Tomas Maltby

Multiple transformations: theorizing energy vulnerability as a socio-spatial phenomenon

ABSTRACT The on-going transition towards low-carbon forms of energy provision (frequently termed ‘energy transitions’) has triggered far-reaching material, economic and institutional reconfigurations at the global scale. There is evidence to suggest that energy transitions increase the social vulnerability of actors involved in and affected by them, including entities operating at different scales, from individual households to entire states. However, the link between energy vulnerability and energy transitions remains poorly understood. We aim to formulate an explicitly geographical perspective on this relationship. The paper is based on an analysis of documentary evidence and 170 expert interviews undertaken between April 2013 and March 2015. This research took place in the post-communist states of Central and Eastern Europe where systemic change has fundamentally altered the institutional landscape of the energy sector since the early 1990s. Our findings point to the need for understanding energy vulnerability as an evolving socio-spatial phenomenon embedded in multiple layers of institutional change and organizational practice. We identify urban landscapes as the primary site for the geographic expression and articulation of domestic energy deprivation.

Between Amity, Enmity and Europeanisation: EU Energy Security Policy and the Example of Bulgaria's Russian Energy Dependence

Considering the development of the Bulgarian energy security strategy this article analyses how the country has adapted to EU membership and to energy security challenges, such as disruptions to Russian gas supplies in 2006 and 2009 and rising gas prices. Utilising a conceptual lens which synthesises Regional Security Complex Theory and Europeanisation, the article offers an explanation of energy policy changes. It concludes that conceptions of Russia as an energy security guarantor have changed since Bulgarias EU accession and that Bulgarian energy policy has undergone a qualified reorientation away from a positive dependence on Russian energy sources, towards a convergence with EU priorities of diversification and a single energy market.

Challenging Reductionism in Analyses of EU-Russia Energy Relations

The EU and Russia exist in a complex and, at times, seemingly paradoxical and contradictory relationship. On the one hand, the two sides remain rhetorically committed towards a close and developing strategic partnership. On the other, the EU-Russia political relationship is currently at its lowest ebb since the end of the Cold War due to the crisis in Ukraine. A mixture of politics, economics and geography provide an impetus for the development of mutually beneficial relations and, at the same time, obstacles to the achievement of such a positive partnership. No matter how tense the political relationship may become, economic ties and simple geographical proximity mean that the two sides are compelled to continue their dialogue

The Future of EU-Russia Energy Relations in the Context of Decarbonisation

ABSTRACT In 2013, there was a joint commitment to “long term strategic EU-Russia energy cooperation”.1 Whilst centred on oil and gas, it is noted that “the importance of renewables for EU-Russia energy relations should grow too”,2 and that for energy efficiency, “cooperation potential is immense and could… contribute to the objective of a Pan-European energy area”.3 Given this shared objective, this article analyses EU and Russian energy decarbonisation policy objectives and considers the potential for a supplementary trade relationship based on renewable energy flows and decarbonisation-related technology, as well as the implications for existing energy trade. Despite declarative statements of mutual interest, shared objectives and cooperation in decarbonisation policy, there has been very limited cooperation by early 2016. The EU has set ambitious plans to decarbonise its economy and energy sector by 2050. However, in Russia energy policy is dominated by hydrocarbon exports, decarbonisation targets are modest, and there are major problems with their implementation. The drivers of EU and Russian energy policies are evaluated, and the argument advanced is that different understandings of energy security and types of energy governance provide major obstacles to decarbonisation cooperation and trade. However, it is argued that ideas about energy policy and security are contested and subject to change and there exists significant potential for mutual gain and cooperation in the longer term.

The more the merrier? Assessing the impact of enlargement on EU performance in energy and climate change policies

ABSTRACT This article examines the impact of enlargement on European Union performance in energy and climate change policies. It looks at process-driven performance, focusing on agenda-setting, negotiation dynamics and institutional change – as well as outcome-driven performance, looking at the ambitiousness of policy objectives and their implementation. The empirical analysis is based on qualitative, comparative case studies of EU climate change and energy security policies. The article shows that enlargement has had a nuanced but contrasted impact on the two areas. It also points to the recent assertiveness of Central and Eastern European Countries in both energy security and climate policy.

Energy Securitisation: Avenues for Future Research

In this chapter we identify some key areas for future research on “energy securitization” through both an examination of what Securitization Studies could learn from the study of energy issues and what insights could be drawn from theoretical developments within Securitization Studies for the study of energy security. After a brief overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the Copenhagen School framework, we outline several possibilities within two main strands of research—the discursive construction of energy security and the process of energy securitization, respectively. In the case of the former, we suggest that research should focus on the question of whether or not energy is a distinct “sector” of security, and whether it is constituted by “logics” of security that depart from the Copenhagen School’s conception of securitization. In the case of the latter, we suggest that greater attention should be paid to the audiences of attempts to securitize energy issues, and the ways in which such attempts are shaped by power relations, systems of energy governance, and the “materiality” of energy systems. We conclude with some reflections on the causal status of securitization theory and the implications this has for how to conduct further research on energy securitization.

Evolutions and Revolutions in EU-Russia Energy Relations

Historically, EU-Russia energy trade has focused on hydrocarbons, and despite the high levels of interdependence, relations have become increasingly politicized and, arguably, securitized in the 2000s. This is due to the disruptions of Russian gas supplies in 2006 and 2009 and the Ukraine crisis in 2013/2014 contributing to concerns about security of Russian energy supplies and EU demand (specifically regarding gas) and the interdependence of the energy trade between the EU and Russia.