The energy document by the European Commission and Javier Solana (see yesterday's column) is set against a specific backdrop. The European Council next Thursday and Friday will be examining the document and drawing 'conclusions'. In July, the G8 will devote much of its summit of heads of state to the energy issue, and negotiations between the EU and Russia over a new partnership agreement will also be launched in July (energy will be a key issue in the talks). The EU-United States Summit will take place in the same month. Before the end of the year, the European Commission will unveil a 'strategic analysis' of the EU's energy prospects and policies to be implemented ahead of the Action Plan it will be unveiling in the spring of next year.
Direct involvement at political level. Against this backdrop, the direct involvement of politicians in all decision-making, debate, negotiations and transactions concerning energy is now taken for granted. Hardly surprising, readers may think. Yet only a few weeks ago, in Issue 9164 of 31 March 2006 on whether the rules of the market applied as such to energy, I quoted two statements by the man who is now Italy's economics minister, Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, because of their controversial nature, namely a) that a free market for energy does not exist because the security of energy supplies is at the heart of all international, political and military strategies; and b) that an EU energy policy is required because the idea of an energy policy at the level of individual EU Member States is ridiculous. In the European Commission's press centre only last week, the correspondent of a UK newspaper (guess which!) raised the question of companies' autonomy in energy negotiations. The answer was unequivocal - political management is vital to companies themselves and in the absence of political coverage or legal guarantees, how could companies have the confidence to invest billions of dollars? How could they lock themselves into long-term supply contracts?
The European Commission/Solana document settles the issue once and for all by 'fully recognising the geo-political dimensions of energy-related security issues' and the fact that 'some major producers and consumers have been using energy as a political lever'. 'The development of a coherent and focussed external EU energy policy, drawing on the full range of EU internal and external policies, would enhance the collective external energy mix of the Union. It would also help the EU face more effectively possible strategies by major external energy suppliers to adversely influence market fundamentals.' Intervention by political authorities is also vital for ensuring that non-EU Member States commit to respect the environment. The above reasons mean that at the political level, the EU's approach should 'enhance physical and environmental security as well as energy infrastructure safety,' 'acknowledging that political challenges require dialogue at political level (including heads of state and government) on a bilateral, regional and multilateral basis.'
Dialogue across the board. Political dialogue with whom? With everyone, basically. Various objectives are specifically mentioned. I mentioned the most significant in my column yesterday, like the new partnership agreement with Russia and its focus on energy; and Turkey and the Ukraine joining the Energy Community. Other areas not specifically mentioned have come up in the preparatory talks:
The question of quoting energy supply prices in euros is not discussed, because such measures are not taken by decree. Countries will decide for themselves. It is known that several energy producing countries are looking at the euro option… The EU is in no hurry and is not making any demands.
(F.R.)