Europarlementariërs noemen zowel Rusland als Oekranië onbetrouwbare energieleveranciers (en)
The European Parliament i debated the latest developments in the Russia-Ukraine-EU gas crisis with many group speakers stressing that Russia and Ukraine should solve their disputes rapidly without blaming one side or the other. EU citizens are suffering, MEPs said, due to a bilateral dispute. MEPs said that both Russia and Ukraine had lost credibility as reliable partners and the EU should therefore increase its efforts to diversity its energy supply mix.
Alexandr Vondra, Czech deputy prime minister for European affairs, outlined the events leading up to the crisis, including the contacts between the Czech presidency of the EU and Russia and Ukraine. He also described measures agreed by the Council for tackling the gas supply problem.
The minister said the key objective of the Presidency had been to have gas supplies restored immediately and he assured the House that everything was being done, at political and technical level, to prompt Ukraine and Russia to restore full contractual gas supplies to Europe "and to minimise the negative consequences to our citizens and economies until that is the case".
However, the Czech Presidency was also aware of the consensus among the Member States that short, medium and long term solutions be adopted without delay that would prevent similar situations from recurring in the future.
These would include "the creation of a functional and efficient solidarity mechanism" as "one of the corner stones of the future EU energy security". This solidarity "presupposes interconnection of European energy networks as well as improvement of energy infrastructure" among other things.
Furthermore, "the EU needs to diversify its gas resources and supply routes. In addition, it was clear that "EU energy security is not feasible unless internal energy market is completed and functional. He looked forward to close cooperation with Parliament on the second reading compromise on the Third Energy Package.
European Commission
"We are living through one of the most serious energy crises yet - comparable with the 1970s oil crisis", said Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs i.
"Despite promises and the protocol signed on Monday, gas is not yet flowing from Russia through Ukraine", he admitted, noting that although Russia had resumed gas deliveries on Tuesday (at one-third of normal flow), Ukraine had stopped them, arguing that Russia had chosen a difficult entry point, and that this had happened again on Wednesday.
"The two parties must co-ordinate on entry points and volumes", failing which "there will be no energy supply" said Mr Piebalgs, adding that both had "lost their reputations as reliable energy suppliers".
Mr Piebalgs believed the measures taken to be "sufficient", but still saw a lack of contact and co-ordination. "The solution is in the hands of the two parties - but do they want a solution?", he asked.
Any fix now would be temporary, and negotiations for a lasting solution could continue through the EU's Czech Presidency to the Swedish one, he predicted, stressing the need for strategic energy policy decisions to reduce reliance on external suppliers.
Mr Piebalgs also highlighted a "lack of interconnection infrastructure" for carrying gas from storage to where it is needed, saying there was not enough commercial interest in providing such connections.
The 2004 gas supply security directive (2004/67/EC) does not meet current needs, and a proposal to revise it, including a "Community co-ordination mechanism" will reach Parliament in the coming weeks, said Mr Piebalgs.
Mr Piebalgs thanked the European Parliament for its conciliation efforts, and in particular President Hans-Gert Pöttering i, and Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (EPP-ED PL). The political weight of debates like this one would encourage the parties to resolve their disputes, he said.
Political group speakers
Jacek SARYUSZ-WOLSKI (EPP-ED, PL) said that major supply disruptions like these are "dramatic for citizens, industry and jobs" adding that "in the elections, we shall have to answer questions about what we have done".
The first such crisis, three years previously, had made it clear that "we need a common policy on energy", said Mr Saryuzs-Wolski. The EPP-ED group had backed this call from the start, and its call for a comprehensive strategy had in turn been backed by all groups, he continued.
The Commission had taken up some recommendations, this but was not enough to prevent similar situations, he continued, stressed the need for lasting, systemic solutions which he said would entail the EU speaking with a single voice to producers and transit countries. To this end, he asked: "Can we buy direct at the Ukrainian border? Can the EU step in and take up transit issues with Ukraine? What instruments of pressure does the EU have?"
The EPP-ED group wants Parliament to be permanently and closely involved, and has already established a contact group with the Russian and Ukrainian parliaments, he concluded.
Hannes SWOBODA (PES, AT) said that from the discussions the Parliament has had with representatives of Gazprom and Naftogaz, he could agree with the Commissioner that neither company has been acting responsibly.
He expressed concern that the current situation could have been foreseen and we needed now to draw the consequences so that such a crisis could be avoided in the future.
It is one thing for us to talk about gas market liberalisation, he said, but we need to be creating a lot more inter-connectors between countries, like the Nabucco pipeline, and the market will not be creating these. It is the same for gas reserves, he said: "It is unacceptable that some countries have only limited gas supplies or do not inform the other countries what reserves they really have."
Speaking for the ALDE group, István SZENT-IVÁNYI (HU) said that Europe cannot be held hostage any longer since millions have no heating and hundreds of thousands are at risk of losing their jobs.
"We need to tell both Kiev and Moscow that they must live up to their international commitments and that there will be serious consequences if they do not - we have to make it clear that there will be a political price to pay."
Hanna FOLTYN-KUBICKA (UEN, PL) said that the gas crisis is a long-term one and that it is not just economic but political. "Behind Gazprom's demands is the political machinery of the Kremlin and the Kremlin is attempting to extend its dominance across the countries of Central and Eastern Europe."
Rebecca HARMS (Greens/EFA, DE) congratulated the Czech Presidency on its handling of the gas crisis, claiming that "nothing could have been done better than we what we have done so far". Noting that the gas dispute and commodities trade were merely elements of a bigger picture, she said it is important to clarify the EU's stance on the matter. "What is the EU going to do vis-à-vis countries that are sitting on the fence somewhere between Russia and the EU?" she asked.
Speaking on behalf of GUE/NGL, Esko SEPPÄNEN (FI) unwillingly thanked the Commission for playing the role of mediator and "psychiatrist" in the Russian and Ukrainian dispute. He said EU sanctions "are not the right approach", pointing out that not all countries were in a position to boycott Russian gas.
Gerard BATTEN (IND/DEM, UK), quoting a previous speech made by his fellow IND-DEM MEP Godfrey Bloom, said that the idea of the UK's energy supplies being controlled by "a gangster like Vladimir Putin" was madness. The UK must ensure it held on to its own "dwindling natural gas supplies" and did not subordinate them to a common EU energy policy. It should also "embark on a programme for building new nuclear power stations".
Jana BOBOŠÍKOVÁ (NI, CZ) maintained that the poor in particular were "paying a high price for the EU's short-sighted energy policy". Some Union Member States, she argued, had stood in the way of a strategic agreement with Russia, preferring instead to back the Ukrainian Orange Revolution. "We see now how important it is for individual Member States to be energy self-sufficient", she concluded.