The paragraph of the Conclusions of the European Council which refers to the security of energy supply (paragraph 35) went no further than to confirm a few obvious facts: a) concern for "potential problems concerning gas supply from Russia via Ukraine"; b) reminder to suppliers that they must respect their obligations (supply and transit) to avoid further interruptions to supply to the EU; c) invitation to the Council and Commission to follow carefully and analyse the situation, and to report back to the summit if necessary; d) the requirement for the EU to sing from the same hymn sheet.
It is understandable that the summit did not say more about all this, with its major repercussions both in the very short term (danger of interruption to supplies of Russian gas this winter, which could have dramatic consequences for certain member states), in the medium term (negotiations on the new EU-Russia partnership agreement, which are soon to be relaunched) and in the long term (alternative installations for the supply of Eastern gas to the EU, being planned or already being built, which will take a considerable number of years to become operational). However, some European authorities have provided more comments and the industrial and commercial circles involved have not hesitated to have their say. Here's the result.
Emergencies. The meeting of the European Council was preceded by Russian action at the highest level (Mr Putin himself), stressing how serious the danger could be and suggesting that the EU provide financial support to allow Ukraine to discharge its commitments towards Russia, this country also being inclined to take part in the operation. According to figures indicated in Rome, it would take in the order of $5 billion to ensure a trouble-free winter (€3 to 4 billion, according to other sources). Mr Barroso sent a mission to Kiev to get some direct information, and Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs then told the Energy Council (see our bulletin 9921) that the risks were serious. The EU regularly pays its bills for the purchase and transport of gas; it is up to the two third countries involved to observe their commitments, without ruling out European involvement. President Barroso said right from the word go (see our bulletin 9911) that the Community budget was not in a position to intervene, and he repeated this quite clearly after the work of the European Council; the next president of the "External Relations" Council, Sweden's Carl Bildt, has just reiterated it again, quite firmly. But at the same time, Mr Barroso has indicated that the EU intends to help its "Ukrainian friends" and that he is organising a meeting with representatives of the international financial institutions, European gas companies and the member states this very week, to look into the possibility of "setting up a raft of interim measures in the short term" (see our bulletin 9925). The "Gas Coordination Group" (which, under the chairmanship of the Commission, is made up of experts from the member states, representatives of the sectors concerned and consumers) is to meet on 2 July, after the initial exchange of views on the situation it carried out on 18 June. That is how things stand as regards the emergencies.
Extremely broad implications. However, the short-term problems could influence developments in the medium and long term. One of the major elements of the new EU-Russia agreement, for which negotiations have been on-going for years, concerns the Energy Charter, or rather the document intended to replace this Charter, and the manoeuvres around the networks which are supposed to guarantee the future supply of the EU are in permanent turmoil, with political repercussions involving not only the EU, Russia and Ukraine, but also Turkey, the neighbour countries of the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea (including Georgia), Iran, Iraq (or, to be more precise, Iraqi Kurdistan) and the Balkans. For an overview of the projects and their problems, I refer you to this section of bulletin 9921 (and No. 9909 for certain technical elements).
Pending the Lisbon Treaty. The great pity for the EU is that it is not singing from the same hymn sheet: each member state, or nearly, is acting on its own behalf, despite the pleas of the European Council; sometimes, it's the oil companies themselves that take initiatives and conclude agreements with businesses of the other side (some of them, such as Gazprom, controlled by political authorities). The Lisbon Treaty would improve this situation. Member states such as Poland and the Czech Republic, which continue to hold up the last act for their ratification of this treaty, may end up finding themselves isolated against Moscow; but if that's what their Eurosceptic presidents want …
(F.R./transl.fl)