REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE assessing the implementation of Directive 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on the safety of offshore oil and gas operations and amending Directive 2004/35/EC
Date: 2020-11-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: application of EU law, environmental protection, extraction of oil, hydrocarbon, marine pollution, maritime safety, offshore drilling, offshore oil structure, oil pollution, petroleum exploration

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.11.2020  COM(2020) 732 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE assessing the implementation of Directive 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on the safety of offshore oil and gas operations and amending Directive 2004/35/EC     {SWD(2020) 269 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary 

4.6 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 3 
1 
BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ............................................................................... 3 
2 
METHOD .......................................................................................................................................... 3 
3 
4 
ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................ 4 
4.1  Member States’ implementation of the Directive ............................................................................... 4 
Public participation in release of new areas for licensing ................................................................... 4 
4.2 
Assignment of the competent authority .............................................................................................. 4 
4.3 
Independent verification of safety operations outside the EU ............................................................ 5 
4.4 
4.5 
Arrangements for worker involvement in major accident prevention, relating to protection 
of whistle-blowers and tripartite consultation mechanisms ................................................................ 5 
Transparency on the reporting of incidents – the Implementing Regulation on reporting of 
accidents ............................................................................................................................................. 5 
Emergency preparedness and response arrangements......................................................................... 6 
Availability of dissuasive penalties for breaches of duty .................................................................... 6 
Liability, compensation claims and financial security of offshore oil and gas producers ................... 7 
  Liability ................................................................................................................................... 7 
4.9.1
  Handling of compensation claims ........................................................................................... 8 
4.9.2
Implementation by Member States and effectiveness of their rules ........................................ 8 
4.9.3
4.10  Decommissioning of installations ....................................................................................................... 9 
  The Directive and decommissioning ....................................................................................... 9 
  Oslo  and  Paris  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  the  Marine  Environment  of  the 
North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) ............................................................................................... 10 
  Conclusions and options to proceed ...................................................................................... 10 
4.11  Mutual recognition of mobile drilling units (MODU) ...................................................................... 11 
CONCLUSIONS AND FOLLOW-UP .......................................................................................... 12 
5 

4.10.1
4.10.2

4.7 
4.8 
4.9 

4.10.3

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Summary 

The  Offshore  Safety  Directive  addresses  the  risk  of  accidents  arising  from  offshore  oil 
and  gas  operations.  It  also  addresses  subsequent  response  and  recovery  mechanisms  if 
preventive measures fail. The Directive concerns principally, though not exclusively, the 
16 Member States in which licensed oil and gas operations take place.  

This  assessment  of  how  the  Directive  has  been  implemented  is  based  on  intensive 
discussions  with  stakeholders,  workshops,  an  extensive  public  consultation  and  the 
Commission’s  own  insights  and  expertise.  The  scope  of  the  assessment  reflects  the 
provisions of the Directive and the issues raised by stakeholders in the preparation phase. 
The  analysis  demonstrates  that  the  Directive  draws  on  existing  international  best 
practices on the control of risks and has improved the response to possible emergencies 
in the sector. 

The  deadline  for  implementation  of  the  Directive  for  Member  States  was  July  2015, 
although  transitional  arrangements  for  industry  applied  until  July  2018.  The  Member 
States’  notifications  of  their  national  rules  and  legislation  indicate  that  most  of  the 
Directive’s  measures  are  in  place.  Most  fundamentally,  industry  has  taken  on  risk 
management duties,  with  each offshore installation the subject  of a detailed risk report. 
Each  Member  State  has  appointed  an  expert  competent  authority  with  wide  powers  of 
oversight.  

The Commission  has published three annual reports  on the  EU-wide safety  of offshore 
oil  and  gas  operations.  These  and  other  data  enable  a  risk  performance  baseline  to  be 
developed, although it is too early to identify safety performance trends in the offshore 
sector. There are clear indications that the aims of the Directive are being met through its 
transposition  by  the  Member  States.  Industry  and  the  Member  States  are  closely 
following  requirements,  although  with  some  differences  of  interpretation.  Most  of  the 
open  issues  can  be  handled  under  existing  communication  protocols,  e.g.  through  the 
European  Offshore  Authorities  Group  (EUOAG).  A  few  others  justify  further  scrutiny, 
with  the  topics  of  financial  liability  and  compensation  mechanisms  meriting  particular 
attention.  

Member  States  and  industry  largely  welcomed  the  introduction  of  the  Directive  in  its 
current  scope,  while  environmental  non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs)  are  more 
nuanced  in  their  assessment,  calling  for  further  tightening  of  some  measures.  All 
stakeholders  point  to  the  depth  and  intensity  of  the  changes  brought  about  by  the 
Directive  and  say  that  more  time  and  monitoring  is  required  before  considering 
legislative changes.  

Overall, possible areas for further work have been identified on the topics of liability and 
compensation,  the  mutual  recognition  of  mobile  drilling  units  in  the  Member  States’ 
different jurisdictions, and the removal of fixed production platforms. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

The  Offshore  Safety  Directive 
lays  down  minimum  requirements  for  safety, 
environmental protection and emergency response across the EU. It entered into force on 
19 July 2013. Member States were required to transpose the Directive into national rules 
and  regulations  by  19 July 2015,  while  transitional  periods  for  industry  applied  until 
19 July 2018.  

All Member States have declared that they have transposed the Offshore Safety Directive 
into national legislation. The Commission has carried out a check of the Member States’ 
national legislative measures to assess the completeness of the Directive’s transposition.  

2  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

Pursuant  to  Article  40  of  the  Offshore  Safety  Directive,  the  Commission,  taking  due 
account  of  the  efforts  and  experiences  of  competent  authorities,  must  assess  the 
experience  of  implementing  this  Directive.  The  Commission  must  assess  whether  the 
Directive, as implemented by the Member States, has achieved the objectives of ensuring 
safe  operations  and  avoiding  major  accidents  or  an  undue  number  of  incidents.  The 
Commission is required to then submit a report to the European Parliament (EP) and the 
Council with the results of the assessment.  

Taking the objectives of the Directive as a benchmark, specifically the establishment of 
adequate  levels  of  safety  for  offshore  oil  and  gas  operations  and  environmental 
protection, the Commission has verified whether: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

the main objectives of the Directive have been achieved,  and if not,  whether an 
amendment to the Directive or other legal initiatives are appropriate;  
there are any gaps in legislation that need to be addressed to improve the level of 
safety in offshore oil and gas operations;  
certain  provisions  of  the  Directive  impose  undue  burdens  on  Member  States  or 
industry, and whether their removal should be considered;  
the  Directive  has  sufficiently  harmonised  the  regulatory  structure  and  level  of 
safety  across  the  EU  offshore  operations,  proportionate  to  the  activity  levels  of 
the Member States;  
the  Directive  is  effective,  efficient,  coherent,  relevant  and  provides  sufficient 
added value to the EU. 

3  METHOD 

The Commission carried out its analysis using a broad range of information channels. To 
gather a range of experiences with the Directive, experts and the wider public were both 
asked to contribute to the knowledge base. On the expert side, the Commission utilised 
the EUOAG, established by a Commission Decision1. Competent authorities of Member 
States represented in the EUOAG carry out the regulatory oversight of offshore oil and 
gas activities and related policy issues.  

1   Commission  Decision  of  19  January  2012  on  setting  up  the  European  Offshore  Authorities  Group. 

OJ C 18/8, 21.1.2012. 

3 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
                                                      
To complete the knowledge base, the Commission carried out a broad public consultation 
based  on  a  comprehensive  questionnaire  on  both  the  Directive  and  the  Implementing 
Regulation2 on the reporting of accidents. All interested parties, including businesses and 
public entities, were asked to provide views and comments. Member States and industrial 
associations  have  both  shared  detailed  data  with  the  Commission,  and  NGOs  actively 
contributed to discussions.  

The  Commission  took  note  of  Member  States’  experiences  of  implementing  the 
Directive,  both  those  of  competent  authorities  enforcing  the  Directive’s  provisions  and 
those of owners and operators of offshore installations working within the national legal 
frameworks.  

This report summarises the main conclusions drawn by the Commission and focuses on 
possible areas for follow-up.  It  is  accompanied by  a staff working document  (SWD) to 
guide the reader systematically through the assessment of the Directive’s articles. Some 
areas  mentioned  below  may  merit  further  analysis  with  a  view  to  developing  possible 
future amendments or new legislation.  

4  ANALYSIS  

4.1  Member States’ implementation of the Directive 

The  Commission’s  assessment  has  shown  that  there  is  satisfactory  overall  quality  and 
level of completeness of the Offshore Safety Directive’s implementation in the European 
Union.  Nevertheless,  the  integrity  and  quality  of  the  implementation  achieved  by 
Member  States  varies  significantly.  Member  States  have  taken  different  approaches  to 
implementing  the  Directive.  This  report  focuses  on  those  articles  of  the  Directive  that 
have the largest impact on offshore safety. The SWD accompanying this report provides 
additional  details  on  the  assessment  of  how  each  of  the  Directive’s  articles  have  been 
implemented by the Member States. 

4.2  Public participation in release of new areas for licensing 

The  Commission  suggests  that  Member  States  publish  guidance  to  facilitate  and 
encourage public participation in consultations. The arrangements made by the Member 
States should ensure that consultees can be confident that their views are properly taken 
into  account  in  the  decision  making  process.  The  Commission  concludes  that  the 
Directive’s provisions for stimulating public consultation are suitable and sufficient. 

4.3  Assignment of the competent authority 

It appears that the measures in the Directive on the assignment of a competent authority 
are  appropriate  for  the  intended  purpose.  However,  there  is  a  lack  of  clarity  regarding 
whether  the  independence  of  these  authorities  from  the  economic  interests  of  other 
departments  of  Member  State  administrations  has  been  sufficiently  and  appropriately 
attained in all countries. Given the importance of safety and environmental protection in 

2Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1112/2014. OJ L 302/1, 22.10.2014. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
the management of marine space, the independence of judgement of offshore competent 
authorities is a matter of public interest.  

4.4 

  Independent verification of safety operations outside the EU 

It  appears  that  no  changes  are  required  to  the  Directive’s  provisions  on  independent 
verification of installations and wells as implemented by Member States. For optimising 
best practice, it would be useful to collate all of the available guidance of industry and 
regulators, and for this to be disseminated via the EUOAG. 

The  Commission  concludes  that  the  requirements  set  out  in  the  provisions  related  to 
safety  operations  outside  the  EU  are  appropriate.  However,  ensuring  the  consistent 
application  of  safety  rules  by  EU-based  operators  in  their  overseas  activities  remains  a 
topic  for  Member  States’  collaboration.  Member  States  may  consider  examining  the 
mechanisms  they  deploy  to  verify  operators’  effectiveness  in  safety  management 
throughout their global operations. 

4.5  Arrangements for worker involvement in major accident prevention, relating 
to protection of whistle-blowers and tripartite consultation mechanisms 

The  functioning  of  the  mechanisms  to  ensure  the  confidentiality  of  reporting  is 
appropriate, insofar as they make it easier for workers to directly contact the competent 
authority  in  their  area.  No  changes  in  the  arrangements  are  suggested,  although 
competent  authorities  and  the  EUOAG  should  remain  receptive  to  advice  from  trade 
unions and other worker representatives  on the functioning of arrangements  throughout 
the EU.  

The Commission also notes that there is considerable support for the measures relating to 
tripartite  consultation,  and  that  a  tripartite  culture  is  developing.  The  Commission  does 
not see that any changes are necessary in this regard. 

4.6  Transparency on the reporting of incidents – the Implementing Regulation on 

reporting of accidents 

Based  on  the  Directive,  the  Commission  issued  a  delegated  act,  the  Implementing 
Regulation  on  the  reporting  of  accidents.  This  covered  both  reporting  by  operators  and 
owners  to  the  Member  State  competent  authorities,  and  reporting  by  competent 
authorities  to  the  Commission  and  the  public.  This  system  strictly  obliges  all  players, 
duty holders, Member States, and the Commission  to  collate all qualifying incidents in 
EU waters (including near misses).  

Following the publication of reports for 2016, 2017 and 2018, the Commission considers 
that  this  EU-wide  incident  reporting  system  represents  significant  progress  in  the 
transparency of the sector from  a  global perspective. As in  previous  years, no fatalities 
were reported in 2018, but 10 injuries and 17 serious injuries occurred. According to the 
reports  of  competent  authorities,  the  number  of  accidents  significantly  increased  in  the 
United  Kingdom,  which  requires  both  an  in-depth  analysis  of  causes  and  follow-up 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
measures  by  the  competent  authority.  The  Commission  will  seek  cooperation  with  the 
United Kingdom to bring the safety performance level back to that of recent years. 

All  players  are  required  to  continue  ensuring  the  effectiveness  of  the  system,  i.e.  full, 
prompt  and  accurate  reporting.  The  taxonomy  used  appears  suitable  at  present.  The 
EUOAG is to monitor the system, work as the interlocutor with civil society and ensure 
adjustments of the system over time in line with new technological developments. Where 
stakeholders  can  justify  such  adjustments,  the  EUOAG  and  the  Commission  should  be 
informed. 

4.7  Emergency preparedness and response arrangements 

The requirements for internal emergency response plans by operators and owners appear 
to be working as intended. The Commission does not suggest any changes to the current 
arrangements. It is anticipated that regulators and social partners will recommend more 
comprehensive  exercises,  including  cross-border  aspects,  in  addition  to  testing  the 
arrangements  they  have  already  made.  The  appropriate  regulatory  authorities  in  the 
Member  States  are  to  take  a  close  interest  in  the  effectiveness  of  installation-based 
emergency response plans. 

The  Commission  has  started  evaluating  the  compliance  of  Member  States’  national 
emergency  response  plans  with  the  Directive,  as  well  as  helping  the  Member  States 
upgrade and update their external emergency response plans. It is planned to encourage 
cross-border exercises between neighbouring countries with shores. 

It  would  be  helpful  for  the  Commission  and  the  European  Maritime  Safety  Agency 
(EMSA)  to  undertake  assessments  of  exercises  in  the  Member  States  to  provide  a 
representative  regional  basis  for  assessing 
trans-boundary 
cooperation.  

the  effectiveness  of 

4.8  Availability of dissuasive penalties for breaches of duty 

The  Commission  notes  that  Member  States  apply  many  different  approaches  to  the 
prosecution  of  offences  and  breaches  of  duty.  There  are  no  recommendations  to 
considering  changes  to  the  Directive  with  regard  to  civil  and  criminal  law  policy  and 
procedure. 

However, Member States should consider policies to raise the level of financial penalties 
for  breaches  of  duty.  This  is  to  ensure  that  penalties  are  appropriate  in  terms  of  public 
interest and the potential consequences of a major accident in EU waters, irrespective of 
the level of escalation in the accident concerned.  

Under  the  Directive,  licensing  authorities  are  already  required  to  take  account  of 
applicants’  major  accident  prevention  performance.  While  the  Commission  appreciates 
that  there  have  been  no  disastrous  accidents  in  recent  times,  competent  authorities  are 
encouraged, pursuant to the Directive, to provide independent expert advice in all licence 
rounds. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.9  Liability,  compensation  claims  and  financial  security  of  offshore  oil  and  gas 

producers 

4.9.1

  Liability 

Article  39  of  the  Directive  asks  the  Commission  to  draft  reports  to  the  EP  and  the 
Council  on  liability,  compensation  of  claims  after  accidents,  financial  security  of 
licensees  operating  offshore,  and  the  usefulness  of  applying  criminal  law.  In  2015,  the 
Commission  submitted  these  reports  accompanied  by  a  SWD  that included  an  in-depth 
analysis, as requested by the Directive.  

In  late  2016,  having  taken  account  of  the  Commission’s  reports,  the  EP  adopted  a 
resolution3  dealing  with  these  subjects.  By  asking  for  an  additional  in-depth  analysis 
ahead of possible new legislation, the EP initiated the examination of several areas in the 
context of liability, which it considered inconsistently regulated at EU level.  

With  reference  to  the  reporting  requirements  of  Article  40,  the  EP  asked  that  the 
Commission,  when  drafting  its  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Directive,  consider 
the proposals and suggestions in its resolution. The Commission agreed, and presents the 
key aspects below.  

Rules and legislation on liability vary considerably, reflecting differences in cultural and 
historical  developments  in  the  Member  States.  Liability  provisions  may  have  a  large 
impact and potential cost following an accident, influencing the way enterprises operate 
in  different  jurisdictions.  In  general,  when  implementing  the  Directive,  Member  States 
did  not  include  specific  provisions  for  liability,  financial  security  and  compensation 
claims.  It  seems  that  these  subjects  are  usually  addressed  by  more  broadly  applicable 
civil laws.  

It is necessary to distinguish between strict liability and fault-based (tort-based) liability 
regimes.  Strict  liability  means  that  the  identified  liable  party  may  be  liable  for 
compensation  payments  even  if  it  applied  all  rules  and  safety  measures.  Fault-based 
liability, however, may lead to financial compensation only in the event that an accident 
is caused by gross negligence or intent.  

Member States’ rules for liability and compensation payments may lead to very different 
charges for the operators and owners of offshore installations. They depend on different 
possible principles: 

General framework: 

- 
- 

Offshore-specific, sector-specific or general rules may apply. 
Some  Member  States  did  not  clearly  legislate  on  liability,  which  in  that  case  is 
subject to the judgements of national courts. 

Specific characteristics: 

3   Liability, compensation and financial security for offshore oil and gas operations. EP resolution of 1 
December  2016  on  liability,  compensation  and  financial  security  for  offshore  oil  and  gas  operations 
(2015/2352(INI)). OJ C 224, 27.06.2018, p. 157 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
-  Liability  of  the  licensee,  as  requested  by  the  Directive.  Most  Member  States 

(although not all) implemented this essential provision. 

- 

-  Strict liability versus fault-based liability. Some Member States established fault-
based  liability,  with  the  burden  of  proof  for  the  fault  resting  either  with  the 
defendant (e.g. the owner of the offshore oil and gas installation) or the claimant 
(e.g. the government claiming for the cleaning of water and beaches). 
In  most  Member  States,  an  enterprise  liable  for  an  accident  must  pay 
compensation for environmental pollution, in addition to compensation for bodily 
injuries and property damage. 
In  some  Member  States,  compensation  for  pure  economic  loss  may  also  apply 
(e.g. for fishermen). 
In certain Member States, only bodily injuries and property damage are subject to 
financial compensation. 

- 

- 

In summary, the applicable regimes vary substantially between Member States, and each 
one  applies  a  mix  of  specific  and  unique  provisions.  Furthermore,  the  parts  of  the 
Directive dealing with liability and the handling of compensation claims were not always 
implemented in full. This led the Commission to launch a pre-infringement dialogue with 
the  Member  States  concerned.  Together  with  them,  the  Commission  may  explore 
whether a uniform regime on, for example, the principle of strict liability of installation 
operators  and  owners  that  goes  beyond  the  minimum  requirements  of  the  Directive 
would benefit the safety of offshore operations and the follow-up of accidents.  

4.9.2

  Handling of compensation claims 

According to Article 4(3), points 4 and 5, ‘Member States shall, as a minimum, establish 
procedures for ensuring prompt and adequate handling of compensation claims including 
in  respect  of  compensation  payments  for  trans-boundary  incidents.  The  Member  States 
shall  require  the  licensee  to  maintain  sufficient  capacity  to  meet  their  financial 
obligations resulting from liabilities for offshore oil and gas operations’.  

According  to  notifications  received,  very  few  Member  States  provide  specific  rules  for 
compensation  for  damage  caused  by  offshore  accidents.  In  these  Member  States, 
legislation  requires  licensees  to  establish  a  procedure  ensuring  prompt  and  adequate 
handling  of  compensation  claims.  This  procedure  is  subject  to  approval  by  Member 
States’ competent authorities, which must publish adequate information.  

Many Member States have horizontal legislation in place ensuring swift compensation of 
damage caused by third parties. Where an accident is declared a national disaster, faster 
procedures  may  apply.  Some  Member  States  do  not  provide  specific  rules  for 
compensation  for  damage  from  industrial  accidents,  but  include  general  compensation 
rules in their civil law. 

Most Member States did not specifically address the provisions of Article 4, but instead 
apply rules that were in place prior to the adoption of the Directive.  

4.9.3

  Implementation by Member States and effectiveness of their rules 

On  the  implementation  of  Article  4,  which  includes  provisions  on  safety  and 
environmental  considerations,  Member  States  had  difficulties  ensuring  sufficient 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
  
implementation.  Nevertheless,  horizontal  national  legislation  and  case-law  issued  by 
courts may ensure that provisions of Article 4 are in fact applied.  

As a minimum, Member States must establish procedures to ensure prompt and adequate 
handling of compensation claims, including with respect to  compensation payments for 
trans-boundary incidents. Due to the absence of major accidents involving considerable 
damage,  the  Commission  cannot,  at  present,  fully  assess  the  effectiveness  of 
implementation of this part of Article 4.  

According to the Directive, when assessing the technical and financial capability of the 
licence  applicant,  due  account  must  be  taken  of  the  applicant’s  financial  capabilities  to 
cover  liabilities  deriving  from  offshore  operations.  However,  despite  the  importance  of 
this provision, 8 of the 16 Member States with exploration or production did not fully or 
correctly implement paragraph 2 of this Article. 

According  to  Article  4(3)  Member  States  must  ensure  that  the  licensing  authority  does 
not grant a licence unless it is satisfied by evidence from the applicant that the applicant 
has made or will make adequate provision to cover liabilities. Six Member States did not 
transpose this part of the Directive sufficiently well. 

Since Member States began to be required to report accidents to the Commission (from 
2016), no major accident incurring serious pollution or damage has occurred at offshore 
oil  and  gas  installations.  As  a  result,  we  cannot  draw  on  either  practical  experience  or 
examples  of  operators’/owners’  financial  capacity  to  handle  large-scale  and  numerous 
compensation claims. 

It is recalled that Member States were late in implementing the Directive, and transitional 
periods for applying the national rules to industry remained valid until July 2018. Due to 
the  lack  of  experience  at  present  of  the  Directive’s  effectiveness  in  practice,  any 
proposals for legal initiatives, as mentioned in Article 40(2) of the Directive, appear to be 
premature.  

4.10  Decommissioning of installations 

4.10.1

  The Directive and decommissioning 

An  offshore  regime  covers  the  whole  lifecycle  of  exploration  and  production  activities 
from  design  to  decommissioning  and  permanent  abandonment  (Recital  24  of  the 
Directive). Accordingly, the Directive also  applies to  the initial  decommissioning of an 
installation4.  

Approval of the report of major hazards (RoMH) which must be submitted by a licensee 
for  exploring  or  producing  oil  and  gas  offshore  (Articles  12  and  13  of  the  Directive) 
requires  that  risk  management  take  into  consideration  all  the  relevant  stages  of  the 
lifecycle  of  the  installation.  This  includes  anticipation  of  all  foreseeable  situations, 
including  how  the  decommissioning  of  the  installation  will  be  undertaken  (Annex  III, 

4 The Directive’s definition of ‘offshore oil and gas operations’ reinforces this understanding: ‘‘offshore oil 
and  gas  operations’  means  all  activities  associated  with  an  installation  or  connected  infrastructure, 
including  design,  planning,  construction,  operation  and  decommissioning  thereof,  relating  to  exploration 
and production of oil or gas, but excluding conveyance of oil and gas from one coast to another’. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
point 3(v) of the Directive). The competent authority should therefore assess the plan for 
decommissioning before it grants authorisation to start oil and gas production. 

When a decision is taken to take a fixed production installation out of use, an amended 
RoMH  should  be  produced  if  no  initial  assessment  was  performed  or  if  the  conditions 
have  changed.  The  RoMH  report  should  at  a  minimum  include  a  description  of  major 
hazard  risks  associated  with  the  decommissioning  of  the  installation  (Annex  I  of  the 
Directive, point 6(4)(b)). 

It  follows  from  this  that  the  decommissioning  is  subject  to  the  approval  of  competent 
authorities, who may require measures and procedures to ensure safe decommissioning. 
In contrast, the Directive does not stipulate whether, to what extent, or how the operator/ 
owner should remove the platform. The Directive only addresses possible safety aspects 
relevant 
lifecycle,  but  not  environmental  concerns  after 
decommissioning. 

the  end  of 

the 

to 

4.10.2

  Oslo and Paris Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of 
the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) 

In  the  absence  of  specific  EU  legislation  on  the  dismantling  of  offshore  platforms, 
OSPAR  rules5  on  decommissioning  provide  a  template  for  its  Contracting  Parties  to 
decide  on  operators’/owners’  requests  for  decommissioning.  These  rules  apply  to  all 
Member  States  with  offshore  operations,  namely  Spain,  the  Netherlands,  Germany, 
Denmark,  the  UK,  and  Ireland6.  The  OSPAR  rules  may  also  serve  as  an  example  for 
Member  States  preparing  authorisation  decisions.  However,  in  OSPAR  a  Contracting 
Party may ask for a derogation from the duty to dismantle an installation. OSPAR rules 
do not apply to EU Member States with offshore activities in the Baltic, Mediterranean or 
Black Seas7. 

4.10.3

  Conclusions and options to proceed 

Under the Directive, operators of installations are required to submit an amended RoMH 
to  the  competent  authority  addressing  all  aspects  of  decommissioning  (e.g.  wells, 
structure, hazardous materials). The operator is not allowed to proceed with the intended 
operations until  the competent  authority has accepted the amended RoMH. Many other 
to 
consents  and  authorisations  are 
decommissioning.  Once  the  decommissioning  is  complete  and  the  structures  are 
removed,  the  Directive  ceases  to  apply,  as  there  are  no  relevant  activities  under  the 
regarding  operators’ 
Directive.  However,  other  conditions  continue 
responsibilities, including for seabed surveys pursuant to licensing regulations and other 
national legislation. 

the  Member  State  prior 

to  apply 

required 

from 

5   1998 OSPAR decision 98/3 on the disposal of disused offshore installations. 
6   The Convention has been signed and ratified by all of the Contracting Parties to the original Oslo or 
Paris  Conventions  (Belgium,  Denmark,  the  European  Union,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Iceland, 
Ireland,  the  Netherlands,  Norway,  Portugal,  Spain,  Sweden  and  the  United  Kingdom)  along  with 
Luxembourg and Switzerland. 

7   Other  international  agreements  and  conventions  relevant  for  offshore  installations  are  in  place. 
Leading  works  are  the  Geneva  Convention  on  the  Continental  Shelf  1958,  the  Basel  Convention  on 
Control  of  Transboundary  Movements  of  Hazardous  Wastes  and  their  Disposal  1989,  the  Helsinki 
Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment in the Baltic Area of 1992 and the Protocol 
for  the  Protection  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea  against  Pollution  Resulting  from  Exploration  and 
Exploitation of the Continental Shelf and the Seabed and its Subsoil of 1994. 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
The Directive is silent on whether a fixed structure should be partially or wholly removed 
and attributes/delegates the responsibility for assessment and decision to Member States. 
This  is  consistent  with  the  Directive’s  aim  to  prevent  accidents,  including  to  the 
environment.  For  example,  it  may  be  demonstrated  that  the  risks  of  attempting  full 
removal of a structure are unacceptable with current knowledge and technical capability, 
or that risks are significantly higher than for partial removal.  

The  decision  on  the  extent  of  removal  is  therefore  left  to  other  parts  of  the  Member 
States’ legal framework, and the Directive will be applied to ensure that major accident 
risks are as low as reasonably possible for the selected method. 

Further  analysis  appears  necessary  regarding  the  permanent  sealing  of  wells.  It  is  vital 
that the public can have full confidence that the competent authority is entirely free from 
restrictions when exercising its function of accepting risk assessments for the permanent 
abandonment  of  production  installations.  It  also  appears  that  it  would  be  useful  if 
Member  States  were  to  incorporate  more  transparent  obligations  from  the  relevant 
conventions into their legislative policy. 

At the current stage of analysis, the Commission sees potential added value in exploring 
whether it would be useful to amend the Directive to create additional standards for the 
degree of removal, as well as on post-decommissioning. 

4.11  Mutual recognition of mobile drilling units (MODU) 
Industry and regulators are broadly divided on the mutual recognition of mobile rigs, i.e. 
on  whether  and  how  a  Member  State  should  accept  installation  risk  assessments 
approved by another Member State, pursuant to the Directive. However, the Commission 
has not been able so far to identify any technical justification for a Member State to insist 
on carrying out a second in-depth assessment within 5 years of the MODU’s approval by 
another Member State.  

This  lack  of  mutual  recognition  appears  to  be  in  contravention  of  the  principles  of  the 
single market. The Commission will keep this situation under review. It would be helpful 
for  the  Member  States  concerned  to  provide  a  technical  and  legal  case  study  to 
demonstrate  the  validity  of  their  argument.  Industry  should  also  provide  information 
demonstrating cases where, in their view, unnecessary administrative burdens have been 
imposed. 

11 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
5  CONCLUSIONS AND FOLLOW-UP 

The  Commission’s  analysis  has  demonstrated  the  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the 
Directive as implemented by Member States and used in practice. The findings have been 
largely positive. Potential benefits in terms of avoided accidents largely exceed the cost 
of implementation and the adjustments needed in the offshore installations. 

The report on experiences of implementing the Directive covers the period from the date 
when Member States implemented the Directive to the end of transitional arrangements 
for the industry. It follows from this assessment that both the Directive and the Member 
States’  implementing  legislation  appropriately  address  offshore  safety.  The  Directive 
clearly up-scaled the safety of offshore operations, not  only in  the European Union but 
also in other parts of the world via EU enterprises’ global safety policy and culture.  

At the same time, the Directive harmonised rules in Member States and created a level 
playing  field  across  the  EU.  According  to  the  consultations  with  Member  States  and 
stakeholders, the Directive deals in a clear and structured manner with all relevant safety 
aspects  for  preventing  accidents  and  the  means  for  mitigating  them.  Based  on  the 
Directive as implemented, Member States opened direct communication channels on all 
safety-relevant subjects. Member States also carry out regular peer reviews, e.g. via the 
EUOAG, and share best practices. Both Member States and stakeholders were satisfied 
with  the  effectiveness  of  the  Directive,  which  became  fully  applicable  to  the  entire 
offshore industry from 19 July 2018.  

According to the EU Green Deal, all EU actions and policies should work together with 
the  objective  of  helping  the  EU  achieve  a  successful  and  just  transition  towards  a 
sustainable  future.  Its  initiatives  are  to  be  implemented  in  the  most  effective  and  least 
burdensome  way,  and  all  other  EU  initiatives  must  live  up  to  a  green  oath  to  ‘do  no 
harm’. The Offshore Safety Directive helps achieve these aims. 

The  assessment  analysed  how  Member  States  implemented  the  Directive  and  drew 
conclusions on the strengths, weaknesses, options and challenges of this process. Overall, 
quality  of  transposition  was  sufficient,  and  the  Commission  will  follow  up  remaining 
issues with Member States individually8.  

the  view 

the  EU.  Environmental  NGOs  expressed 

In  its  current  form,  the  Directive  may  not  always  ensure  effective  accident  prevention 
outside 
the 
implementation  experience  was  positive,  greater  protection  of  the  environment  and 
stronger  financial  responsibility  mechanisms  would  be  warranted.  Regulators  and 
primary duty holders consider that the new regulatory measures and subjective industry 
arrangements  need  to  stabilise  before  any  further  legislative  developments  can  be 
considered.  Further  incident  and  information  reports  at  EU  level  will  consolidate  the 
baseline  of  performance  indicators  and  identify  critical  trends  in  the  risks  of  major 
accidents. It is apparent that there is an upward trajectory in the industrial safety culture 
of the EU. 

that  although 

8   For  example,  Member  States’  level  of  financial  penalties  for  breaches  of  duty  does  not  seem  to  be 
adapted  either  to  the  need  to  satisfy  the  public  interest  or  the  potential  consequences  of  a  major 
accident in EU waters, irrespective of the level of escalation in the accident concerned. It is unlikely 
that the current penalties will make a significant impression on either investors or the public. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
The Commission intends to follow up on three areas:  

(i) 
(ii) 

(iii) 

liability, financial security and the handling of compensation claims;  
the  decommissioning  of  installations,  including  questions  on  removal  or 
leaving in situ, as well as subsequent follow-up;  
the mutual recognition of mobile drilling installation in the EU. 

For  the  follow-up  on  liability,  financial  security,  and  the  handling  of  compensation 
claims, two options appear available: 

a.  Analyse further experience with the Directive to assess whether there is need for 

greater EU rules and harmonisation. 

b.  Carry  out  further  research  and  an  impact  assessment  for  harmonised  industry 
rules  regarding  liability,  financial  security,  and  in  a  broader  context,  for  the 
handling of compensation claims.9 

include  provisions  going  beyond 

to 
The  Directive  does  not 
decommission in a safe manner10. It neither prescribes nor recommends certain processes 
or  guidance  on  when  and  how  to  dismantle  an  installation,  or  when,  exceptionally,  to 
leave an installation where it is. Furthermore, the legal effectiveness of the Directive ends 
with decommissioning, since the Directive is silent on subsequent monitoring. 

the  requirement 

For its analysis, the Commission took account of information on the decommissioning of 
the Brent platforms in the North Sea. Apparently, the UK government was preparing to 
approve plans by Shell to leave steel jackets  and concrete bases underneath three of its 
decommissioned Brent oilfield installations. OSPAR members took very different views 
on the best option of dealing with this.  

For  the  decommissioning  of  installations  and  follow-up  after  decommissioning,  the 
following options appear available: 

a.  Powers regarding decisions on decommissioning remain with Member States, unless it 
is demonstrated that national policies, taking due note of international legislation (e.g. 
OSPAR), cannot adequately deal with this matter. 

9 Several Member States did not fully implement the provisions of the Directive on liability, handling of 
compensation  claims  and  financial  security  of  the  licensee.  The  Commission  intends  to  follow  this 
issue up individually with Member States concerned. 

10   According  to  the  Directive,  the  decommissioning  of  installations  is  an  inherent  element  of  the 
installations’  life  cycle.  Powers  to  deal  with  this  aspect  have  been  delegated  to  Member  States’ 
competent  authorities,  which  request  and  assess  a  major  hazard  report  before  authorisation.  These 
reports  should  include  provisions  for  the  end  of  the  installation’s  lifecycle.  As  soon  as 
decommissioning is envisaged, competent authorities should assess an updated major hazard report. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
b.  The  Commission  carries  out  further  research  and  an  impact  assessment  regarding 
additional  rules  on  this  subject,  to  be  included  either  in  the  Directive  or  applicable 
environmental legislation. 

With regard to  the mutual  recognition  between  Member States of mobile drilling units, 
the Commission proposes the following way forward: 

a.  Verify whether existing EU rules are adequate and ensure their proper implementation 

and application. 

b.  Determine  whether  additional  legislation  may  facilitate  the  mutual  recognition  of 
these installations and specify costs and benefits, for example by means of an impact 
assessment. 

The Commission looks forward to receiving views and comments on its report from the 
European Parliament, the Council and the European Social and Economic Committee.  

14