Excarbity
The Russian attack on Ukraine highlighted the European Unionʼs dependency on supplies of high carbon energysources, such as natural gas, from the Russian Federation. The invasion, coupled with the preceding period of highenergy prices (starting in autumn 2021), led to the EU shifting its focus from decarbonisation and the employmentof low carbon (renewable) energy sources to external carbon security - security of supplies of high carbon fossilenergy sources, especially natural gas, from third countries. Natural gas plays a key role in the energy systems ofmany EU member states and is considered to support the gradual decarbonisation of their economies. However,the EU lacks a common policy in the external carbon security area, which prevented it from rapidly reacting to thecrisis in the energy sector or adopting a strong, common energy position. This research studies the impact of theongoing energy crisis on the development of external carbon security policy in the EU. It examines changes in thepositions of the European Commission and EU member states on creating a common approach towards naturalgas suppliers from third countries (i.e., external carbon security) and proposes a new theory of Europeanintegration that sheds light on the said changes, triggered by the ongoing crisis. The project has important policyimplications as current events illustrate how energy challenges are interlinked with much broader security issues.This project can provide new perspectives on the position of high carbon sources - like natural gas - in thedecarbonisation process.
Duration period: 01.07.2024 - 30.06.2027
Principal investigator: Matúš Mišík, PhD.
Total budget: 200 000 €
Supported by: This project was generously supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency under the contract No. APVV-23-0032.
AIMS OF THE PROJECT
Our research has three main aims
AIM 1 is to study the European Commission's (EC) position towards integration in external carbon security and how that position was affected by the ongoing energy crisis. Although the EC was supportive of developing a common EU approach to external carbon security after both the 2006 and 2009 gas crises, presented several strategic documents on this topic over the years, and even included some aspects of this issue in the Energy Union, it was ultimately unable to persuade opposing member states to transfer their competences in this area to the EU. The Lisbon Treaty introduced energy policy into the EU's primary law in Article 194, but explicitly kept several competences in member states' hands. For example, member states can decide from where and under what conditions they receive their natural gas (and any other energy sources) - so several members still import natural gas from the Russian Federation. Joint purchase of gas was agreed by member states, however, this has only minimal impact on overall gas sector. This project will examine whether the EC's response to the current crisis differs from its previous approach to external carbon security. While the EC previously focused on developing new policies or deepening existing ones by utilising windows of opportunity provided by crises, different patterns have recently emerged as the EC pushes member states to commit to particular goals.
AIM 2 is to examine the preferences of EU member states: both those that support integration in external carbon security and those that oppose it. Members that support deepening integration in external carbon security see the EU as a more suitable level for dealing with external suppliers of high carbon sources, since the common position is much stronger than the positions of individual member countries (especially the smaller ones). Most often, the deepening of integration in this area is viewed as a response to security challenges and perceived vulnerability.However, member states in support of deepening integration in external carbon security have so far been unsuccessful in pursuing their preferences in this area.
The project studies two cases: Poland is one of the countries that strongly supported such a development because of long-term tensions with Russian Federation in both the energy and foreign policy area. While it was not successful at pursing this policy at the EU level, the country developed its own response in 2014 in the form of a liquified natural gas (LNG) terminal. Similarly, the Baltic States have also been supporters of deepening integration in external carbon security, mostly due to their experience with supply interruptions from Russia. Efforts to solve this problem by developing a shared LNG terminal have been unsuccessful as the Baltic States were unable to agree on a common solution that would grant them access to EU funding. Ultimately, Lithuania built its own terminal using own financing.
On the other hand, several EU member states have not been in favour of developing a common approach to external carbon security. Since unanimity among members is required to deepen integration in this area, countries that are unwilling to move in this direction do not need to pursue their preferences - it is enough to not actively support the deepening of integration. They can thus impact European integration in this policy area to a high degree and act as veto players. We assume that member states do not want integration in this area, because they: A) consider having competences regarding the energy mix under their own control advantageous (i.e., domestic policy reasons); B)have their own foreign policy interests that contradict a common EU approach in the energy area; or C) favour a fast-track approach to decarbonisation that focuses on minimising the transition period towards full decarbonisation.This project studies these perspectives on member states' opposition to integration by examining three case studies:1) Austria's position on the deepening of European integration in external carbon security, viewed through the lens of national control over the energy mix; 2) the development of the German position in connection to Nord Stream 1 and2 pipelines before and after their shutdown due to hostile activity; and 3) the policy options of the countries that reject the idea of natural gas as a bridging fuel and view it through the prism of the 'lock-in concept'.
AIM 3 is to develop a new theory of integration in energy policy by building on the knowledge gained in the course of the project. Since the EC and member states are the key actors in the deepening of integration in energy policy, their mutual relations determine its direction. This is reflected in the discussion pitting the supranationalists against the intergovernmentalists. The EU has recently been undergoing a lot of changes, to which both the EC and member states are responding. The whole EU is in flux as it tries to find solutions to the ongoing 'polycrisis', with the EC proposing new solutions that include increased supranationalism, which is contested by some members. Major past crises changed the dynamics between these main EU actors and inspired the development of new theoretical approaches. Based on empirical findings about the ECʼs changing role in EU policy making and the reactions(support/opposition) of member states, this project will propose a new model of integration in the energy policy area and thus contribute to the ongoing theoretical discussion about European integration.
RESEARCH TEAM
Matúš Mišík is Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science at Comenius University Bratislava. His research interests include small states and energy security in the EU. He is the author of External Energy Security in the European Union (Routledge, 2019), co-author of Energy Transitions in Central and Eastern Europe (Cambridge University Press, 2024) and has published articles in journals including Nature Energy, Energy, Energy Policy and Geopolitics. See more here.
Veronika Oravcová is a researcher at the Department of Political Science at Comenius University Bratislava and a research fellow at the Slovak Foreign Policy Association. Her research interests are centered on energy transition and energy security in Central and Eastern Europe. She has published several chapters on energy transition and papers on the Slovak and Visegrad energy policy.
Michaela Hrabušajová is a PhD student at the Department of Political Science at the Comenius University Bratislava and a research assistant at the Oxfordia project. Her interests include the US foreign policy and she focuses on US energy policy during Trump administration.
PUBLICATION
Articles in peer-reviewed journals
1) Hebda, W. and Mišík, M. (2024) In Search of Energy Security: Nuclear Energy Development in the Visegrad Group Countries. Energies 17, no. 21: 5390. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17215390 (OPEN ACCESS)
2) Vakhal, P., Yakovenko, K., Mišík, M., Oravcová, V. and Mattera, R. (2024) Gender and authorship in energy studies: Is there an impact? Energy Strategy Reviews 56, 101581 (OPEN ACCESS)
3) Haneklaus, N., Kaggwa, M., Misihairabgwi, J. et al. The phosphorus negotiation game (P-Game): first evaluation of a serious game to support science-policy decision making played in more than 20 countries worldwide. Discover Sustainability 6, 1 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00693-6
Blogs (in various languages):
1) Matúš Mišík, Publikujú muži v prestížnejších vedeckých časopisoch? 5. decembra 2024, Blog Denník N.
Opinion pieces in daily newspapers (in Slovak):
1) Matúš Mišík, Európska únia by mala sankcionovať ruský plyn. 20.decembra 2024, DennikN
2) Matúš Mišík, Rusko, nie Ukrajina, je zodpovedné za vysoké ceny zemného plynu v Európe, 2. januára 2025, DenníkN
3) Matúš Mišík, Na Slovensku nie je energetická kríza. A už ani nikdy nebude. 14.januára 2025, Denník N
EVENTS