Too long and often banal. Everything as we expected. The G8 Summit approved its long, oh so long declaration on, energy security but did not settle any of the issues that were outstanding before the meeting and still remain unresolved. Jealous perhaps of the European Council, the length of whose conclusions is sometimes inversely proportional to their real importance, the Saint Petersburg summit wanted to show that it too could fill pages and pages of banalities through which one has to look with a magnifying glass for passages of any significance. Maybe I am exaggerating a little, because it is never pointless setting out in writing at the highest level, basic principles on which something could be built in the future. Let us accept then the starchy summary listing the energy challenges confronting the world (volatile prices, world demand for energy on the increase, the fragile environment), and let us greet the intellectual feats stressing the size of investment needed to improve the situation, the need for energy markets to be transparent, efficient and productive, the need to tackle corruption and the contribution of clean energy in the fight against climate change. And above all, let us note the principle that has now been established and which only a short time ago was not accepted by Mr Putin, the need for “transparent, equitable, stable and effective legal and regulatory frameworks”, including the obligation to uphold contracts to generate sufficient investments. The unanimous intention of working towards reducing barriers to trade and investment is also specifically highlighted.
Some well placed emphases. In my opinion, the insistence on energy saving and on advanced technology leading to reduced consumption have to be seen as positive. The extent of the possible results in these two areas has already been acknowledged in the West, the United States having joined the EU, which has for a long time now been stressing this (even though these results are still insufficient). The success is in having convinced Vladimir Putin. In Russia (as in Ukraine, where authorities and users are still influenced by the historic negligence of the USSR in this area), there is still massive waste, recent studies have confirmed. Another significant aspect: the emphasis finally placed strongly on the transport sector. The text stresses that two thirds of world oil is consumed by transport, and that action has to be taken here. How long have environmentalists and the Greens in the EP been pointing this out! At last it's done, and paragraph 21 gives guidelines to remedy the situation (the responsibility of air transport in consumption and in greenhouse gas emissions is explicitly mentioned). All that remains now is the main thing: bringing these guidelines to fruition.
On the other hand, there is nothing new on nuclear. Commentaries stressing the disagreements are, in my opinion, on the wrong track: the Summit restricted itself to confirming that national stances differ, and did not even try to bring positions into line with one another, although making some recommendations for those who have chosen, or will choose, nuclear.
References to renewable energy, to the development of sure and reliable infrastructure and to the desire to help poor countries gain access to electricity and other forms of energy are in line with what we might have expected. We did not need the eight most powerful people in the world to draft them, a diplomat assisted by a university professor could have done it. Anyway, everything would indicate that the heads of governments did not discuss them: they approved what had been prepared.
Three differences remain. We still have to talk about the issues that were controversial before the meeting and which remain so, the text restricting itself to approving the timid compromises drawn up beforehand (see this column in bulletin 9228). A few allusions are made to security not only of supply but also of demand and the need for common rules to assess oil reserves and other energy sources, which are the two points where the positions (and interests) of Russia and the West are diametrically opposed. Differences over the Energy Charter were smoothed over (temporarily) by a debating device: the Saint Petersburg text does not say the heads of state and government are in favour of the Charter and of its coming into effect, but that they “support the principles”. Russia, then, can continue to refuse the ratification of the document while letting it be understood that she could accept the implementation of the principles, subject to her conditions, of course. In short, nothing has changed. Tomorrow, I will return to the three key aspects on which the current differences focus. (F.R.)