11 Amendments of Nikos ANDROULAKIS related to 2015/2352(INI)
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the adoption of the Offshore Safety Directive 2013/30/EU (OSD) as a first step for the protection of the environment; however, regrets that according to the Commission, we should first gain experience with the OSD's effectiveness, and just then make further steps for improving the safety and liability of offshore oil and gas operations; instead it should aim to ensure that all possible safeguards are built into our EU and national legislations as soon as possible in order to effectively prevent any future accidents from happening;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the adoption of the Offshore Safety Directive 2013/30/EU (OSD) as a first step for the protection of the environmentnd the ratification of the Offshore Protocol of the Barcelona Convention by the Council as a first step for the protection of the environment; Recalls that the deadline for the transposition of the Directive was the 19th July 2015;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Reiterates the need for sound risk analysis and environmental impact assessment of every offshore operation and for the appropriate training of staff; calls the European Maritime Safety Agency to assist the Commission and the Member States on the drafting of emergency response plans; welcomes the building by the industry of four well capping stacks, which can reduce the oil spill in case of an accident;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. CRegrets that the definition of offences of criminal nature related to this particular sector and the minimum type and level of sanctions related to offshore safety breaches are not harmonised in the EU; calls on the Commission to consider adding the offences under the OSD to the scope of the Environmental Crime Directive 2008/99/EC;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Deplores the fact that the scope of liability for damages differs among the Member States; believes that in order to improve the protection of the environment and compliance with offshore safety legislation bringing certain conduct leading to serious offshore accidents under the criminal scope would add a separate layer of deterrence beyond civil and environmental liability;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Deplores the fact that the scope of liability for damages differs among the Member States; notes the transboundary character of these operations and calls for more harmonised rules
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Is of the opinion that strict liability rules should be established for offshore accidents as facilitate access to justice for citizensvictims; believes that financial caps should be avoided;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Regrets the lack of uptake of financial security instruments to cover the damages caused by the most costly offshore accidents; notes that one of the reasons may be that the scope of liability for damages may not in certain Member States make such products necessary;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes the lack of regulatory requirements for specific levels of coverage in many Member States; believes it would be unproductive to have specific amounts on EU basis, calls however for the creation of an EU framework for calculating the amounts to be required by the National Authorities in financial security, depending on the characteristics of each installation and its surrounding area;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. UWhile it accepts the need to allow sufficient flexibility with regard the forms of financial security instruments, underlines the need for more harmonised minimum rules on financial security instruments and coververifying that the form and amount of the financial security offered, would be adequate to cover the potential damage;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to consider the establishment of a legislative compensation mechanism for offshore accidents, along the lines of the one provided for in the Petroleum Activities Act in Norway, at least for sectors that may be severely affected like fisheries and coastal tourism.