Transposition of the PRF Directive in European Ports: Charging Models, Practices, and Recommendations

Nikola Mandić, Anita Gudelj, Merica Slišković () and Helena Ukić Boljat
Additional contact information
Nikola Mandić: Faculty of Maritime Studies, University of Split, Ruđera Boškovića 37, 21000 Split, Croatia
Anita Gudelj: Faculty of Maritime Studies, University of Split, Ruđera Boškovića 37, 21000 Split, Croatia
Merica Slišković: Faculty of Maritime Studies, University of Split, Ruđera Boškovića 37, 21000 Split, Croatia
Helena Ukić Boljat: Faculty of Maritime Studies, University of Split, Ruđera Boškovića 37, 21000 Split, Croatia

Sustainability, 2025, vol. 17, issue 21, 1-20

Abstract: As maritime transport continues to grow, the volume and complexity of waste generated by ships, such as garbage, sewage, and oily residues, requires the establishment of effective, accessible and well-regulated collection systems in ports. Ensuring effective waste management remains a major challenge across the European Union, as differences in national implementation and charging systems continue to undermine the sustainability of port reception facilities. Directive (EU) 2019/883 on port reception facilities (PRF Directive) was introduced to harmonise regulatory standards, ensure adequate infrastructure, and remove barriers to proper waste management. This paper analyses the transposition and implementation of the PRF Directive in selected EU countries, focusing on the differences in cost recovery systems (CRS) applied in ports. A comparative analysis of charging models and waste management plans for ports is carried out, including an in-depth study of the leading European ports with the highest reported waste volumes. A nine-criteria evaluation framework was developed through a stakeholder focus group involving port authorities, concessionaires, shipping companies, and the Harbour Master’s Office, and was applied using the multi-criteria TOPSIS decision methodology, complemented by sensitivity analyses and adjustments for different port types (cargo, passenger, fisheries, marinas). The results show that the best-performing models achieved C* values between 0.514 and 0.529, confirming the robustness of the evaluation framework. Overall, the findings indicate that the optimal charging model is context-dependent, with No-Special-Fee systems without special charges favoured in passenger and leisure ports, and Prepaid + Reimbursement models more suitable for cargo and fishing ports. The paper concludes with policy recommendations aimed at increasing transparency, ensuring consistent reporting, and aligning CRS models more closely with EU environmental objectives.

Keywords: cost recovery system models; port reception facilities; port sustainability; ship-generated waste; waste management (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/21/9416/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/21/9416/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:21:p:9416-:d:1777934

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().