Just days ago, representatives of Bulgaria, Greece and Russia gathered in Athens to sign the long-awaited agreement for the construction of the Bourgas-Alexandropoulis pipeline.

And even though high-level officials from both the United States and the European Union welcomed the contract, various groups in Bulgaria have not been particularly supportive. Indeed, a number of concerns have been raised, especially with regard to the possible negative effects of the project on the environment. Such warnings have come mostly from the right of the political spectrum as well as from members of various local environmental organisations. Unsurprisingly, the official stance of the Government, on the other hand, has been one of support for the project and its supposed political, geostrategic, and economic significance for the country and the region.

Given that in recent weeks much has been said and written on the topic, I would not attempt here to offer anything too original but will rather try to very succinctly outline the potential benefits and threats of the project for Bulgaria. I will leave out the issue of financing of the Bulgarian section of the pipeline, that of the competitive pipeline projects in the region, and some others, which are all important, but they do require more detailed analysis. However, I would like to also briefly consider the likely benefits and threats for the other two sides to the contract, namely Greece and Russia. Finally, since this is a topic that (as far as I know) has not been explored in much detail in the Bulgarian press, which in my opinion is a serious error, I would like to just emphasise the importance of developing alternative power sources that in the long run may help achieve Bulgaria’s greater, although not total, energy independence.

As already stated, the current Bulgarian Government, and especially Economy and Energy Minister Roumen Ovcharov, has tried hard (or perhaps not hard enough) to persuade the public of the numerous benefits of the Bourgas-Alexandropoulis project. The official position has been that the country will from now on be a key player on the “energy map of Europe”. In addition, Bulgaria will likely benefit from an economic aspect, as the project will result in the creation of jobs and the collection of fees for the transit of fuels through the Bulgarian section of the pipeline. And although those who defend the project certainly have a point, and it is the undeniable fact that Bulgaria will be better off with developed energy (and, for that matter, any other) infrastructure, it is the cost of that infrastructure that is the real concern here. And even if one wishes to believe Ovcharov that the contract for this project (like that for Belene nuclear power station) is indeed good for Bulgaria (and not only for Russia), the environmental concerns should not be dismissed too quickly. Since the project for the pipeline is still in its initial stages, despite negotiations that lasted over 13 years, and no one has yet expressed willingness to assume responsibility for any potential ecological disasters that may occur (which is certainly not unusual for this early stage of such a project), one may rightfully feel concerned about Bulgaria’s wildlife and tourist and fishing industries along the Black Sea coast. Certainly, guarantees will have to be provided before construction commences to ensure that a project that will guarantee just $35 million to $50 million a year in transit fees will not cost the country and its population much more in damages.

And since both potential advantages and disadvantages of the pipeline project have been enumerated for Bulgaria, it is only sensible to briefly look at those with regard to Greece and Russia as well. The situation for Bulgaria’s southern neighbour is similar to ours. At present, Greece (like Bulgaria, post Kozloduy’s closing) is not a serious player on the “energy map of Europe”, and it perhaps wishes to become one. Whether this will happen only time will tell. What is certain, however, is that in Alexandropoulis jobs will be created and the small town may become an important transport hub within the region. For this, Greece’s large fleet of tankers and other ships will be very helpful, something that Bulgaria unfortunately cannot make use of. Nonetheless, the Hellenic state must be very careful, as the potential negative effects of such a pipeline for the fishing and especially tourist industries (much more developed there) are also present. As to the opportunities and threats for Russia, these do exist as well. Since it is the largest supplier of both natural gas and oil to the entire EU, Russia has enormous influence on the global energy sector. In fact, along with Saudi Arabia, it is considered an “energy superpower”. The small, by Russian standards, project of a pipeline of less than 300km, however, provides Russia with yet another opportunity to strengthen its positions on the European continent. As far as threats go, Bulgaria and Greece may, in the event of any disputes, actually block Russia’s ability to transport its resources to the end-point in Alexandropoulis. Whether these two countries can afford to ever do that is another matter. However, the single most serious threat to Russia (as amusing as some may find this now) is the long-term prospect for depletion of its natural gas and oil reserves (which is a problem the entire world will soon have to face).

With the above being said, Bulgaria should be developing its capabilities for producing energy from alternative and renewable sources. Wind power and biofuels should be priorities in particular. These two types of energy sources and others should be developed in the future in order to gradually limit the country’s dependence on fossil fuels. Since the prospects for having a nuclear plant in the near future are still uncertain, an effort should be made to develop such environment friendly alternatives. In fact, a number of countries in the EU, such as Germany, Spain and Denmark have already invested heavily and developed considerable wind power capabilities. In addition, the US, Britain and others are also realizing the potential and the benefits of this type of power. With regard to biofuels, the EU has set a goal by 2020 each member state to achieve at least 10 per cent biofuel usage of all used traffic fuel. And since these types of power are priorities of the EU, Bulgaria should make them its priorities as well. The country should allocate sources for the development of such projects and also seek funding from the EU and from elsewhere. Since, according to Ovcharov, Bulgaria has now guaranteed its fossil fuel deliveries, it should diversify its energy production and explore precisely these alternative types of power production if the country is to achieve greater energy independence from Russia, something which should be a primary goal of EU as a whole.

Finally, with regard to the already signed agreement for the construction of the pipeline, every effort should be made to make the entire process as effective and as transparent and possible and to guarantee Vladimir Putin’s promise, that any potential negative effects for the environment will be anticipated and prevented, is kept.