By Andrej Nosko, and Martin Horanský guest author
Slovak government is still unclear on the support for the project of oil pipeline extending the Soviet-era pipeline Druzhba through the largest Central European Aquifer of Žitný ostrov (Rye Island) from early nineties. The previous actions of the ruling party ministers are not matching the pre-election promises. The project of exporting the Russian oil into the Austrian refinery of Schwechat close to Wien was started by the joint venture between the Slovak Transpetrol (74% share) and Austrian OMV (26% share) in 2005.
This project made sense for both parties in the consortium, the Slovak Transpetrol fully under managerial control of largest Russian private oil company Yukos (with 49% ownership in Transpetrol) having access to its own upstream production, as well as the OMV, large refinery seeking to diversify its crude oil imports away from pricey Mediterranean tanker based supplies, in order to increase its competitiveness in the Central-European market (also against the Slovak refinery Slovnaft which is only 60 km away). The 60 km long pipeline with the capacity of 2.5 Mcm (with possibility of doubling this capacity) was nonetheless stopped by the Slovak Ministry of Environment (under control of minister László Miklós – SMK – Hungarian Coalition Party of the Dzurinda’s government), because of the questions around the ability to protect the important Aquifer as is illustrated in the Environmental Impact Assessment - EIA of the project from 2005.
Last year, the idea of building the oil pipeline through the national water reserve and important European Aquifer has been resurrected by the Fico’s government, when on 16 October 2009, his minister for Economy Jahnatek and his Austrian counterpart Mitterlehner signed a Memorandum of Understanding resurrecting the project, originally proposed by Vladimir Meciar on 2 March 1993.
This was complemented by an attempt of Fico’s party colleague MP Pellegrini, who attempted to reassign the level of protection for the Aquifer area in order to simplify the permitting process. Only under the intensive pressure from the media this attempt have been withdrawn. The concern for the public is that while there is an alternative routing for the pipeline, this would prolong the pipeline and in order to protect the aquifer, pipeline would have to pass through Austrian bird-refuge areas.
The current option, which has already received the Austrian green light for the 50km in Austria, is problematic for Slovaks, because of the strategic importance of the Danube Aquifer. According to the publicized information from the back-than minister Simon, the 10 km of projected pipeline in Slovakia is to be wholly owned, and under the control of the Slovak government. It is only the 50km of Austrian pipeline where the Slovak government has ‘only’ 74% share.
Therefore it is not understandable why in this context the Slovak government does not take active steps, although the politicians are uttering the pre-electoral words, the planning continues as if there was nothing to loose, or as if the environment on the Slovak side of the border was of lower value than that on the Austrian side.
It is appropriate to remember that it was the Fico’s minister of Economy who has re-started the Meciar’s project, and it is very important to remind our readers, the current ownership structure of the consortium: The shares in the joint venture Bratislava – Schwechat Pipeline GmbH, are same as in 2005, nonetheless the sole owner of Transpetrol a.s. is the Slovak Republic represented by Slovak Ministry of Economy. It is the same ministry, which is governed by Mr. Ľubomír Jahnátek (of Fico’s SMER-SD).
While the project is of small economic importance to Slovakia (EUR 30-90M per year if the whole capacity was utilized, less amortization and operating costs of transit depending on the split of revenue and the level of tariff, which are not known; in case the transit on the whole territory of Slovakia is considered, which is cca 0.03-0.09% of GDP), the risks for the country are too high. Besides the ecological risks from building the pipeline through the aquifer, there are additional economic risks. Pipeline, could improve the possibility of OMV's Schwechat refinery to compete with the Bratislava's MOL-Slovnaft refinery, thus potentially endangering the employment and tax revenues in Slovakia. Economic competition is a positive, nonetheless, not when the negative externalities are to be borne unilaterally by Slovakia.
Therefore what is really puzzling is why, the government and party of Robert Fico is supporting projects which are of minimal benefit for Slovakia and make more sense for Russia and Austria?
Regardless of the recent PR statements of Robert Fico saying, that while he is the prime minister, there will be no pipeline, and he does not understand why this is still making news. PM Fico has a track record of proposing projects of questionable value for Slovakia, while at the same time of real benefit for Russia. Recently, he agreed to fund a feasibility study to build a wide-gauge railroad through Slovakia, thus enabling direct rail connection from Russia to Austria. Similarly to the pipeline, this project has negative costs to Slovakia and lacks the commensurate benefits. While the railroad is different story, similarly to pipeline it increases the revenues and tax incomes of Slovakia’s neighbors at the costs of Slovakia. (Since the recently modernized rail transfer terminal Cierna nad Tisov in the high-unemployment burdened east of Slovakia would go out of business if the rail link to Vienna is completed)
The energy security argument, although mentioned by the politicians, does not work in this case. The theoretical possibility for Slovakia, to import oil from Austria and thus further diversify its oil supplies is unrealistic and not feasible. The AWP pipeline from Adriatic to Wiena does not have sufficient capacity to supply both Austria and Slovakia, (through the new pipeline in reverse mode) should a need arise, this has also been a reason why in early nineties, diversification for Czechoslovakia was not done via AWP but via TAL through Ingolstadt to Kralupy and Litvinov.
Moreover, Slovakia is already connected to Adriatic via Adria-pipeline connection shared with Hungary, which could supply additional oil in case of crisis, or need for price-motivated diversification of MOL owned Bratislava based refinery. Finally, if the rationale has been security, Fico’s government should not have turned down the offer from MERO, we have written about previously.
It therefore remains puzzling why is Mr. Fico acting more in the interest of Russia (and Austria) than in the interest of the country he has been elected to be a prime minister of.
May 10, 2010
Austrian oil pipeline through the Central European Aquifer
Jul 19, 2009
The Political Economy of Managed Migration by Georg Menz (book review)
by Lucia Kurekova
Georg Menz. The Political Economy of Managed Migration. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. 298 pp. ISBN: 978-0-19-953388-6. Forthcoming in Acta Oeconomica.
Migration continues to represent an important academic and policy issue, not least due to its critical implications for political, economic, social, demographic and cultural aspects of life of individuals as well as societies. Before the 2008 world economic crisis loomed in, labor and skill shortages in booming European economies incited ‘war on talent’, forcing the European governments to redefine the basic principles of their migration policies. A recent book by Georg Menz “Political Economy of Managed Migration” addresses a topical issue of development of migration policy in the EU, both at the level of the countries and at the level of the European Union, proposing a paradigmatic shift towards ‘managed migration’. His analysis of a range of traditional immigration countries - Germany, France and the United Kingdom – together with new immigration states - Italy, Ireland and Poland is a significant contribution to migration studies, international relations and Europeanization literature and to the field of political economy. Both the novelty in respect to theoretical cross-fertilization of different fields and the breath and depth of the evidence that the author assembles and presents about the issue of active migration policy make the book an important social science read.
The first part of the book engages with explaining and connecting the rationale of the three analytical angles: political economy angle, non-state actors angle and multiple arenas (Europeanization) angle. Acknowledging that migration in the EU takes on both security and economic dimension, an important contention of the book is that the states have moved towards ‘managed migration’ of labor while simultaneously taking more restrictive stand towards other forms of migration. The most crucial novelty that the work offers is an account of the factors that determine different predilections of the states in respect to preferred types of migrants in terms of their skill levels and occupational profiles. Advocating the competitive state thesis which is behind the convergence towards more open national-level labor migration policies, the author argues that regulation of migration is strongly influenced by differences in the systems of political economy across countries, namely the nexus of production strategies of corporations, the sectoral composition of the economy and labor market regulation. The major differences between prototypical liberal market economies (LMEs) and coordinated market economies (CMEs) are embodied in the preferences of labor market institutional actors, namely the employers associations and unions embedded in different systems of political economy that will seek to influence governments to adopt labor migration policies reflecting the profile of migrants deemed complementary to national production strategies. Along these lines, the active migration policy is treated as a case study of Europeanization processes where multiple arenas in which the governments play the games can be powerfully established but which essentially provides multitude of evidence of the bottom-up Europeanization and parallel rather than sequenced timing of the games.
After outlining the argument and methodological choices in the introductory chapter, chapter two engages with past legacies and experiences of the countries which play an important role in defining migration policies currently. However, the author deems traditional typology of post-colonial versus guest worker legacies in major immigration countries outdated. He contends that from a political economy angle, the similarities in labor migration regulation across countries are remarkable already in the after-war economic boom period, giving compelling examples of how (French) Renault, (German) Mercedes Benz and (British) London Underground conducted extremely similar recruitment activities in Algeria, Turkey and Barbados respectively. His analysis at this stage, however, makes the reader wonder in which way managed migration of the 21-st century is “a new paradigm” as he repeatedly argues throughout the work. The author’s own propositions suggest that if an attempt is made to understand migration policies in the context of economic conditions and fundamentals, it becomes evident that specific external and internal economic pressures make all governments susceptible to cater to the needs of big employers and drivers of job creation and economic growth.
Third chapter, a core of the book, outlines the logic of his two main hypotheses related to his innovative framework: 1) the varieties of capitalism and skill hypothesis and 2) the sectoral hypothesis. Using the extended typology of Hancke et al (2007), he anticipates that gradual innovation and concentration on high value added production in CMEs and relative to that more radical innovation in LMEs will induce the CME economies to be interested in migrants with specific skills and the LME employers rather to seek migrants that have general and transferable skills which are able to respond more readily to flexible corporate strategies. Further, the employers in the mixed and the emerging market economies (MMEs and EMEs) will resemble more divided strategies and their preferences will reflect the model that they are approaching. Sectoral hypothesis further contends that the employers will take into account the relative size of component sectors of the economy (primary-secondary-tertiary) and the relative importance of these sectors will affect the profile of economic migrants deemed desirable by employer associations. He sets out to evidence the predictions in the next two chapters. The author, however, succeeds only partly in providing sufficient evidence and clarity to his argumentation, which is partly due to a great density of information that he provides on each country study. In addition, an endogeneity issue of the sectoral hypothesis in relation to the varieties of capitalism theory needs to be raised – different preponderance towards secondary versus tertiary sector between the types of political economies is part of the VoC framework, deeming a separate hypothesis related to the effect of the size of sectors on migration policies essentially redundant and nearly inseparable from the first one.
In the fourth chapter the author looks at the traditional immigration countries – Germany, France and the United Kingdom and offers a careful overview of how migration policy evolved overtime and across issues (labor, asylum seekers, and family reunion). He carefully traces the positions of interests groups and NGOs within the countries and maps the trajectories of more or less successful representation (depending on their organizational capacities, domestic actor coalitions and other issues) of their interests vis-à-vis home governments and potentially the EU level institutions through the governments. Chapter four carries out similar analysis for the new immigration countries: Ireland, Italy and Poland which was chosen as a representative case from among the new accession states. The chapter argues that organizational power of interest groups has critically shaped national strategies which, however, has been much less the case in the new accession countries where a strong tendency to adopt acquis communitaire in the area of migration and asylum policies, in spite of some clearly negative implications for these countries, has prevailed. Mimicking of policy choices has taken place more generally in the new immigration countries which, the author claims adding refinement to the argument, tend to look for policies and solutions to their neighbors which are structurally similar. In that respect, his contention that the new accession countries adopt measures similar to CME economies, namely Germany, is particularly interesting and potentially creates an interesting avenue for further enquiry.
The two chapters with country studies are critical to the testing of the book’s framework. While his carefully gathered material univocally confirms that economic perceptions of migration have prevailed, clearly due to the active input of employers and support of unions who have changed their no immigration stance, the most innovative parts of his theory are not evidenced sufficiently. While his argument goes that Germany (or France) should want to attract ‘specific’ skills while liberal market economies such as the UK (or Ireland) should frame policies which favor generic skills, it rather seems to be the case that while low-skilled immigration is left to be regulated by the market, the governments irrespective of its political economy fundamentals have converged on explicit policies towards bringing in highly skilled migrants, regardless of their skill specificity. This critique can be proposed not only because of the evident gap between the designed active migration policies and the success of their implementation (Germany but also the Czech Republic provide ample evidence of the policy ‘failure’) but also because the author failed to provide any hard data about the skill profiles of the incoming migrants into at least the prototypical cases of varieties of capitalism that he scrutinizes.
The evidence about the incoming migrants seems to be crucial in order to substantiate the major argument about different skill cohorts being attracted based on the underlying political economy structures and institutions of host countries. Leaving such evidence out shows that the author has committed an unfortunate fallacy in failing to acknowledge that migration is a dyadic relationship and that sending countries matter as much as the receiving countries in determining the profiles (skill, education) of incoming migrants. To be fair with the author, in this respect he can only be blamed for not advancing the boundaries of migration policy studies which tend to vastly underestimate both structural and institutional home country parameters in the analysis of migration patterns. Nevertheless, the overview of the structure of East-West after-accession migration provides ample evidence of the above claim and is in contradiction to the predictions of Menz’ framework. For example, evidence suggests that relative not only to domestic population but also to the other migrant groups, a bulk of EU8 migrants in the UK and Ireland have gained employment in secondary tier of economy (manufacturing industry and construction). Further, important differences in terms of migrant sectors of employment can be drawn if sending country is accounted for (CSO, 2008; Accession Monitoring Report, 2008; European Commission, 2008).
In sum, the weaknesses of Menz’s book are a corollary of his ambitious attempt to perhaps answer too many questions, at the expense of fleshing out his main arguments about the uniqueness of managed migration in the new millennium and about the implications of various political economy structures and institutions on the active migration policy sufficiently. First, while the evidence that the current world economic crisis is providing about migration policies supports his point about the crucial weight of ‘economics’, it also seems to elucidate that it is economic fundamentals such as growth and job creation rather than economic structures that are substantial determinants of the form and shape of migration policy. Second, it is somewhat paradoxical that while the author at one hand validly and interestingly brings the agency in through the role he assigns to labor market associations, he at the same time leaves it out via failing to attribute necessary attention to the account of the actual (rather than hypothesized) migrant profiles and to take seriously the push side of the migration equation. Third, while he contends that migration policy reveals that state and state policies continue to matter and that the state has not retreated but rather “a recast state with new priorities is playing role in engineering the construction of regulatory regimes ensuring a steady labor supply of desirable talent and skill portfolio” (p.37), his evidence partly suggest that state is hardly insulated from interest groups. This is particularly clear through his ample reference to dilemmas and even conflicts attached to allocating private but also public resources to retraining and upskilling domestic labor versus importing foreign labor which have important implications for future economic and social development of host (and home) countries.
Against this critique, however, the pioneering and innovative aspects of author’s research, partly introduced in his earlier contributions, must be fully acknowledged. The inter-disciplinary nature of the book as well as a serious attempt to conduct comparative work not only across (six!) cases but also overtime make the book everything that the migration discipline has been calling for. I have no doubt that the book is likely to entice rich scholarly as well as policy debate across different research areas that the author draws on and valuably contributes to.
References:
Accession Monitoring Report. 2008. May 2004 – December 2007. A Joint Online Report by the Home Office, Department for Work and Pensions, HM Revenue & Customs and Communities and Local Government.
CSO (Central Statistical Office). 2008. Census 2006. Non-Irish nationals living in Ireland. Government of Ireland. June.
European Commission. 2008. Employment in Europe 2008. DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. Brussels.
Hancke, Bob, Martin Rhodes and Mark Thatcher. 2007. Beyond varieties of capitalism. Conflict, contradictions and complementarities in the European economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jul 14, 2009
The complicated politics of free movement
by Chris Wright, guest author
PhD Candidate, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, cflw2@cam.ac.uk
Public policy-making invariably involves weighing the potential benefits derived from anticipated policy outcomes against the possible costs. This is particularly the case with labour immigration, which depending on the attributes of immigrants and the labour requirements of receiving economies, can deliver substantial macroeconomic benefits to host countries. But expansionary labour immigration policies can also deliver a range of unanticipated outcomes, and tend to be electorally unpopular. The balancing act between economic benefits and political costs was particularly apparent in the deliberations of the 15 Western European member states of the European Union (‘the EU-15’) when 10 Central and Eastern Europe states joined the EU in 2004 and 2007. The EU-15 states were permitted to restrict nationals from the new member states from freely working in their labour markets for up to seven years, but the transitional measures used by EU-15 governments were mixed and varied.
On the accession of the eight states that joined in on 1 May 2004 – the ‘A8’ states – Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom were the only three EU-15 states to allow free movement from the outset. When the EU further enlarged three years later to include Bulgaria and Romania (the ‘A2’ states), only Sweden and Finland opened their labour markets from the date of accession.
There is no straightforward explanation for the varying responses of EU-15 states to free movement, but domestic political pressures and economic institutional factors – not to mention the policy positions of other member states (1)– certainly played a part. This is evident in the case of the UK, which was the only large member of the EU-15 to allow A8 nationals to freely work, but subsequently prevented A2 nationals from being able to do so.
The majoritarian nature of Westminster democracy meant that Blair government had few political constraints in implementing a policy of free movement in 2004. This was a privilege that would not have been offered by the political systems of many other EU-15 states, but perhaps meant that the Blair government was more shielded from any discernable political costs, which were no lesser than elsewhere.
Nonetheless, economic considerations had the greatest bearing over the Blair government’s decision to opt for a policy of free movement. Labour shortages arising from low unemployment fuelled by over a decade of sustained economic growth meant that the competition for jobs between A8 nationals and UK residents was likely to be less of a problem than in other EU-15 labour markets. But whereas most EU-15 governments saw free movement as having a potentially adverse economic impact, the Blair government justified its position in terms of the benefits that could be delivered.
When announcing the Blair government’s intention to allow A8 nationals to work freely in December 2002, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said such a move was “in the UK’s interest” because it would “attract workers we need in key sectors”(2). By contrast, the language used by leaders of the EU-15 states that imposed restrictions was often couched in terms of the potential costs that would otherwise be imposed on their more protectively regulated labour markets. For instance, German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said that domestic labour markets, particularly those in areas bordering the accession states, would not be able to accommodate a large inflow of workers (3).
This contrast was also evident in the way that interest groups and the broader community responded to the prospect of free movement. While business groups and trade unions were hostile to such a position in states such as Germany and Austria, in the UK these groups were supportive. And although public opinion and press coverage towards immigration was similarly ambivalent in the UK and Germany, concerns about labour market impact were more apparent in the latter (4).
This was not simply a question of job vacancies and unemployment; there are also structural explanations for why free movement was a more appealing prospect in the UK than elsewhere. Rates of unemployment and/or labour market inactivity were in fact lower in a number of other EU-15 states that adopted restrictive policies – such as Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – than in the UK (5). But the more flexible nature of the UK labour market meant that it was better placed to absorb more workers without an accompanying increase in unemployment (6).
Despite both adopting open labour market policies with similarly low levels of unemployment, over 200,000 A8 nationals came to work in the UK each year following enlargement, compared with only around 5,000 to Sweden (7). While strong demand for labour in the UK was one reason for these disparities (8), weaker labour market regulation enabled employers to hire migrant workers on relatively lower wages and conditions, particularly compared with Sweden, where much stronger regulation afforded no such scope (9).
Moreover, various ‘system effects’ of the UK’s economic institutions had eroded the capacity of the government and employers to respond to labour shortages through orthodox strategies such as increasing wages, investing in labour-saving technology or training resident workers. As Anderson and Ruhs have argued, the self-reinforcing nature of the UK’s lightly regulated labour markets meant that many employers have been ‘unable or unwilling to train’ new staff, in part due to ‘a fear of poaching, the rise of self-employment and the consequent importance attached to on-the-job training and learning by doing’(10).
The decision of EU-15 states that imposed barriers to A8 nationals in the form of restrictions or quotas can perhaps therefore be interpreted as protectionist measures consistent with the regulatory characteristics of their labour markets, whereas the UK’s liberal stance was compatible with its more laissez-faire approach to market regulation. But why then did the UK opt to restrict free movement to A2 workers when the EU further expanded in 2007? Essentially because this time around, the Blair government saw the potential political costs as being greater than the economic benefits that it expected to garner.
Before the 2004 enlargement, the government had commissioned a report to predict the likely size of the migration flows from the A8 states. The authors of the report estimated, that between 5,000 and 13,000 people would arrive per year, but strongly warned that because of a ‘lack of good data’, there was, ‘a large potential error’ in their analysis (11). Nonetheless, these estimations gained much media attention, and indeed turned out to be rather inaccurate. The underestimation made the Blair government much more cautious about free movement for Bulgarians and Romanians.
Opposition was more widespread and vocal to the prospect of free movement than it had been in 2004, and although the institutional capacity of the government to override this opposition was no weaker, the economic benefits were less obvious than they had been three years earlier. The Blair government saw the economic impact of A8 workers as positive and a reason to consider continuing a policy of free movement. But it believed that changes in the UK economy, and different attributes of Bulgarian and Romanian workers, meant that the economic case for opening the labour market once again was less compelling.
Ultimately, the response of the UK and other EU-15 governments shows the complex and often entangled considerations that inform labour immigration policy-making. While such decisions invariably involve balancing anticipated economic and political benefits and costs, these benefits and costs are more apparent in some circumstances than others.
Notes:
(1) Kvist, Jon (2004) ‘Does EU enlargement start a race to the bottom? Strategic interaction among EU member states in social policy’, Journal of European Social Policy, 14(3): 301-318
(2) Quoted in The Independent (2002) Castle, Stephen, ‘UK lifts bar on workers from new EU countries’, 11 December: 12
(3) Jileva, Elena (2002) ‘Visa and free movement of labour: The uneven imposition of the EU acquis on the accession states’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28(4): 694
(4) Boswell, Christina, Chou, Meng-Hsuan and Smith, Julie (2005) Reconciling Demand for Labour Migration with Public Concerns about Immigration: Germany and the United Kingdom, Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society: London, 27
(5) OECD (2005) Employment Outlook, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development: Paris, 237-239
(6) Somerville, Will and Sumption, Madeleine (2009a) Immigration and the labour market: Theory, evidence and policy, Equality and Human Rights Commission/Migration Policy Institute, available at: www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Immigration-and-the-Labour-Market.pdf, 13
(7) Drew, Catherine and Sriskandarajah, Dhananjayan (2007) ‘EU enlargement in 2007: No warm welcome for labor migrants’, Migration Information Source, 1 January, available at: www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=568
(8) Krings, Torben (2009) ‘A race to the bottom? Trade unions, EU enlargement and the free movement of labour’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 15(1): 54
(9) Ruhs, Martin (2007) ‘Greasing the wheels of the flexible labour market: East Central European labour immigration in the United Kingdom’, in Smith-Bozek, Jen (ed) Labour Mobility in the European Union: New Members, New Challenges, Center for European Policy Analysis: Washington DC, 24
(10) Anderson, Bridget and Ruhs, Martin (2008) A need for migrant labour? The micro-level determinants of staff shortages and implications for a skills based immigration policy, Paper prepared for the Migration Advisory Committee, September, available at: www.ukba.home office.gov.uk/mac, 38-42
(11) Dustmann, Christian, Casanova, Maria, Fertig, Michael, Preston, Ian and Schmidt, Christop M. (2003) The impact of EU enlargement of migration flows, Home Office Online Report 25/03, available at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr2503.pdf, 58
May 10, 2009
Observations about the administration of EU Structural Funds (in CEE)
By Lucia Kurekova
The experience of several old(er) EU member states shows that the EU structural funds are an important developmental tool for the less developed parts of Europe. In relation to the administration of the EU funds, Slovakia has recently been dealing with the so called ‘notice board tender’ (nastenkovy tender) which is an appalling case of the fraud of EU structural funds along party cronyism lines connected to the Ministry of Development and Construction and the Slovak National Party. The scandal broke out in full speed already last October but it was not until Brussels blew the whistle loud enough, threatening to stop the flow of the EU funds to the country, that some political accountability and redress were taken. What is interesting about the notice board case is the fact that the irregularities were pointed out very early on by a member of the Monitoring Committee for the Operational Program Technical Assistance 2007-2013 in the framework of which the tender took place. Rather than discussing the controversiality of the politics of the above developments, I would like to talk about Monitoring Committees which is a mechanism that allows scrutinizing the ways of EU funds allocation, but due to various reasons is not used to its fullest potential.
Monitoring Committees (MCs) are organs that exist alongside each Operational Program (OP) in every EU member state. The existence of MCs is stipulated by the Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 which defines basis principles on which it should be organized. However, an individual Ministry that runs the OP and to that related MC (Managing Authority) has much discretion in respect to the composition of the MC, the execution of its roles and the level of internal democracy. Because the MC is required to have members from local and regional governments but also representatives from the civic sector, one of important potential side-effects of the MC lies in the establishment of partnership principle. The general idea behind the work of the MCs, however, is to create national-level mechanism of accountability and control over the management and distribution of EU structural funds. The MCs usually meet several times a year. The minutes from the meetings are normally available publicly on the web pages of particular OPs. In the case of ‘notice board’ scandal, the minutes from June 2008 provide evidence of how a representative of the NGO sector in the MC demanded more information about the tender and was silenced by the Chair.
As part of a research project conducted at CEU, I had a chance to inquire into how a particular MC which distributes finances from the European Social Fund in Slovakia functions and I would like to share with you a set of general findings. The research revealed that the perceptions about the functions of the MC and understanding of what ‘monitoring’ means differ widely among the members of that MC. It was interesting to discover that the members seem to have internalized some of the not necessarily transparent aspects of how the MC functioned, which included non-accessibility of the minutes from their meetings to public. Generally, the members were not in favor of revealing what the problems and deficiencies in the administration of the ESF were to the wider public, justifying their stand on the grounds of disinterest on the part of the public and/or incapability to understand complex processes of EU funds administration. For most of them, efficiency (allocating as much funds as possible) seemed to be more important than transparency. Surprisingly, however, this relative stealth co-existed with a great degree of internal critique in respect to the Managing Authority from the non-governmental side but also from the other ministries that were members of the MC.
For the non-governmental members, the presence in the MC has proven crucial in lobbying for the interests of the groups of society they were representing and for most of them, unfortunately, that is how far their input into the monitoring part went. Interestingly, some members pointed out that the rate of activity and substantive input of the representatives from non-governmental sector has decreased with time and is generally much lower in the second programming period than it was in the first one (2004-2006). Nevertheless, part of the NGO sector took their potential effect in MCs seriously and proactively addressed the government when the MCs for the new programming periods were being created. The government responded in a very lukewarm fashion to the proposals of NGO sector for independent nominations to the MC and in several cases the ministries selected members of (marginal) NGOs with favorable leaning towards the current Slovak government, proactively ‘preventing’ problems that might arise by too active scrutiny from the more critically tuned NGOs.
In sum, it seems that while the MCs have the potential to be a tool of effective control over the administration of the EU funds and to connect different levels of the society, it is not fully utilized towards making the EU funds work better, with greater transparency and more efficiently. It seems that in this instance clearer and more specific guidelines on the part of the EU regulation in respect to the rules of the composition of Monitoring Committees could actually serve well. Making Monitoring Committees real watchdogs over accountability, control and dialogue leading to greater efficiency and transparency should therefore become a real effort.
May 6, 2009
Two new books on energy in Central Europe
By: Andrej Nosko
The following review was originally published in the CEU Political Science Journal Vol. 4, Issue 2, April 2009.
Balmaceda, Margarita M.: Energy Dependency, Politics and Corruption in the Former Soviet Union: Russia’s Power, Oligarch’s Profits and Ukraine’s Missing Energy Policy, 1995-2006. London: Routledge, 2008, 222pp; includes tables, maps, ISBN: 978-0-415-43779-0 (Preview at books.google.com)
Orbán, Anita: Power, Energy, and the New Russian Imperialism. Praeger Security International, 2008, 264pp, includes tables, maps, chronological timeline, ISBN: 978-0-313-35222-4
The year 2009, unsurprisingly, started with a traditional gas row between Ukraine and Russia. What was surprising, however, was that it was not only a mild nuisance as in prior years. This year, for the first time in the 40-years history of gas trade between Russia and Europe, there was no gas coming from Russia through Ukraine. As a result of dependence on the single supplier, and the single supply route, for the first time in history two EU member states, Bulgaria and Slovakia, were on the brink of a comprehensive blackout. Politicians in the affected countries were competing in blaming either Ukraine or Russia, or those more diplomatic blamed them both. Blame helps no one's understanding of the problem, and it always takes two to tango, not only in the Russian-Ukrainian energy relations, but also in the wider post-socialist-bloc energy dependence. Students of Central Europe who want to understand how Russia and her former vassals in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) have been dancing now have a unique opportunity to find answers to these questions in two books published last year.
Two knowledgeable experts on the CEE region, Margarita Balmaceda, associate professor of International Relations and Diplomacy at Seton Hall University, and an Associate of the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and of the Davis Center for Russian Studies at Harvard University (PhD from Princeton University); and Anita Orbán, director of Constellation Energy Institute in Budapest, (PhD from Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Boston), in their books provide complementary views on the underlying aspects of energy policy in the region. These two books are excellent guides not only for students of international relations or transition studies wanting to understand energy policy in CEE region, but also for policymakers, journalists, or practitioners in the energy business and PR companies.
There are two major questions to the post-socialist tango. First, how is it possible that these countries, which share part of their history, large sections of energy infrastructure, and set out on the path of transition at around same time, differ so much in how they manage their energy dependency? Why some are very picky about dancing with Russia, while others dance just like Russia wants them to? Second, why is it that Russia has been more assertive in this dependence tango at some times and not others? At times being very pushy about dancing in Central Europe, while at others minding just its own business? Answers to these questions are not only relevant to understanding relations between Russia and Ukraine, which is the focus of Balmaceda’s book; or relations between Russia and Poland, Slovakia and Hungary, analysis of which is offered by Orbán. Answers to these questions can help us not only for better understanding of post-cold-war (some say resurgent) Russia, but these answers help us also to understand the broader intricacies of post-socialist transition east of Berlin.
The presented books, despite using different cases and different theoretical approaches are exceptionally complementary in tackling these questions. Orbán on the case of economic relations between Russia on the one side and Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland on the other, focuses on the reasons why Russia, through its energy companies, succeeded in moving into Central Europe in certain times, while not in others. Since she argues that for Russia today the primary means to achieve power in international relations is through its energy companies, this perspective focuses primarily on explaining the conditions for the outcome of Russian foreign policy through economic means. She thus provides analytical means for understanding temporal variation in the relation of dependency in the theoretical context of neoclassical realism.
Balmaceda, on the other hand, using a modified institutional approach, analyzes effects of the domestic political circumstances on the management of Ukraine’s energy dependencies on Russia. The puzzle that she researched evolves around “domestic factors that stand behind Ukraine’s continued energy dependency on Russia and its apparent inability to escape it.” Balmaceda criticizes the state-as-actor perspective, which is traditional to realism, (and is modified by Orbán to include perception of elites), and offers an incentive to rethink both interest representation and policy-making in the post-soviet transition. Balmaceda points out that it is not sufficient to look at policy-making only in terms of ‘state’ vs. ‘private’ but the role of specific interests and actors should be analyzed especially in the post-soviet transition.
Orbán looks at states as influence maximizers, guided by the perceptions of their elites. Balmaceda does not question the final outcome that Orbán offers, but goes deeper and opens up the black-box-of-state for further analysis through focusing on the internal interest formation, and cross-border elite collusion, which is unthinkable in the classical realism school. While Orbán’s perspective explains well the perspective of Russia’s foreign policy goals and its variation on the side of Russia, it does not aim to explain the responses of target countries. Therefore, reader might be wondering, why is it that Russia’s foreign policy outcome in, for example Slovakia, was 1 out of 2 times Russia-friendly, even if the government was “Russia-skeptical” and the outcome was not necessarily in the interest of influence maximization for the Slovak state? The analysis offered by Balmaceda in the case of Ukraine offers a good explanation of why Ukraine was unable to rid itself of this dependency. Through extrapolation, this analysis also offers an opportunity to understand why ridding of Russian influence in the energy sector was such a rare incidence among former socialist countries.
According to Orbán’s argument, Russian energy companies expand in Central Europe, if and when Russian elites perceive Russian influence in the world as being low – giving them the will to act – and the Russian state has enough power to mobilize the necessary resources, thus providing Russia with the ability to act. Orbán tests this hypothesis during six periods, between 1991 and 2008. In the three empirical chapters, she walks the reader through six periods of Russian activity in three countries – offering together 15 events, which form the core cases. Balmaceda’s argument, on the other hand, is that the domestic political system of Ukraine created certain “windows of opportunity” for access to energy rents, which created also incentive for the involved actors to preempt changes in the system of existing suboptimal institutions that were intertwined with rents distribution. The central role in the interest formation in Ukraine, according to Balmaceda, was played by competition, struggle and accommodation between intra- as well as inter-state economic groups. This happened in the context of conflict and reintegration-attempts with Russia, over access to energy markets, supplies, transit and distribution of economic rents. The surprising conclusion that Balmaceda offers is collusion between the Russian and Ukrainian elites, which explains why Ukraine was unable to form independent energy policy, and set out on a genuine reform path. Her detailed account of the 2006 gas row sheds strong light also on the Orange-revolutionaries. After reading the accounts of gas trade and allegations of involvement of the highest political leaders, (which have also partly reemerged in the context of the 2009 gas row) the sweet ideals of the anti-corruption ticket of the pro-western Orange revolution have a somewhat bitter aftertaste. It is nonetheless important to note that author is cautious and presents publicly available allegations and supports the claims with many references to original sources in Ukrainian media or publicly made proclamations.
The research design Orbán employs is simple yet robust. The effects of the independent variable of relative distribution of power in the international system are catalyzed by two intervening variables. The domestic perception of the international system, measured through the analysis of a wide-array of media sources, and interviews; and the level of state power available for the country’s leaders, operationalized as state’s ability to collect recurring revenues, as second. She chooses to use share of tax revenues on total GDP to measure this variable. The dependent variable of the book is foreign political outcome, which is operationalized as the behavior of Russian energy companies in Central Europe. The Russian strategy, as Orbán argues, was in securing the monopoly position in the energy supply; this by first entrenching in the role of the monopoly supplier, and second by preventing diversification attempts. Russian companies were trying to gain leverage over the whole value chain through controlling companies with import rights, transmission owners, and wholesale companies, or refineries in the case of oil.
When summarizing Orbán’s results, Poland can be portrayed as Russia’s ‘bad neighbor’ with only 50% of Russian attempts to gain stronghold in its energy sector succeeding, followed by a 75% success rate in Slovakia and Hungary. Orbán further differentiates the results according to the stance of the domestic government. Thus, if a Russia-skeptical government is ruling the country, Russia still had 50% chance of getting its goals in Slovakia, while it had nil chance in Hungary, and only one out of three attempts could succeed in Poland. What is lacking in Orbán’s book, and the theoretical school that she is embedded in, is the explanation of the internal mechanics of the domestic receptiveness towards Russia. This is precisely where Balmaceda fills the gap.
Balmaceda operationalizes her variables carefully, offering a precise working definition of energy dependency (p. 16) as well as management of it, which she conceptualizes as way of handling energy supply diversification, organization of energy trade with main supplier, and energy-policy-making. The primary interest aggregators that she works with are the “Business-Administrative Groups” (BAGs, sometimes referred as ‘clans’). Balmaceda’s analysis is organized into three parts. In the first part, she sets the context and frame of reference of the interest formation, focusing on the role of energy in the relations of Ukraine with the main international partners, including EU and Russia, and provides the historical evidence for her argument. In the second part of her book, she further analyzes president Kuchma’s period and introduces the reader to the intricacies of the energy dependency rent system from 1995-2004. In the third part of the book, Balmaceda looks at energy policy and energy dependency after the Orange revolution. In the final chapter she focuses on an in-depth analysis of energy policy during Yuschenko’s rule.
An important policy conclusion that Balmaceda comes to is that the international community should not look at the problem in terms of Ukraine vs. Russia, but rather as a problem of corruption and lack of transparency. As a way out Balmaceda suggests eliminating innate features of the post-soviet energy market, such as lack of transparency, attractive arbitrage opportunities, difference between near-abroad export prices and lack of liberalization of domestic markets. She further notes Russia’s refusal to ratify the Energy Charter Treaty and her control over the exports of energy among additional problems. Finally, (p. 143) she puts energy in the context of transition, pointing out that raising energy prices and the pressure on the reform of the energy-inefficient economy could be a blessing in disguise. The feasibility of this is, nonetheless, even more questionable in the current economic situation in Ukraine.
The conclusion offered by Orbán is somewhat more alarming and sobering. She vividly demonstrates the relationship between the Russian corporate activity and the Kremlin’s foreign policy. In addition to Moscow's already observed attempts to build-up a neo-mercantilist empire in the so called near-abroad, as recently demonstrated also by the adventure in Georgia, she presents persuasive evidence of similar strategies pursued in the eastern part of the EU and NATO.
Both books are quite ‘readable,’ with sufficient theoretical basis, but not too much to ‘put-off’ the less theory-informed policy practitioners. In order to keep the depth of theoretical discussion, Orbán even offers an extension of it via 43 pages of endnotes. Both books are well illustrated with a number of lucid maps to walk even an untrained eye through potentially confusing meshwork of pipelines crossing the region. The annex of Orbán’s book also includes chronologies for her case countries, listing the most important political, and economic milestones. What might be surprising is that 68 pages of endnotes accompany Balmaceda’s book, which is all together 145 pages long. This only further exemplifies the level of detail with which she researched her case.
There are only few, forgivable beauty spots that one can notice. In Orbán’s book, due to perhaps a typographic mistake, the introduction of the main argument confuses reader, when in the introductory chapter (p. 5) the main hypothesis is introduced reversely from what the she later illustrates in a table (p. 32), and what she proceeds with testing, and concluding. It is also regretful that many of the hyperlinks listed in Balmaceda’s endnotes do not work, which might be partly because they are ‘dynamic’, stretching over many lines, and thus more susceptible to typographic errors. The solution, useful also for other authors wishing to list the complete uniform resource locator (URL) to the electronic source they are citing, could be in using ‘URL shortening services’.
Overall, both books are well-researched works, enriching not only understanding of energy policymaking in CEE, relations between Russia and its western neighbors, but also transition studies in general. Both books significantly contribute to their respective theoretical schools, while also generating new research avenues to be followed. Either on the side of neoclassical realism, where Orbán’s research design could be replicated in the so-called near abroad, and tested on the case of Ukraine, or Balmaceda’s research design which could be tested on the cases of Poland, Slovakia and Hungary.
It is also pleasantly surprising for a well-informed student of CEE region to find two books presented in English that master the local cross-country context and empirical evidence with such a high level of detail and insight. Both of these books not only offer ready-to-use policy advice for the governments of the case-study countries, EU as well as USA, they also stand as an excellent reference for journalists covering Central and Eastern Europe, and Russia. Finally, thanks to their academic rigor, well-grasped theoretical context, and empirical richness, they are an indispensable resource for students and researchers of economic relations in the CEE region during the first two decades of transition.
Jan 8, 2009
Russians are strangling Europe
[Original published in Slovak on 7.1.2009, translated by Andrej Nosko. Translated and republished with the permission of the author.]
January 2009 marks the end of 40-years-long fair and mutually beneficial energy cooperation between Moscow and Europe. From now on, European customers must be well aware that the Russian partner is not only trading with them, but his priority is promotion of geopolitical interests of the Kremlin. Vladimir Putin, already in March 2000 declared, that "Our work (meaning the export of oil and gas) will be driven by our geo-strategic interests!" Since then, in a targeted and very effective way, the Kremlin uses energy cooperation and the supply of raw materials for the promotion of its foreign policy interests. Brezhnev's doctrine of limited political and [national] security sovereignty for Eastern Europe was replaced by Putin's doctrine of limited energy sovereignty.
The argument that it is primarily a trade dispute between inadequately paying Ukraine, and tough Russia is ultimately wrong and misleading. Regular followers of these issues known, that these tensions have always been present between Ukraine and Russia. But it is only since February 2004, when Gazprom for the first time deliberately disrupted gas supplies to Belarus, as well as a further transit to Poland and Germany, that switching off gas and oil pipelines has become a regular Russian practice. This has nothing to do with civilized business, because the question of price and the letter of the agreement is always a matter of agreement of both parties, and the third parties cannot suffer due to this. THE KREMLIN AND GAZPROM VERY WELL KNOW THAT WHENEVER THEY CLOSE VALVES TO UKRAINE OR BELARUS, THEY ARE CLOSING THEM FOR EUROPE AS WELL. The subsequent Russian "P.R." aerobics about how evil Ukrainians steal transited gas are spiteful, because in the given technological circumstances, Ukrainians simply do not have enough gas to power their transit compressors, and at the same time to balance their pipeline system. Targeted and repeated discrediting of Ukraine as a reliable transit country for gas and oil, should compel the Europeans to swiftly agree, and primarily to foot, the huge and unnecessary bills for the construction of new pipelines through the Baltic and Black Sea.
Are today's events surprising? For a considerable part of the EU they certainly are. European leaders, particularly those from key countries such as Germany, France and Italy, often prefer narrow commercial interests over international security interests of not only their EU partners, but even of their own citizens.
The real shock is experienced by those countries and governments that still have not done anything for the diversification of gas and oil, and remained totally dependent on the Russian supplies. All Slovak governments, and managements of SPP [Slovak Gas Company] up to date, have failed in this area. Let me be personal. For the past ten years, I have repeatedly emphasized the gravity of this situation in my various articles, analyses, as well as numerous speeches at various conferences, and personal meetings with various politicians.
For years, I have been frustrated over the fact that almost none of them considered this a problem. I was disappointed that representatives of investors repeated phrases about the reliability of Russian supplies, while they knew that the absolute priority of their domestic companies has always been diversification of supplies so that no supplier could blackmail them.
The responsibility for the situation in which we had to declare the emergency, and a real energy crisis is around the corner, is not borne only by Gazprom, but also by all responsible in Bratislava, because they were not properly prepared for this situation.
The hard lesson for citizens and businesses is, that not artificially low domestic prices should be the priority, but fair prices reflecting the highest possible reliability and continuity of supply from abroad.
What's the use of low price, if the pipe is empty? The case of diversification is similar to insurance. It is costly, but if my life, property or business is to be ensured against unexpected events and unfair partners it's a necessary expense. This is one but not the only reason why we have to urgently review the reality of our recently approved energy security strategy.
Nov 17, 2008
G20 on banking regulation and leadership responsibility of EU
By Zdenek Kudrna
The G20 meeting this weekend was more important for the fact that major emerging economies were invited than for the substantive decisions. It all makes sense to get India and China at the same table with G8, but it does not make it easier for the US to swallow any kind of supranational financial regulation. I guess we need to wait for the new brand of Obama multilateralism to see any progress on this front.
The G20 statement is thick on good intentions, but thin on specific proposals: Increased transparency of financial sector, regulation of rating agencies, avoiding pro-cyclical regulation, increased information sharing between national authorities, expanding the FSF to include emerging economies and ensuring that IMF and other multilateral institutions to have sufficient resources to support emerging economies capital needs. It practically shifts the ball to the Financial Stability Forum that should develop substantive proposals for the next meeting of G20 in April 2009.
I doubt that FSF would be able to cut through the complexity of the global financial markets and formulate the future vision of the global financial architecture that could deal with all aspects listed by G20. Actually, I believe the EU 27 should be the leader in terms of substance of the new financial regulations. If EU cannot make progress towards supranational regulatory regime, than chances for global progress are slim.
Today EU is composed of both developed (EU15 + 2) and emerging economies (EU10) and its financial sectors cover the full spectrum from cutting edge of finance in the City of London, to rather sleepy backwaters in Prague or Bratislava (Today the 'advantage of backwardness' is worth billions of dollars as it means little exposure to 'innovative' financial products that proved 'toxic'. So Czech and Slovaks may still hope to get through the financial crisis without involvement of state finance). At the same time, EU financial markets are highly integrated, but the regulation is still based on home-country supervisors and its supranational dimension did not progress beyond vague memoranda of understanding and more or less informal consultation process.
EU is well aware of the discrepancy between the financial integration and fragmented regulation. A few years ago it even devised the so-called Lamfalussy procedure to be able to catch up on the regulatory side. However, even before the financial crises the regulatory integration hit the wall. Even the idea of regulatory colleges for major internationally active banks that now seems a nobrainer proved too politically contested to be passed.
As is often the case, lack of compromise boils down to interest-group politics. The political cleavages among vested interests in different countries proved too numerous. Brits, like Americans on the global scale, are suspicious of the supranational regulators. French push for centralized heavy-handed approach. Germans worry about their parastatal landes banks. The EU10 countries are not quite sure whether they should try somehow to adjust their regulatory regimes to the fact that all their banks are controlled from abroad (so they just hope for the best now). Moreover, the non-euro countries are not keen on letting ECB (which usurped the bank supervision responsibilities) to supervise their banks. Moreover, the retail banks are not keen on reducing regulatory barriers to competition, whereas wholesale banks support it. Moreover, parties on each side of these plentiful cleavages are shifting all the time. No wonder EU did not make much progress.
the other hand, times of crisis force some clarity of thinking and make clearer the relative costs and benefits of various arrangements. Some refined objections to supranational regime lose their persuasiveness as bad news keeps coming. Some political compromises (such as principles for agreements on burden-sharing of fiscal cost of bailout of banks active in many EU countries) that would be unthinkable in the normal times may be possible in extraordinary times. Economists call this benefit of crisis. If EU could seize on it, the rest of the globe would be more likely to follow.
Hungarian promises to IMF and future trends in EU10 banking regulation
By Zdenek Kudrna
Hungary had signed a Stand-by agreement with IMF on November 4, 2008. Apart the standard clauses on the fiscal and monetary policy, it includes a section on the financial sector policies. Although, these commitments are made under pressure to fence off the impact of the global financial crisis, they may foreshadow future changes of the EU10 banking regulatory regimes.
The reason why Hungary is threatened by the financial crisis more than her Visegrad neighbors is fiscal profligacy of her government. High debts and high deficits of public finance over the last few years induced the independent central banks to restrictive monetary policy. In turn, high interest rates (and rather stable exchange rate of forint) motivated households to borrow in euro, Swiss francs or even yen. This resulted in the much higher vulnerability of household balance sheets as they essentially bear unhedged exchange rate risk. Both of these risks were exacerbated by the financial crisis that triggered liquidity trap and capital outflows from emerging markets.
In this context, the Stand-by agreement reviews what by today counts as standard firefighting measures including:
To address the foreign lending problem of households, the agreement envisages that banks and indebted families would
The crisis also induced the Hungarian government to submit laws to the parliament that would allow Hungarian Financial Service Authority and financial infrastructure to catch up with what most of their EU10 neighbors have done a few years ago.
Judging what all this means for the future of banking regulation in EU10 is fraught with uncertainties. However, unless we see major moves on the EU level and providing that existing regulatory regime will only be patched not scrapped, we could observe the following:
All of this has always been on the table. However, the unpleasant experience of Hungary and also Baltic states, Romania, and Bulgaria, may help to turn proposals into action in other EU states and on the EU level.
Aug 16, 2008
Nuclear Energy revival in Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary
By Andrej Nosko
Czech ambassador-at-large for energy Bartuska recently compared European countries' nuclear power policy to people, that want to legalize marijuana, while half of them already smoking in private, being afraid to admit it in public. In this post I look at three of these smokers - Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia.
Czech Republic, Slovakia as well as Hungary are experienced 'smokers.' Generating around 40%, 55% and around 40% of their electricity by nuclear respectively.
Czech Republic has two nuclear power plant (NPP) sites - Dukovany (2x WWER 440 / V213) and Temelín (2x WWER 1000). Slovakia has had two NPPs Jaslovské Bohunice (WWER 440 / V213) last two of its five units are scheduled for shutdown by the end of 2008 after the political decision during the EU accession negotiations; and Mochovce with two units functioning (WWER 440 / V213) and two more units foreseen to be completed in 2012 and 2013 respectively doubling its overall capacity. Hungary has a single NPP site at Paks, operating four WWER 440/V213 units (one of which was bought from Poland, after its nearly completed Żarnowiec NPP was abandoned)
The renewed interest in nuclear is not confined to CEE countries, whole world is reconsidering nuclear, since, although leaving many questions open, it currently is the only commercially tested and viable technology that provides CO2 free alternative to fossil fuels.
The debate was stirred-up again just before the Brussels summer holidays at July 2, 2008 conference, when Known supporter of nuclear energy, Hungarian MEP Edit Herczog (MSZP) mentioned that Hungary should increase its nuclear potential.
This comes at the same time as Czech ČEZ announced that it would double the capacity of its Temelín NPP, and Slovak PM mentioned at various occasions that political decision to close Bohunice NPP should be reconsidered, or a new NPP should be constructed at the site, as well as at other sites.
These moves are not limited to our three regional 'smokers,' Italy, country that shut down its NPPs after a referendum in 1987 has announced that it would go nuclear again. Poland, which after a local referendum suspended construction of its first NPP seems to be reconsidering its anti-nuclear stance and should join the 'smokers' club by 2020.
Although nuclear is currently the only viable solution if EU is to stay true to its aims of cutting the CE2 emissions, it is not without problems. Most of the EU countries have not considered answers to the question of spent fuel and associated waste. Also the question of nuclear proliferation is one that needs to be taken very seriously. Nonetheless, just like with the smoking, pretending that it doesn't happen is not helpful, we need to talk about the associated problems and weight the solutions.
EDITED 18/12/2008:
On December 18, 2008 Slovak government announced its selection of Czech national energy champion CEZ, as its strategic partner for construction of the 5th unit. This should be done by a common company with shares of 49%CEZ and 51% Slovak government to be set-up next year. New NPP unit should be operational in 2020. Minister of economy Jahnatek mentioned 7 points criteria for selection, including (quoting Minister Jahnatek):
- ability and experience with building 3rd generation reactors
- whether the company is vertically established in Slovakia
- opportunities and ability in terms of dynamic stability of transport network and grid
- sufficient financial backing
Minister mentioned EdF and Enel as trailing in the second group behind CEZ, according to government information, 10 companies were in the selection process.
The event gain attention in Slovak news primarily through the voiced criticism of government for not announcing a open competition, or transparent selection of this strategic partner.
May 27, 2008
The Renaissance of A Nuclear Option?
By Petr Lang, PERG guest author and PSSI Program Coordinator
As the oil prices are skyrocketing and biofuels have recently lost much of their charm due to their partial impact on rising food prices, the majority of participants of the second European Nuclear Energy Forum, which took place on May 22-23 in Prague, might have been expected to wax lyrical about the bright future of their industry. However that was not the case. Not because they have lost their drive for increasing the proportion of the nuclear energy in the European energy mix, they are certain about that indeed.
As CEO of Areva Anne Lauvergeon put it, whatever you think, we are going to go nuclear. The reasons for such an assertive statement are well known: EU energy consumption is increasing and EU has obliged itself to a substantial reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in the coming years. Add the feeling of insecurity surrounding the imports of natural gas from Russia and the nuclear renaissance will seem inevitable. These arguments were continuously repeated during the forum. Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek added the novel argument to the toolbox of nuclear aficionados, when he cited Andrei Sakharov, who once wrote that the nuclear energy is the only chance for the West to stay free and secure. Should we stick to this assumption, the future of European security and freedom will look uncertain, because as Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg soberly mentioned, we will have to wait for the nuclear renaissance for some time to come. There are several factors delaying the return of the nuclear age.
First, EU has only recently started to overcome the nuclear hangover caused by the Chernobyl disaster. The presence of the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso at the European Nuclear Energy Forum was maybe the most important point of the whole session, although rather symbolic. The European Commission is at pains to stress that it is up to every member state to choose the structure of its energy mix, including nuclear energy, deliberately refusing to either bless the nuclear option or doom it for good. Mr Barroso called for a greater cooperation among EU institutions and member states with nuclear facilities (15 EU countries operate commercial nuclear power plants) to establish common framework for nuclear waste management, security standards etc. Compared to the flood of initiatives and subsidies fueling the recent biofuels bonanza in the EU, the nuclear industry might feel like the Cinderella. Even if the Commission decided to pledge its support for the nuclear option, it would take some time to get the business back to pre-Chernobyl levels.
Furthermore, the nuclear industry is experiencing the same problems as the oil business. The majority of skilled professionals is nearing the retirement age, and the universities cannot fill this gap immediately, although the situation is getting better according to Jean-Pierre Le Roux, Vice Chairman of French Atomic Energy. The time factor plays also crucial role because the nuclear power plants cannot be built as quickly as their gas or coal fueled alternatives. Should the new nuclear power plants get operational by 2020 and thus help the EU to fulfill its environmental plans, the construction would need to start soon.
The last and maybe the most important factor inhibiting the nuclear boom is uncertainty. The construction of the power plant is very expensive and the operator needs some safeguards that it will not be forced to close the shop because of the sudden change in political or popular mood. This weakness was exploited by the representative of Friends of Earth Patricia Lorenz who said that when so rationally oriented entities as investment banks have their doubts about the nuclear energy, why should this industry get support from the governments whose primary responsibility is the well-being of its citizens?
Needless to say, there were not so many antinuclear participants at the forum, but the environmentalist rhetoric was omnipresent as the fight against the global warming may be the decisive element triggering the nuclear renaissance in EU. In the appeal to the European Commission the participants recommend the Commission “to declare nuclear energy as a low carbon and emission free energy generation technology, with positive impact on environment and sustainable development.” Furthermore, “as an expression of responsibility of the EU in fighting climate change [the EC is recommended] to declare unambiguous support to nuclear energy as a way to fulfill EU targets in lowering emissions gases by 20% by 2020.” This wording points to win-win situation. If the nuclear option gets such an acknowledgment, the investors will be more willing to open their wallets and the EU will be able to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions much more easily.
The second European Nuclear Energy Forum was not designed as a discussion of the pros and cons of nuclear energy (the opponents were clearly outnumbered by the supporters) but as a rapprochement towards the European Commission and EU institutions in general. Given the fact that over the next twelve months EU will be presided by France and the Czech Republic, who generally support the nuclear renaissance, there is a chance that the Atomium in Brussels will shine brighter than ever.
views since October 22, 2008.
