By Kester Kenn Klomega

Endowed with huge natural resources, Africa is comparatively the least developed region in this world. In the current context of global crisis, at least Russia struggling to maintain its image on the stage. Some African leaders are more concerned to be at the receiving end, while others are prioritizing development and improving welfare for their impoverished population.

Sometimes, it is difficult to understand the level of development despite the colossal resources in Africa. That development can only be raised with foreign participation. With that presumption, African leaders seemingly have that sentimental edge attitude for symbolism and the desire for group photos at international conferences and summits even if such gatherings offer little or nothing tangible for their national economic development. Russian President Vladimir Putin attended a meeting of BRICS leaders with delegation heads from invited African states and chairs of international associations on 27 July, 2018, in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Those invited included the leaders of African countries, namely, Angola, Botswana, Ethiopia, Gabon, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritius, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Senegal, the Seychelles, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The meeting was also attended by the heads of Argentina (then chair of the G20), Turkey (then chair of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) and Jamaica (then chair of the Caribbean Community).

Before the meeting, there was a joint photo session. Speaking at that grand high-level meeting, Putin told the African leaders, with confidence, that “Africa is one of the world’s most rapidly developing regions.”

“Russia has always given priority to the development of relations with African countries, based on long-standing traditions of friendship and mutual assistance,” he said, and along the line in the powerful and arousing speech, added that Russia would help to overcome energy shortages and deep-seated deficits across Africa.

Without much doubts, Russia is noted for an excellent diplomacy. As always, African leaders gave an ear-deafening applause. Russia is ready to do everything in various sectors in Africa has been the policy chorus down these years since the collapse of the Soviet era in 1991, and African leaders respectfully show high excitement at such phrases.

Putin underscored the fact in the nuclear power industry, where Russia is a technological leader, offers several African partners the creation of an entire industry on a turnkey basis. Agreements on cooperation in the field of atoms for peace have been signed with a number of countries in the region, while in some of them the work has acquired a practical dimension. Joint efforts are being taken to implement the agreements reached in a number of spheres.

“All these projects will be of strategic importance for Africa, where, according to different estimates, as many as 600 million people still live without electricity,” he told African leaders.

Quite recently in March 2023, Putin spoke at the international parliamentary conference Russia – Africa in a Multipolar World, held in Moscow under the auspices of the State Duma of the Russian Federal Assembly. In fact, one key question that featured in the speech that “Rosatom is already building a nuclear power plant in Egypt and plans to expand its involvement in the development of national energy systems in the African continent. I would like to note that significant, in some countries 100-percent funding is provided by Russia.”

The partnership between Russia and African countries has gained additional momentum and is reaching a whole new level. With South Africa, the agreement for the large scale nuclear power plant (NPP) development was initially signed during the International Atomic Energy Agency General (IAEAG) Conference in Vienna between Russia’s Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation director general Sergey Kirienko and South Africa’s Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson.

Accroding to Power Technology media report, Kirienko said: “I am convinced in cooperation with Russia, South Africa will gain all necessary competencies for the implementation of this large-scale national nuclear energy development programme. Rosatom seeks to create in South Africa a full-scale nuclear cluster of a world leader’s level – from the front-end of nuclear fuel cycle up to engineering and power equipment manufacturing.”

For the last twenty years, South Africa has not been able to make investments in new power plants, which has resulted in a severe power crunch. Kirienko observed: “In future this will allow to implement joint nuclear power projects in Africa and other third countries. But from the very start this cooperation will be guided at providing the conditions for creation of thousands of new jobs and placing of a considerable order to local industrial enterprises worth, at least, $10 billion.”

Long before that African leaders’ meeting at BRICS in Johannesburg, South African parliament overturned and blocked nuclear power agreement signed by Jacob Zuma in the Kremlin, after talks with Vladimir Putin. South Africa, until today, has had huge problems with power supply for both domestic and industrial utilization. Generally power outrages still a huge and real constraint to industrial growth in South Africa and across Africa.

Corruption that hollowed out Eskom’s coffers under Jacob Zuma’s presidency, lack of plant maintenance and sabotage were blamed for South Africa’s electricity crisis. South Africans have become hardened to crippling blackouts, this is inflicting a massive hit on the economy. Credible reports said the government spent $1.6 billion from the budget for diesel purchases this year alone. Eskom’s colossal debt, still equivalent to $23 billion.

According to research sources, main reason why the 2015 nuclear power agreement thrown out by the South Africa’s parliament, it was an opaque unilateral deal with Moscow. South African pact with Russia’s Rosatom to build nuclear reactors was deemed unlawful by a High Court in April 2017. The Southern African Faith Communities Environment Institute (SAFCEI) and Earthlife Africa-Johannesburg had jointly filed the court application to stop the nuclear program.

Both the Russian government and the administration of South African president Jacob Zuma put pressure on the South African government to force through the deal by attempting to circumvent South Africa’s procurement laws. The Russian government offered to build and operate up to eight nuclear power plants at a cost of R1 trillion ($66 billion).

South Africa and Russia signed an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) in 2014 that sealed a cooperation pact between state-owned nuclear group Rosatom and state-owned utility Eskom. There were external tenders, for example the United States, South Korea, China and France, but Jacob Zuma, without consulting his cabinet and parliament, used his close-friendship to sign the deal with Putin.  As a result, Pravin Gordhan then Finance Minister was fired partly because he resisted pressured by a faction allied to Jacob Zuma to back nuclear expansion.

With Arab Republic of Egypt in North Africa, it has been in the works for several years and has a chequered history. Egypt has been considering the use of nuclear energy for decades. The Nuclear Power Plants Authority [NPPA] was established in 1976, and in 1983 the El Dabaa site on the Mediterranean coast was selected.

With over 100 million inhabitants, Egypt is the most populous country in North Africa, popular referred to as Maghreb region and part of the Arab World. Egypt is the third most populous country after Nigeria and Ethiopia in Africa. About half of Egypt’s residents live in urban areas, with most spread across the densely populated centers of greater Cairo, Alexandria and other major cities along the Nile Delta. Therefore, Egypt needs sufficient energy to drive its industries and for domestic utilization.

Egypt’s nuclear plans, however, were shelved after the Chernobyl accident. But, in 2006, Egypt announced it would revive its civilian nuclear power program, and build a 1,000 MW nuclear power station at El Dabaa. Its estimated cost, at the time, was $12.5 billion, and the plans were to do the construction with the help of foreign investors. In March 2008, Egypt signed an agreement with Russia on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Rosatom has shown interest not only Egypt but many other countries in Africa. Over the past two decades, at least, it has signed agreements that promised construction of nuclear energy plants and training of specialists for these countries. Director General, Alexey Likhachev, emphasized these points at the first Russia-Africa summit that Rosatom has already been cooperating with more than 20 African countries, in particular, building the largest “El-Dabaa” NPP in Egypt with an installed capacity of 4.8 GW. The total cost of construction fixed at $30 billion.

After these several negotiations and re-negotiations since 2015, Russia re-signed the contract for the nuclear construction during the first Russia-Africa summit. Then after that…three years of waiting, Russia finally in 2022 granted a loan $25 billion for the construction of the nuclear power plant which covers 85% of the work. The remaining expenses will be covered by the Egyptian side by attracting private investors. Under the agreement, Egypt is to start payments on the loan, which is provided at 3% per annum, from October 2029.

According to reports, Russia has also signed for such construction of nuclear plants with a number of African countries but yet to begin implementing its side of the agreements. These include agreements with Algeria (2014), Ghana (2015), Ethiopia (2019), Republic of Congo (2019), Nigeria (2012, 2016), Rwanda (2018), South Africa (2004), Sudan (2017), Tunisia (2016), Uganda (2019) and Zambia (2016). Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) were signed with Kenya in 2016 and Morocco in 2017.

At the last international parliamentary conference ‘Russia – Africa in a Multipolar World’ held in March 2023, under the auspices of the State Duma of the Russian Federal Assembly, Putin indicated in his speech that “Russia is offering new environmentally friendly technologies, primarily in nuclear energy. Rosatom is already building a nuclear power plant in Egypt and plans to expand its involvement in the development of the national energy systems of the African continent. And that Russia, in some countries, would provide 100-percent funding of these nuclear projects.”

Ryan Collyer,the Regional Vice-President of Rosatom for Sub-Saharan Africa, told this author that energy (construction and repair of power generation facilities as well as in peaceful nuclear energy and the use of renewable energy sources) is an important area of the economic cooperation between Russia and Africa.

Collyer further explained that a nuclear power program is a complex undertaking that requires meticulous planning, preparation, and investment in time, institutions, and human resources. The development of such a program does not happen overnight and can take several years to implement.

According to his explanation, another critical question is the cost. Most of the funds are needed to during the construction period. Building a large-scale nuclear reactor takes thousands of workers, massive amounts of steel and concrete, thousands of components, and several systems to provide electricity, cooling, ventilation, information, control and communication.

Way Out – Other Energy Alternatives

Knox Msebenzi, Managing Director of the Nuclear Industry Association of South Africa (NIASA),  a body committed to promoting the highest standards in the development and application of nuclear technology, in discussing the impact of challenges on the country’s economy and a way out of the power generation difficulties, recommended that South Africa pursue an energy mix that includes coal, wind, hydro-power, nuclear and renewables going forward.

There are no silver bullets when it comes to energy sources generally across Africa. Criticisms of nuclear relating to costs and project managements (long delays with huge projects) are being addressed with Small Modular Reactors. Nuclear power will not come online today as it takes time to implement, but countries do not plan for now but for the future.

Msebenzi also told me during our discussion that foreign players would invariably be attracted by commercial interests. Manufacturers of renewable energy equipment overseas are already pushing to sell their goods and services. Nuclear vendors are also very keen to participate in the South African nuclear bid and this can be a gateway to the rest of the continent. Not only is it my view that an all-inclusive energy mix is imperative, but African governments must recognise these as well if they wanted durable and sustainable solution to energy crisis.

Most of these post-Soviet years, Russia’s growing opacity, agreement clouded in secrecy which features in its policy is seriously affecting its image inside Africa. That however, it has been pushing nuclear technology to African nations both to turn a profit and to expand its political might on the continent. It has until now several bilateral agreements signed.

By  Megha Saravanan

Russia and Ukraine are major players in the global energy markets, in fact Russia is one of the world’s top three crude oil producers. It is the second largest producer of natural gas in the world with largest gas reserves, making it the largest gas and oil exporter as well. Hence, Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has disrupted the global energy situation which was already volatile due to post-lockdown energy demand exceeding supply.[1] Oil and gas prices have reached their highest levels in almost a decade as a result of this geopolitical turmoil, prompting several nations to reevaluate their energy supply and policies. The impact was greatest between December 2021 and June 2022 as energy costs increased by 58.3%. Since the invasion, oil and gas were continued to be transported from Russia to Europe, even through the pipelines that cross Ukraine.[2] This energy crisis has significantly benefitted Russia and other oil and gas producing states.

This essay endeavors to analyze the impact of this geopolitical conflict on global energy security, followed by a brief overview on how the concerned countries are moving away from their dependence on Russia. In the end, it shall also cover some future possibilities, recommendations, and its implications towards the clean energy goals.

The European Union, United States and other parties have imposed economic sanctions on Russia, along with their plans to gradually wean themselves off of Russia’s fossil fuels. However, despite the fact that Russia is bombarding Ukraine with bombs, its gas and oil are still being exported to Western countries that have denounced the invasion.

Impact on Europe

The European Union imports 90% of its natural gas needs, 41% of which originates from Russia. The EU also imports 46% of its coal and 27% of its oil from Russia. Since the start of the war in Ukraine, the supply of Russian oil and gas entering Europe has risen sharply. In March alone, Europe sent over €22 billion (US$24 billion) to Russia for oil and gas.[3] Since the beginning of April, Russia’s imports have costed Europe at least €1 billion daily. Physical gas supplies were only cut off in late June as a result of Russia’s decision to reject supplies to nations like Finland, which has asked for NATO membership, and to Bulgaria and Poland, both of which refuse to pay in Roubles.

In each of these cases, the little supplies that were depleted were rapidly restored. But on July 11, Russia also shut down the important NordStream 1 pipeline for scheduled repair, potentially cutting off Germany’s supply by as much as 60%. If Russia chooses not to revive the pipeline, it will be more challenging to replace those supplies. Berlin’s government has accelerated the execution of the next stage of its emergency response plan due to the risk. But as nations put their plans into action to diversify their energy supplies and lessen the influx of Russian oil and gas, things may alter in the upcoming months. By the end of the year, Poland, for instance, will stop importing any Russian coal, gas, or oil, while Austria and Germany are building the framework for gas rationing. Germany, which imports more than one-third of its oil and more than half of its natural gas and coal, is one country where the energy problem is particularly severe.

Germany’s immediate issue is to lessen its dependence on natural gas in the electricity generation sector, a task made more difficult by the nation’s decision to abandon nuclear energy, as its final three nuclear power plants are set to shut down this year. Following February 24, price hikes of 60% for oil and a startling 400% for natural gas have been seen in Europe over the previous year because of the anticipation that western economic sanctions and Russian reprisal would restrict trade and ignite a fierce competition for existing supplies.[4] Oil supplies can still be managed because Russian crude oil shipments can still reach receptive customers in Asia and Africa, but manipulating the natural gas market is more difficult because it is dependent on specific infrastructure like liquefaction plants and pipelines. Putin is keen to take advantage of the geopolitical weakness that Europe’s energy security challenge presents.

Impact on United States

The US imports very little energy from Russia and is a net exporter of fossil fuels. Therefore, the US’s decision to restrict energy imports from Russia has no effect on the country’s energy security.[5]

Disruption of Supply Chain

The immediate disruption of the logistical supply chains of oil and gas to Europe as a result of the damage of infrastructure in both Russia and Ukraine is more significant than in Russia.[6] The energy supply has been disrupted by Russia’s siege of Ukraine’s largest cities, bombardment of the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, and intentional destruction of vital assets. Following the battle, shipping products in the Black Sea region has greatly increased in difficulty and cost, particularly as a result of the shutdown of all Ukrainian ports.

Impact on other Global Players

Given that the majority of the world’s energy needs—nearly 50% in 2022—will be met by oil and gas, the supply gap poses a challenge to the international community. [7]Oil, gas, and other fossil fuel prices have increased at a never-before-seen rate as a result of the war’s interruption of the energy supply. As of July 5, 2022, the cost of a barrel of oil in the OPEC has risen to US$114.3. Also rising from US$ 2.55 in January 2022 to US$ 3.27 in July 2022 was the price of gas globally.[8] Energy costs are a significant factor to the cost-of-living crisis and inflation, and the economic downturn since consumers in Europe and other countries are paying more as worldwide prices have increased.

Alternatives to reduce the dependence on Russia

To negotiate the necessary purchases, the European Commission established a single buyer mechanism and reached an agreement with the US to import 15 bcm from the US daily. Germany abandoned its approval of a recently constructed gas pipeline from Russia on February 22 and is instead preparing to import liquefied natural gas from nations like Qatar and the United States. While Italy, the Netherlands, and the UK are all stepping up their efforts to construct wind power, Belgium is reconsidering its decision to abandon nuclear power.

By 2027, the EU has promised to stop importing gas from Russia. To achieve this goal, the EU can either expand pipeline imports from non-Russian gas suppliers like Azerbaijan or restart certain coal power plants. The latter would indicate that ‘Fit for 55”s goals of achieving net zero would temporarily be postponed.[9] The production of fertilizer plants across Europe has been reported to be reduced, and 31 nations have consented to release oil from respective strategic reserves.

By increasing efficiency, some gas can be avoided, while other gas can be replaced by increasing the production of renewable energy. However, even taking into account these options to replace supply and lessen demand, there will still be a sizable difference between the two. The present market worries stem from this. The IEA has been keeping an eye on the effects of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on the world energy markets ever since the conflict began. In order to ease market pressure and send a clear message that there won’t be a shortage of supplies as a result of Russia’s invasion, member nations of the International Energy Agency (IEA) have agreed to take the extraordinary step of releasing oil from their emergency reserves on two separate occasions.[10] One of the releases, which also included more barrels from the United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve, was the biggest stock release in IEA history.

Effects on the Global Economy and Geopolitical Environment

• Inflation: After a decade of extremely low inflation, the annual inflation rate in the 27 EU member states reached 9.8 percent in July, the highest level in the previous 25 years. Wholesale gas prices were approximately 200% higher before the invasion of Ukraine; benchmark gas prices are currently trading at over €250 per MWh and reached a peak of over €340 per MWh in July, more than 10 times higher than a year ago. [11]Similar patterns in wholesale electricity pricing had been seen.

• Recession and the impact on forex: After Russia stopped supplying gas through its main pipeline to Europe, the euro fell to a 20-year low below USD 0.99. An economy already dealing with a rise in inflation risks suffering more harm due to the euro’s weakening against the US dollar.

• Financial repercussions and potential reputational consequences: Western businesses are under increasing pressure to sever their ties with Russia. Following the invasion of Ukraine, a number of businesses made a variety of declarations about ending contracts and divesting. For these businesses, the financial effects are significant.

• Higher shipping costs: The cost of transporting crude from Russia is rising as a result of sanctions placed on the nation, which increase the hazards associated with moving cargo along such routes. Meanwhile, the cost of other passages is rising as a result of a rush to find substitute sources.

• Changes in energy policy, including the growth of renewable energy sources and the energy mix: Especially in those nations that are strongly dependent on Russia, where a new strategy is required, the current energy crisis is quickening the energy transition and necessitating additional investment in renewables. By the end of 2022 and to zero by the end of 2030, the EU has set a goal to reduce its gas imports by two-thirds through REPower EU.[12]

Opportunities for other countries

Energy exports from Russia appear to be shifting to the East and South, two regions with expanding economies. If the price is right, this energy swing might benefit China and India. Gas reserves have been found from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia, but it will take years to develop them and the infrastructure needed to commercialize them.[13]

Way forward

A geopolitical event as significant as the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has had an indirect and direct impact on the world’s energy security situation, particularly in the shifting dynamics of the energy supply and pricing due to market volatility.

• Although the conflict in the Ukraine will likely hasten Europe’s shift from fossil fuels, it may also slow the world’s transition to clean energy and increase greenhouse gas emissions in Southeast Asia and Russia, in particular. Consequently, a fundamental fix via a full global switch to net zero is likely to remain difficult.
• It is anticipated that, within a year, practically all European nations will have stopped purchasing the majority of their oil from Russia and find substitute sources in the Middle East and elsewhere.
• The cartel of oil exporters, OPEC, rather than Russia, would determine the price they must pay. The Saudis and others would be tempted to restrict production in order to maintain prices above $100 per barrel, and this temptation will only be lessened if the US shale industry can generate a fresh boom in supplies.[14]
• Bilateral and possibly multilateral agreements are expected to replace self-sufficient aspirations on the energy security agenda. These will include not simply lengthy supply agreements between businesses, but also perhaps deeper ties in politics, trade, and security.
• Additional gas developments will most likely be under development all around the world, even in politically sensitive locations like the waters off the coasts of Israel and Lebanon.
• Energy insecurity challenges will influence economic and political connections in Europe and around the world, fostering new alliances while also igniting fresh tensions and conflicts.
• The invasion by Russia has temporarily increased costs, but it may also herald a longer-term trend toward sustainability.
• Since the subsidies are short-term and unsustainable, the countries who used them to protect their domestic energy markets from the war’s shock may actually make things worse in the future.

The necessity for nations to achieve energy independence while protecting the environment makes the path to achieving global energy security a double-edged sword. In order to lessen Europe’s dependency on Russian energy imports, the International Energy Agency offers a number of recommendations. These recommendations can be used by other nations as well to ensure their own energy security. They include speeding up solar and wind energy projects, making the most of nuclear and bioenergy, and stepping up efforts to decarbonize energy sources. The crisis has highlighted the urgent need for nations to expand the supply of renewable energy and create alternative sustainable energy sources. The effects of Russia’s attack on Ukraine will take time to manifest; the only reliable prediction for the future is uncertainty and increased price volatility.