Ole Gunnar Austvik

Introduction: The EU and the Changing (Geo)Politics of Energy in Europe

This introductory chapter has three purposes. First, it presents the background for this volume originating in a research project on European integration funded by the Research Council of Norway (RCN). Second, it explains why EU energy policy in this context deserves closer scrutiny looking at energy relationships between the EU and external suppliers of energy and the EU and member states. Finally, this chapter gives an overview of the content of this book and explains rationales for the choice of cases presenting how the EU projects its power, how external suppliers Norway, Russia, Algeria and LNG providers have responded and how the member states Germany, Poland and the three Baltic countries interact with the EU when implementing their energy policies.

Norway and the European Economic Area: Good Deal or Just an EU Rule-Taker?

'After more than 20 years in the European Economic Area (EEA), it may look as if this remains the solution for Norway – part of the EU's single market but not an actual EU member state. There is no great political push to change Norway's status for now but there are still debates on the political, economic and institutional pluses and minuses of being on the margins of the EU not at its heart,' author Ole Gunnar Austvik writes in this op-ed.

Norway: Small State in Big Energy Play: Room for National Political Maneuvering in European Energy Markets.

This article discusses the scale and scope of the room for political maneuvering in the energy sector available to Norway as member of the Single Market (SM) in the European Union (EU). Norway has deliberately developed its energy resources under strong political control, in order to benefit the “whole Norwegian nation.” The European Economic Area (EEA) agreement, which entered into effect in 1994, made Norway a participant in a liberal economic restructuring processes. As EU policy aims at benefiting purchasers in the whole EEA area, and not individual member states only (outside exporters even less), it clashed with Norwegian energy policy as regards for whom policy should work, and how. The article discusses how small-state Norway managed to achieve nationally defined goals for its energy sector within the rule-based SM, versus EU as the big political player. The main empirical focus is on natural gas. The article argues that the room for national political maneuvering within liberal EU regulations appears to depend as much on national vision and situation, and on comparative advantages in policymaking and choice, as on EU policy itself. In the Norway–EU energy case, nationally defined policy goals were largely retained, with active regulatory and legal interpretation, innovative adaptation and, when necessary, the introduction of new policies and greater direct state participation to compensate for lost opportunities.

Flinkest i klassen? Har Norge et politisk handlingsrom under EØS-avtalen?

(Available in Norwegian only): Når EØS-avtalen diskuteres er det lett å få inntrykk av at Norge med den har gitt opp muligheten til å forme egen politikk, og at den eneste måten å rette opp i dette på er å si den opp (eller bli medlem av EU, selv om dette argumentet er fraværende i dag). Denne virkelighetsoppfatningen utfordes her av professor Ole Gunnar Austvik, som viser til at det innenfor EØS-avtalen finnes et visst nasjonalt handlingsrom som Norge kan benytte seg av dersom viljen er tilstede. Det krever kunnskap og interesse – som all annen politikkutvikling.

Bidrag til rapport

Oil and Gas Extraction in the Barents Region

Hva bestemmer oljeprisen?

Turkey in the Geopolitics of Natural Gas.

The Energy Union and Security-of-Gas-Supply

This paper discusses and contrasts the proposals for an Energy Union in the European Union and its impact on security-of-gas-supply. Based on an examination of historical East-West gas trade and by revisiting energy security concepts, the paper analyzes how problems with dependency on energy imports can be reduced. The paper discusses how the positions of Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC), where security challenges are especially evident, and the positions of countries in Western Europe, where they are less acute, interact and conflicts in making a common energy security policy as part of the Energy Union. The paper argues that the mainly confederative structure of the EU, and diverging national situations, make it difficult to unify positions into an effective common energy policy. However, with the CEEC in the EU, the EU is also changing, and an increased focus on energy security may be accepted. Extended interconnectedness within and to the CEEC appears to be the central issue that would mitigate, albeit not solve, contemporary security-of-gas-supply problems. As it would also bring the internal energy market closer to reality, it could in addition help the Energy Union to become a unifying project merging the interests in the East and the West despite their different security-of-gas supply concerns with Russian gas.

The Energy Union and security-of-gas supply