Ursula Gacek, Member of the European Parliament from Poland

Ladies and Gentlemen, does Europe have a common energy policy? Or maybe I’ll start off on a more cautious note, because many of the actions and responses of Europe in the recent years and months do give me grave cause for concern. In 10 minutes it is difficult to go through all of them and also to turn to possibly a more optimistic note later on in my presentation. But I think we need to name a few points, to say a few things.

First thing is about Georgia. Let us make no mistake but undermining Georgia’s credibility as an energy transit country was high on the agenda this August. It may have been about NATO membership, it may have been about flexing muscles, it may have been about spheres of influence, but the energy transit issue was high on that agenda. And currently there is pressure to acknowledge that the Sarkozi-brokered cease-fire agreement has been adhered to by the Russians. At best we cannot verify because our observers do not have access to the whole of Georgia and I think many have doubts. So, we have not seen as strong and as united response to Georgia, as we would have liked. And maybe underlying this is a continued desire to sign lucrative bilateral agreements with major Russian energy players, or the prospects of becoming a hub for Gasprom in Europe, or having access to Russia’s rich reserves. Also, we have seen that Russia does not play fair; it does not play fair when Western companies invest in their territory. It does not play fair with its own competitors. The “UKOS” case: the assets ceased, the head of the company has spent 5 year in prison. It should have been a sobering note. The BP-TNK’s history: with Russia making some small concessions recently, but basically going far beyond what would be a normal, even tough, struggle for control of that company. Something should set alarm bells ringing when you engage tax authorities, and migration authorities, and other state agencies to beat your partners into submission. But what choice did BP have? 25% of their oil and gas comes from Russia. And we have other companies there now who say “well, this is the way Russia does its business, - they are tough”. And I have said to them “ok, tough – is one thing, lawlessness – is another thing. You may find yourself in the same position as BP in the not too distant future.”

We failed to respond adequately to Russia’s playing with its energy supplies as a political weapon. We saw Ukraine, Belarus, and Ukraine again and now Ukraine faces another election - unfortunately, in the winter. And we’ll see whether Russia keeps its promises that gas supplies are now on commercial terms and will not be used to influence the outcome of elections in this country. We’ve seen a fairly planned response to Russia’s launching of the South Stream gas pipeline project. Make no mistake about it, - its main aim is to blow Nabucco out of the water and make sure that all Caspian and from points even further East and South gas comes to Western Europe via routes controlled by Russia. I was very disappointed when I asked Commissioner for Energy, Mr.Piebalgs, what was his view on the South Stream, and in writing he replied to me that he considers South Stream to contribute to energy security. I must say I differ quite considerably with that view. And suddenly in the last few days we’ve seen Russia engaging in and trying to solve a long-standing dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh. On the surface, yes, a good thing, however, is it not just another way to make the Azeries to play ball of the Russians? It also shows how Russia is very capable of deep freezing conflicts, heating up conflicts and even mediating the conflicts if it suits them. So, against this background, ladies and gentlemen, is it all doom and gloom? Is the European Union powerless? If by achieving a Common energy policy, we expect the EU to speak with one voice on Russian energy issues, I am afraid that’s not going to happen. There are too many particular interests. And even the Lisbon Treaty with its solidarity clause still does not deny member states on their sovereign right to decide on their energy mix, suppliers and routes. That is not the right that member states will surrender. So, if this is the way that we define Common energy policy, we may have problems.

However, I would like to inject some optimism into what I am saying here today. There are several issues which either directly or indirectly will have a positive impact on enhancing EU security. In the wider sphere, we are continually integrating our own energy markets. And now, we are also extending this invitation to countries like Ukraine as my colleague from the Commission has just mentioned. It’s only when we have the technical means with interconnections that we can actually exercise solidarity. Solidarity means very little if you cannot aid your neighbor by supplying gas because there is no gas pipeline, there is no electricity interconnection. So, looking at sorting out the internal market, making it freer, making it more transparent is the vital part of this puzzle. The second wider issue is number one priority for the EU. And that is climate change. And indirectly, this forces us by increasing efficiency to reduce consumptions and hence our dependency on imports, it increases the share of renewables in our energy mix, so it diversifies our energy mix towards more so-called home-grown sources. And although, this is not a state today of the climate change policy, it will undoubtedly increase the role of the nuclear energy as a means of avoiding green house gas emissions. And there are three very specific tools: one already mentioned – the enhanced Neighborhood Policy, with a strong energy component that we are seeing with respect to Ukraine; the new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Russia, which is trying to transpose some aspects of Energy Charter and Transit Protocol, but for me the key word there will be reciprocity and I will insist on that. And when we take these issues and also the political pressure that the European Parliament brings to bear on projects such as the North Stream project, which set an unfortunate precedent to bilateral agreements with Russia: via the Petitions Committee and by the Plenary which has put pressure on the environment commission to consider the environmental aspects of this Baltic pipeline.

So, the EU may not be the perfect way of achieving energy security. But, Ladies and Gentlemen, it’s the best we have. And by focusing on the wider issues, we will bring results in the medium to long term. And in the short term, there are European players like Poland and the Baltic states and colleagues in the Commission who carry on lobbying for the implementation of this direct mechanism which I believe will keep Europe alert and will keep Europe safe. Thank you.

Downloads