2015/2352(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Marco AFFRONTE, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls the environmental damage caused by the Deepwater Horizon accident; also draws attention to the fact that the Castor project caused about 500 earthquakes off the Tarragona and Castelló coasts in 2013 and that these directly affected thousands of European citizens;

Amendment 10 #

Carlos ZORRINHO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls on the Commission, without delay, to harmonise the rules on liability, compensation, and financial security for offshore oil and gas operations; points out that, as laid down in Article 191 TFEU, Union policy on the environment has to be based on the precautionary principle and the principle of preventive action;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Points out that a number of studies, including one by the European Parliament Research Service and one by the Joint Research Centre, put at several thousand, and more precisely 9700 between 1990 and 2007, the number of incidents in the EU oil and gas sector; points out, further, that the cumulative impact of these incidents, including those which are only small in scale, has serious and lasting repercussions for the marine environment and should be taken into account in the directive;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Deplores the fact that Directive 2013/30/EU fails to take account of the widespread and lasting damage caused to the environment by small oil spills (650 000 tonnes in the Mediterranean alone in 2015) brought about by minor incidents which, when taken together, have the same impact as a serious incident;

Amendment 13 #

Miriam DALLI, Nikos ANDROULAKIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)

2d. Notes that, although Directive 2013/30/EU stipulates that the public must be given the opportunity to take part in the decision-making process concerning exploratory offshore operations before such operations are authorised, very little information is in fact made available to the public, so that the relevant provision of the directive is effectively a dead letter;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
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 15 #

Draft opinion
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; Calls on the Commission to ensure the close monitoring of its implementation with a view to assess the appropriateness of introducing further liability measures to improve compliance with the Offshore Safety Directive;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the adoption of the Offshore Safety Directive 2013/30/EU (OSD) a~~s a first step for the protection of the environment~~nd 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 17 #

Draft opinion
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~~, which compliments the Environmental Liability Directive 2004/35/EC (ELD) and the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 2011/92/EU (IEA) in protecting the environment and the health and safety of workers;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
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;, although most Member States have not yet implemented the pertinent provisions of the OSD.

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
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; emphasises the importance of making the procedure for assessing environmental impact clearer and consistent with other EU rules and with policy in areas such as biodiversity, climate change, sustainable soil use, protection of the marine environment and vulnerability to and resilience against incidents and natural disasters; deplores the fact that the directive fails to address properly the issue of the prevention of natural disasters;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Remembers the tragic loss of 167 oil workers who died in the Piper Alpha disaster off the coast of Aberdeen, Scotland on the 6th of July 1988;

Amendment 20 #

Claudiu Ciprian TĂNĂSESCU, Daciana Octavia SÂRBU

Draft opinion
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 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Reiterates the need for ~~sound~~regular risk analysis and environmental impact assessment of every offshore operation ~~and for the appropriate training of staff;~~, in addition to continuous monitoring of its structure and the state of the equipment used; underlines the importance of appropriate training of staff for the prevention of accidents.

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
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 prior to any licensing of operations;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Reiterates the need ~~for~~to carry out and publish a sound risk analysis and environmental impact assessment of every offshore operation and provide for the appropriate training of staff;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Takes the view that operators in the hydrocarbons sector should carry out offshore operations on the basis of systematic risk management which guarantees, in connection with serious incidents, acceptable levels of residual risk for persons, the environment and offshore installations;

Amendment 25 #

Sirpa PIETIKÄINEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Calls for a tailor-made Arctic environmental impact assessment for all operations taking place in the Arctic region, where the ecosystems are especially fragile and connected to the global biosphere.

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Emphasises the need to introduce a system of independent verification with a view to ensuring that the key criteria for safety and the environment identified in the risk assessment are appropriate;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Underlines the need to ensure rapid, effective and adequate compensation for all victims of pollution and of collateral damage linked to prospecting, surveys, and the operation of offshore facilities;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Underlines the need to ensure rapid, effective and adequate compensation for all victims of pollution in addition to comprehensive remedial action to clean up any environmental damage;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Underlines the need to ensure ~~rapid,~~ effective and adequate compensation for ~~all victims of pollution~~environmental damage caused by major offshore accidents in accordance with the polluter pays principle;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Underlines that as the~~Although there has not been a major offshore accident in the EU since 1988 and despite the fact that 73% of oil and gas production in the EU comes from North Sea Member States already recognized as having the world's best performing offshore safety regimes, a great number of offshore facilities is likely to rise in the future especially in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, w~~e should not wait for a severe accident to happen before we develop the~~hich makes more than urgent the development of a proper legal framework;.

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Underlines the need to ensure rapid, effective and adequate compensation for any environmental damage caused by offshore accidents and for all victims of pollution;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Emphasises the need to ensure that offshore operations are subject to constant, expert monitoring by the Member States in respect of compliance with EU law, in order to guarantee that effective checks are carried out with the aim of preventing serious incidents and limiting their impact on persons and the environment;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that although the OSD contains some specific provisions on liability and compensation-related issues, it does not establish a comprehensive EU framework for liability; deplores the fact that, under Article 41(3) and (5) of Directive 2013/30/EU, some Member States are partially exempt from the requirement to transpose the directive, and takes the view that derogations of this kind undermine the uniform application of EU law;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that although the OSD contains some specific provisions on liability and compensation-related issues, it does not establish a comprehensive EU framework for liability; Stresses the need to ensure equal access to justice and compensation for damage in the event of any accidents with cross-border consequences;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that ~~although~~ the OSD contains ~~some~~ specific provisions on liability and compensation- related issues, ibut does not establish a comprehensive EU framework for liability as Member States have different legal systems that handle with civil liability differently;

Amendment 36 #

Massimo PAOLUCCI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Calls on the Commission to establish a joint EU framework for liability, given that the environmental damage caused by offshore operations in the hydrocarbons sector can affect vast areas in a number of different Member States and that the same incident should be covered by the same rules governing intervention procedures and liablity;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Urges the Member States to decide on infringement penalties related to the OSD as soon as possible and calls on the Commission to assess whether the severity and application of those penalties provides an equal level of deterrent across the EU.

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Notes that, with a view to reducing the risks which stem from incidents on offshore platforms, compensation procedures, which are rather slow in most Member States, should also be improved;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Deplores the fact that Member States may use the option not to transpose and apply Article 20 of the directive on the grounds that no company which conducts offshore operations outside the territory of the Union is registered in their jurisdiction; in order to ensure effective implementation of Directive 2013/30/EU, urges the Member States to ensure that companies already registered on their territory do not circumvent the directive by extending their activities to include offshore operations without notifying that extension to the competent national authorities;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that as the number of offshore facilities is likely to rise in the future, especially in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, and given that the EU has roughly 68 000 kilometres of coast, we should not wait for a severe accident to happen before we develop the proper Union-wide legal framework;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6c. Deplores the fact that some Member States have transposed the directive only in part, incorrectly and in a manner not consistent with EU rules, omitting key provisions;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Calls on the Commission to consider adding the~~Believes it would be premature to add offences under the OSD to the scope of the Environmental Crime Directive 2008/99/EC given that the Commission has concluded (under COM(2015) 422) that it is too early address the effectiveness of measures relating to liability and compensation for offshore oil and gas operations as required under Article 39 of the OSD;

Amendment 42 #

Miriam DALLI, Nikos ANDROULAKIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. CGiven the deterrent effect of criminal penalties, calls on the Commission to ~~consider adding~~add the offences under the OSD to the scope of the Environmental Crime Directive 2008/99/EC, since the trial period would anyway not have demonstrated that the illegal conduct would not have taken place had criminal penalties been in force;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
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 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to co~~nsider~~me forward with a proposal to add~~ing~~ the offences under the OSD to the scope of the Environmental Crime Directive 2008/99/EC;

Amendment 45 #

Massimo PAOLUCCI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Calls on the Commission to consider adding~~Takes the view that the offences under the OSD should be added to the scope of the Environmental Crime Directive 2008/99/EC;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Notes that the transposition, implementation and enforcement of the OSD will encourage Member States to revise their regimes in order to ensure the adequate handling of compensation claims, the introduction of specific measures related to sectors that are most vulnerable to an environmental incident (e.g. coastal tourism and marine fisheries), and to consider potential damages that could be incurred in other national jurisdictions;

Amendment 47 #

Miriam DALLI, Nikos ANDROULAKIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7 b. Notes that the Commission intends to undertake systematic data gathering through the EU Offshore Authorities Group (EUOAG) to undertake a more comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness and scope of national liability provisions;

Amendment 48 #

Sirpa PIETIKÄINEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Deplores the fact that the scope of liability for damages differs among the Member States; Calls for the Member States to ensure that the national framework guarantees that full financial resources are available in case of a potential accident, ensuring full responsibility be carried by the operator and owners of an offshore installation. Member states shall ensure the operator is in possession of an insurance covering all potential accidents up to hundred per cent

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
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 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Underlines that as the number of~~Disapproves permits for new offshore facilities, i~~s likely to rise in the future especially~~ncluding in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, ~~we should not~~on the basis of incompatibility wait ~~for a severe accident to happen before we develop the proper legal framework~~h climate goals inscribed in the Paris Agreement as well as the inherent environmental risks; considers however that a proper legal framework should govern any offshore activities;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Deplores the fact that the scope of liability for damages differs among the Member States; calls on the Commission, therefore, to lay down a comprehensive EU framework for liability in the context of the OSD;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Deplores the fact that the scope of liability for damages differs among the Member States; considers, therefore, that the Commission ought to assess the need to harmonise liability at Union level;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Deplores the fact that the scope of liability for damages differs among the Member States~~Acknowledges that the Commission Report (COM(2015) 422) identifies national differences in the civil liability regimes, but concludes there is no evidence that any particular regime is less effective;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Deplores the fact that the scope of liability for damages and economic loss, that will be an essential instrument to ensure effective offshore safety in the Union, differs among ~~the~~ Member States;.

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
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 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Deplores the fact~~Notes that the scope of liability for damages differs among the Member States;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Is of the opinion that strict liability rules for offshore accidents facilitate access to justice for ~~citize~~victims (both legal and natural persons); points out that holding offshore operators accountable for all damages and loss caused by these accidents can provide an incentive for enforced adequate precautions, develop safer ways of operating and properly manage risk of operations;

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Is of the opinion that strict liability rules for offshore accidents facilitate access to justice for citizens and can provide an incentive for the offshore operator to properly manage the risk of operations;

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Is of the opinion that strict liability rules should be established for offshore accidents as facilitate access to justice for ~~citizens~~victims; believes that financial caps should be avoided;

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Is of the opinion that strict civil liability rules for offshore accidents facilitate access to justice for c~~itiz~~laimants affected by offshore accidents;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that as the number of offshore facilities is likely to rise in the future especially in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, ~~we should not wait for a severe accident to happen before we develop the~~implementation of Directive 2013/30/EU on safety of offshore oil and gas operations is essential in order to ensure a proper legal framework;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Is of the opinion that ~~strict~~ liability rules for ~~offshore accidents facilitate access to justice for citizens~~the consequences of offshore accidents ensure proper analysis and management of operational risk;

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Considers that all cases of proven liability, as well as the details of penalties applied, should be made public in order to make the true cost of environmental damage transparent to all.

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Calls on the Member States to provide detailed data regarding the uptake of financial instruments and adequate coverage for offshore accidents, including the most costly ones;

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

~~10. Regrets the lack of uptake of financial security instruments to cover the damages caused by the most costly offshore accidents;~~deleted

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Regrets the lack of uptake of financial security instruments to cover the damages caused by the most costly offshore accidents and calls for the Commission to come forward with legislative proposals to require mandatory financial security at least as regards environmental damage;

Amendment 65 #

Draft opinion
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 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Regrets the lack of uptake of financial security instruments in Europe to cover the damages caused by the most costly offshore accidents;

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Regrets the lack of uptake of financial security instruments to cover the damages caused by ~~the most costly~~ offshore accidents;

Amendment 68 #

Draft opinion
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 69 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Notes the lack of regulatory requirements for specific levels of coverage in many Member States; Stresses the need for a consolidated risk analysis approach based on a harmonised methodology across Member States that respects the specificities of the activities and the local operating conditions but which provides adequate coverage for accidents with cross-border impacts;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that as the number of offshore facilities is likely to rise in the future especially in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, we should ~~not wait for a severe accident to happen before we develop the proper legal framework~~ensure that the EU legislation that was adopted following the Deepwater Horizon accident is properly implemented and enforced across the EU;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. ~~Notes~~Recognises that the lack of regulatory requirements for specific levels of coverage in many Member States is the consequence of the choice made in the OSD for a risk-based approach to demonstrating financial responsibility whereby the regulator in the Member State assesses the adequacy of coverage proposed by the operator;

Amendment 71 #

Draft opinion
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 cover~~verifying that the form and amount of the financial security offered, would be adequate to cover the potential damage;

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Underlines the need for more harmonised minimum rules on financial security instruments and coverage while ensuring that financial security entities can meet the demand for cover against offshore accidents and encouraging the uptake of such instruments in a proportionate manner;

Amendment 73 #

Carlos ZORRINHO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Underlines the need for more harmonised minimum rules on financial security instruments and coverage, which are particularly essential given that accidents of this type tend to be of a cross- border nature;

Amendment 74 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Underlines the need for more harmonised minimum rules on financial security instruments and coverage, and calls for the Commission to come forward with legislative proposal to this effect;

Amendment 75 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Underlines the need for ~~more harmonised~~further review of the implementation of the OSD before further harmonization of minimum rules on financial security instruments and coverage are considered;

Amendment 76 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Underlines the need for more harmonised ~~minimum~~ rules on financial security instruments and coverage;

Amendment 77 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Notes that a variety of financial security products can be used to hedge the risks for the most costly and infrequent offshore accidents; Calls on Member States to widen the scope of financial security mechanisms accepted for offshore licensing and operations while ensuring an equivalent level of coverage;

Amendment 78 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Calls on the Commission 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.deleted

Amendment 79 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that as the number of offshore facilities is likely to rise in ~~the~~ future, especially in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, ~~we should not wait for a severe accident to happen before we develop the proper legal framework~~it is important to fully implement Directive 2013/30/EU on safety of offshore oil and gas operations;

Amendment 80 #

Draft opinion
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.

Amendment 81 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Calls on the Commission~~Invites Member States to consider the establishment of anational 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.

Amendment 82 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Points out that, under Article 193 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Member States may adopt more stringent measures to implement directives; calls, therefore, for the more stringent implementation of Directive 2013/30/EU, with a view, for example, to restricting the use of air guns for the offshore exploration of hydrocarbons, given their proven impact on marine mammals and fish stocks;

Amendment 83 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Calls on the Commission, whenever infringement proceedings have been instituted against a Member State, to appear before Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for the purpose of reporting on the case and on the measures to be taken to remedy the actions of the Member State concerned.

Amendment 84 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13 a. Calls on the Commission to consider adopting provisions specifically for economic sectors most vulnerable to offshore accidents, like fishing and tourism industries, without introducing the widespread uncertainly on financial responsibility levels that might impede the development of offshore oil and gas resources

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Deplores the fact that under Directives 2013/30/EU and 2004/35/EU incidents are defined as 'serious' only if they give rise to deaths or serious injuries, with no reference to the consequences for the environment; emphasises that even if it does not give rise to deaths or serious injuries an incident may have a serious impact on the environment, by virtue of its scale or because it affects, for example, protected areas, protected species or particularly vulnerable habitats;

source: 582.275

2016/06/08 ITRE 56 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Dario TAMBURRANO, David BORRELLI, Isabella ADINOLFI, Daniela AIUTO, Tiziana BEGHIN, Laura AGEA, Marco AFFRONTE, Marco VALLI, Marco ZULLO, Eleonora EVI, Laura FERRARA, Rosa D'AMATO, Ignazio CORRAO, Marco ZANNI, Piernicola PEDICINI

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas Article 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union specifically upholds the right of a Member State to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, whilst ~~also upholding regard for solidarity and environmental protection~~its Article 11 specifically establishes that environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and development of the Union's policies and activities, and its Article 191 establishes as objectives of the environmental policy the protection of human health, and the prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources, among others;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the potential unconventional European sources of gas and oil, and especially gas and oil captured in shale formations, to be extracted by hydraulic fracturing, remain extremely uncertain –as the 2011-2015 experience in Poland has soundly demonstrated–, due to greater depths than expected, high clay contents, and geological barriers of significant complexity, and furthermore it is met by strong reserves, when not outright opposition, of many European citizens and Member states, due to environmental and other impacts and triggered earthquakes;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas offshore hydrocarbons activities – particularly the growing interest in operating in challenging environments such as deep waters or High North – pose considerable risks for workers on rigs, coastal communities and biodiversity, considering that it is nearly impossible to clean the oil spill under ice;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas although North Sea oil and gas production has been in decline over the past years, the number of offshore facilities is likely to rise in Europe in the future, especially in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the offshore industry in general is of considerable importance not only for European energy security, but also for European economy, job creation, innovation and growth;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas specific sectors, which heavily rely on the good conditions of the shared marine environment for doing business, such as the fishing and tourism industries and other sectors of the blue economy that often include SMEs, could eventually suffer significant economic loss in the event of major offshore accident;

Amendment 15 #

Dario TAMBURRANO, Isabella ADINOLFI, David BORRELLI, Daniela AIUTO, Tiziana BEGHIN, Laura AGEA, Marco AFFRONTE, Marco VALLI, Marco ZULLO, Eleonora EVI, Laura FERRARA, Rosa D'AMATO, Ignazio CORRAO, Marco ZANNI, Piernicola PEDICINI

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas there is already an extensive body of international law and international conventions which govern the seas, including European waters, although they have a limited preventive capacity, as demonstrated by a decades-long record of environmental disasters linked to offshore spills caused worldwide by the extractive industry;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas there is already an extensive body of international law and international conventions which govern the seas, including European waters, albeit there is no international regime for liability and compensation for damage arising from offshore oil drilling;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas there is already an extensive body of international law and international conventions which govern the seas, including European waters and protocols dealing with pollution from offshore exploration and exploitation;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. whereas the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) sets out the legal framework within which activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out, including the delimitation of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone (EEZ);deleted

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas offshore oil and gas exploration can have very negative effects on the marine environment beyond the limits of the continental shelf and States' exclusive economic zones;

Amendment 2 #

Laurenţiu REBEGA

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas Article 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union specifically upholds the right of a Member State to choose between different energy sources and determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, whilst also upholding regard for solidarity and environmental protection;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Underscores the fact that the Member States already have the world's best-performing offshore safety regimes and that ~~overregulation in this area would seriously harm the competitiveness of their industrie~~it is not the aim to put extra burden on these industries but to help ensure that offshore activities only take place if their benefits outweigh their risks; points out that holding offshore operators accountable for all damages and loss caused by these accidents facilitates access to justice for victims (both legal and natural persons) and can provide incentive for enforced adequate precautions, develop safer ways of operating and properly manage risk of operations;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Underscores the fact that the Member States already have the world's best-performing offshore safety regimes and that ~~overregulation in this area would seriously harm the competitiveness of their~~the strict respect of existing regulation in this area is a constraint to be respected in any circumstance by their extractive industries;

Amendment 23 #

Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Underscores the fact that the European Member States ~~already~~ have the world's best-performing offshore safety regimes and that ~~over~~administrative burdens as well as excessive regulation in this area wcould seriously harm the competitiveness of ~~their~~European industries;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Underscores the fact that the Member States already have the world's best-performing offshore safety regimes and that overregulation in this area would seriously harm the competitiveness of their industriesNotes current Member States' offshore safety regimes; stresses the need to improve the requirements in relation to financial liability, so as to ensure that operators have the capacity to provide adequate compensation in the case of accident;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Underscores the fact that the Member States already have the world's best-performing offshore safety regimes and that~~Encourages Member States to start a progressive phase out of offshore hydrocarbon exploration and extraction ovper~~regul~~ations in ~~this area would seriously harm the competitiveness of their industries~~order to meet the long term objective of climate-neutrality before the end of the century;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses the need to promote measures to strengthen prevention and enhance safety and environmental protection standards in all offshore operations in order genuinely to enhance energy security for the benefit of peoples.

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Underscores the fact that while the Member States have in place offshore safety regimes, this high-risk, high-profit offshore oil/gas industry remains largely under-regulated;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points out that, as regards 'liability for offshore accidents and their consequences, the Offshore Safety Directive (OSD) channels it unequivocally to offshore licensees, i.e. the individual or joint holders of authorizations for oil/gas prospection, exploration, and/or production operations issued in accordance with Directive 94/22/EC1 . It also makes the licensees strictly liable for any environmental damage resulting from their operations'; however, there are founded doubts about this condition being sufficient, since it has been stated unequivocally by the same Directive that no existing financial security instruments, including risk pooling arrangements, can accommodate all possible consequences of major accidents; moreover, although the OSD contains specific provisions for liability and compensation-related issues, it does not put in place a comprehensive EU framework for liability, since it neither deals with liability for civil damage (i.e. caused to natural or legal persons, including bodily injury, property damage and economic loss, both consequential and pure), nor addresses criminal liability for offshore accidents, arising out of committing a criminal act qualified as such by the law. _________________ 1 OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.

Amendment 29 #

Fredrick FEDERLEY, Carolina PUNSET, Morten PETERSEN, Kaja KALLAS, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points out that, as regards 'liability for offshore accidents and their consequences, the Offshore Safety Directive (OSD) channels it unequivocally to offshore licensees~~, i.e. the individual or joint holders of authorizations for oil/gas prospection, exploration, and/or production operations issued in accordance with Directive 94/22/EC1~~ . It also makes the licensees strictly liable for any environmental damage resulting from their operations'; ~~_________________ 1~~OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas Article 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union specifically upholds the right of a Member State to determine the ~~conditions for exploiting its energy resources~~ir energy mix, whilst also upholding regard for solidarity and environmental protection;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. 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 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Notes, however, that the liability regimes in most EU Member States are inadequate and, in particular, liability for pure economic loss is not recognized in the vast majority of EU Member States, preventing fishermen and coastal businesses from submitting claims for lost income;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Underlines the importance of strengthening solidarity and cooperation between Member States so that safety systems can be made more effective;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Welcomes the fact that the EU Environmental Crime Directive 2008/99/EC introduced harmonised criminal penalties for certain infringements of EU environmental legislation, but regrets that the scope of this directive is not covering all the activities of the Offshore Safety Directive; regrets also that the definition of offences of criminal nature and the minimum type and level of sanctions related to offshore safety breaches are not harmonised in the EU;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Regrets that while the OSD applies to entire lifecycle of offshore installations, from design to decommissioning and permanent abandonment, the scope of the Commission report has excluded liabilities and financial security for decommissioning of installations, even though it is a complex operation with potential dangerous interference with other activities, such as fishing;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Points out that whilst EU law harmonises liability for environmental damage, liability for different kinds of economic loss varies significantly in Member States, mainly when it comes to how the economic loss can be directly related to an accident; therefore, stresses the urgent need to put in place the most comprehensive legislation to deal with civil liability for offshore pollution, including pure economic loss;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Underlines that the Commission itself has highlighted that liability for civil damage (i.e. third party damage, or 'traditional damage') from offshore oil and gas operations in the European Economic Area (EEA) is still poorly understood; at the same time, it highlights that the expectations of the public, civil society and some authorities are high, but there is no coherent perspective on the kinds of claims that would be permissible, nor how to manage such claims effectively in the case of major accidents – particularly accidents that cross boundaries;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Invites the Member States and the Commission to consider the special situation of small and medium-sized businesses. Offshore oil and gas incidents may have particularly serious implication for fishing and tourism industries, for workers and employees on the platforms as well as and on other sectors that rely in the good condition of the shared marine environment for doing business, since these sectors, which include many SMEs, could suffer significant economic loss in the event of a major offshore accident;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas indigenous sources of oil and gas contribute significantly to Europe's current energy needs ~~and~~, to the economy of certain Member States, to employing highly skilled labour force from all over the EU, and are important centres for R&D while are crucial at present for our energy security and energy diversity;

Amendment 40 #

Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that there is a 'broad variety of financial security products available to hedge oil and gas companies’ operating risk. These range from self-insurance options, to third-party insurance, to mutual schemes such as the Offshore Pollution Liability Association Ltd (OPOL), to alternative risk transfer mechanisms and others'; regrets, however, the proven lack of uptake of financial security instruments by companies operating in Europe in order to cover the damages from the most costly offshore accidents; and emphasises the need for more harmonised minimum rules on financial security instruments and coverage;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that there is a 'broad variety of financial security products available to hedge oil and gas companies’ operating risk. These range from self-insurance options, to third-party insurance, to mutual schemes such as the Offshore Pollution Liability Association Ltd (OPOL), to alternative risk transfer mechanisms and others'; this notwithstanding, none of them is able to fully protect the Member states from the combined consequences of the challenging insolvency and transboundary problems that can demonstrably arise from major offshore incidents;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that there is a 'broad variety of financial security products available to hedge oil and gas companies’ operating risk. These range from self-insurance options, to third-party insurance, to mutual schemes such as the Offshore Pollution Liability Association Ltd (OPOL), to alternative risk transfer mechanisms and others'; expresses its opposition at public- private arrangements when they entail a non-proportional transfer of private risk to the public purse;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Points out, however, that, in many Member States, there is no assurance that all offshore operators would have adequate financial assets to meet claims for a large accident. There is a trend towards setting up smaller companies to operate offshore fields that – in case of a major accident – would likely go bankrupt, shifting financial consequences on taxpayers. To increase financial security in such instances, the establishment of a special EU fund based on fees paid by the offshore industry should be considered;

Amendment 44 #

4a. Highlights that the consequence of such an incident is likely to be a socialization of the incident's costs to local communities, the State and other businesses dependent on the marine economy; such externalization can be further composed by the complexity of the existing international legal framework, which makes it difficult to advance successful transboundary damage claims;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Notes the way civil liability is handled varies considerably from one State to another and there is often uncertainty as to how their legal systems would deal with the diversity of civil claims that could result from offshore oil and gas incidents;

Amendment 46 #

Nicolas BAY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Stresses the importance of maintaining that flexibility, which enables each operator to choose the instrument best suited to the circumstances of each project;

Amendment 47 #

Nicolas BAY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Considers that the ‘holding firms accountable for all damage and loss caused by offshore accidents’ must in all circumstances prevent the possibility of speculative claims being made; moreover, any rules on class action should allow Member States the possibility of applying the option provided for in their own national system (opt-in or opt-out);

Amendment 48 #

Fredrick FEDERLEY, Carolina PUNSET, Morten PETERSEN, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Calls on the Commission to add major oil accidents onto the Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law, recognising that criminal sanctions are a dissuasive and effective way to motivate safety management;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Concludes that ~~there is no need to give consideration to further legislation until the Commission has published its report on implementation of the OSD.~~, while respecting the deadlines established for the Commission to publish its report on implementation of the OSD, due for July 2019, it is of the utmost importance for the Union to pursue actively during this period the research about how a comprehensive EU's framework for liability should be put in place, as a necessary complement to the regulatory process, in order to better protect possible damaged parties, and to better reflect European societal values;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas ~~indigenous sources of oil and gas contribute significantly to Europe's current energy needs and are crucial at present for our energy security and energy diversity~~over the period from 2003 to 2013 the production of renewables increased by 88.4% while the production levels for the other primary sources of energy fell over this period, the largest reductions being recorded for crude oil (- 54.0 %), natural gas (-34.6 %) and solid fuels (-24.9 %);

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Concludes that there is no need to give consideration to further legislation until the Commissi~~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 has p~~ublished its report on implementation of the OSD.~~ ossible in order to effectively prevent any future accidents from happening;.

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Concludes that there ~~is no need to give consideration to further legislation until the Commission has published its report on implementation of the OSD~~are clear gaps in the existing legislation regulating offshore oil/gas activities and that there is sufficient ground to urge the Commission to propose amendments to the existing legislation, particularly in the fields of addressing pure economic loss and criminal liability issues.

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Concludes that the Offshore Safety Directive has only recently entered into force and there is no need to give consideration to further legislation until the Commission has published its report on implementation of the ~~OSD~~Directive.

Amendment 53 #

Fredrick FEDERLEY, Carolina PUNSET, Morten PETERSEN, Kaja KALLAS, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. C~~oncludes that there is no need to give consideration to~~alls for further legislation ~~until~~providing the Commission ~~has~~ publisheds its report on implementation of the OSD.

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Points out that any changes to the EU-legislation regarding offshore operations need to take into consideration the strategic geopolitical importance of natural resources, and the implication on security policy.

Amendment 55 #

Fredrick FEDERLEY, Carolina PUNSET, Morten PETERSEN, Kaja KALLAS, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Encourages the Commission to conduct an overview of the new technological complexity concerning these installations and based on the overview assess how this might affect security measures concerning these installations.

Amendment 56 #

Fredrick FEDERLEY, Carolina PUNSET, Morten PETERSEN, Kaja KALLAS, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. Encourages the Commission to clarify how EU-legislation takes into consideration the potential risks of sabotage or attacks on offshore operation installations.

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas conventional indigenous sources of oil and gas ~~contribute significantly to Europe's curr~~represent ena vergy ~~needs and are crucial at present for our energy security and energy diversity~~small and continuously declining share of world oil and gas proved reserves which is better to carefully conserve underground;

Amendment 7 #

Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

Draft opinion
Recital B

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas conventional indigenous sources of oil and gas contribute significantly to Europe's current energy needs and are crucial at present for our energy security and energy diversity;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas indigenous sources of oil and gas contribute significantly to Europe's current energy needs and are ~~crucial at present~~present significant value for our energy security and energy diversity;

source: 584.089

2016/06/22 JURI 92 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Jytte GUTELAND, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5

– having regard to Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law2, __________________ 2 OJ L 328, 19.11.2008, p. 28.deleted

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas accidents caused by offshore oil and gas rigs lead to cross- border consequences and EU action to prevent and mitigate such accidents is therefore ~~justified~~necessary and proportionate;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. Whereas the hydrocarbon exploration activities conducted in Albania violate international law and fail to respect the European acquis on the protection of the marine environment;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas, in accordance with Article 191 of the TFEU, all EU action in this area must be underpinned by, with the aim of achieving a high level of protection based inter alia on the precautionary principle in combination with minimum interference in national policy;

Amendment 13 #

Jytte GUTELAND, Evelyn REGNER, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Victor NEGRESCU

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas, in accordance with Article 191 of the TFEU, all EU action in this area must be underpinned by a high level of protection based inter alia on the precautionary, preventive action and ‘polluter pays’ principles;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas, in accordance with Article 191 of the TFEU, all EU action in this area must be underpinned by a high level of protection based inter alia on the precautionary and sustainability principle;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas liability regimes constitute the principal means through which the polluter pays principle is applied, ensuring that firms are held accountable for any damage caused in the course of business and incentivising them to adopt preventive measures ~~and~~, develop practices and carry out actions that minimise the risks of such damage;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas liability regimes constitute the principal means through which the polluter pays principle is applied, ensuring that firms are held accountable for ~~any~~ damage caused in the course of business and incentivising them to adopt measures and develop practices that minimise the risks of such damage;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas, although the OSD makes offshore licensees strictly liable for the prevention and remediation of any environmental damage resulting from their operations (Article 7 read in conjunction with Article 38 – which extends the scope of the ELD to Member States’ continental shelves), it does not put in place a comprehensive EU framework for liability;deleted

Amendment 18 #

Jytte GUTELAND, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Victor NEGRESCU

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas, although the OSD makes offshore licensees strictly liable for the prevention and remediation of any environmental damage resulting from their operations (Article 7 read in conjunction with Article 38 – which extends the scope of the ELD to Member States’ continental shelves), it ~~doe~~has not ~~put in place~~enabled a comprehensive EU framework for liability to be put in place;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas it is of the utmost importance to have effective and adequate compensation mechanisms and claims handling mechanisms for ~~victims of~~ damage caused by offshore oil and gas operations to victims, animals and the environment; moreover, to have sufficient recourses in order to restore the important ecosystems;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8

~~– having regard to the decision of 13 September 2005 of the Court of Justice of the European Union4, __________________ 4 Case C-176/03, Commission v Council, ECLI:EU:C:2005:542.~~deleted

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas it is of the utmost importance to have effective and adequate compensation mechanisms and prompt and adequate claims handling mechanisms for victims of damage caused by offshore oil and gas operations;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas the OSD has not provided for harmonisation with respect to civil damage from offshore accidents and the existing international legal framework ~~makes it difficult to make successful transboundary damage claims~~should be reviewed in the light of existing best practices and the Commission’s final report COM(2016)204 of 14 April 2016;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas the OSD has not provided for harmonisation with respect to civil damage from offshore accidents and the existing international legal framework makes it difficult to make successful transboundary damage claims, in civil matters;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas the OSD sets out preconditions on licensing aimed at ensuring that licensees never find themselves technically orand financially unable to deal with the consequences of their offshore operations, and also requiring Member States to establish procedures for the prompt and adequate handling of compensation claims, including for transboundary incidents, and to facilitate the use of sustainable financial instruments (Article 4);

Amendment 24 #

Jytte GUTELAND, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Victor NEGRESCU

Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)

Ja. whereas the Commission is currently looking into the nature of the compensation paid by Spain to the promoter of the Castor gas storage project in a complaint procedure;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the adoption of the O~~SD as a~~ffshore Safety Directive 2013/30/EU (OSD) which compliments the Environmental Liability Directive 2004/35/EC (ELD) and the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 2011/92/EU (IEA), as well as the ratification of the Offshore Protocol of the Barcelona Convention by the Council, as first steps for the protection of the environment and the safety of workers; calls on those Member States which have not yet transposed ithe aforementioned directives into their national laws to do so as soon as possible;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the adoption of the OSD as a first step for the protection of the environment; and human activities and calls on those Member States which have not yet transposed it into their national laws to do so as soon as possible;

Amendment 27 #

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Massimo PAOLUCCI, Jytte GUTELAND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the adoption of the OSD as a first step for the protection of the environment; calls on those Member States which have not yet transposed it into their national laws to do so as ~~soon as possible~~immediately as they can;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses the need to ensure a proper transposition of the OSD into national law; regrets that not all Member States have guaranteed the sufficient independence of the competent authority as required in Article 8 of the Directive; calls on the Commission to undertake the necessary actions in order to ensure competent authorities' independence;

Amendment 29 #

Max ANDERSSON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Encourages Member States to start a progressive phase out of offshore hydrocarbon exploration and extraction operations in order to meet the long term objective of climate-neutrality before the end of the century, pursuant to the commitments taken in the Paris Agreement on climate change of December 2015 (COP21);

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15 a (new)

– having regard to the incidents related to the castor platform off the coast of Castellón and Tarragona, which include 500 earthquakes that have directly affected thousands of European citizens;

Amendment 30 #

Jytte GUTELAND, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that the effective application of the polluter pays principle to offshore oil and gas operations should extend not only to the costs of preventing and remedying environmental damage – as currently achieved via the OSD and ELD – but also to the costs of remedying traditional damage claims, in line with the precautionary principle and the principle of sustainable development; recommends that abuses or incidents that come about following activities carried out by companies should be quantitatively and qualitatively assessed, in such a way as to cover all the secondary effects for communities;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

Amendment 32 #

Jytte GUTELAND, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Victor NEGRESCU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Underlines the need to ensure rapid, effective, comprehensive and adequate compensation for all victims of pollution and any environmental damage caused by offshore accidents in accordance with the polluter pays principle: therefore, calls on the Commission 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 and other sectors of the blue economy;

Amendment 33 #

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Jytte GUTELAND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Underlines, with regard to liability for environmental damage, the divergences and the shortcomings in the transposition and application of ELD, as outlined also by the European Commission in its second implementation report; calls on the Commission to ensure that ELD is implemented in an effective manner and that liability for environmental damages from offshore accidents is available and adequate throughout the European Union;

Amendment 34 #

Jytte GUTELAND, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Victor NEGRESCU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

~~3. Regrets, in this context, that the OSD does not deal with liability for civil damage to either natural or legal persons, be it bodily injury, property damage or economic loss;~~deleted

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Regrets, in this context, that the OSD does not ~~deal with~~aim to harmonise the minimum liability for civil damage to either natural or legal persons, be it ~~bodily~~physical injury, property damage or economic loss that may result from offshore operations;

Amendment 36 #

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Massimo PAOLUCCI, Jytte GUTELAND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Regrets, in this context, that the OSD does not deal with liability for civil damage to either natural or legal persons, be it bodily injury, property damage or economic loss, whether direct or indirect;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Also r~~Regrets the fact that the way civil liability is handled varies considerably from one Member State to another and that there is often uncertainty as to how Member States’ legal systems would deal with the diversity of civil claims that could result from offshore oil and gas incidents; believes therefore that an European framework is needed and calls on the Commission to harmonise without delay the rules on liability, financial security and compensation; believes that such European framework should be based on the most advanced Member States' legislations, should cover, with regard to civil liability, not only bodily injury and property damage but also pure economic loss and should ensure effective compensation mechanisms for victims, including adequate procedures for mass claims and for sectors that may be severely affected (e.g. fisheries and coastal tourism);

Amendment 38 #

Jytte GUTELAND, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Also regrets the fact that the way civil liability is handled varies considerably from one Member State to another ~~and~~; stresses that there is no liability in many of the Member states with offshore and gas activities for most third-party claims for compensation for traditional damage caused by an accident; no regime in the vast majority of Member States for compensation payments; and no assurance in many Member States that operators or liable persons, would have adequate financial assets to meet claims; moreover, stresses that there is often uncertainty as to how Member States’ legal systems would deal with the diversity of civil claims that could result from offshore oil and gas incidents;

Amendment 39 #

Jytte GUTELAND, Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Victor NEGRESCU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Also regrets the fact that the way civil liability is handled varies considerably from one Member State to another and that there is often uncertainty as to how Member States’ legal systems would deal with the diversity of civil claims that could result from offshore oil and gas incidents; considers, therefore, that the Commission ought to assess the need to harmonise liability arrangements at EU level;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas ~~indigenous sources of oil and gas can contribute significantly to Europe’s existing energy needs and are particularly important for energy security and energy~~the reduction of oil and gas consumption is an important prerequisite for meeting EU and global climate and environmental objectives and a sustainable dieve~~rsity~~lopment;

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Also ~~regret~~notes the fact that the way civil liability is handled varies considerably from one Member State to another and that there is often uncertainty as to how Member States’' legal systems would deal with the diversity of civil claims that could result from offshore oil and gas incidents; calls on the European Commission to pay particular attention to this when drawing up the OSD Implementation Report;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Also regrets the fact that the way civil liability is handled varies considerably from one Member State to another and that there is often uncertainty as to how Member States’ legal systems would deal with the diversity of civil claims that could result from incidents caused by offshore oil and gas ~~incident~~operations;

Amendment 42 #

Jytte GUTELAND, Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Also ~~regrets the fac~~points out that the way civil liability is handled varies considerably from one Member State to another and that there is often uncertainty as to how Member States’ legal systems would deal with the diversity of civil claims that could result from offshore oil and gas incidents;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Notes that most Member States have not yet transposed the relevant provisions of the OSD; calls on the Commission to ensure the close monitoring of its implementation with a view to assess the appropriateness of introducing further harmonised rules on liability, compensation and financial security to improve compliance with the OSD as soon as possible in order to effectively prevent any future accidents with cross-border implications;

Amendment 44 #

Jytte GUTELAND, Evelyn REGNER, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Victor NEGRESCU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Takes the view that the Commission should look into sums of compensation to operators for giving up concessions awarded by a Member State so as to prevent cases of convert state aid;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses, in this perspective, that compensatory and remedial claims for traditional damage are further obstructed by civil procedure rules on time limitations, financial costs, non-availability of public interest litigation and mass tort claims, and provisions on evidence, which differ considerably from one Member State to another; calls therefore for the establishment of strict civil liability rules for offshore accidents;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Stress~~Notes that the civil procedure rules differ considerably from one Member State to another; notes, in this perspective, that compensatory and remedial claims for traditional damage ~~are further obstructed by civil~~ could be improcvedure rules on time limitations, financial costs, non- availability of public interest litigation and mass tort claims, and provisions on evidence, which differ considerably from one Member State to another by the creation of minimum standards in civil procedure;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Stress~~Also notes, in this perspective, that compensatory and remedial claims for traditional damage are further obstructed by civil procedure rules on time limitations, financial costs, non-availability of public interest litigation and mass tort claims, and provisions on evidence, which differ considerably from one Member State to another;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Highlights that compensatory regimes must be able to address transboundary claims effectively and without discrimination between claimants of different EEA countries; recommends that they cover both primary and secondary damage caused in all the affected areas, given that such incidents affect wider areas and may have a long- term impact;

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Highlights that compensatory regimes must be able to address transboundary claims effectively and without discrimination between claimants of different EEA countries; stresses the need for neighbouring countries which are not members of the EEA to respect international law;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital В

В. whereas offshore oil and gas operations are pr~~ogressive~~edominantly taking place in increasingly extreme environments and could potentially lead to major and devastating consequences for the environment and economy of the sea and coastal areas;

Amendment 50 #

Jytte GUTELAND, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Highlights that compensatory regimes must be able to address transboundary claims effectively, rapidly, within a reasonable timeframe and without discrimination between claimants of different EEA countries;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Regrets that the Commission concluded in its report on liability, compensation and financial security for offshore and gas operations (COM/2015/0422), that there is no need to consider further steps for harmonising and improving safety, civil and criminal liability and various financial security mechanisms before its implementation report of the OSD, due for July 2019; calls on the Commission to ensure instead that all possible safeguards are built into the EU and national legislations as soon as possible in order to provide adequate coverage for future accidents with cross- border impact;

Amendment 52 #

Jytte GUTELAND, Evelyn REGNER, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Invites the Member States and the 7. Commission to consider the special situation of workers and employees in the offshore oil and gas industry, especially of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); points out that offshore oil and gas incidents may have particularly serious implications for the fishing and tourism industries, ~~their employees and workers on the oil and gas platforms,~~ as well as for other sectors that rely on the good condition of the shared marine environment for doing business, since these sectors, which include many SMEs, could suffer significant economic loss in the event of a major offshore accident;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Invites the Member States and the Commission to consider the special situation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); points out that offshore oil and gas incidents may have particularly serious implications for the fishing and tourism industries, their employees and workers on the oil and gas platforms, as well as for other sectors that rely on the good condition of the ~~shared~~ marine environment and landscapes for doing business, since these sectors, which include many SMEs, could suffer significant economic loss in the event of a major offshore accident;

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Emphasises, therefore, that it is of ~~the utmost~~ importance regularly to update existing liability systems in the Member States in order to ensure that if an incident occurs in the waters of these states, it would not adversely affect the future of the offshore oil and gas operations of the state in question, nor that of othe ~~entire EU~~r EU Member States, were the incident to occur in an area that is largely dependent on tourism for revenue; ~~calls, therefore, on the Commission to revisit the need to introduce common EU standards for remedial and compensatory claim systems;~~

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Emphasises, therefore, that it is of the utmost importance to update existing liability systems in the Member States in order to ensure that if an incident occurs in the waters of these states, it would not adversely affect the future of the offshore oil and gas operations of the state in question, nor that of the entire EU, were thefor companies in the event of an incident, since an incident tomay occur in an area that is largely dependent on tourism for revenue; calls, therefore, on the Commission to revisit the need to introduce stringent common EU standards for remedial and compensatory claim systems for Member States, citizens, civil society organisations and local bodies;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Emphasises, therefore, that it is of the utmost importance to update existing liability systems in the Member States in order to ensure that if an incident occurs in the waters of these states, it would not adversely affect the future of the offshore oil and gas operations of the state in question, nor that of the entire EU, were the incident to occur in an area that is largely dependent on tourism for revenue; ~~calls,~~ therefore~~, on the Commission to revisit the need to introduce common EU standard~~ invites the Member States to consider the establishment of systems to exchange best practices for remedial and compensatory claim ~~syste~~mechanisms;

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Underlines the need to include the victims of collateral damage linked to prospecting, surveys and the operation of offshore facilities, as well as those likely to be eligible for the compensation envisaged;

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses the need for the Commission to perform regular conformity checks of national legal systems with the relevant liability and compensation provisions in the OSD, including verification of offshore companies’ financial statements, with a view to determining the real financial figures and the profit recorded; recommends creating a common mechanism at European level to deal with incidents and abuses;

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses the need for the Commission to perform regular conformity checks of national legal systems with the relevant liability and compensation provisions in the OSD and to take action in the event of a breach of conformity;

Amendment 6 #

Jytte GUTELAND

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas although North Sea oil and gas production has been in decline over the past years, the number of offshore facilities is likely to rise in Europe in the future, especially in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea;

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses the need for the Commission to perform regular conformity checks both of national legal systems and of enterprises with the relevant liability and compensation provisions in the OSD;

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses the need for ~~the Commission to perform regular conformity checks of~~regular checks to be conducted on the conformity of transposed national legal ~~system~~provisions with the relevant liability and compensation provisions in the OSD;

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Underlines that a balance needs to be struck between the swift compensation of victims and the prevention of pay-out of illegitimate claims (also known as the ‘floodgates’ problem), through increased certainty regarding the levels of financial responsibility of many offshore firms and the avoidance of lengthy and expensive proceedings before the courts; takes the view that compensation payments to operators should also be subject to such preventive measures and checks;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Underlines that a balance needs to be struck between the swift compensation of victims and the prevention of pay-out of illegitimate claims (also known as the ‘floodgates’ problem), through increased ~~certaint~~transparency regarding the levels of financial responsibility of many offshore firms and the avoidance of lengthy and expensive proceedings before the courts, without standard procedural rules being overlooked;

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Underlines that a balance needs to be struck between the swift and adequate compensation of victims and the prevention of pay-outs of illegitimate claims (also known as the ‘floodgates’ problem), through increased certainty regarding the levels of financial responsibility of many offshore firms and the avoidance of lengthy and expensive proceedings before the courts;

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. ~~Regret~~Notes the fact that none of the Member States explicitly sets out a broad range of financial security instruments concerning compensation for claims for traditional damage from offshore oil and gas incidents; underlines in this context th~~at over-reliance on insurance could potentially result in a closed market for financial security instruments, with the corollary potential for a lack of competition and increased cos~~e necessity to further study the role of insurances on the market for financial security instruments;

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Regrets the fact that none of the Member States explicitly sets out a broad range of financial security instruments concerning compensation for claims for traditional damage from offshore oil and gas incidents; underlines in this context that over-reliance on insurance ~~could potentially~~ results in a closed market for financial security instruments, ~~with the corollary potential for~~leading to a lack of competition and increased costs;

Amendment 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Urges the Commission to encourage the Member States to develop financial security instruments concerning compensation for traditional damage claims from ~~offshore oil and gas incidents~~incidents linked to general offshore oil and gas activities or to offshore oil and gas transport, including in cases of insolvency; believes that this could limit the externalisation of operators’ liability for accidental pollution to the public purse, which would otherwise be required to bear the compensation costs if the rules remain as they are;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Urges the Commission to encourage the Member States to develop financial security instruments concerning compensation for traditional damage claims resulting from offshore oil and gas incidents, including in cases of insolvency; believes that this could limit the externalisation of operators’ liability for accidental pollution to the public purse, which would otherwise be required to bear the compensation costs if the rules remain as they are;

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Urges the Commission to encourage the Member States to develop financial security instruments concerning increased compensation for traditional damage claims from offshore oil and gas incidents, including in cases of insolvency; believes that this could limit the externalisation of operators’ liability for accidental pollution to the public purse, which would otherwise be required to bear the compensation costs if the rules remain as they are;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas accidents caused by offshore oil and gas rigs lead to cross- border consequences and EU action to prevent and mitigate such accidents is therefore justified, especially in respect of countries of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Adriatic;

Amendment 70 #

Max ANDERSSON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. To avoid insolvency risks, with potential financial consequences on taxpayers, and increase financial security, the establishment of a special EU fund based on fees paid by the offshore industry should be considered;

Amendment 71 #