – Glossary of terms

Term

Black water

Definition

'Water polluted with food, animal,

or human waste.'

Source

http://www.businessdictionary.com/

definition/black-water.html

Bleed-off water

'A small amount of scrubbing water

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/tr

extracted to bleed-off unit to

ansport/files/modes/maritime/events/

remove contaminants.'

doc/2011_06_01_stakeholder-

event/item9.pdf

'…small amount

of aqueous solution removed from

the cleaning medium of an

EGCS[Exhaust Gas Cleaning

Systems]/EGR to keep its required

operating properties

and efficiency…'

'…condensate from cooling of

exhaust gas in an EGR [Exhaust

Gas Recirculation] process…'

'…the 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.'

'…the remnants of any cargo which

are not covered by other Annexes

to the present Convention and

which remain on the deck or in

holds following loading or

unloading, including loading and

unloading excess or spillage,

whether in wet or dry condition or

entrained in wash water but does

not include cargo dust remaining

on the deck after sweeping or dust

on the external surfaces of the ship.'

EMSA's assistance with Directive

2000/59/EC on Port Reception

Facilities (PRF), Technical

assessment on the list of open

questions, Ref. EMSA.2017.036676,

p.16

IMO, PPR 4/11- Guidelines for the

discharge of exhaust gas

recirculation bleed-off water- Report

CG, p.5

Directive 2000/59/EC on port

reception facilities for ship-

generated waste and cargo residues,

Article 2(d).

Cargo residues

1978 Annex V OF THE 1978

Protocol relating to the 1973

International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from ships:

Regulations for the prevention of

pollution by garbage from ships

(Revised version as of 2011),

Regulation 1 Definitions (2)

Exhaust Gas

'Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems

EMSA's assistance with Directive

114

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

Cleaning

Systems

(EGCS)

Fishing gear

(EGCS) are systems designed to

reduce the sulphur oxide emissions

by ships using otherwise non-

compliant fuels. These systems

[are] more commonly known by

“scrubbers”…'

'…any physical device or part

thereof or combination of items

that may be placed on or in the

water or on the sea-bed with the

intended purpose of capturing, or

controlling for subsequent capture

or harvesting, marine or fresh water

organisms.'

'…any spoiled or unspoiled food

substances and includes fruits,

vegetables, dairy products, poultry,

meat products and food scraps

generated aboard ship.'

2000/59/EC on Port Reception

Facilities (PRF), Technical

assessment on the list of open

questions, Ref. EMSA.2017.036676,

p.5

1978 Annex V OF THE 1978

Protocol relating to the 1973

International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from ships:

Regulations for the prevention of

pollution by garbage from ships

(Revised version as of 2011),

Regulation 1 Definitions (6)

1978 Annex V OF THE 1978

Protocol relating to the 1973

International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from ships:

Regulations for the prevention of

pollution by garbage from ships

(Revised version as of 2011),

Regulation 1 Definitions (8)

1978 Annex V of the 1978 Protocol

relating to the 1973 International

Convention for the Prevention of

Pollution from ships: Regulations for

the prevention of pollution by

garbage from ships (Revised version

as of 2011), Regulation 1 Definitions

(9)

Food wastes

Garbage

'…all kinds of food wastes,

domestic wastes and operational

wastes, all plastics, cargo residues,

incinerator ashes, cooking oil,

fishing gear, and animal carcasses

generated during the normal

operation of the ship and liable to

be disposed of continuously or

periodically except those

substances which are defined or

listed in other Annexes to the

present Convention. Garbage does

not include fresh fish and parts

thereof generated as a result of

fishing activities undertaken during

the voyage, or as a result of

aquaculture activities which

involve the transport of fish

including shellfish for placement in

the aquaculture facility and the

transport of harvested fish

including shellfish from such

facilities to shore for processing.'

'…the environmental status

of marine waters where these

Good

environmental

Directive 2008/56/EC of the

European Parliament and of the

115

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

status

provide ecologically diverse

and dynamic oceans and seas

which are clean, healthy and

productive…'

Council of 17 June 2008

establishing a framework for

community action in the field of

marine environmental policy

(Marine Strategy Framework

Directive), Article 3, par.5.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/

definition/gray-water.html

Gray water

'Relatively clean waste water, such

as from kitchen, bathroom (not the

toilet), and laundry cycles. This

water can be reused or recycled

with little or no treatment for

landscape irrigation and other non-

potable uses. Also called sanitary

water.'

Marine litter

'Marine litter consists of items that

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/mari

have been deliberately discarded,

ne/pdf/flyer_marine_litter.pdf

unintentionally lost, or transported

by winds and rivers, into the sea

and on beaches. It mainly consists

of plastics, wood, metals, glass,

rubber, clothing and paper.

Land-based sources include

tourism, sewage and illegal or

poorly managed landfills. The main

sea-based sources are shipping and

fishing.'

'…petroleum in any form including

crude oil, fuel oil, sludge,

oil refuse and refined products

(other than petrochemicals which

are subject to the provisions of

Annex II of the present

Convention)…'

'all solid wastes (including slurries)

not covered by other Annexes that

are collected on board during

normal maintenance or operations

of a ship, or used for cargo stowage

and handling. Operational wastes

also includes cleaning agents and

additives contained in cargo hold

and external wash water.

Operational wastes does not

include grey water, bilge water, or

other similar discharges essential to

the operation of a ship, taking into

1978 Annex I of the 1978 Protocol

relating to the 1973 International

Convention for the Prevention of

Pollution from ships: Regulations for

the prevention of pollution by oil

(Revised version as of 2010),

Regulation 1 Definitions (1)

1978 Annex V OF THE 1978

Protocol relating to the 1973

International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from ships:

Regulations for the prevention of

pollution by garbage from ships

(Revised version as of 2011),

Regulation 1 Definitions (12)

Oil

Operational

wastes

116

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

account the guidelines developed

by the Organization [IMO].'

Plastic

'…a solid material which contains

as an essential ingredient one or

more high molecular mass

polymers and which is formed

(shaped) during either manufacture

of the polymer or the fabrication

into a finished product by heat

and/or pressure. Plastics have

material properties ranging from

hard and brittle to soft and elastic.

For the purposes of this annex, "all

plastics" means all garbage that

consists of or includes plastic in

any form, including synthetic

ropes, synthetic fishing nets, plastic

garbage bags and incinerator ashes

from plastic products.'

See 'Exhaust Gas Cleaning

Systems'

'….1. drainage and other wastes

from any form of toilets and

urinals;

.2 drainage from medical premises

(dispensary, sick bay, etc.) via

wash basins, wash tubs and

scuppers located in such premises;

.3 drainage from spaces containing

living animals; or

.4 other waste waters when mixed

with the drainages defined above.'

'…dirty and heavily dense waste

that results from “washwater”

discharge filtration and

conditioning equipment and

retained on-board.'

'…a sea area where for recognized

technical reasons in relation to its

oceanographic and ecological

condition and to the particular

character of its traffic the adoption

of special mandatory methods for

the prevention of sea pollution by

1978 Annex IV of the 1978 Protocol

relating to the 1973 International

Convention for the Prevention of

Pollution from ships: Regulations for

the Prevention of pollution by

sewage from ships (revised version

as of 2011), Regulation 1 Definitions

(3)

1978 Annex V OF THE 1978

Protocol relating to the 1973

International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from ships:

Regulations for the prevention of

pollution by garbage from ships

(Revised version as of 2011),

Regulation 1 Definitions (13)

Scrubber

Sewage

Sludge

EMSA's assistance with Directive

2000/59/EC on Port Reception

Facilities (PRF), Technical

assessment on the list of open

questions, Ref. EMSA.2017.036676,

p. 16

1978 Annex V OF THE 1978

Protocol relating to the 1973

International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from ships:

Regulations for the prevention of

pollution by garbage from ships

(Revised version as of 2011),

117

Special area

kom (2018) 0033 - Ingen titel

garbage is required.'

Wash water

'The water used for washing down

the pollutant exhaust stream…'

Regulation 1 Definitions (14)

EMSA's assistance with Directive

2000/59/EC on Port Reception

Facilities (PRF), Technical

assessment on the list of open

questions, Ref. EMSA.2017.036676,

p. 6

Directive 2008/98/EC of the

European Parliament and of the

Council of 19 November 2008

on waste and repealing certain

Directives, Article 4.

Waste

hierarchy

'Preamble … (31) The waste

hierarchy generally lays down a

priority order

of what constitutes the best overall

environmental option

in waste legislation and policy,

while departing from such

hierarchy may be necessary for

specific waste streams

when justified for reasons of, inter

alia, technical feasibility,

economic viability and

environmental protection.'

'1. The following waste hierarchy

shall apply as a priority

order in waste prevention and

management legislation and

policy:

(a) prevention;

(b) preparing for re-use;

(d) other recovery, e.g. energy

recovery; and

(e) disposal.'

118