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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Sustainability
Published
2025-10-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/su17219416
Primary Topic
Law, logistics, and international trade
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Nikola Mandić, Helena Ukić Boljat, Merica Slišković, Anita Gudelj
Sustainability
Law, logistics, and international trade
article

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

Nikola Mandić, Helena Ukić Boljat, Merica Slišković, Anita Gudelj
article en

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.

SustainabilityVol. 17(21)
University of Split (HR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 55%
Law, logistics, and international trade
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.