A first step has been taken. It was not purely by chance that this column yesterday was devoted to an aspect of the energy “problem”. Something happened at the London summit - perhaps for the very first time, one could see a real move by several Member States, at the highest level, toward a common energy policy. Of course, it was not for the very first time last Thursday that governments were struck by the role and importance of energy for Europe but they had previously seemed unable to cross over from acknowledging it to speaking out on a European policy. There had naturally already been some cooperation, a few coordinated measures, uniform regulations for compulsory storage, but, at that level, it had never been a question of going any further. At the London Summit, some Heads of Government took that step, and not just those one would expect to do so (see our bulletin 9059).
Jacques Chirac did not pronounce the words “common policy” but did speak of setting in place an energy policy that would above all allow for supplies to be secured and diversified. It is more than likely that the French president had only intergovernmental actions in mind. But Guy Verhofstadt went further, speaking explicitly of responsibility, mainly on the European Commission. The surprise, however, came from Tony Blair. The day before the summit, when addressing the European Parliament, he had included common energy policy in his list of priorities, and the following day he logically restated this before his colleagues. Just as logically, the journalists had then questioned him about this change of direction, to which he replied by justifying yesterday's opposition by the fear that the Commission foresees regulating the whole sector, when, in his view, it is now clear that the objective is to achieve interconnection of infrastructures (oil pipelines, gas pipelines, electricity networks) by making the overall network more effective and competitive, to the advantage of supply security and consumers. This goal is so obvious that the British Prime Minister had nothing to fear from opposition. Who would challenge the usefulness of connecting all European energy networks, reducing the risk of crises as well as the cost of energy for consumers, whether they be industrial or private?
A far-sighted Commissioner. I do not of course know whether the president of the Commission had assured Tony Blair that his intentions were moderate, or whether, possibly, he himself is really more ambitious than what he told journalists in London (where there is strong anti-European concentration). But the objectives confirmed by the European Energy Commissioner immediately after the summit are far more ambitious. Andris Piebalgs, who spoke on 28 October in the Icelandic capital Reykjavik, at the Baltic Sea Region Energy Cooperation (BSREC) ministerial conference, presented a comprehensive European plan in five points, of all which are well known but which have different importance depending on the progress made by the Heads of Government. The first initiative is that which caused such an impression on Jeremy Rifkin, the American who admires Europe - energy saving (see this column yesterday). The second point concerns the development of alternative and environmentally-friendly energy sources, an area where the European character (instead of the scattered national initiatives) could play an essential role. The third point concerns the transparency and the predictability of the oil market, a fundamental element that will have to face up to the open or devious opposition of those who take advantage of the current situation. The fourth is consolidation of the dialogue between oil producers and consumers, involving specific dialogue with OPEC. The fifth aspect is internal to the EU which must put itself in a condition to react rapidly and effectively to emergency situations. In addition to these initiatives there is everything that Europe can do if it is united, depending essentially on other Commissioners: - we only have to mention research.
Deep differences. It is best to beware of easy optimism. It is not just the political reticence to placing certain powers in common or the weight of financial interests at stake that court caution, but also the fact that there are deep differences within the EU itself on the content of the common policy to be developed: support and at the same time firm opposition to reactivating nuclear energy; the polemic on the effectiveness and the feasibility of developing wind and solar power in a continent like Europe where space is limited; and mistrust about the route to be taken by a number of major oil pipelines in the future. These are real problems and we must be brave enough to discuss them.
(F.R.)