17 Amendments of Miriam DALLI related to 2015/2352(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
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 12 #
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
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 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 14 #
Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)
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 17 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
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 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
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 industrieit 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 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
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'; notes, however, that the OSD does not establish a comprehensive EU framework for liability; _________________ 1 OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
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 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
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 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
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 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
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 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 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Concludes that there is no need to give consideration to further legislation until the CommissiRegrets 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 published its report on implementation of the OSD. ossible in order to effectively prevent any future accidents from happening;.
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Is of the opinion that strict liability rules for offshore accidents facilitate access to justice for citizevictims (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 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
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 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
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 and other sectors of the blue economy.