Common policy still hypothetical. One of the most important innovations in the Lisbon treaty involves the prospect of common energy policy, particularly by way of codecision between Parliament and Council and majority procedure at the latter (apart for tax measures) in all areas of the single market, security of supply and network interconnection. The Lisbon treaty has only been in force a few weeks and it would be absurd to claim any immediately significant results. Nonetheless, it should definitely be recognised that for the moment, novelties and dynamism have a national character - member states and oil companies are taking initiatives and the European institutions do not give the impression of guiding developments; they are perhaps informed about them and sometimes intervene but only after they have occurred.
An idea that might take off? With regard to the question of supply, the most spectacular development has been the possibility of a connection between the Nabucco and Southstream projects, mentioned by the president of ENI, Gazprom's Italian partner in South Stream. Official reactions have been either non-existent (in the EU) or negative (in Russia) but the idea has been mooted and it could take off because it is obvious that the two projects are partly competing against each other. Nabucco aims to bypass Russian territory for some of Europe's natural gas supplies by going through the Caspian Sea and Turkey. South Stream, however, begins in Russia and crosses the Black Sea. The routes are different but the source of the gas partly coincides (Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan). Nabucco would also be supplied by Iranian and Iraqi gas and South Stream from Siberian gas. The terminus in the EU is almost the same. It would, therefore, be theoretically possible to join the pipelines in Bulgaria for the different final destinations in Hungary and Austria in the North and Greece and Italy in the South.
Moscow has confirmed that South Stream is viable, gas supplies are guaranteed but uncertainties surround Nabucco supplies because of political reasons (Iran) and economic (final destination countries are themselves responsible for the gas transported); even the calendar for Nabucco construction and operations raise a number of doubts. The Russian energy minister rejected any possibility of cooperation between the two projects (EUROPE 10102) and does not consider Nabucco as a serious contender. This position is understandable: if Nabucco fails, Russia would keep practically total control of European supplies from the North and East and South Stream would be added to the Ukrainian route and the North Stream project.
Nevertheless, other sources in Russia consider that the Nabucco-South Stream link would be reasonable. It could lead to engineers (particularly German ones) participating in the South Stream project, which would help the Russian economy and develop links between Russia and the EU. The World Bank has just published (EUROPE 10103) a report highlighting the danger of an energy crisis in former USSR countries and in Central Asia. Despite their gas and oil resources, they will be unable to maintain current production levels unless they carry out the necessary investments and reduce the massive wastage going on. Russia is expected to invest $15 billion to maintain its current natural gas production level. Cooperation with Europe is crucial to Russia from both a financial and technological point of view. In a few years' time, the system for transporting Russian gas through the Ukraine will no longer be operational if it is not given a massive uphaul.
If the EU acted together…Next month, the European Commissioner for energy, Günther Oettinger will visit Moscow. This will provide an occasion to give the whole of the dossier a “European” character. Just an illusion? Will member states (and the companies concerned) agree? Mr Oettinger has declared that, “South Stream and Nabucco are not rivals, they complement each other”. The EU budget is already financially supporting Nabucco. It would be to the advantage of all if the EU gradually started to act as a whole. The European institutions, with the European Parliament at the head of them, should make a commitment to this. Certain aspects of EU energy policy are already going in this direction, such as the compulsory notification of investment projects or respect for renewable energy objectives, without forgetting the increasing attention being paid to solar energy projects in the Sahara (Desertec initiative). Even the controversial civil nuclear dossier is being increasing debated at a European level.
The institutional opportunities provided by the Lisbon treaty must be used. (F.R.)