REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION on the adequacy of national expert resources for complying with the regulatory functions pursuant to Article 27(4) of Directive 2013/30/EU
Date: 2016-05-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, gas industry, offshore oil, oil industry, recruitment, staff, supervisory body, underwater mineral resources, vocational training

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 31.5.2016  COM(2016) 318 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION on the adequacy of national expert resources for complying with the regulatory functions pursuant to Article 27(4) of Directive 2013/30/EU {SWD(2016) 182 final}  
 
 
1.  LEGAL BASIS AND OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT 

Offshore  oil  and  gas  operations  play  an  important  role  in  reinforcing  EU's  indigenous 
production of energy, thus contributing to the security of EU's energy supply. However, 
these activities need to take place with the application of best practices and the highest 
levels of safety. For this reason, following the Deepwater Horizon tragedy in the Gulf of 
Mexico,  the  Commission  proposed  new  legislation.  On  12  June  2013,  Directive 
2013/30/EU on safety of offshore oil and gas operations1 (hereafter: OSD or Directive) 
was  adopted.  Member  States  had  to  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations,  and 
administrative procedures necessary to comply with OSD by 19 July 2015.  

The  Commission  has  not  yet  finalised  its  assessment  whether  national  legislation  of 
Member  States  is  fully  in  line  with  the  Offshore  Safety  Directive.  Furthermore,  not  all 
Member  States  have  notified  to  the  Commission  that  they  have  fully  implemented  the 
Directive.  Applying  the  procedures  in  place  the  Commission  will  follow  this  up 
bilaterally  with  each  Member  State  to  ensure  full  transposition  as  soon  as  possible. 
Appropriate staffing and administrative capacity of authorities remain a key element for 
carrying  out  all  tasks  for  ensuring  a  high  level  of  safety  of  offshore  oil  and  gas 
operations. 

To comply with OSD's requirements from July 2015, each Member State must inter alia 
have established an authority ("competent authority") which can carry out the regulatory 
functions required of the Member States pursuant to the Directive. Articles 8 and 9 of the 
OSD,  jointly  with  its  annex  III  set  out  the  provisions  and  duties,  organisational 
arrangements and procedures of competent authorities of Member States needed to carry 
out all functions requested.  

The Commission is required under the Directive (Article 27.4) to present to the Member 
States  a  report  on  the  adequacy  of  national  expert  resources  for  complying  with  the 
regulatory  functions  pursuant  to  the  Directive  and,  if  necessary,  include  proposals  for 
ensuring  that  all  Member  States'  competent  authorities  are  adequately  resourced  (e.g. 
overall  budget,  staffing  and  equipment)  to  carry  out  their  duties.  The  Commission 
worked closely with Member States in 2013 and 2014, mainly in the context of the EU 
Offshore  Authorities  Group  (EUOAG)2,  to  assess  their  available  resources  and  their 
plans  for  further  capacity  building  of  their  competent  authorities.  The  Commission   
presented in June 2014 to Member States representatives in the EUOAG its findings and 
discussed  them  with  EUOAG  delegates  in  a  dedicated  workshop.  It  also  presented  the 
findings  in  a  meeting  of  the  Council's  Energy  Working  Party,  where  Member  States 
asked  the  Commission  for  further  assessment  of  the  situation  in  Member  States  and 
particularly of their plans for capacity building in the context of OSD transposition, to be 
presented  in  an  in-depth  written  report.  Further  exchanges  between  the  Commission 
services and the Member States have been taking place in a bilateral manner since. 

1 OJ L 178 of 26 June 2013, p. 66 - 106 
2 “Set up by Commission Decision of 19 January 2012 (OJ C 18 of 21 January 2012, p. 8 – 1), the EUOAG 
is  a  forum  for  the  exchange  of  regulatory  and  technical  experiences  and  expertise  both  amongst  and 
between  national  authorities  and  the  Commission  on  all  issues  relating  to  offshore  major  accident 
prevention.  For  more  details 
JRC 
[http://euoag.jrc.ec.europa.eu/].''  

the  official  EUOAG  website,  operated  by 

see 

the 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
To  respond  to  this  request  of  Member  States  and  with  regard  to  its  obligation  under 
Article  27(4)  OSD,  the  Commission  presents  this  report  and  the  accompanying  Staff 
Working Document on national expert resources in Member States' competent authorities 
and on their adequacy for complying with regulatory functions set out in the OSD. 

Details  of  the  methodology  applied  and  the  information  base  used  for  this  report  are 
included in the Staff Working Document (Part 1). 

2. 

FUNCTIONS  AND  CATEGORIES  OF  EXPERTISE  OF  COMPETENT  AUTHORITIES  TO 
COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE OSD 

The  Member  State's  competent  authority  must  be  established  with  a  capability  to  carry 
out the required regulatory functions. A competent authority will require an organisation 
including  policies,  procedures  and  processes,  a  range  of  technical  and  regulatory 
competences (specific to the offshore sector) as well as arrangements with stakeholders 
to  carry  out  the  regulatory  functions  effectively.  However  at  the  time  when  the 
Commission gathered data for this analysis, all Member States did not have established, 
fully functioning competent authorities, which involves transposition of the relevant part 
of the OSD. 

2.1.  Overview on typical regulatory functions, competences and processes 

An  existing,  fully  functioning  competent  authority,  which  operates  already  in  a 
regulatory environment resembling the one sought by the OSD, was used to analyse and 
determine  the  scope  of  regulatory  functions,  the  supporting  regulatory  systems  and  the 
associated competences of the staff.  The main functions are: 

  Assessment of reports on major hazards (RoMHs) and of design notifications for 

new installations (for both production and non-production installations); 

  Assessment of notifications of and information on wells operations; 
  Assessment of material change information & a thorough periodic review every 5 

years relating to previously accepted reports on major hazards; 

  Oversight of compliance with existing installations (inspection, investigation, 

enforcement). 

These  functions  and  the  key  organisational  arrangements  (systems,  staff)  are  further 
outlined  in  the  staff  working  document  (Part  2),  which  provides  additional  technical 
details to this report.  

2.2. Interaction with stakeholders 

The  OSD  also  requires  Member  States  to  ensure  that  owners  and  operators  and  the 
competent  authority  have  arrangements  in  place  for  exchanges  of  knowledge  and 
information with the key stakeholders. This requirement includes an obligation for each 
competent  authority  to  prepare  and  revise  standards  and  guidance  on  best  practice  in 
close collaboration with the relevant stakeholders. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  EU MEMBER STATES OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS INSTALLATIONS AND ACTIVITIES  

The  resource  requirements  are  linked  to  the  size  of  the  offshore  industry  including  the 
number of installations3 and related offshore activities e.g. the number of assessments of 
major  hazard  reports,  notifications  of  well  operations  and  the  number  of  inspections. 
Even  Member  States  with  a  small  industry  or  with  ambitions  to  develop  an  offshore 
sector still require a minimum administrative overhead. 

The determination of resource needs in relation to the size of the Member States' industry 
is based on a survey4 of existing installations in 2014 and estimated size/structure of the 
Member  State's  offshore  industries  in  2016,  carried  out  by  the  Commission's  Joint 
Research Centre (see Staff Working Document, part I). 

Figure 1: Number of Offshore Installations by Member States in the EU in 2014 

Based  on  the  size  of  the  offshore  industry  i.e.  number  of  offshore  installations,  the 
Member States can be divided into three groups. Whereas group 1 includes the Member 
States with high numbers of oil and gas production installations, group 2 Member States 
have  low  numbers  of  installations;  Member  States  of  Group  3  have  no  production 
installations but planned or foreseeable exploration activities:  

  Group 1: Croatia, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, UK 
  Group 2: Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Poland, Romania and Spain 
  Group 3: Cyprus, France, Malta, Portugal 

The large majority of the installations in the EU are currently located in the five Member 
States of Group 1.  

In addition to the number of installations present within the Member States, the number 
of exploration wells and the number of well operations on existing wells are a significant 
source  of  offshore  oil  and  gas  activity.  Data  was  collected  on  past  averages  of  drilling 
exploration  wells  and  other  well  activities  in  each  Member  State.  This  type  of  data  is 
difficult to establish precisely as the drilling and well operations are highly dependent on 

3 The term 'installation' is as used in the definition of Article 2(19) of the OSD.  

4 JRC (Joint Research Centre) Science for Policy report 'National expert resources for overseeing offshore 

safety in the EU'. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
many  factors  and  subject  to  change.  Therefore,  baseline  and  high  offshore  activity 
options were developed to allow the estimations of the required resources of competent 
authorities  for  regulatory  functions  on  offshore  well  activities  and  exploration.  These 
estimations  were  compared  with  the  current  and  planned  resources  for  competent 
authorities in Member States to conclude on the adequacy of national expert resources.  

Furthermore, the analysis was based on the assumption that larger and mature oil and gas 
industries  would  have  relatively  stable  numbers  of  well  operations  and  exploration 
programs whereas the new and emerging oil and gas industries could see more variation 
in these exploration activities. The baseline option means that the offshore sector would 
remain stable without change to the current level of offshore activity (July 2014 survey), 
whereas the high offshore activity option is based on the assumption of a 20% increase in 
exploration  in  Member  States  with  an  established  offshore  oil  and  gas  industry  and  a 
50%  increase  in  exploration  and  well  operations  in  Member  States  with  small  or 
developing offshore oil and gas industries. 

4.  EU COMPETENT AUTHORITY RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS FOR OSD COMPLIANCE 

The analysis of the expert human resources needed for each Member State's competent 
authority  to  perform  offshore  regulatory  functions  was  carried  out  using  a  bottom-up 
estimation  of  the  required  resources  from  the  regulatory  functions  of  the  competent 
authority.  

As  part  of  the  estimation  of  the  required  expert  human  resources,  Member  States 
provided  qualitative  ratings  to  their  current  systems  and  procedures,  as  well  as  the 
expected ratings  for  these  systems  for  2016.  A  proportion  of  the  competent  authorities' 
resources  have  been  attributed  to  the  development  of  these  regulatory  systems  and 
arrangements. 

The estimation of required resources refers to future needs of the Member States which 
inevitably  depend  on  their  future  activities.  To  provide  an  understanding  on  how  these 
estimates depend on the activities, the two scenarios used for estimating future levels of 
offshore activity (see chapter 3) have again been considered. The resource requirements 
were estimated for each of the 5 main categories of regulatory task:  

-  
- 
-  
-  
-  

assessment of major hazard documents,  
inspection of installations,  
the investigation of incidents, the development of regulatory policy,  
process and procedures, and  
guidance and standards development with stakeholders. 

They were estimated using the two offshore activities scenarios. 

A comparison between the 2014 and 2016 scenarios point out at a significant increase in 
resource  requirements  as  the  Offshore  Safety  Directive  is  implemented.  This  is  due 
largely  to  the  requirements  for  the  assessment  of  reports  on  major  hazards  (RoMH)  as 
competent  authorities  will  receive  all  reports  of  major  hazards  for  new  and  existing 
installations  between  July  2015  and  July  2018.   After  this  3  years  period,  the  resource 
requirements for the assessment of reports of major hazards will drop substantially.  The 
resource requirements would be higher if the high offshore activity level was applicable 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
instead  of  the  baseline  scenario.  However,  the  baseline  option  is  considered  more 
relevant to the current economic climate. 

Furthermore, the high level of resource requirements for the development of regulatory 
policies  (~15%  of  total  resource  requirements)  and  the  up-dating  of  guidance  and 
standards  (~20%)  reflect  the  amount  of  additional  work  required  to  develop  such 
policies,  procedures  and  processes  and  such  arrangements  for  interacting  with  all 
stakeholders associated with the regulatory functions of the directive. 

Information on the current status and planned developments of the regulatory procedures 
and processes and the arrangements with stakeholders, as presented in the next section, 
indicates  a  likelihood  that  the  resource  requirements  for  developing  these  regulatory 
procedures and  arrangements  will  also  drop  after  the  initial  years  of  implementation  of 
the  OSD.  However,  these  areas  will  still  require  review  and  further  improvement  as 
competent authorities develop. 

5.  CURRENT AND PLANNED LEVELS OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY RESOURCING WITHIN 

EU MEMBER STATES  

The  Commission  with  the  collaboration  of  existing  competent  authorities,  if  already 
established, or with the help of responsible administrations in charge of developing them, 
gathered  information  on  the  size  and  composition  of  current  and  planned  future  expert 
resources within the competent authorities (2014 and 2016). 

Data was gathered on the current and planned status of regulatory policies, processes and 
procedures in comparison with the requirements of Article 8 and 9 and Annex III of the 
OSD.  

On  analysis  of  the  data,  assumptions  were  made  on  the  approximate  resource 
requirements of Member States in compliance with the requirements of the OSD. 

Figure 2: 

Available  and  projected  staff  by  Member  State  (full  time  equivalent 
(FTE), 2014 and 2016) 

Information from the survey shows that Member States plan to increase staff numbers in 
their  competent  authorities  by  2016.  To  have  all  necessary  skills  available  for  carrying 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
out  regulatory  functions  in  line  with  the  OSD  they  envisage  training/development  of 
current staff, outsourcing arrangements/offshore technical consultants, intergovernmental 
department transfers or sharing of resource and external recruitment.  

5.1.  Current  and  planned  status  of  regulatory  policies,  procedures  and 

processes 

Group  1  Member  States'  competent  authorities  currently  have  established  regulatory 
policies,  procedures  and  processes  but  not  necessarily  fully  compliant  with  all  the 
requirements  in  OSD.  Competent  authorities  of  Group  1  plan  to  make  the  necessary 
developments  by  2016;  some  Group  1  Member  States  require  more  development  than 
others. 

Key policies, procedures and processes requiring further work within Group 1 Member 
States competent authorities include: 

  Assessment of reports on major hazards; 
  Well operations notification assessment procedures; 
  Offshore technical and regulatory internal guidance; 
  System of training or competence assurance for offshore regulatory personnel  

Competent  authorities  in  Group  2  currently  have  less  developed  regulatory  policies, 
procedures  and  processes  than  Group  1  Member  States  as  for  most  of  these  Member 
States  this  is  the  first  time  that  they  have  had  to  implement  an  offshore  major  hazard 
safety  regime.    However  they  are  developing  the  necessary  systems  to  achieve 
compliance with the OSD, bringing additional pressure on expert resources to competent 
authorities in Group 2. 

Competent authorities in Group 3 currently have the least developed offshore regulatory 
support  systems.  They  generally  need  to  establish  some  of  the  regulatory  policies, 
procedures and processes but not to the level of Group 1 Member States given the extent 
of  their  offshore  activities.  In  general,  Group  3  Member  States  believe  that  they  can 
improve  their  regulatory  support  systems  to  be  reliable  and  robust  by  2016.    This  will 
bring significant additional pressure on their competent authority's resources. 

5.2.  Current  and  planned  organisational  arrangements  for  the  interaction 

with stakeholders 

Group  1  Member  State's  competent  authorities  at  the  time  of  the  survey  had  well 
established  organisational  arrangements  for  the  interaction  with  stakeholders;  however 
significant  improvements  in  the  interaction  with  technical  standards  committees  and 
other competent authorities are required. Three Member States seem to comply with most 
criteria examined and for the other two more development efforts are required. 

Group  2  Member  State's  competent  authorities  have  more  basic  organisational 
arrangements  for  working  with  stakeholders  and  developing  these  standards  but  they 
have  smaller  industries  to  address.  Therefore,  these  arrangements  can  be  on  a  smaller 
scale but this will still involve applying a significant proportion of resources from their 
competent  authority.  There  is  a  lack  of  interaction  with  unions  and  workers’ 
representatives  and  with  international  and  national  technical  standards  committees  in 
several of these Member States. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Group  3  Member  State's  competent  authorities  have  the  most  basic  organisational 
arrangements  for  working  with  stakeholders  and  developing  standards  but  have  the 
smallest industries to address with fewer licensees, owners or operators active. There are 
significant shortfalls, mainly in the interaction with unions and workers’ representation, 
and  international  and  national  technical  standards  committees.  Group  3  Member  States 
believe  that  adequate  organisational  arrangements  will  be  in  place  by  2016.  The 
development  of  these  arrangements  is  likely  to  require  a  significant  proportion  of  their 
available resource given the size of their competent authorities.  

6.  ANALYSIS  OF  POTENTIAL  GAPS  BETWEEN  RESOURCES  IN  PLACE/PLANNED  AND 

REQUIRED AS ESTIMATED 

An  analysis  of  the  gaps  between  required  resources  as  established  in  chapter  4  and  the 
provision of actual resources (2014) and Member States' plans for 2016 (chapter 5) was 
carried out for each of the three groups of Member States and the EU as a whole for the 
baseline and high activity scenarios.  

For  each  scenario,  the  required  regulatory  competences  for  the  three  main  regulatory 
functions  were  calculated  (as  outlined  in  Part  1  of  the  Staff  Working  Document).  The 
adequacy of the expert human resources for a certain Member State's competent authority 
was then calculated by subtracting the estimated required resources from the currently (or 
planned) available resources. 

At the time of the survey carried out by JRC as mentioned above, the oil price was $115 
per barrel, however, this has fallen to less than $ 40 per barrel and this will significantly 
reduce the level of offshore exploration activity. With regard to these current economic 
conditions,  accordingly  the  baseline  option  is  considered  as  most  appropriate  for 
comparing the required resources against the proposed available resources in 2016. 

Figure 3: 

Estimated required competences and the actual and planned levels of 
offshore competence (FTE) in 2016 - baseline scenario  

Source: Bio by Deloitte 

8 

0,010,020,030,040,050,060,070,080,090,0100,0RegulatorySpecialists &SafetyManagementSystemsProcessEngineeringincl. Fire,Explosion &RiskAssessmentMechanicalEngineering,Materials &CorrosionDivingEnvironmentalProtection &Oil SpillResponseElectrical &ControlSystemsWellsStructuralIntegrity &VerificationPipelinesEvacuation andEmergencyResponse,Marine &AviationOperationsOccupationalHealthNavalArchitecture &MarineEngineeringOrganisational& HumanFactorsLegalAdministrativeRequired Staff in 2016Available Staff in 2016Available staff in 2014 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Group 1: 

The estimated overall requirement for offshore technical and regulatory resource in 2016 
for  Group  1  Member  State's  competent  authorities  is  ca.  288  FTE  (Full  Time 
Equivalents)  and  the  total  numbers  of  proposed  offshore  technical  and  regulatory 
expertise  available  in  2016  is  shown  to  be  almost  the  same.  On  average,  a  10  -  20% 
increase  in  the  number  of  required  staff  is  needed  between  2014  and  2016.  There  are, 
however, noticeable shortfalls in the technical categories of diving (-17.5%), pipelines (-
12.8%),  mechanical  (-10%),  electrical  (-9%),  structural  engineering  (-25%)  and  naval 
architecture (-60%).  

At the EUOAG, all Member States of this group have indicated difficulties in recruitment 
of  such  qualified  offshore  technical  competences  for  various  reasons  including 
competitive salary and availability of the desired skills. 

Group 2: 

The  estimated  overall  requirement  for  offshore  technical  and  regulatory  resources  in 
Group  2  Member  State's  competent  authority  is  ca.  50  FTE.    The  total  numbers  of 
offshore technical and regulatory expertise is shown to be significantly positive i.e. >50 
FTE, due to significant resources of one Member State of this group across the technical 
disciplines. 

There  are  a  number  of  countries  with  relatively  high  levels  of  a  single  competence. 
However,  with  one  exception  there  is  no  Member  State  with  the  full  range  of  offshore 
technical  competences.   This  is  understandable  as  there  is  a  wide  range  of  offshore 
technical competences and most of the shortfalls are less than one FTE.  In some cases 
Member  States  have  addressed  such  gaps  with  short  term  contracting  of  external 
consultants. Most Member States indicated that they would consider possible agreements 
with other competent authority for sharing competences. The most significant shortages 
identified  are  in  “Regulatory  Specialists  &  Safety  Management  Systems”.  Further 
training or development may address this issue.  There are funding problems reported in 
four Member States in Group 2. 

Group 3 

These  Member  States  have  no  production  installations  and  therefore  their  offshore 
activities  will  mainly  include  offshore  drilling  programs.   The  estimated  overall 
requirement for offshore technical and  regulatory  resources in  Group  3 Member State's 
competent authority is ca. 16 FTE.  Generally, smaller competent authorities have gaps in 
the  range  of  offshore  competences  available  within  their  organisation, e.g.  in  particular 
process  engineering,  environmental  protection  specialists,  diving  and  some  other 
engineering  disciplines  were  highlighted  as  in  shortfall.   Most  Group  3  Member  States 
competent authorities indicated possible agreements with other competent authorities for 
sharing  competences  to  address  such  small  shortfalls  which  would  be  acceptable.   The 
estimate of the regulatory resource requirements did not include the assessment of reports 
on major accident hazards for mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs)/installations that 
are not based permanently in the Member State's jurisdiction. This would be a significant 
additional resource requirement on the occurrence of offshore drilling programmes. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  above  resource  requirements  were  calculated  considering  only  the  regulatory 
functions and regulatory procedural requirements.  It is acknowledged that there will be 
further resources required to establish and maintain an organisation with the capability of 
being  a  competent  authority.  The  EU  Member  States  competent  authorities  are  all  at 
different levels of maturity and this study has not included any estimate on the level of 
resource required to establish the organisational structure of each competent authority. It 
is  therefore  likely,  particularly  for  new  or  changing  organisations  that  additional 
resources will be required to develop the organisation to be a competent authority. There 
are funding limitations, which are particularly serious in two Member States in Group 3. 

7.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Information received from Member States and the industry, first of all in the framework 
of the EUOAG, alleged that offshore oil and gas operations in certain areas of the EU as 
the  North  Sea  are  likely  to  decline  due  to  the  substantial  downturn  of  oil  prices.  Less 
offshore  operations  may  reduce  the  projected  workload  for  competent  authorities  and 
their  need  for  resources,  although  the  decommissioning  of  installations  also  requires 
specific  expertise.  This  means  that  the  shortfalls  determined  on  the  basis  of  the  earlier 
survey may be less pronounced than formerly expected.  

The  comparison  between  estimated  needs  and  polled  actual  situation  shows  shortfalls 
across  the  EU  in  2014  of  ca.  10%.  The  comparison  between  the  actual  administrative 
capacity in 2014 with the requirements of resources of competent authorities in 2016, a 
year after the implementation deadline of July 2015, indicates that shortfalls for certain 
disciplines  could  increase  without  adequate  action  by  Member  States.  These  predicted 
gaps  varied  by  Member  State.  Member  States  are  aware  that  a  re-enforcement  of 
resources is necessary and plan to recruit and train staff.  

If  Member  States  recruit  in  line  with  their  plans,  most  disciplines  appear  well  sourced 
and  a  clear  gap  may  only  develop  in  the  category  for  diving  (-21%),  mechanical 
engineering  (-8%),  emergency  response  (-14%)  and  naval  architecture  (-14%). 
Nevertheless, the availability of sufficient numbers of human resources and the attraction 
of offshore expertise to the competent authorities to carry out the regulatory functions is 
still a risk to the successful implementation of the OSD.  

Adequate  financial resources are necessary to recruit qualified staff, particular in certain 
technical disciplines, and to train new recruits in areas for which qualified persons are not 
available. To attract specialists in disciplines with apparent shortages requires appropriate 
pay levels.  

If  figures  are  broken  down  by  groups  of  Member  States,  shortfalls  appear  more 
pronounced  in  several  categories  as  for  example  for  diving,  mechanical,  electrical  and 
structural engineering, emergency response and naval architecture as reported in section 
6.  However,  there  are  considerable  variations  between  the  different  groups  (for  details 
see also Part 3 of the staff working document). 

Further  to  determining  targets  for  resources,  an  operational  strategy  for  meeting  them, 
broken  down  in  milestones  and  actions,  should  contribute  to  address  any  shortfalls  in 
2016. A wide range  of options on which  these strategies may be based on is  available, 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
which  includes  sources  for  recruitment  of  specialists,  collective  and  shared  training, 
bilateral/multilateral  expert  transfer,  knowledge  sharing  and  networks  of  3rd  party 
expertise (for further details see also Part 4 of the staff working document). 

Member  States  should  ensure  that  their  competent  authority  is  developed  allowing  the 
recovery of their costs from the licensees, owners and operators of offshore oil and gas 
activities. 

Group 1 Member States competent authorities should avoid any shortfall of competences 
by  the  recruitment  of  adequate  numbers  of  offshore  regulatory  and  technical  expertise 
and  the  training  of  staff  in  the  relevant  regulatory  functions.  Further  to  the  human 
resource component they need to optimise regulatory processes and associated systems.  

Group  2  (low  numbers  of  installations)  and  Group  3  Member  States  (no  production 
installations,  plans  to  develop)  competent  authorities  are  likely  to  have  shortfalls  in  a 
number of offshore disciplines in 2016 but they are generally expected to be less than 1 
full  time  equivalent  person.  This  situation  leads  to  the  difficulty  in  providing  the  full 
range of offshore expertise within a competent authority of a Member State with a small 
or developing offshore oil and gas industry. In this context Member States may consider 
sharing  and  pooling  of  resources  within  a  networking  arrangement.  To  make  such  a 
proposal  operational,  Member  States  need  to  deal  with  practicalities  regarding  liability 
and logistics in Member States public service systems.  

Small  and  emerging  competent  authorities  should  adjust  the  available  options  to  their 
specific needs. For example the network of third party expertise in a joint support scheme 
could include entities shared by several Member States or may employ for less sensitive 
functions experts from the industry. For further details on the range of options, please see 
Part 4 of the staff working document. For example a Virtual Centre of Offshore Safety 
Expertise to assist the Member States’ competent authorities in meeting their competence 
requirements. 

Finally, the European Union Offshore Authorities Group could contribute to the required 
co-operation  between  Member  States  and  the  Commission  to  develop  instruments  to 
facilitate sharing and pooling of staff, in particular for the benefit of the smaller emerging 
competent authorities.  

11