EMISSION STANDARDS FOR RECREATIONAL CRAFT
(21727)
12463/00
COM(00) 639
|
Draft Council Directive modifying Council Directive 94/25/EC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft.
|
| Legal base: |
Article 95 EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Department: |
Trade and Industry |
| Basis of consideration:
| SEM of 20 April 2001 |
| Previous consideration:
| HC 28-iv (2000-01), paragraph 5 (24 January 2001)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| No further date currently set
|
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
2.1 Council Directive 94/25/EC[3]
lays down design and construction standards for recreational craft,
and was originally adopted as part of the creation of the Single
Market. However, a number of Member States have since introduced
national measures to control exhaust and noise emissions from
such craft, and this has given rise to concern that these might
constitute an obstacle to free trade. As a consequence, the Commission
put forward in October 2000 proposals to harmonise within the
Community provisions on exhaust and noise emissions from engines
intended to be installed on recreational craft.
The current proposal
2.2 In putting its proposal forward, the Commission
pointed out that exhaust emissions depend mainly on the type of
engine and its rated power, and it identified three groups of
engine — 2-stroke spark ignition; 4-stroke spark ignition;
and compression ignition — which it says have completely
different profiles, and whose level of exhaust emissions also
depends upon the boating application. 2-stroke engines in general
suffer from high hydrocarbon emissions and carbon monoxide emissions,
as do 4-stroke engines (though at lower levels), whilst the emissions
of most concern from compression ignition engines are the nitrogen
oxides. Also, although the emissions from recreational craft are
small compared with those from other sources such as road traffic,
they tend to occur at particular times of the year in environmentally
sensitive locations. The Commission also pointed to the adverse
impact which noise levels have on a large number of people, and
to the fact that recreational craft are frequently used in areas
where peace and quiet are important both to humans and sensitive
wildlife, for which the varying pitch produced by personal watercraft
is an especial problem.
2.3 It has therefore proposed a range of exhaust
emission requirements for carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides depending on the type of engine, with maximum noise levels
related to engine power also being set. The proposal sets out
conformity assessment procedures, similar to those in other Community
emissions legislation, and, in order to reduce the cost involved,
particularly for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), these
would include a "reference boat" concept, so as to avoid
boat builders having to test each and every boat or engine.
2.4 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 14 November
2000, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science at
the Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
said that there were strong grounds for adopting these measures
in order to prevent the break-up of the single market for recreational
and personal watercraft. The UK also considered the principle
of taking Community action to limit exhaust gas emissions to be
reasonable on health grounds, though the environmental case for
including noise might be weaker. It intended to support the proposal
in principle, whilst negotiating to ensure that it does not impose
unnecessary costs on industry. The Minister added that noise emissions
were likely to impose disproportionate costs on the SME boat builder,
and that a traditional boatbuilder not following the same design
each time might need to have each craft tested and certified for
noise by a third-party conformity body. Similar problems could
arise with gas emission requirements for smaller-volume engine
manufacturers.
2.5 The Minister also said that a requirement
on the Commission to report on "in use" compliance testing
was of concern, as it could result in craft being subject to annual
tests similar to existing vehicle testing. He also said that this
would not be a trade issue, and that, even if Community action
was appropriate, it should not emanate from an Article 95 Directive,
but be based on environmental and health grounds. The UK therefore
intended to seek the removal of this provision from the proposal.
2.6 Finally, the Minister said that a Regulatory
Impact Assessment would be submitted as soon as it is available,
but that industry and the Commission had estimated that the engineering
cost of converting one "family" of engines to low emissions
might be in the region of £6 million. This, together with
conformity assessment costs, could increase the cost of each engine
by between 13% and 30%, although users would benefit by a reduction
of around 30% in fuel consumption. Costs would also be incurred
for conformity with the noise assessment provisions. However,
much would depend on how the "reference boat" concept
would work in practice.
2.7 In the conclusion to our Report of 24 January
2001, we said that the application of exhaust and noise emission
standards to recreational craft was welcome in principle on health
and environmental grounds, and that there appeared to be sound
Single Market reasons for introducing harmonised standards across
the Community. However, since it was also clear that there were
a number of unresolved questions, notably on the costs of conformity
assessment, we would await the Regulatory Impact Assessment promised
by the Minister before considering the document.
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 20 April
2001
2.8 The Minister has now provided a Supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum to which is attached a detailed Regulatory
Impact Assessment as regards engine manufacturers (who will be
responsible for meeting the exhaust emission requirements, and,
in the case of outboard-engined craft, the noise requirements),
craft manufacturers (who will be responsible for meeting the noise
requirements for boats powered by stern drive and inboard engines),
and boat owners.
2.9 The Assessment says that, in the case of
engine manufacture, the two companies involved will be able to
spread their design and development costs over their whole production,
and that their main costs are likely to arise from the need to
certify new or modified engine types. The same is also broadly
true of those companies which adapt engines for marine purposes
2.10 In the case of boat builders, six companies
are of substantial size, with on average about 50 different hull/engine
design combinations in current production, and these appear to
be reasonably confident that they can meet the new noise limits
with little modifications to their designs. Consequently, their
main costs seem likely to arise on the tests needed to ensure
noise compliance. In the case of the 180 or so SME boat builders,
the Assessment says that most are "hopeful" that they
can meet the limits with little design modification, though a
more detailed examination of two very small companies suggests
that the range of design options could be severely limited, and
it also suggests that "as many as one-fifth of small and
medium boatbuilders would be at serious risk of closure as a result
of the extra costs and limitations imposed by the amendments to
the directive".
2.11 In any event, the Assessment suggests that
the major costs are likely to fall on boat owners, a substantial
proportion of whom make major modifications or conversions to
their craft each year. Under the proposal, those planning refurbishment
would be required to install a new engine, and would therefore
face substantial additional costs. Overall, it suggests
that these might amount to some £90 million a year for the
boat-owning population as a whole, whereas the costs falling on
the boat builders and companies converting engines to marine uses
would be £2.8 and £2.0 million respectively in the first
year, and about £2.1 million and £700,000 a year thereafter.
2.12 The Assessment also deals briefly with the
potential benefits, though lack of data about current emission
levels make it impossible to quantify these. It also suggests
that, in the short term, the proposal might lead to increases
in emissions, as boat owners contemplating refurbishment or replacement
of engines might be deterred by the extra costs they would now
face. In addition, it has been suggested that some of the problems
which arise, such as the running of engines at night when craft
are moored, would not be addressed by the proposal.
Conclusion
2.13 We are grateful to the Minister for the
Regulatory Impact Assessment, which makes it clear that the environmental
benefits of this proposal are difficult to assess, but that it
would entail additional costs, particularly for boat owners. Also,
although the larger boat-builders and engine manufacturers who
export to the rest of the Community are said to welcome the proposed
harmonisation of exhaust and noise requirements, there does appear
from the comments we have quoted in paragraph 2.10 to be some
doubt as to the impact on the small and medium-sized boat- builders.
2.14 In view of this, we think it would be
premature to clear the proposal, and we would like the Government
to keep us informed of the progress of the negotiations on it,
including the point in paragraph 2.5 above about "in use"
compliance testing. In the meantime, it would be helpful if it
could provide further clarification of the effect which the proposal
is likely to have on the small and medium-sized boat-builders.
3 OJ No. L 164, 30.6.94, p.15. Back
|
