Member states compete with one another. The need for the EU to have its own energy policy has been understood, but an essential issue, foreign relations, is left to one side and is virtually inexistent at European level. The common EU energy market is making progress, thanks to the powers of the European Commission and European Parliament (see yesterday's column), but when it comes to relations with fuel-supplying countries, the member states jealously cling to their autonomy and compete among themselves. The EU treaties do not mention a common energy policy and only intergovernmental cooperation outside the scope (or on the fringes) of EU procedure is spoken about. Cooperation often turns into rivalry and competition among member states. However, EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger is courageously making a determined effort to gradually bring foreign affairs into the European orbit, although various governments are opposing this. Some have already rejected the idea that member states should inform the Commission of their fuel agreements with non-EU countries and also reject the European Parliament's demand for the Commission to be allowed to attend inter-country fuel talks.
South Stream. To understand what is going on, examples speak louder than theories. This is what Oettinger said about South Stream, a gas pipeline being built by Gazprom and Italy's ENI to feed gas under the Black Sea from Russia to Europe without passing through Ukraine: “For the moment, South Stream seems to me to be more of a concept than a programme. Where will the gas come from? Where will it arrive? Will Gazprom supply it all or will other Russian gas producers be able to supply gas?” He added: “Of course, South Stream will be subject to the rules of the EU's internal energy market. If some EU countries sign agreements which are partially incompatible with the principles of the common market, they will have to adapt them to respect EU legislation.” Other companies, like France's EDF, later joined South Stream, which will run under Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Serbia, Slovenia and Austria, with an arm running to Southern Italy via Greece. The first stretch will be completed in 2015 and the full pipeline is due to come onstream in 2018. Meanwhile, Gazprom and ENI have greatly altered the contract between them and have announced that South Stream will start at the beginning of 2013. The EU institutions have not been involved in the talks in any way. Has Oettinger been given confidential information or has he had to learn everything through the media, like myself? And what about the other member states?
In EUROPE 10561, we report on Gazprom's court case at the United Nations' trade dispute body against the EU rule that requires ownership unbundling of gas producers and distributors in the EU, including Lithuania, where Gazprom owns 37.1% of the Lithuanian gas company. Lithuania is trying to shake off its reliance on Gazprom by building a gas pipeline to Poland, which is connected with the EU gas grid and benefits from EU funding. It this acceptable?
The example of Russia and its responsibilities. Russia is a key pillar of the EU's energy supplies and will remain so in the future. This can be positive, but the lack of a common energy policy is causing problems and shortcomings. According to observers in Russia, the country views the EU as a hotchpotch of separate countries rather than a coherent whole. The lack of EU powers means that Russia can negotiate with each EU member state separately, which weakens the EU and generates secretive national alliances (like the secret talks between Putin and Berlusconi).
Russia is only an example. The EU would also have more clout in its relations with Algeria, Libya and other fuel suppliers, not to mention Iran and, in parallel, the common foreign policy. Internal market and foreign affairs are intermeshed for schist gas (of which there is plenty in Poland and France), which is currently being discussed with Canada; the EU must decide on its attitude to schist gas in Europe (it is a controversial subject) and respond to Canada's demands. Not to mention nuclear power, which is a constant source of controversy now that Germany has decided to phase it out.
The conclusion is very simple - the EU needs a common energy policy and the time will come when the radical ideas of Jacques Delors (who is always 20 years ahead of the game when he describes future developments) will come to pass, namely the creation of a European Energy Community.
council of Ministers and European Commission call for
a common EU foreign and energy policy
While leaving it to future generations to build a European Energy Community, it is significant that Catherine Ashton and Günther Oettinger wrote a joint commentary in French newspaper Le Figaro recently (see yesterday's newsletter) on measures that should be taken by the EU to ensure a secure energy supply. Ashton signed as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Oettinger as the EU's Energy Commissioner; the plan to get commitment from both the Council of Minister and the European Commission is clear. The title of the article speaks volumes: How to liberate Europe from the energy curse. Their starting point is that the EU's fuel reserves are diminishing (nuclear energy is not mentioned, other energy sources in Europe are described as historic vestiges), fuel will have to be imported from outside the EU and virtually all fuel-supplying countries are everything but stable democracies. Hence the five guidelines mentioned in my column yesterday: dealing with energy security as a key objective of the EU's foreign policy; diversifying fuel sources; updating supply routes from transit countries (Ukraine is mentioned); improving dialogue with supplying countries; and continuing to work in international bodies. In addition, extending cooperation with non-EU countries in green technology, not to mention an explicit reference to supply routes passing through Turkey (and therefore reducing over-reliance on Russia).
Their conclusion naturally drew my attention and I will quote it here: “EU countries and companies cannot achieve these objectives alone: acting through the intermediary of the EU, they can achieve critical mass. Together, we can change things.” Diplomatic language does not come any stronger than this when it comes to criticising the attitude of most of the member states, which each follow their own foreign policy for energy issues, often competing and squabbling with one another. (FR/transl.fl)