IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i21p9416-d1777934.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • 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)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Nikola Mandić & Anita Gudelj & Merica Slišković & Helena Ukić Boljat, 2025. "Transposition of the PRF Directive in European Ports: Charging Models, Practices, and Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-20, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:21:p:9416-:d:1777934
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/21/9416/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/21/9416/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Víctor Marcelo & Arlindo Almeida & Pablo Pastrana & F. Javier López-Díez & José B. Valenciano, 2024. "The Origin and Architectural and Technological Characteristics and Opportunities for the Reuse of Portugal’s EPAC Silo Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-22, March.
    2. Agnieszka Deja & Magdalena Kaup & Marek Grobarczyk & Wojciech Slaczka, 2021. "Use of the Port Community System in Sustainable Ship-Generated Waste Management," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2 - Part ), pages 488-501.
    3. repec:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:2b:p:488-501 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Keywords

      ;
      ;
      ;
      ;
      ;

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:21:p:9416-:d:1777934. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.