While these days there is speculation about the blockade of dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina and the possible consequences for Serbia's European future on the one hand, on the other hand there is talk of the imminent opening of new negotiation chapters, and the Prime Ministers of Albania and Serbia are discussing the future of Serbian-Albanian relations.
"The mood within the European Parliament, when we talk about Serbia's accession negotiations, is, in my opinion, very positive." Hands are wide open. The question arises as to whether Serbia is achieving what it promised in its internal politics. Some think that the Government sometimes plays games. It is not always useful. Of course, we are trying to understand how we are behaving, whether we are sending the right and clear signals to the Serbian side, as well as what we can change to make those signals precise. These days, the regional context has a particularly important role and importance. When policymakers in Serbia help stop harmful actions in Republika Srpska and prevent Milorad Dodik from moving where he wants, it will have a positive impact because it helps stabilize the regional context," says Reinhard Bitikofer, a member of the Greens group in the European Parliament.
"WEATHER": Currently, the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina is called into question, and there were speculations that the interruption of the dialogue could lead to the blocking of the negotiation process between Serbia and the European Union.
REINHARD BITTIKOFER: The fact that dialogue is taking place shows that it is possible to overcome blockages. With the same approach, Belgrade, Pristina and Brussels can overcome difficulties when they arise. I don't believe it will be an automatic process and it won't be easy. I repeat, it is part of the regional picture. At the moment, there is a positive mood among the various political groups in the European Parliament regarding the negotiations with Serbia. However, actions and actions must be aligned with the promises made. If the difference between what is promised and what is done is big, it certainly does not help."
It seems that regional relations and, according to some, bad experience with the early accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU, are slowing down the European integration of Serbia.
The membership of Bulgaria and Romania, which many consider premature, can be an obstacle for Serbia and other candidates. In the case of Bulgaria and Romania, we did not fight corruption effectively enough, we did not ensure a strong enough rule of law. In the case of new candidates, we will fight harder for them to become better and more orderly states.
Serbia started its negotiations with the EU less than a year ago, and so far she has opened only four chapters. 15 are not among the open chapters Energy and 27 Environment, which concern the politics of the Greens. How hard are they and why aren't they open yet??
This is not a question for the EU, but for Serbia. If the country that wants to become a member does not perform well enough, opening a chapter will be difficult. It all depends on how much ambition the candidate shows. For example, I am familiar with the example of the municipality of Vrbas, which tries to reduce energy consumption and succeeds in doing so. Therefore, the question is whether the legislators create a framework that enables or facilitates other municipalities to follow the example of Vrbas. If other municipalities followed this example, the goal would be much easier to achieve.
How important is energy efficiency for the European negotiation process with the EU?
In the last fifteen years, the EU has become a leader in the design and application of alternative energy sources. This includes various aspects - the transition from fossil fuel energy to renewable energy sources, the application of energy efficient technology, as well as innovations in business models. I would not single out energy efficiency and give it a special place. In practice, it is a combination of efficiency, energy production methods and a more effective and advanced business model. All this is important for two reasons. The first is related to the environment and climate change, while the second is economic. Since the climate conference in Paris, everyone knows that the game of the 21st century is the decarbonization of the economy. Whoever does not do it well will lose. I think that for countries that want to become EU members, it is also a chance to revive the economy.
The EU has the so-called 20 20 20 politics: to 2020. energy efficiency should improve by 20 percent, to increase the use of renewable energy sources by 20 percent, and the emission of coal dioxide to decrease by at least 20 percent compared to 1990. Do these principles work?
I wish I could say yes, but I don't think that would be entirely true. EU member states are not harmonized when it comes to energy policy. It is much easier to define those goals than to implement them. Recently, member states insisted that the goals set for the entire EU cannot be defeated by individual states. Therefore, this policy is well directed, but not effective enough. However, I consider last year's Paris summit on climate change to be a turning point. I think civil society and economic actors have moved forward much more rigorously. Before this conference, energy policy was going one step forward, two steps back. Now the goals are clearly defined, the direction is determined and everyone knows where to go. Now we have the opportunity to transform political energy into economic energy and to prove that it is possible to move much more ambitiously.
Energy transformation is one of the goals of EU energy policy. What is the best way to achieve it?
Many different factors must come together. It is much more complicated than finding new technology. For example, you need to have investors who will finance the construction of an energy alternative. Fifteen years ago in Germany we gave citizens the opportunity to become investors and through various new mechanisms we allowed them to become a new class of entrepreneurs that would create a new industry that did not exist before. That can be one way.
Another could be convincing young people to be actors in this process.
A third option is to bring in other investors, such as insurance companies or pension funds, who are desperate for long-term investments. If you can guarantee safe, stable and, especially, reliable chances of investing in energy alternatives and renewable energy, this is a very good possibility. Also, we should engage in technological research, focus on research and development, and it is the government that must build a favorable economic environment. If, for example, the renewable energy industry wants to compete with the fossil fuel industry, it's a tough game for them. Therefore, reducing subsidies for fossil fuels would save money from the budget and create a more favorable environment for alternative energy sources. Industry, research, regulation, legislation and civil society must come together and form an alliance for change. Such an association would be extremely strong.
It seems that in Serbia it is difficult to combine all these factors.
Yes, but it is possible. When we started such a policy in Germany, my party occupied less than seven percent of the national parliament. It was a small party, and generally speaking, it is still small. Why did we succeed? Because we managed to harmonize different interests. Farmers, for example, did not support us at all, but they saw the importance of this kind of industry and got started. That changed almost overnight.
Serbia is on the path to the EU, while Great Britain left it. Do you think there are any chances that in the future some other member states will follow that path??
No. I don't think that will happen. Many citizens in countries such as Denmark, Germany or France have become more attached to the European Union after Brexit. When things are working right, nobody pays attention to them.
How ready and open are the residents of the member states to further expansion?
The opinion of the residents of different member states certainly differs. Many do not like to talk about expansion. I think it is obvious that the EU must solve some of its internal issues, otherwise citizens' trust in EU institutions will decline. That must first change and citizens feel that the EU can face challenges. On the other hand, there are no strong enough arguments that the future of the countries of the Western Balkans should not be in the European community. I've never heard a strong enough fundamental, geostrategic, geopolitical, economic, cultural or whatever argument why it shouldn't happen. If we all find the energy together to show progress, I think all the doors that are closed at the moment will be opened.
Do you think that the Government of Serbia is doing well when it comes to Serbia's European path??
You know, I'm one of those people who believe that there is always room for improvement.
