Too many conditions to be respected as basis of new legislative proposals. Despite the purpose of new regulation, doubts are there
by Emanuele Bonini
Doubts and shadows over the sustainable energy security package presented by the European Commission. Goals and political intention are clear and comprehensible, but what Brussels is proposing is really something achievable? The impression is a general underestimation of the existing risks linked to a real implementation of the package. All the elements of the proposal are surrounded by a certain number of «if». Basically the proposal of the European Commission can work only at certain conditions, whose fulfillment is not given for granted. Thus, the European Union is risking to have a feckless package given the interdependence with unpredictable scenarios. Thus, is the sustainable energy security package what the EU really need? The latest package showed vulnerabilities, and the possibility to have a wear, ineffective and inefficient package is not far away. Let's see the critic point of the proposal.
Solidarity. The idea is to introduce not only in theory but above all in practice a «solidarity principle» among Member States in order to «ensure the supply of households and essential social services, such as healthcare, in case their supply was affected due to a severe crisis». Now, as far as it was possible to see, the European Member States acted during the Greek crisis on the basis of the principle «save Greece to save (our) money». If a Grexit didn't take place was just because of personal economic interests rather than a spirit of real solidarity. Nobody gave the impression to really care of Greece (and indeed nobody did), and the current refugee crises is once again showing that solidarity is not possible in case of emergencies (is this refugee crisis a «severe crisis»? I think so...) or when national scopes are put at stake. So, how can be sure that Member States can be ready to offer any national gas reserve in case of disruption in supplies? The NIMBY approach (Not In My Back Yard) is today the only thing the European States have in common.
Security of gas supply. The European Commission made clear the main goal of the package is «diversification of energy sources, suppliers and routes». For such a reason the idea behind the new proposals is to reduce the European dependence from Russia. Outside and around Europe there is not only the Russian federation, stressed yesterday the European commissioner for Climate action and energy, Miguel Arias Cañete. «We have Egypt, Cyprus and Israel». Cyprus is a EU member State, nothing to say about. Perhaps there is insufficient connection with the island, which is closer to the Middle east than Europe. So, Europe need pipelines, interconnections and networks in order to can fully exploit the Cypriot gas. Than we have Egypt, whose political stability is to be verified. Right now is perhaps the most reliable partner in the Region, but interrogation points remain. Israel is also the most reliable partner in a more and more unstable Middle East, although bilateral ties have been hit when the European Union decided to issue the «product from Palestinian territories» label for food products. Tension (Israel), time needed for full exploitation of resources (Cyprus) and political uncertainty (Egypt) made the European Commission proposal a sort of bet.
EU controls over intergovernmental agreements. Sometimes national governments just close contract without being sure they can really do. This is the reason why the European Commission is proposing to take the control of the situation (as well as of the energy market). According to Brussels, there is the need to ensure that intergovernmental agreements signed by EU Member States with third countries and relevant to EU gas security are more transparent and in full compliance with EU law. That's why the enery package introduces an ex-ante compatibility check by the Commission, to verify compliance with competition rules and internal energy market legislation before the agreements are negotiated, signed and sealed. The Member States will have to take full account of the Commission's opinion ahead of signing the agreements. In practice the is moving toward new powers, acting before the national governments and above the national sovereignty. Are we really sure Member States are going to accept it? The British referendum on the EU membership and the political debate around suggest there are governments against the idea of more Europe, which is exactly what the European Commission is proposing.
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) and gas storage strategy. Here, as written in the documents, «the central elements of this strategy are building the strategic infrastructure to complete the internal energy market and identifying the necessary projects to end single-source dependency of some of the Member States». The problem is there are countries, such as Portugal and Spain, where infrastructures and interconnections are missing. Thanks to the EU legislations and budgetary constraints, not all the governments can spend in order to upgrade their countries. This is the case for Portugal, but in Europe there are still 9 countries (Croatia, Cyprus, France, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, UK) under the correctiv arm of the Stability and growth pact. That means they can't produce public expenditure until the have corrected their imbalances. Furthermore, the European Commission is interested by the LNG of North America (Canada and the United States), and it is not clear how much it will be sold to Europe. There is also the issue of TTIP, the trans-Atlantic free trade agreement in phase of negotiations between the EU and the US. Will be the American LNG part of the TTIP or will be put outside this dossier and treated separately?
Russia. As stated by commissioner Cañete, when we talk about gas we have to keep in mind that there is not only Russia. «We have Egypt, Cyprus and Israel».With the aims of diversification of energy sources, suppliers and routes, the European Union is trying to reduce its dependence from Russia. It appears fool thinking that the Russian Federation could accept the European energy policy. Diversification of suppliers means for Russia a potential loss of geo-politica influence at European level.
Doubts and shadows over the sustainable energy security package presented by the European Commission. Goals and political intention are clear and comprehensible, but what Brussels is proposing is really something achievable? The impression is a general underestimation of the existing risks linked to a real implementation of the package. All the elements of the proposal are surrounded by a certain number of «if». Basically the proposal of the European Commission can work only at certain conditions, whose fulfillment is not given for granted. Thus, the European Union is risking to have a feckless package given the interdependence with unpredictable scenarios. Thus, is the sustainable energy security package what the EU really need? The latest package showed vulnerabilities, and the possibility to have a wear, ineffective and inefficient package is not far away. Let's see the critic point of the proposal.
Solidarity. The idea is to introduce not only in theory but above all in practice a «solidarity principle» among Member States in order to «ensure the supply of households and essential social services, such as healthcare, in case their supply was affected due to a severe crisis». Now, as far as it was possible to see, the European Member States acted during the Greek crisis on the basis of the principle «save Greece to save (our) money». If a Grexit didn't take place was just because of personal economic interests rather than a spirit of real solidarity. Nobody gave the impression to really care of Greece (and indeed nobody did), and the current refugee crises is once again showing that solidarity is not possible in case of emergencies (is this refugee crisis a «severe crisis»? I think so...) or when national scopes are put at stake. So, how can be sure that Member States can be ready to offer any national gas reserve in case of disruption in supplies? The NIMBY approach (Not In My Back Yard) is today the only thing the European States have in common.
Security of gas supply. The European Commission made clear the main goal of the package is «diversification of energy sources, suppliers and routes». For such a reason the idea behind the new proposals is to reduce the European dependence from Russia. Outside and around Europe there is not only the Russian federation, stressed yesterday the European commissioner for Climate action and energy, Miguel Arias Cañete. «We have Egypt, Cyprus and Israel». Cyprus is a EU member State, nothing to say about. Perhaps there is insufficient connection with the island, which is closer to the Middle east than Europe. So, Europe need pipelines, interconnections and networks in order to can fully exploit the Cypriot gas. Than we have Egypt, whose political stability is to be verified. Right now is perhaps the most reliable partner in the Region, but interrogation points remain. Israel is also the most reliable partner in a more and more unstable Middle East, although bilateral ties have been hit when the European Union decided to issue the «product from Palestinian territories» label for food products. Tension (Israel), time needed for full exploitation of resources (Cyprus) and political uncertainty (Egypt) made the European Commission proposal a sort of bet.
EU controls over intergovernmental agreements. Sometimes national governments just close contract without being sure they can really do. This is the reason why the European Commission is proposing to take the control of the situation (as well as of the energy market). According to Brussels, there is the need to ensure that intergovernmental agreements signed by EU Member States with third countries and relevant to EU gas security are more transparent and in full compliance with EU law. That's why the enery package introduces an ex-ante compatibility check by the Commission, to verify compliance with competition rules and internal energy market legislation before the agreements are negotiated, signed and sealed. The Member States will have to take full account of the Commission's opinion ahead of signing the agreements. In practice the is moving toward new powers, acting before the national governments and above the national sovereignty. Are we really sure Member States are going to accept it? The British referendum on the EU membership and the political debate around suggest there are governments against the idea of more Europe, which is exactly what the European Commission is proposing.
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) and gas storage strategy. Here, as written in the documents, «the central elements of this strategy are building the strategic infrastructure to complete the internal energy market and identifying the necessary projects to end single-source dependency of some of the Member States». The problem is there are countries, such as Portugal and Spain, where infrastructures and interconnections are missing. Thanks to the EU legislations and budgetary constraints, not all the governments can spend in order to upgrade their countries. This is the case for Portugal, but in Europe there are still 9 countries (Croatia, Cyprus, France, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, UK) under the correctiv arm of the Stability and growth pact. That means they can't produce public expenditure until the have corrected their imbalances. Furthermore, the European Commission is interested by the LNG of North America (Canada and the United States), and it is not clear how much it will be sold to Europe. There is also the issue of TTIP, the trans-Atlantic free trade agreement in phase of negotiations between the EU and the US. Will be the American LNG part of the TTIP or will be put outside this dossier and treated separately?
Russia. As stated by commissioner Cañete, when we talk about gas we have to keep in mind that there is not only Russia. «We have Egypt, Cyprus and Israel».With the aims of diversification of energy sources, suppliers and routes, the European Union is trying to reduce its dependence from Russia. It appears fool thinking that the Russian Federation could accept the European energy policy. Diversification of suppliers means for Russia a potential loss of geo-politica influence at European level.
No comments:
Post a Comment