To take one's usual daily newspaper as sole basis to assess the results of the Spring Summit would be quite insufficient. By and large, these gave an incomplete, approximate and, in some cases, imprecise overview. It is by no means my intention to over-inflate the results of this Summit; my knee-jerk reaction in this column was that only the future that will allow us to understand whether its "conclusions" are a catalogue of good intentions, or whether they represent a turning point towards a common energy policy.
Europe could start to lead by example. I understand, and share, the confusion about the specific objectives included in the text. The more you reread them, the more you start to wonder about their credibility: 2 million new jobs between now and 2010; energy savings set at 20% between now and 2020; a proportion of 15% of energy from renewable sources by 2015 and, by the same date, 8% bio-fuel in transport... these figures are worth what they are worth. I prefer to stress the fact that the guidelines on energy all retain one fundamental principle: that of decoupling between economic expansion and energy consumption. The rule that the growth of the economy necessarily involves a surplus of energy has been broken, and Europe is well placed, from this point of view, to set an example to the rest of the world. Many Member States are in the vanguard for energy economies and for ecological issues (see, for example, the inauguration of the world's largest CO2 trap in Denmark, which came into being as part of the European Research Programme, and which is a first step towards electric power stations producing virtually no emissions). As for renewable energy, if the EU and the Member States are genuinely committed to this, with the necessary temporary financial support and without fear of encroaching upon the interests of the large oil companies or those of the large oil-producing third countries, wherever they are in the world, then the energy revolution can genuinely succeed in Europe and change the way ecology and economy develop throughout the world.
Did the Summit really pave the way to go forward in this direction? For the time being, it has changed the political climate from the not-so-distant past when many of the Member States, including the largest, were opposed to the very idea of a common energy strategy. Several elements of the programme, however, remain uncertain and, at times, somewhat indecisive.
1. The neglected aspects. The Summit has taken up the entire contents of the Commission's Green Paper, leaving aside the reinforcement of existing mechanisms (concerning stocks and reserves in particular) and institutional innovations, such as the creation of a European market regulator alongside the national regulators, a "European Network Coordination Centre" and a "European Monitoring Centre for Energy Provision". The President of the European Council explained that the objective is not to create European super-bureaucracy, but a common strategy, and to boost coordination between the national bodies. But for some of the other Heads of Government, the accomplished step forward "is just the beginning".
2. National competence. Off the menu was the issue of deciding, at European level, how to divide up the various sources of energy (energy mix). Given the differing views on nuclear energy, respect for national competence on this issue was inevitable, and will remain so.
3. Foreign policy. Energy policy is now considered to be an integral part of the foreign policy of the Union, and Javier Solana will be directly involved in this, together with the Commission. This is essential, because the EU needs to start singing more and more from the same hymn sheet on energy issues. That said, the intention of getting Russia to ratify the Energy Charter and the "protocol on the transit" of gas any time soon is an illusion, even though it is indicated expressis verbis in the "conclusions". These will be long and arduous negotiations, involving the issue of European investments in Russia.
4. A new opportunity. The confirmed vigorous support for renewable sources stemming from agriculture and for biomass indicates increasing attention to the many aspects which are still open, and the various possible options. This is a new opportunity for European agriculture, but 'ware mistakes.
5. Open questions. For all aspects relating to the trans-European networks and the functioning of the internal market, the Summit laid down principles. The issues of access to supply, which are of such concern to Spain and Poland, and questions relating to takeover bids and competition were not raised during the official working sessions, but were very much present in all hearts and minds (and in the declarations). I will return to this.
(F.R.)