Suchergebnisse

Following the Paris Agreement, the energy landscape is changing more than ever. While these changes bring opportunity, they also come with risks, requiring traditional concepts of energy security to be reconsidered. These changes in the energy landscape are mirrored by shifting political balances as the world becomes increasingly multipolar, raising questions of which rules will govern energy systems, trade, markets and investment. As geopolitical turmoil comes closer to the EU's borders, energy systems are becoming increasingly cross-border and regional in nature, intertwining interest in energy security. Cross-border initiatives in energy are proliferating across Eurasia, driven in part by the rise of China, with the potential to create new energy regions, corridors and geographies. These developments can lead to new geographies along infrastructure lines and could result in competitive regionalism and regulatory fault lines. This paper reflects an initial step to identify potential risks emerging in this new energy landscape and assess the ability of existing institutions and tools of governance to address them. The study aims to describe the risk landscape and governance shortcomings and identify actions the EU can take to both improve its existing external energy governance and empower existing institutions to address these risks. Ultimately, for the EU and Germany, the challenge will be to turn the potential risks of connectivity into opportunities and to help establish a level playing field that ensures competitiveness through common rules. (SWP Research Paper)

The 2016 German Chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) comes at a time of increasing awareness about the interdependence between energy security and hard, economic, and human security. Energy risks are endemic in the OSCE area. Because these risks have an impact on regional security, there are good reasons for the OSCE to assume a stronger role in addressing energy security issues and reducing energy risks in the OSCE area. In so doing, the OSCE can utilise its existing capabilities in the areas of awareness-raising, early warning, prevention, mitigation, and crisis management and can build on its missions, tools, and field presence. Furthermore, the OSCE's focus on connectivity can contribute towards reducing energy risks arising from outdated or insufficient infrastructure by addressing physical connectivity jointly with legal and regulatory compatibility to improve the investment climate and foster stable policy frameworks. (SWP Comments)

Germany and Poland stand as examples of the differing interests of individual European Union (EU) member states in energy policy. However, both countries are crucial for filling an Energy Union with substance. Yet, progress in bilateral engagement has stalled, as controversies, for example over Nord Stream II, threaten to distract attention from other issues and avenues for energy cooperation. While acknowledging disagreements, the focus should be on identifying areas of agreement and opportunities for cooperation. Although the difficulty of resolving highly controversial issues is not to be discounted, addressing them will require taking steps to establish trust while designing programs and projects to transform the idea of solidarity from rhetoric into reality. (SWP Comments)

Following the Paris Agreement, the energy landscape is changing more than ever. While these changes bring opportunity, they also come with risks, requiring traditional concepts of energy security to be reconsidered. These changes in the energy landscape are mirrored by shifting political balances as the world becomes increasingly multipolar, raising questions of which rules will govern energy systems, trade, markets and investment. As geopolitical turmoil comes closer to the EU's borders, energy systems are becoming increasingly cross-border and regional in nature, intertwining interest in energy security. Cross-border initiatives in energy are proliferating across Eurasia, driven in part by the rise of China, with the potential to create new energy regions, corridors and geographies. These developments can lead to new geographies along infrastructure lines and could result in competitive regionalism and regulatory fault lines. This paper reflects an initial step to identify potential risks emerging in this new energy landscape and assess the ability of existing institutions and tools of governance to address them. The study aims to describe the risk landscape and governance shortcomings and identify actions the EU can take to both improve its existing external energy governance and empower existing institutions to address these risks. Ultimately, for the EU and Germany, the challenge will be to turn the potential risks of connectivity into opportunities and to help establish a level playing field that ensures competitiveness through common rules. (author's abstract)

The 2016 German Chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) comes at a time of increasing awareness about the interdependence between energy security and hard, economic, and human security. Energy risks are endemic in the OSCE area. Because these risks have an impact on regional security, there are good reasons for the OSCE to assume a stronger role in addressing energy security issues and reducing energy risks in the OSCE area. In so doing, the OSCE can utilise its existing capabilities in the areas of awareness-raising, early warning, prevention, mitigation, and crisis management and can build on its missions, tools, and field presence. Furthermore, the OSCE's focus on connectivity can contribute towards reducing energy risks arising from outdated or insufficient infrastructure by addressing physical connectivity jointly with legal and regulatory compatibility to improve the investment climate and foster stable policy frameworks. (author's abstract)

Germany and Poland stand as examples of the differing interests of individual European Union (EU) member states in energy policy. However, both countries are crucial for filling an Energy Union with substance. Yet, progress in bilateral engagement has stalled, as controversies, for example over Nord Stream II, threaten to distract attention from other issues and avenues for energy cooperation. While acknowledging disagreements, the focus should be on identifying areas of agreement and opportunities for cooperation. Although the difficulty of resolving highly controversial issues is not to be discounted, addressing them will require taking steps to establish trust while designing programs and projects to transform the idea of solidarity from rhetoric into reality. (author's abstract)

"The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) are in disarray, and shifts in the field of energy have the potential to drastically affect the course of political and economic developments in the region. Declining oil prices, skyrocketing domestic demand, the rise of unconventional oil and natural gas production in North America, as well as shifting patterns of global energy trade all put severe pressures on both producing and importing countries in the MENA region. Policy-makers are facing fundamental challenges in light of the duality of grand transformations in (geo)politics and energy. Changes in the field of energy require substantial political and economic reforms, affecting the very fabric of sociopolitical arrangements. At the same time, the MENA region's geopolitical volatility makes any such reforms extremely risky. Including contributions by academics and analysts from both inside and outside the MENA region, this volume explores the changes in global and regional energy, the impact of changing international energy dynamics on politics and economies in the MENA region, and the challenges that will result. This is essential reading for researchers, postgraduates, and professionals in Middle Eastern and North African politics, global energy governance and regionalism." (Publisher's description)