Tag: Belarus
The Eurasian Customs Union among Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan: Can It Succeed Where Its Predecessor Failed?
In 2010, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan formed the Eurasian Customs Union and imposed the Russian tariff as the common external tariff of the Customs Union. This resulted in almost doubling the external average tariff of the more liberal Kazakhstan. Russia has benefited from additional exports to Kazakhstan under the protection of the higher tariffs in Kazakhstan. However, estimates reveal that the tariff changes have resulted in substantial transfers from Kazakhstan to Russia since importers in Kazakhstan now purchase lower quality or higher priced Russian imports which are protected under the tariff umbrella of the common external tariff. Transfers from the Central Asian countries to Russia were the reason the Eurasian Economic Community (known as EurAsEC) failed, so this bodes badly for the ultimate success of the Eurasian Customs Union. What is different, however, is that the Eurasian Customs Union and its associated Common Economic Space aim to reduce non-tariff barriers and improve trade facilitation, and also to allow the free movement of capital and labor, liberalize services, and harmonize some regulations. Estimates by my colleagues and I show that if substantial progress could be made in trade facilitation and reducing non-tariff barriers, this could make the Customs Union positive for Kazakhstan and other potential Central Asian members. Unfortunately, so far the Customs Union has made these matters worse. On the other hand, Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization will eventually substantially reduce the transfers from Kazakhstan to Russia, but this will need a strong political commitment from Russia which we have not yet seen. If that Russian political leadership is forthcoming, the Eurasian Customs Union could nonetheless succeed where its predecessor has failed.
In January 2010, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan formed the Eurasian Customs Union. Two years later, the three countries agreed to even closer economic ties, by signing the agreement to form a “common economic space.” Regarding tariffs, the key change was that the three countries agreed to apply the tariff schedule of the Customs Union as their common external tariff for third countries. With few exceptions, the initial common external tariff schedule was the Russian tariff schedule. Kazakhstan negotiated exceptions from the common external tariffs for slightly more than 400 tariff lines, but was scheduled to phase out the exceptions over a period of five years (World Bank, 2012). In addition, the members agreed to have the Customs Union determine the rules regarding sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards (SPS) and standards on good. Fearing transshipment of goods from China through Kazakhstan and from the European Union through Belarus, Russia negotiated and achieved agreement on stricter controls on the origin of imports from countries outside of the Customs Union. The common economic space (CES) stipulates that, in principle, there will be free movement of labor and capital among the countries, there will be liberalization of services on the CES and coordination of some regulatory policies such as competition policy.
In February 2012, the Eurasian Economic Commission began functioning. It is intended to act as the regulatory authority for the Customs Union in a manner similar to the European Commission for the European Union.
The Economics of Tariff Changes — Gains for Russia and Losses for Kazakhstan
Some proponents of the Eurasian Customs Union have argued that as a result of the Customs Union firms in the three countries will have improved market access through having tariff free access to the markets in all three countries. Prior to 2010, however, along with other countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the three countries had agreements in place that stipulated free trade in goods among them. Thus, the Customs Union could not provide improved market access due to reducing tariffs on goods circulating among the three countries.
Since the common external tariff was essentially the Russian tariff, there was little change in incentives regarding tariffs in Russia. The big change occurred in Kazakhstan, who had a much lower tariff structure than Russia prior to implementing the Customs Union tariff. Despite the exemptions, Kazakhstan almost doubled its tariffs in the first year of the Customs Union (see World Bank, 2012). The increase in tariffs on many items which were not produced in Kazakhstan but produced in Russia, led to a substantial increase in imports from Russia and displacement of imports from Europe. Many of Russia’s manufacturing firms, which were not competitive in Kazakhstan prior to the Customs Union, were now able to expand sales to the Kazakhstani market. This represents gains for Russian industry. Given the deeper manufacturing base in Russia compared with most of the CIS countries and the resulting uneven benefits of the common external tariff in favor of Russia, acceptance of the common external tariff has been a fundamental negotiating position of Russia regarding acceptance of members in the Customs Union.
Some cite the expanded Russian exports in Kazakhstan as evidence of success of the Customs Union. But the displacement of European imports, to higher priced or lower quality imports from Russia, represents a substantial transfer of income from Kazakhstan to Russia and is an example of what economists call “trade diversion”. Moreover, it is the reason the World Bank (2012) has evaluated the tariff changes of the Customs Union as a loss of real income for Kazakhstan.
Furthermore, the three countries together (and even a broader collection of CIS countries) constitute too small a market to erect tariff walls against external competition. They would lose the benefits of importing technology from advanced countries and would rely on high priced production from within the Customs Union. Some would argue that there are political benefits of trade to be taken into account, but experience has shown that when a customs union is inefficient and the benefits and the costs of the customs union are very unequal, the customs union can inflame conflicts (see Schiff and Winters, 2003, 194-195).
Non-Tariff Barriers — Extremely Costly Methods of Regulating Standards Worsened by the Customs Union
Non-tariff barriers, in the form of sanitary and phyto-sanitary (SPS) conditions on food and agricultural products and technical barriers to trade (TBTs) on goods, are a very significant problem of the Customs Union. There are standards based trade disputes between Belarus and Russia on several products, including milk, meat, buses, pipes and beer (see Petrovskaya, 2012). Anecdotal evidence indicates that Kazakhstani exporters complain bitterly regarding the use by the Russian authorities of SPS and TBTs measures, either to extract payments or for protection.
If the Customs Union could make substantial progress on reducing these barriers, it would be a significant accomplishment. My colleagues and I have estimated that progress on the non-tariff barriers and trade facilitation could outweigh the negative impact of the tariff changes for Kazakhstan (see World Bank, 2012). Unfortunately, so far the Customs Union has taken a step backward on both non-tariff barriers and trade facilitation.
A big problem in reducing standards as a non-tariff barrier is that standards regulation, in all three countries, is still primarily based on the Soviet system. As a holdover from the Soviet era, mandatory technical regulations are employed where market economies allow voluntary standards to apply. This regulatory system makes innovation and adaption to the needs of the market very costly as firms must negotiate with regulators when they want to change a product or how it is produced. Legislation in both Russia and Kazakhstan calls for conversion to a system of voluntary standards, but this is happening too slowly in all three countries. The problem is that the Customs Union has worsened the situation. Technical regulations are now decided at the level of the Customs Union, so firms that previously negotiated with their national standards authority, have had to now get agreement from the Customs Union. This has reportedly caused further delays, impeding innovation and the ability of firms to meet the demands of the market.
A second problem with efforts to reduce the non-tariff barriers is that the Customs Union is trying to harmonize standards of the three countries by producing mandatory technical regulations. The alternative is to use Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs). Experience has shown that no customs union has been able to broadly harmonize standards based on mandatory technical regulations, with the exception of the European Union. In fact, even in the European Union, they have had to use MRAs and only harmonized technical regulations after decades of work. While each member of the Customs Union is expected to create a system of mutual recognition of certificates of conformity, these certificates are not presently recognized in the other countries of the Customs Union. There is little hope for a significant reduction in standards of non-tariff barriers unless the system of mutual recognition is more widely recognized and adopted.
Trade Facilitation —Participation in International Production Chains Made More Difficult by the Customs Union
Customs posts between the member countries have been removed and this has reduced trade costs for both exporters and importers in the three countries. Russia’s concerns regarding transshipment have, however, led to an opposite impact on trade with third countries, i.e., the costs of trading with countries outside the Customs Union have increased. Participation in international production chains has become a key feature of modern international production and trade. If goods cannot move easily in and out of the country, multinational firms will look to other countries to make their foreign direct investment and for international production sharing. Addressing this significant problem will take a change of emphasis on the part of Russia.
Russian WTO Accession —Liberalization That Will Significantly Reduce Transfers to Russia
It has apparently been agreed by the Customs Union members that the common external tariff of the Customs Union will change to accommodate Russia’s WTO commitments. As a result, the applied un-weighted average tariff will fall in stages from 10.9 percent in 2012 to 7.9 percent by the year 2020 (see Shepotylo and Tarr, forthcoming).[1] This will have the effect of lowering the trade diversion costs of Kazakhstan. In addition, the Customs Union will be expected to adapt its rules on standards to conform to commitments Russia made as part of its WTO accession commitments. In the case of Belarus, it remains to be seen if it will implement the changes, as this will increase competition for its industries.
Conclusion — the Need to Russia to Exercise Political Leadership for Standards and Trade Facilitation Reform for Success of the Customs Union
In 1996, the same three countries formed a customs union. Later the same year, they were joined by Kyrgyzstan, then by Tajikistan and in 2005 by Uzbekistan. As Michalopoulos and I (1997) anticipated, the earlier Customs Union failed because it imposed large costs on the Central Asian countries, which had to buy either lower quality (including lower tech goods) or higher priced Russian manufactured goods under the tariff umbrella. The present Customs Union also started with the Russian tariff, which protects Russian industry and suffers from the same problem that led to the failure of the earlier Customs Union. Nonetheless, the present Customs Union could succeed. Crucially, due to Russia’s accession to the WTO, the tariff of the Customs Union will fall by about 40 to 50 percent.[2] This will make the Customs Union a more open Customs Union, very significantly reduce the transfers from Kazakhstan to Russia, and thereby reduce the pressures from producers and consumers in Kazakhstan on their government to depart from enforcement of the tariffs of the Customs Union. Further, the present Customs Union aims to reduce non-tariff barriers and improve trade facilitation, as well as it has “deep integration” on its agenda, i.e., services liberalization, the free movement of labor and capital and some regulatory harmonization. Although, to date, the Customs Union has moved backwards on non-tariff barriers and trade facilitation, one could optimistically hope for substantial progress. In the important area of non-tariff barriers, given the common history of Soviet mandatory standards, Russia will have to take the lead in moving the Customs Union toward a system of voluntary standards where no health and safety issue are involved, and toward a system of mutual recognition agreements and away from commonly negotiated technical regulations. On trade facilitation, Russia will have to reverse its pressure and find a way to allow the freer movement of goods with third countries while addressing its transshipment concerns.
▪
References
- Michalopoulos, Constantine and David G. Tarr (1997), “The Economics of Customs Unions in the Commonwealth of Independent States,” Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, Vol. 38, No. 3, 125-143.
- Petrovskaya, Galina (2012), “Belarus, Rossia, Ukraina. Obrechennye na torgovye konflikty” (Belarus, Russia, Ukraine. Doomed for trade conflicts), Deutsche Welle, June 14. www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16023176,00.html.
- Schiff, Maurice and L. Alan Winters (2003), Regional Integration and Development, Washington DC: World Bank and Oxford University Press.
- Shepotylo, Oleksandr, and David G. Tarr (2008), “Specific tariffs, tariff simplification and the structure of import tariffs in Russia: 2001–2005,” Eastern European Economics, 46(5):49–58.
- Shepotylo, Oleksandr, and David G. Tarr (forthcoming), “Impact of WTO Accession on the Bound and Applied Tariff Rates of Russia,” Eastern European Economics.
- Shymulo-Tapiola, Olga (2012), “The Eurasian Customs Union: Friend or Foe of the EU?” The Carnegie Papers, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October. Available at: www.CarnegieEurope.eu,
- World Bank (2012), Assessment of Costs and Benefits of the Customs Union for Kazakhstan, Report Number 65977-KZ, Washington DC, January 3, 2012. Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/01/15647043/assessment-costs-benefits-customs-union-kazakhstan
[1] The final “bound rate” of Russia is higher at 8.6 percent on an un-weighted average basis; but there are about 1,500 tariff lines where the applied rate of Russia is below the bound rate. The applied weighted average tariff will fall from 9.3 percent in 2012 to 5.8 percent in 2020.
[2] Russian tariffs fall more on an un-weighted average basis than they do on a weighted average basis. See Shepotylo and Tarr (forthcoming).
Monetary Policy in Belarus since the Currency Crisis 2011
In the second half of 2010, the National Bank of Belarus carried out a soft monetary policy to stimulate domestic demand. Until March 2011, the country experienced strong economic growth. There was an increase in real incomes with a parallel increase in the negative trade balance and the reduction of international reserves. Stimulating policy became one of the reasons for the formation of a multiplicity of exchange rates on the foreign exchange market. Beginning of March and until the end of October 2011, there was an official and gray currency market in the country. High domestic demand and rapid devaluation processes led to the deployment of an inflationary spiral, which in turn meant a decrease in the growth of real incomes.
Do Economic Sanctions Work?
Analysts have interpreted the recent openings in Myanmar and North Korea as the finally successful result of years of international pressure and economic sanctions. At the same time, debate is hot on the scope for similar measures in Iran, Syria and, closer to us, Belarus and Hungary. Does economics have anything to say on this? What can we learn from the analysis of past experiences?
Inflation Expectations and Probable Trap for Macro Stabilization
As of today, a majority of the negative consequences of the deep Belarusian currency crisis of 2011 seem to have been realized. Hence, the Belarusian economy is now ‘purified’ from main macroeconomic distortions and has a chance for sustainable long-term growth. Nevertheless, there are signals that some nominal and real inertia may generate new shocks for the national economy. From this view, the money market is of great concern, while interest rates signal maintained high inflation expectations. High and unstable expectations may entrap monetary policy and generate new shocks for the Belarusian economy. In this policy brief, we deal with a visualization of inflation expectations and argue for the necessity of a new nominal anchor in order to stabilize expectations for future periods.
In 2011, Belarus experienced its highest inflation and devaluation in modern history. These were consequences of the automatic macroeconomic adjustment determined by a number of both long- and short-term distortions in the national economy. Changes in prices and exchange rate adjusted real parameters towards their long-run equilibrium level. Hence, from a long-run perspective, one may interpret these adjustments as favorable since they ‘purified’ the economy from the macroeconomic imbalances that may have hampered growth. Furthermore, shifting from exchange-rate (XR) targeting to a managed float is another essential aftermath of the currency crisis. Economic authorities had to recognize that accommodative monetary policy (MP) was not compassable with XR targeting since it resulted in a considerable overvaluation of the real XR, and correspondingly, an incredibly large current account deficit. Thus, the new exchange rate regime may be argued to be a new automatic stabilizer for Belarus, providing the level of current account balance consistent with other macroeconomic fundamentals. Overall, the current stance of the national economy might be treated as a chance to “begin again from the ground up”. In this sense, the Belarusian economy as of today is sometimes compared to the Russian economy after its crisis in 1998, which then performed particularly high growth rates.
In our opinion, realizing the opportunity for a strengthening of long-term growth through structural changes undoubtedly should become a policy priority of Belarus in the near future. However, it should be emphasized that despite “purification” from major macroeconomic imbalances, there are still a long list of short-term challenges. In particular, one may stress the risks of expansionary policy revival; increasing external debt burden; growth in non-performing loans, which may undermine the solvency of the banking system; reduction of foreign demand due to shocks in global economy. These risks are more or less observable and may be monitored. Hence, the realization of one or the other shocks from this list might not come as a surprise, and economic authorities seem to at least realize this, and when possible, take prevention measures.
At the same time, another challenge seems to be more adverse and urgent; namely, the question of inflation and devaluation expectations. In economic theory, expectations play a crucial role in affecting behavior of economic agents. Recognition of the role of expectations at the money market determined intention to “subject” and stabilize these within modern monetary policy frameworks.
In Belarus, given the recent history of high inflation and devaluation, corresponding expectations of Belarusian economic agents are likely to be rather high. Moreover, shifting from XR targeting to a managed float has not yet resulted in provision of a new nominal anchor for the public.
For instance, disinflation was declared to be a priority goal, but there are no strict commitments on its numerical value, as well as in respect to procedures and mechanisms to provide disinflation trends. As of today, the Belarusian MP regime can hardly be classified as a standard regime. The MP Guidelines for 2012 assume indicative targets on international reserves, refinancing rate and the growth rate of banks’ claims on the economy. The latter witnesses the propensity to monetary targeting. However, the instable relationship between the monetary aggregate to be targeted and the ultimate goal (inflation), as well as the indicative nature of this commitment give rise to doubts in respect to treating it as monetary targeting. Furthermore, commitment on bank claims on the economy can hardly be treated as a nominal anchor for the public. According to the taxonomy of MP regimes by Stone (2004), Belarus is currently closer to the weak anchor regime, which assumes “no operative nominal anchor…and central bank reports a low degree of commitment… and high degree of discretion”.
Thus, our hypothesis assumes that there has been an adverse shock in inflation expectations due to weak nominal anchor and recent experience of huge inflation. If that is the case, this may be an additional source of shock for the money market, which may cause a new wave of macroeconomic instability. In order to make policy recommendations, this hypothesis needs empirical support. However, it is difficult to identify expectations in empirical analyses since this variable is typically unobservable and cannot be univocally measured. Instead, expectations are most often treated indirectly through other variables. Many central banks deal with the results of sociological polls on this issue, but these approaches may suffer from different economic meanings and measurements of inflation expectations by economic agents.
An alternative approach was proposed by St-Amant (1996) and extended by Gotschalk (2001), who base on famous Fischer equation representing current nominal interest rate as the sum of ex-ante real interest rate and expected inflation. Further, based on the approach by Blanchard and Quah (1989), structural vector autoregression (SVAR) between nominal and real interest rate is identified with a number of restrictions, which allows decomposing changes in the nominal rate to those associated with ex ante real rate and inflation expectations. The latter may be used as a measure of inflation expectations. Such a measure of inflation expectations assumes explicit economic meaning referring to the money market, i.e. the rate of future inflation, which will provide the, by economic agents, expected level of interest rate. Taking the data from statistics (not polls) and international comparability of such estimates are important advantages of this approach.
We applied this methodology to Belarusian data (nominal and real interest rate on ruble households’ deposits with a term more than a year). The obtained time series measure changes in inflation expectations in the current period for a period of the next 12 months. However, our goal is to visualize the level of inflation expectation and not changes in expectation. Therefore, we use the series in levels, choosing January 2003 as the base period (when National Bank of Belarus actually shifted to XR targeting regime), and assigned a zero level (as starting one) to it. The obtained series of inflation expectations is provided in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Inflation Expectations in Belarus
The estimated series of inflation expectations show a decrease in 2003 – mid 2005, which may be explained by the effectiveness of the new nominal anchor (XR), and correspondingly the expected disinflation. The expectation of reflation in late 2005 till late 2007 may be explained by the more expansionary policy and changes in Russian preferences that took place during this period. After that, there was a period of stable expectation, which is likely to be explained by the credibility of the nominal anchor (nevertheless, there was a shock in late 2008 that is associated with the impact of the global crisis).
The most considerable shock took place in the beginning of 2010, which has a lack of intuitive explanation and might be associated with a phase of radically expansionary policy.
Finally, a new significant shock took place in late 2010 – beginning 2011 which might be associated with the visualized problems at the currency market at that time.
Currently, there is a very high level of inflation expectations and its increased volatility in the second half of 2011 seem to be of a great importance. It signals that economic agents do not treat price shocks as a single-shot, but mostly tend to consider it as a long-lasting process. Hence, the absence of a nominal anchor and the fresh memory of huge inflation seem to be responsible for the current high and instable inflation expectations.
Maintenance of high inflation expectations is a dangerous threat for the money market. Propagating inflation through expectations may be considered as a separate channel within the monetary transmission mechanism (along with interest rate, exchange rate and bank-lending channels). In other words, even without additional fundamental preconditions for inflation, inflation expectations may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
However, during the last two months (December 2011 and January 2012) this adverse effect seems to have been suppressed by monetary authorities, as the monthly inflation rate reduced radically in comparison to average rate in May-November 2011. This is likely to be the outcome of the significant monetary policy tightening that has resulted in a sharp increase in nominal interest rates by banks. On the one hand, such nominal interest rate complies with the shocks in inflation expectations and real ex ante interest rate (the latter grew as well at the background of the crisis). In other words, current level of nominal interest rates will equalize ex post real rate with ex ante real rate if the actual inflation rate has been as high as current inflation expectations. But on the other hand, if actual inflation had been much lower than expected one (and it tends to be so, in case of keeping on conservative MP), ex post real rate would be much higher than the ex-ante one. For instance, such a situation has already been peculiar during December and January: according to our estimations, ex ante real interest rate in December was about 3.6% in annual terms (preliminary data on January shows that it in this month it is rather similar), but annualized ex post real rate for these months is about 30%.
This suggests that there is a trap for the monetary authorities. If they keep high interest rates, based on the expected inflation, the impact of expectations on actual inflation will be mitigated, but the losses, say in terms of output, will be high because of the extremely high ex post real interest rates. If the monetary authorities facilitated the rapid reduction of nominal interest rates, current nominal rates would not guarantee ex ante real interest taking into consideration the high inflation expectations, which would then constitute a severe shock for the money market. Hence, the mechanism of self-fulfilling prophecy would work.
Furthermore, the increased ex ante real rate (and high probability of even higher ex post real rate in national currency) could give speculative incentives for a number of economic agents. For example, many agents could increase the share of national currency in their savings portfolio, either avoiding buying hard currency (which took place during the peak of the currency crisis) for new deposits, or changing the nomination of their deposits to the national currency (i.e. selling the hard one). In a sense, this trend may be interpreted as the compensation of losses on ruble deposits in the last year, which is needed to revive the demand for such deposits. But in any case, these internal processes (along with restricting money supply by the National bank) influence the domestic currency market. Through this, the supply and demand are formed not only due to current and financial international flows. Hence, due to these incentives for hard currency supply and demand, the current value of the nominal rate may substantially deviate from the equilibrium rate. The latter may be defined as in Kruk (2011): the one that may clear the market immediately (given short-term trends in current account flows at the background of medium-term values of other fundamentals).
Figure 2. Actual and Equilibrium Exchange Rate
Note: For 2010Q1-2011Q1 official rate of the National bank is taken as actual nominal rate, for 2011Q2 the exchange rate at the ‘black market’ (used by internet shops), and for 2011Q3 ‘black market’ and later the exchange rate of the additional BCSE session are taken.
The assessments of the equilibrium exchange rate based on this methodology (Kruk (2011)) show that in the third quarter, the actual rate almost equals the equilibrium rate. For 2011Q4, all necessary data is not available yet, but an approximate assessment correction of the equilibrium rate of the Q3 for average inflation between Q3 and Q4 may be used (i.e. in real terms the rate should not have changed in order to sustain equilibrium). Such an assessment indicates that the actual rate in the Q4 is again overestimated by roughly 5-10% in comparison to the equilibrium rate.
At a first look, such an ‘overhang’ at the domestic currency market seems to not be a great problem. But along with the trap stemmed from the high and unstable inflation, this may contribute and propagate possible shock at the money market. Furthermore, this ‘overhang’ is due to speculative incentives, which in turn, are due to high inflation expectations. Hence, high and unstable inflation expectations are a prime cause of this ‘overhang’.
Finally, we may argue that unfavorable inflation expectations is a multidimensional problem, which generates grounds for shocks at the money market and entraps monetary policy at the current stage. Therefore, restraining inflation expectations must currently be an absolute and unconditional priority of economic policy.
This gives rise to the issue of which policy tools that are needed for solving this problem. Tight monetary policy alone may not be enough and/or its losses in terms of output may be unacceptably high, especially taking into account that keeping the Belarusian economy depressed is likely to cause huge migration and thus reducing the prospects for long-term growth.
Our view on the problem of inflation expectations supposes that they stem both from recent experience of very high inflation and the absence of nominal anchor. Inflation memory cannot easily be removed, but introducing a new nominal anchor seems to be worthwhile. Among possible options, given the desire to preserve autonomous monetary policy in Belarus, the introduction of inflation targeting (IT) is seen as inevitable. A shift to this regime is associated with plenty of obstacles and might not be realized immediately (Kruk (2008)). A gradual shift to IT through its intermediary phases (so called IT Lite) is more expedient and complies more with the requirement of obtaining new powers and capacities at the National Bank of Belarus.
Taking on more and more strict commitments in terms of inflation and implementing mechanisms and procedures peculiar for IT (the latter is even more important than commitments themselves) will increase credibility and public trust for the National bank. The other side of the coin involves decreasing and less volatile inflation expectations, which do not challenge monetary policy and facilitate low and stable inflation. Another advantage of IT is the possibility to mitigate price shocks.
Our main policy recommendation is therefore that it is necessary to shift to an IT framework as soon as possible, starting from exploiting the forms of IT Lite. The advantages of this step overweigh all the obstacles, including those associated with the reluctance of economic authorities to change institutional preconditions.
However, one important clause should be emphasized. Shifting to IT (especially gradually through IT Lite) does not guarantee that current high inflation expectations will be reduced automatically and immediately. In other words, it does not guarantee that the cost of reducing inflation in terms of output will decrease (though for the present Belarusian situation there are grounds to suspect that it would facilitate). For instance, Mishkin (2001) shows that “there appears to have been little, if any reduction, in the output loss associated with disinflation, the sacrifice ratio, among countries adopting inflation targeting… The only way to achieve disinflation is the hard way: by inducing short-run losses in output and employment in order to achieve the longer-run economic benefits of price stability”. However, an introduction of IT assumes that new shocks in inflation expectations may be prevented, and due to it, low and stable inflation will be more likely.
▪
References
- Blanchard, O., Quah, D. (1989). The Dynamic Effects of Aggregate Demand and Supply Disturbances, American Economic Review, Vol. 79, No.4, pp.655-673.
- St-Amant, P. (1996). Decomposing US Nominal Interest Rate into Expected Inflation and Ex Ante Real Interest Rates Using Structural VAR Methodology, Bank of Canada, Working Paper No. 96-2.
- Gottschalk, J. (2001). Measuring Expected Inflation and the Ex Ante Real Interest Rate in the Euro Area Using Structural Vector Autoregressions, Kiek Institute of World Economics, Working Paper No.1067.
- Mishkin, F. (2001). From Monetary Targeting to Inflation Targeting: Lessons from Industrialized Countries, World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper No. 2684.
- Kruk, D. (2008). Optimal Instruments of Monetary Policy under the Regime of Inflation Targeting in Belarus, National Bank of Belarus, Materials of International Conference “Efficient Monetary Policy Options in Transition Economy”, pp. 305-322.
- Kruk, D. (2011). The Mechanism of Adjustment to Changes in Exchange Rate in Belarus and its Implications for Monetary Policy, Belarusian Economic Research and Outreach Center, Policy Paper No. 004.
Privatization in Belarus – Obstacles and Perspectives
For a long time Belarus considered privatization as a minor factor in influencing the economy’s development, competitiveness and effectiveness. The former economic model relied on concessional loans and donations from Russia and various international organizations. The 2011 financial crisis led to the breakdown of this model and forced the authorities to reconsider privatization. A draft of a new law on investment has been prepared, which is aimed at increasing foreign capital inflow to the country. However, it does not contain sufficient measures to significantly raise the investment attractiveness. In turn the lack of such attractiveness can have a very negative effect on the economy in the near future.
Belarus is right now facing a currency crisis primarily due to three factors:
- A growing deficit of trade and payment balances;
- The National Bank’s continuing Belarusian ruble emission partly because of pre-elective directive wages’ raise;
- A lack of foreign currency reserves required to keep the USD exchange rate at BYR 3100 level.
However, the key problem is a growing negative balance of payments, which in January-June 2011 amounted to USD (-1032.6) million against USD (-82.2) million in January-June 2010.
The Belarusian ruble devaluation, which occurred in May 2011, managed to improve the trade balance situation and gradually lead to export earnings growth. That in turn reduces the current account deficit, which amounted to USD (-1630.4) million in the second quarter of 2011 against USD (-3657.2) million in the first quarter 2011.
Negative foreign trade balance mostly forms negative balance of payments of the country, and problems with external payment capacity are likely to occur under conditions of trade deficit preservation. Moreover, taking into account that the main repayment share of external debt should be paid in 2012-2014 it is necessary to attract additional funding sources.
Table 1. External debt repayment scheme
For this to be feasible privatization as a major long-term capital raising instrument will be required for the following reasons:
- Belarus will not be able to borrow in the external markets in the near future. This is due to impossibility of attracting loans from international organizations as well as extreme expensiveness and inexpedience of sovereign debt securities placement in global stock markets.
- Before the 2011 crisis, public and private companies were able to attract bank and state financing programs’ sources for the financing of their activities. However, the unstable economic situation in the country has forced the authorities to cut the state programs’ funding (BYR 12 trillion instead of requested BYR 36 trillion, while BYR 22 trillion were spent in 2011) in order to prevent further inflation and to provide a budget surplus. Moreover, the economic crises resulted in a decline in domestic demand of the population and the corporate sector simultaneously, with reduced domestic savings levels as a consequence. During the first eleven months of 2011 savings dropped by 25% in USD terms in comparison to the corresponding period of the previous year. These occurrences in the economy make a search of a strategic partner through additional issue of shares or mergers with other agents the only source of financing attraction for state and private companies.
Speaking about the current situation, it should be noted that Belarus planned to get around USD 3 billion from privatization in 2011. 178 assets were to be sold according to the privatization plan. However, just around 38 assets were sold in 2011 and the country managed to gain around BYR 150 billion (USD 17.6 million) from that. Thus, the result cannot get positive evaluation right now.
The main reasons for the slow privatization process and weak foreign capital inflows are the following:
- The multiplicity of agencies responsible for privatization. There are too many responsible decision-makers, which potential buyers have to contact. In addition, it is not very clear which agency is responsible for this or that asset. The State Property Committee and the National Agency for Investments and Privatization (NAIP) supervise the state asset sales today. However, ministries and local authorities are also responsible for privatization plan accomplishment.
- Difference in asset valuation methods. Investors, while analyzing any investment project, tend to focus on the cash flows that the project will be able to generate and how soon the costs will be covered. The Belarusian side values the asset according to its’ book value, below which the price cannot fall. This often results in large price differences.
- Additional requirements. The presence of additional requirements is a common phenomenon, but only when the price negotiations are more flexible. But it distracts investors in case the requirements are followed by a fixed overestimated price.
- Lack of transparency. Periodically the deals are announced, which were closed not during the auctions or tenders but after the closed backroom negotiations. That also affects negatively investors’ opinion about the country
- High share of public sector. Private sector is mostly represented by small and medium businesses. Thus, the strategic investors’ interest in them is initially lower. Moreover, they are unable to invest by themselves due to a lack of resources.
In addition, the authorities and enterprise management demotivation in the privatization process, an undeveloped culture of IR and consulting services usage, and the fact that it is often non-controlling stakes that are put up for sale, are also obstacles in the process.
These are the main problems influencing the foreign capital inflow rates. Their solution and elimination should increase the economy’s investment rates as there is an interest in the country’s assets and it is high enough.
As was mentioned earlier, the sale price of an asset is estimated according to its’ book value in Belarusian rubles. The national currency devaluation, which occurred in May and October 2011, has significantly reduced assets’ real value in USD terms and therefore a sharp drop in prices occurred. Starting from March 2011, the national currency depreciated by 181%, and the fall in real value of assets on sale was comparable. The analysis of transactions, which were closed during the auctions held in 2011, showed that the companies acquired by the investor were generally highly undervalued even in the beginning of 2011.As a result of devaluation, the ratio of asset price to revenue (P/S) dropped by 1.67-1.8 times. OJSC “Zhlobinmebel” (P/S=0.3 January 2011, P/S=0.18 in June 2011), OJSC “Vitebskles” (P/S=0.37 – January 2011, P/S=0.2 – June 2011) .
On the other hand, in accordance with Presidential Decree #476, the revaluation of fixed assets should be done by January 1, 2012 and adjusted to PPI, which equaled to 82% in October, 2011. Such adjustment will still not be able to cover the depreciation resulting from the devaluation. Therefore, there will be a gap between the announced corrected asset price and its real value at least for another year.
Nowadays, the demand is formed by Belarusian export-oriented companies. Their products have become more competative in the markets as a result of devaluation and have caused some growth in earnings. Consequently, they are ready for vertical and horizontal integration with attractive companies operating in the local market in order to expand the production and increase their niche in the global markets.
As for foreign investors, macroeconomic stabilization is necessary in order to make them wanting to enter the Belarusian market. Moreover, foreign buyers are attracted by the strategic Belarusian companies rather than by the small and medium business. This is because they are then able to generate sufficient profit volumes even in the short-term period.
Conclusion
The privatization process will be much more active and intensive in the forthcoming 2012, in comparison to what we have seen during 2011. This is determined on the one hand by a great need in external capital and on the other hand by sufficiently favorable acquisition conditions. However, obviously the privatization process and plan should be reviewed and optimized.
It might be more efficient to put on sale, not just companies’ shares, but also controlling interest as it should increase buyer interest.
It is also possible to sell assets at a minimum fixed price (in case it has losses and no perspectives with current owner), or the authorities could reduce the amount of requirements which accompany the transaction.
Finally, it should be noted that the privatization of small companies will not generate sufficient amounts of foreign capital to the country. In order to achieve that goal, Belarus will have to sell some large strategic assets. It already sold the state’s controlling interest of OJSC “Beltransgaz” to OJSC “Gazprom” for USD 2.5 bln. As for other assets, it is most likely that these will be 51% of shares sale of OJSC “MTS”, 51% shares sale of OJSC “Naftan” in exchange of USD 1 billion syndicated loan issued by “Sberbank Russia” and EABR, as well as a merger of OJSC “MAZ” with Russia’s corporation “Russkie Mashiny” or OJSC “KAMAZ”.
▪
References
http://nbrb.by/statistics/BalPay/Analytical/Current/
http://banki.bel.biz/?p=4167
http://www.interfax.by/news/belarus/101635
http://belstat.gov.by/homep/ru/indicators/doclad/2011_11/6.pdf
http://www.gki.gov.by/about/press/news/e4fc4311733e0af1.html
http://minfin.gov.by/rmenu/departament/itogi-emit/itogi-oao/
http://www.president.gov.by/press127520.html
Multidimensional Approach to the Energy Security Analysis of Belarus – Part 2: Economic and Geopolitical Trends
Author: Mykhaylo Salnykov, BEROC
Energy security is a complex phenomenon incorporating a variety of economic, social and environmental aspects of a country’s life. Building on a previous FREE policy brief, published on September 5, which dealt mainly with the situation up until today, this text deals more with the future. It takes a detailed look at existing trends and discusses potential positive effects and challenges to energy security in Belarus. It also provides potential measures for addressing adverse effects of these trends on the country’s energy security.
When evaluating energy security consequences of external and internal factors, a decision maker is advised to view energy security as a complex phenomenon. The main components of Belarusian energy security identified in the first part of this paper published in the FREE Policy Brief Series September 5, 2011, include (i) primary energy source distribution (diversification of energy sources, especially away from natural gas as well as reducing the economy’s energy intensity), (ii) international trade considerations, (iii) the geopolitical context (with a special focus on diversification of energy suppliers and an optimal use of the country’s gas- and oil- transporting systems), and (iv) environmental considerations of the energy use (related to both actual and the perceived impact of the energy production and consumption on the environment).
Other dimensions of energy security also include the social impact of energy production and consumption, as well as the sustainability of energy use.
Below, I provide a detailed look at these and other existing trends. Potential positive effects and challenges in the context of energy security of Belarus will also be discussed. Finally, potential measures of addressing adverse effects of these trends on the country’s energy security will be suggested.
Main Energy Security Challenges for Belarus in 2011-2020
The following components of the energy security of Belarus are considered to be of primary importance:
- Reducing energy intensity of the economy;
- Diversification of energy sources used in heat and power generation, especially diversification away from natural gas consumption;
- Diversification away from Russian fuel imports;
- Securing stable operation of gas and oil pipeline systems close to full capacity;
- Reducing impact of energy production and consumption on the environment.
The main trends in Belarusian and regional policy and economy, as well as their impacts on the aforementioned components of energy security are the following:
- Natural shale gas and liquefied natural gas revolution in Europe;
- Launch of the Nord Stream gas pipeline system in 2011-2012;
- Construction of nuclear power plant station in Astravets;
- New suppliers of hydrocarbons to Belarus.
I will purposefully not discuss important topics as carbon-free technologies development in Belarus, participation in the international carbon-reduction dialog, etc., since these trends are unlikely to become anything close to significant determinants of the Belarusian energy security puzzle within the next decade.
Natural Shale Gas and LNG Revolution in Europe
Recent developments in the technology of natural shale gas extraction in Europe and elsewhere, bring a lucrative prospect of boosting the world’s natural gas supply. Several of the European countries, including Austria, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Ukraine and United Kingdom have announced plans to study fields with shale gas extraction potential. This could secure European gas supplies, drive gas prices in Europe down, and diversify European imports away from Russian natural gas. The natural shale gas extraction development factor will be further reinforced by the increased volumes of the LNG imports to Europe from the Americas and Northern Africa.
Contraction of gas prices in the European market will positively affect Belarusian economy as natural gas imports from Russia will become less expensive even if no active steps by the Belarusian government are undertaken. Nevertheless, the natural shale gas and LNG revolution will also widen the body of potential importers of natural gas via pipelines from Poland and Ukraine and by sea freight from seaports in the Baltic States. Specifically, in the summer of 2010, the Belarusian government announced having plans of negotiating a possible construction of a Belarusian LNG terminal in Lithuanian Klaipeda. This terminal is projected to have an annual capacity of five to eight billion cubic meters of natural gas which would be transported to Belarus via the pipeline system.
The shortcoming of the lower prices for natural gas and diversified body of importers in Europe is a reduced demand for Belarusian natural gas transit capacity as Russian exports to Europe contract. Moreover, potential transportation of shale gas from Poland via the pipeline system (see Figure 1) is likely to conflict with the Russian gas transit going into the opposite direction. From an economic perspective, it is very likely that benefits for Belarus obtained from lower gas prices will overweight potential losses from the reduced transit of Russian natural gas to Europe.
Figure 1. Natural gas and oil pipeline systems in Eastern Europe.
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Russia/images/fsu_energymap.pdf
From a political perspective, Belarus losing its role as a transit country would substantially weaken its position in foreign relations with both Russia and Europe.
A possible side effect of the lower prices for natural gas is reduced incentives for the Belarusian government to reform power and heat generating sector and contract the energy intensity of the economy. While the former outcome may be economically justified by lower gas prices and diversified sources of natural gas in the new economic environment, the latter raises serious concerns over the pace of economic modernization in the country.
On the other hand, the environmental impact is mixed. While lower incentive to modernize the economy could result in a slower progress of lowering the pollution intensity in energy use, increased incentives to use natural gas, one of the environmentally friendliest hydrocarbons, would play a positive role in ensuring that the intensity of pollution reduces.
Launch of the Nord Stream Pipeline System
Dubbed by the Belarusian President, Aliaksandr Lukashenka “the silliest Russian project ever”, the Nord Stream pipeline system will allow Russia to redirect 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas (nearly 33% of the current Russian gas exports) via this more direct route to the final consumers. Thus, if European demand for Russian gas stays unchanged, the gas transit through Belarus and Ukraine will drop to nearly 100 billion cubic meters from the current 158 billion cubic meters. The 100 billion cubic meters figure is close to the capacity of the Ukrainian gas pipeline system alone. Therefore, one may hypothesize that in the worst case scenario Belarus may suffer a complete loss of its gas transit revenues.
In fact, even optimistic scenarios of the distribution of the residual transit demand between Ukrainian and Belarusian pipeline systems, imply both a substantial reduction of volumes transferred via Belarusian pipeline system, and a decline in transit tariffs triggered by strong price competition between Belarus and Ukraine. As a result, profits from the gas pipeline system in Belarus are likely to diminish.
This negative outcome is reinforced by the above mentioned trends of increased extraction of natural shale gas in Europe as well as prospective development of the LNG trading routes with Northern Africa and Americas. A conservative estimation of the reduction of European demand for Russian natural gas indicates that it can be reduced by 28 billion cubic meters (17% of the current Russian imports). Coupled with the launch of the Nord Stream, the decline of transit volumes through Belarus and Ukraine can be nearly 75 billion cubic meters annually, which is more than a 50% reduction from current levels.
Notably, these 28 billion cubic meters is an equivalent of the natural gas consumption by Poland and Hungary alone, the European countries currently most dependent on Russian gas imports.
Thus, the launch of the Nord Stream presents a substantial threat to the stable operation of the Belarusian gas pipeline system and requires careful policy steps (which will be discussed further ahead).
The fact that Belarus loses an important lever of its transit capacity may lead to lower negotiation power in fuel prices dialog with Russia, thus, leading to the smaller subsidies for the Russian oil and gas imports. However, a reduction of the world gas prices due to the growing European production of natural gas and LNG trade is likely to at least partly offset this effect.
Reduced profits received from the natural gas transit is likely to lead to a decrease of budget funds available for technological modernization of the Belarusian economy, which, in turn, may lead to an inadequate pace of changes in energy efficiency and pollution intensity of energy use as well as slower modernization of the power and heat generating sector and diversification away from the natural gas use.
On the other hand, the launch of the Nord Stream and reduced negotiation power towards Russia could increase incentives for Belarus to diversify away from Russian fuel imports as subsidies for the Russian oil and gas imports will contract.
Construction of Astravets Nuclear Power Plant
Although the launch of the Astravets nuclear power plant is unlikely to happen before 2017-2018, debates around this controversial project and its rationale requires a discussion of its energy security implications long before the plant is constructed.
The projected two-reactor nuclear power plant has an operating capacity of 2.4 GW. Unadjusted for load fluctuations in demand, this figure is an equivalent of 63.5% of the electricity consumption in Belarus. A rough seasonally unadjusted estimate of the Astravets nuclear power plant electricity production is a 35-40% of the daily peak load electricity consumption in the country – a usual figure for the baseload demand figure. Therefore, it is expected that once in full operation, Astravets plant could provide for the entire baseload demand on electricity in Belarus.
Some opponents of the Astravets plant construction note that the plant’s capacity may be excessive as several other nuclear power plants are being constructed in the region, including a plant in Lithuania and Russia’s Kaliningrad oblast. It is suggested that it may be optimal for Belarus to purchase electricity from these plants rather than constructing its own. This view, however, does not take into consideration two important issues. Firstly, it is highly unlikely that anything but the excess baseload electricity production will be traded (i.e. limited volumes of energy at night for approximately 5 to 6 hours per day); at all other time Belarus would need to rely entirely on its thermal power plants to generate electricity. Secondly, shifting from the dependence on hydrocarbon imports to the dependence on electricity imports will not cause a substantial improvement of the country’s energy security.
Current production of electricity by fossil fuel operated power plants in Belarus is an equivalent of 18 TWh, 55% of the total electricity consumption in the country. A launch of the Astravets nuclear power plant would allow reducing fossil fuel operated power plants’ utilization to virtually zero level. In addition, nearly 15% of the combined heat and power plants may operate as heat plants only.
Yet, it is unlikely to lead to the substantial changes in the usage of the existing heat plants: while nuclear power plants can provide heat, Astravets is located far from densely populated regions of Belarus, which makes heat delivery to the final consumer close to impossible because of the high losses in transfer.
As a result of decreased utilization of power plants and CHP plants, demand for natural gas from the heat and power generating sector will be reduced by 38%. Thus, the share of natural gas in the sector’s consumption balance will shrink to nearly 50% from the current 91% figure. The Astravets plant launch will also lead to nearly 25% reduction of the sector’s demand for petroleum products.
Therefore, the economy-wide TPES of natural gas is likely to contract by 28.5% and TPES of crude oil and petroleum products by nearly 2% once the Astravets plant is in full operation. The estimated annual benefit from the reduced imports of hydrocarbons is likely to reach USD 1 billion at current fuel prices.
Overall, Astravets power plant launch is expected to have strongly positive effect on diversification of energy sources in heat and power generating sector as nuclear power will gain the second largest share among the energy sources used in the sector and the natural share will reduce to nearly 50% of the total consumption by the sector. The plant construction is also likely to have a positive effect on the energy intensity by reducing losses from the power generating sectors and by closure of obsolete plants.
Moreover, the effect on diversifying fuel imports away from Russia is two-fold. Although Belarus will be able to reduce its Russian gas imports by almost a third of its current level, nuclear fuel for the Astravets station is likely to be imported from Russia. Nevertheless, given positive shifts in Belarusian regime’s relations with the West, it is highly likely that by the time of the power plant launch, the current suspicion of the Belarusian government by the international community will have vanished and alternative importers of uranium would then become an option.
Overall, the Astravets plant will have very limited impact on Belarus’ role as a transit corridor for Russian hydrocarbons.
Environmental consideration is probably the most controversial issue with respect to the projected plant. The issue becomes even more uncertain when one takes into account not only objective environmental costs and benefits, but also subjective factors, such as suspicion of Belarusians to nuclear power – a legacy of the Chernobyl accident.
A nuclear power plant will undoubtedly lead to a reduction of pollution intensity in the Belarusian economy. Yet, there are a number of factors that may offset the seeming gains. Firstly, a low probability of technological disaster at the power plant, mean that most Belarusians consider the plant as an environmentally but dangerous project for the country. Secondly, Lithuanian environmentalists have expressed their concerns over the proximity of the projected plant to the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius (only 40 km), especially as the Neris (Viliya) river that flows through Vilnius will be the main water source for the Astravets plant. Thirdly, international environmental experts rarely consider nuclear power plants considerably greener than their fossil fuel operated counterparts as uranium extraction and enriching produces substantial amounts of polluting substances at their fuel producing facilities. Finally, spent nuclear fuel treatment still remains one of the issues without a sustainable technological solution. Belarus is likely to export its nuclear waste to either Russia or Ukraine that have spent nuclear fuel storage facilities.
Therefore, from an environmental perspective, while Belarus will enjoy most of the benefits of the cleaner power generation, it is likely to create substantial trans-boundary environmental risks mostly for Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine.
New suppliers of hydrocarbons
Belarus currently attempts to diversify its oil supply by shipping Venezuelan crude to Black Sea and Baltic Sea ports. In addition, there exists a sound potential of diversifying Belarusian natural gas imports by gaining access to Ukrainian and Polish natural shale gas deposits as well as through constructing an LNG terminal at the Baltic Sea.
While the perspectives of these recent international advancements are not certain, in the case of sustainable progress they are likely to have important implications for the energy security of Belarus, which are closely interrelated to the implications of the shale gas and LNG revolution.
Emergence of new suppliers of hydrocarbons will have a positive impact on diversifying away from Russian fuel imports, but will also reduce incentives for the energy intensity and pollution intensity reduction as well as the modernization of the heat and power generating sector as economic stimuli for technological modernization fade away.
Diversification of hydrocarbon suppliers presents risks for the usage of Belarusian gas and oil pipeline systems. If oil would be transported from either Black Sea or Baltic Sea ports, this oil would compete with the Russian oil transport routes headed into the opposite direction to either Ukrainian Odesa seaport or Baltic refineries (see Figure 1). Pipeline transportation of shale gas from Poland would compete with Russian natural gas going in the opposite direction. At the same time, reduced revenues from transit of Russian hydrocarbons may be overweighed by benefits incurred from lower prices for hydrocarbons from the alternative sources.
Table 1 provides a summary of the reviewed trends and their impact on the energy security challenges faced by Belarus.
Table 1. Summary of the existing trends and their impact on energy security of Belarus
Policy recommendations
Table 1 suggests that the most of the vital energy security components will experience both positive and negative shocks in the nearest future. Nevertheless, it is possible to undertake a number of policy measures to enhance positive effects and secure against risks.
Reducing energy intensity of economy
All possible negative effects on the energy intensity reduction will be a result of either lowering incentives to modernize the existing technologies due to lower hydrocarbons prices or a reduced capacity to modernize due to drop in budget revenues. Yet, as discussed above, improving energy efficiency may become an important driver of economic growth in the foreseeable future.
Besides already existing Energy Efficiency Department of the Committee for Standardization and construction of the Astravets power plant having a positive impact on the energy intensity of the economy, the Belarusian government may also consider the following options:
- Establishing a Research and Development (R&D) program on energy efficiency;
- Creating a special energy efficiency fund to be used for the modernization and energy intensity reduction measures;
- Imposing standards of energy use, especially in energy intensive sectors;
- Introducing taxation schemes on energy use with industry-specific energy intensity reference values in order to provide additional incentives for businesses to undertake modernization and reduce energy intensity;
- Issuing a mandate requiring gradual replacement and rehabilitation of obsolete equipment, especially in heat and power generating and energy intensive industrial sectors.
Heat and power generating sector diversification away from gas
Similarly, to the energy intensity challenge, the HPG sector diversification away from gas will be negatively affected by the reduced incentives to modernize and the lack of budget funds to impose these modernizations. Hence, the following measures may be considered:
- Ensuring adequate progress of the Astravets power plant construction;
- Imposing standards and taxation schemes of energy use by the sector;
- Study options for electricity imports, especially in off-peak hours;
- Gradually replace and rehabilitate obsolete equipment.
A number of steps to encourage use of specific fuel sources can be undertaken:
- Study possibilities of expanding production and/or imports of coal;
- Transfer some smaller-scale heat plants to coal and/or wood as environmental conditions permit;
- Integrate production of fuel wood into conventional forestry and industrial timber procurement;
- Assure quality standards and efficient use for forest chips.
While not being directly related to the sector’s diversification away from natural gas, the following measures will allow improving financial performance of the sector and, thus, providing additional resources to undertake modernizations in the sector:
- Separate commercial operation of the sector’s state-owned companies from the government’s conflicting position as an owner, policy setter and regulator;
- Imposing reporting standards, such as IFRS standards, in the sector in order to improve financial management of the companies and attract possible financiers;
- Adopt and implement OECD 2005 Guidelines on corporate governance of state-owned enterprises. While a number of the guidelines are not applicable to the Belarusian noncorporatized companies such as Belenergo and Beltopgas, general principle allow for more effective management of the companies.
I purposefully omit an option of the ownership change of the heat and power generating sector’s companies in our policy recommendations, since this option is not consistent with the existing economic and political environment in Belarus.
Diversification away from Russian fuel imports
While all of the trends analyzed will have positive effect on diversification away from Russian fuel imports, this seeming progress is largely due to the fact that up until recently Belarus has been totally dependent on Russia’s fuel imports. Yet, a number of steps can be undertaken to further augment the diversification progress:
- Ensuring adequate progress of the projects enhancing the diversification away from Russian fuel supply, namely LNG terminal in Kaunas, Astravets power plant and search of alternative suppliers of hydrocarbons;
- Exploring possibility to access and explore Polish and Ukrainian shale gas fields with a possibility to operate some of the extraction facilities;
- Studying an option to create a coal-bed methane extracting consortium with Ukraine to develop technology and extract coal-bed methane in coal-rich Eastern Donbas region;
- Researching and developing biomass as a source of energy to replace a share of oil and gas usage.
Usage of pipeline system up to full capacity
It is next to certain that the configuration of the hydrocarbon routes in Eastern Europe is about to go through fundamental changes in the nearest future due to both reduced demand for Russian hydrocarbons from Europe and the launch of the Nord Stream pipeline system. Still, there exist a number of steps to ensure that Belarusian pipeline system is in operation and is enhancing the country’s energy security:
- Creating a gas-transporting consortium with Ukraine to gain an additional market power to ensure adequate transit tariffs and share of volumes of the residual Russian gas exports to Europe after Nord Stream is launched;
- If Russian hydrocarbons transit volumes fall below critical level, transfer to the reverse direction to make the best use of the Polish shale gas and Baltic seaports’ ability to receive oil for Belarus. By doing so, Belarus will ensure both hydrocarbons imports diversification and adequate operation of its pipeline systems;
- Continuing search for alternative suppliers of oil and natural gas (including LNG) in order to assure adequate usage of the pipeline systems in the reverse direction.
Environmental effect
Similarly to energy intensity considerations, most of the negative effects of the current trends on the environment are related to either reduced incentives to modernize or reduced funds available for modernization projects. The following measures are intended to reduce pollution intensity of energy use:
- Establishing a Research and Development (R&D) program on environmental effects of energy use;
- Imposing environmental standards and taxes on energy use, especially in energy intensive sectors and bringing these policies closer to international standards;
- Issuing a mandate requiring gradual replacement and rehabilitation of obsolete equipment, especially in heat and power generating and pollution intensive industrial sectors;
- Establishing emission trade relations with the Kyoto Protocol Annex B countries to collect funds for the environmental modernization of equipment.
The following steps should be undertaken to minimize both actual and perceived environmental risks of the Astravets nuclear power station:
- Working with the general public to educate them about modern technologies that guarantee nuclear power safety as well as inform them of virtually accident-free record of civil nuclear power besides Chernobyl disaster;
- Establishing relations with the stakeholders that might be affected by the environmental impact of the projected power station, especially, local communities along Neris river;
- On early stages, study the possibilities for the spent nuclear fuel treatment and reach the preliminary international agreements over the potential nuclear waste storage if needed;
- Ensure compliance with the international standards of the power plant construction and operation and advertise this compliance strategy to the stakeholders.
Concluding remarks
Currently Belarus enters a completely new stage of its development as the old economic growth factors vanish, the political situation both within and outside the country transforms, and the geopolitical context changes. This new stage of the country’s development presents new challenges and new opportunities for Belarusian energy security, the key for any country’s independence. Careful consideration of the most critical energy security challenges coupled with professional and effective policy measures to tackle them is a vital task for securing Belarus’ economic growth, political sovereignty and quality of life improvement.
▪
A Multidimensional Approach to Energy Security in Belarus
Energy security is a complex phenomenon incorporating a variety of economic, social and environmental aspects. This brief outlines fundamental aspects of energy security in Belarus that decision makers, policy analysts and the general public should be aware of when trying to understand the consequences for energy security of existing and suggested policies as well as other domestic and external factors. This brief will pay special attention to the economic dimension of energy security (such as energy intensity of the economy and diversification of energy sources), international and geopolitical dimension (diversification of energy suppliers and use of the hydrocarbon pipeline system), as well as environmental considerations (actual and prospective environmental impact of the energy consumption and production).
Energy security is an issue of primary concern for decision-makers worldwide. This is especially true in many post-Soviet countries, where the current dependency on Russian energy imports is being reinforced by the high energy intensity of these economies – a legacy of the energy inefficient Soviet technologies coupled with a lack of technological modernization over the past two decades. Belarus, a landlocked country with a population of 10 million people, is one of the countries struggling to solve an energy security puzzle in the midst of perturbations of the energy markets and important changes in regional geopolitics.
Belarus’ economy has been growing steadily in the early 2000s with an impressive 7.7% average annual GDP growth – a figure surpassing the economic performance of its closest post-Soviet neighbors, Ukraine (7.6%) and Russia (7.5%). The 2010 economic crisis resulting in substantial downturns in Ukraine (-15.0%) and Russia (-7.9%), had very mild impact on the Belarusian economy, which grew 0.2% in 2010.
Despite the apparent robustness of the Belarusian economy as compared to its neighbors, the crisis revealed a major weakness of the Belarusian economic model, the country’s utmost dependence on economic and political relations with Russia. Belarus is trying to move away from the Russia-centered economic model, in an attempt to diversify the sources of its economic growth. Not surprisingly, Russia is using a number of economic and political levers, of which oil and natural gas are the most important ones, in an attempt to tame a rebellious ex-vassal.
As a result, Belarus recently faced a variety of new energy challenges that must be successfully tackled for the country to preserve its political and economic independence.
The Belarusian Economic Growth Drivers
Belarusian economic growth in the late 1990s-early 2000s was primarily driven by the combination of three main factors: (i) privileged access to Russian markets for Belarusian industrial and agricultural exporters and energy importers; (ii) preferential support of the enterprises and sectors with a large state share, especially those producing for export, and (iii) governmental policies on wage and price control, which resulted in temporary cost advantages for traditional exports (WB 2005). These factors were reinforced by the low capacity utilization that experienced a sudden drop in the early 1990s as the Soviet Union collapsed.
Immediately prior to the 2010 economic downturn, productivity growth was the main driving force of the industrial growth in Belarus (WB 2010a). For most economies in transition, productivity growth is driven by (i) productivity increases within the firms and (ii) labor reallocation. In Belarus, most of the productivity increase occurred due to the former driving force. Recent data show that productivity growth is slowing down – a sign that productivity improvements has so far been gained through “low hanging fruit” type of investments, but these are now coming to an end. (WB 2010a).
Productivity growth in 2004-2008 was reinforced by increasing capacity utilization from approximately 45% in 1996 to 57% in 2004 to almost 70% in 2009. Yet, it is commonly perceived that most of the underused capacities are outdated and need rehabilitation or replacement. Thus, the actual figures of the unused capacities may be well inflated. Therefore, the years of reclaiming unused capacities will soon become history, and Belarus is gradually approaching a point at which output growth would require either costly capacity expansion or increase of capacity-usage efficiency. Of these two alternatives, improvements in energy efficiency are the one that does not show signs of being exhausted in the near future.
Belarusian energy efficiency increased by nearly 50% between 1996 and 2008 as the government began designing and enforcing a comprehensive energy efficiency policy. The measures included among others (i) establishing a Committee for Energy Efficiency in 1993, which evolved into Energy Efficiency Department of the Committee for Standardization with a mandate to develop and implement the energy efficiency improvement strategy; (ii) substantial financing, amounting to USD 4.2 billion in 1996-2008 and USD 1.2 billion in 2008 alone ; (iii) political commitment to energy efficiency, as illustrated by two National Energy Savings Programs approved in 1996 and 2001 respectively and the 1998 Law on Energy Savings (WB 2010b).
Currently, Belarus’ energy intensity is the lowest compared to the neighboring CIS countries (see Figure 1). Specifically, in 2008 Belarus used 1.17 tons of oil equivalents (toe) to produce USD 1,000 of its GDP – a substantial advantage compared to Ukraine’s 2.55, Russia’s 1.60 and Moldova’s 1.50 toe/USD 1,000. Yet, despite substantial recent progress and good standing in its regional sub-group, Belarus is still far from its energy efficiency potential, as showed by comparison with the closest Western neighbors: Poland and Lithuania use respectively 0.41 and 0.46 toe/USD1,000 (IEA 2010). Economic modeling suggests that a baseline scenario of 50% decline in energy intensity within the next decade would be a source of an additional annual GDP growth by 3.5-7%.
Currently, as implicit subsidies from Russia in the form of cheap oil, natural gas and electricity diminish, economic growth induced by the productivity increase, and capacity reclaiming is being exhausted, it becomes apparent that the search for new sources of economic growth must incorporate energy security considerations.
Overview of the Energy Security Dimensions in Belarus
Energy security is a multidimensional issue, which requires considerations with respect to:
- Primary energy sources distribution
- International trade and the geopolitical context
- Impact of energy on the environment
I will review them in turn.
1. Primary Energy Security Dimensions in Belarus
A reasonable diversification of energy sources results in a more sustainable energy model of the economy.
Currently, Belarus’ primary energy source is natural gas, which accounts for 63% of its energy supply (see Figure 2). Natural gas is primarily used for heat production (55% of the total natural gas supply) and electricity production (20%). Over 80% of Belarusian centralized heating stations use natural gas and nearly 95% of electric energy in the country is produced with natural gas as a primary fuel.
Notes to figure 2:
- The percentage scores may not add up to unity due to independent rounding, other omitted uses and secondary supply sources.
- Net of exports.
- Combustible renewables and waste.
- Combined heat and power plants.
The second biggest share (29%) is crude oil and petroleum products, mainly used in the transport sector as well as the residential, commercial and public services sectors. All other primary energy sources account for less than 10% of the total primary energy supply. Renewable sources of energy are virtually unused in Belarus.
In sum, the analysis of the Belarusian energy balance reveals a disproportionately large share of natural gas use, especially in electricity and heat generation. It is therefore clear that, in the context of emerging tensions over the imported Russian natural gas, substantial changes in the electricity and heat generation sector will be needed.
2. International Trade Considerations and Geopolitical Context
Belarus produces only 14% (4 Mtoe per year) of its total primary energy demand and nearly 15% of its oil and gas consumption, thus being totally dependent on fossil fuels imports from Russia. Prior to the escalation of the conflict with Russia, almost the entire demand for natural gas and oil was satisfied by Russian imports at discounted prices, which was often viewed as an implicit subsidy of the Belarusian economy. Currently, Russia is reducing these implicit subsidies by narrowing the gap between prices charged to Belarus and to the EU.
An important difference between natural gas imports and oil imports is that while natural gas imports are entirely consumed by the Belarusian domestic market, a large share of crude oil imports is processed and exported as petroleum products (see Table 1). Therefore, while reducing dependency on Russian gas imports may be achieved, to a large extent, by a transition to alternative energy sources and improvements in energy, the same approach is unlikely to work for oil imports, since no transition to other sources of energy is possible for oil refineries and efficiency increase is limited to losses minimization. Thus, the only alternative to reduce dependency on Russian oil imports is diversification of oil suppliers.
In early 2010, the Belarusian government has signed an agreement with Venezuela on continuous supply of crude oil to Belarus. The first delivery was made by a railroad transfer from the Ukrainian sea port of Odessa; the following deliveries were made through the Estonian Muuga seaport and the Lithuanian Klaipeda seaport by railroad. Belarusian government has announced that it expects nearly 4 million tons of Venezuelan oil to be delivered in 2010, and the quantity is expected to grow to 10 million tons (i.e., 42.5% of the current oil imports) in 2011 and onwards. The average price for Venezuelan crude in 2010 was USD645 per ton (compared to USD 402 per ton of Russian oil), according to the national statistics committee.
Land transport of Venezuelan oil from seaports remains the most questionable issue. While railroad transfer proved to be a reasonable intermediate solution, a sustainable and cost-efficient transportation of Venezuelan oil is possible only through pipelines. Although the Lithuanian and Latvian legs of the former Soviet Druzhba pipeline system can be used, they require major investments to allow for reverse transfer from Baltic seaports to Belarus. The Ukrainian Odessa-Brody oil pipeline, in reverse direction, is the most likely route for a large share of Venezuelan oil, as Ukrainian government signed an agreement with Belarus for transfer of 9 million tons of Venezuelan crude in 2011. Yet, the deal is heavily threatened by Russia which was using the Odessa-Brody pipeline in the opposite direction until 2010 and is losing an important lever of influence over Belarus as the country diversifies its oil imports.
Another crucial energy security consideration from the geopolitical perspective for Belarus is its own pipeline systems (see Figure 3 below).
In 2009, nearly 62.2 billion cubic meters of Russian natural gas (36.9% of total Russian natural gas exports to the non-CIS countries) and 89.6 million ton of Russian oil (36.2% of total Russian crude exports) went through Belarusian pipelines. For comparison, Ukraine, another major transfer route for Russian hydrocarbons, transports 95.8 billion cubic meters of Russian gas (56.9% of Russian exports) and nearly 30 million tons of Russian crude (12.1% of Russian exports). Thus, almost the entire (93.8%) Russian natural gas exports as well as a substantial share of Russian oil exports (48.3%) are transported via Ukrainian and Belarusian pipeline systems.
Until recently, Belarusian oil and gas transit capacity has been a powerful lever in its relationships with Moscow. In an attempt to diversify its hydrocarbon export routes, however, Russia has announced the construction of an alternative Nord Stream pipeline system (see Figure 4) in 2005. The two-legged 1,200 km pipeline system will transport natural gas from Russian Vyborg to German Greifswald under the Baltic Sea, thus making it the longest sub-sea pipeline in the world. Each leg has a projected capacity of 27.5 billion cubic meters per year (55 billion cubic meters for the entire system). The first leg is projected to be in full operation by late 2011, the second by late 2012.
Although the Nord Stream transfer capacity is below the annual transfer of natural gas through Belarus, it represents an important strategic instrument in Russian foreign policy to manipulate Belarus and Ukraine as they compete for a residual share of the Russian natural gas transfer. Recent trends in European energy security policy headed towards increase of energy efficiency, diversification of hydrocarbons importers and shale gas revolution will undoubtedly lead to a decrease in the European demand for Russian gas, which, in the worst case scenario, may completely eliminate Belarus from the Russian gas transfer system, as Belarusian and most of the Ukrainian gas pipeline capacity become redundant.
3. Impact of Energy on the Environment
Belarus lies around the average, both in Europe and in the Eastern European region, when it comes to pollution intensity of its energy use, (see Figure 4 below). While there is room for improvements in terms of the impact of energy on the environment, this concern is of second order as compared to the above discussion on energy intensity. Moreover, it is believed that improvement of energy efficiency of the economy through implementation of modern technologies will bring along reduction of pollution intensity as well.
Despite the fact that current environmental implications of energy use are not especially worrisome, Belarus still remains one of the countries that suffered the most severe consequences of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident.
About 20% of Belarusian territory was affected by the accident and nearly 17% of its agricultural land. Costs to the economy are estimated in the order of 32 to 35 times the Belarus state budget in 1985. Nearly 22% of the national budget was spent in 1991 on remediation measures, although the figure has contracted to 6% in 2002 and 3% in 2006%. The total spending of Belarus due to consequences of the Chernobyl disaster over the period 1991-2003 exceeded USD 13 billion.
Besides the direct impacts on health, several social problems followed the worst civil nuclear accident, including the loss of rural livelihoods and outward migration of qualified workforce accompanied by inward migration of unqualified workforce and people who have economic difficulties elsewhere. A significant amount of agricultural land in the area of the radioactive fallout is still unavailable for cultivation. Development of the area remains a challenge, especially in small towns accommodating migrants from outside Eastern Europe, predominantly from Central Asia. Radioactive pollution is still a concern in the affected areas.
Not surprisingly, Belarusian population remains cautious about plans to construct the first nuclear power plant in Astravets, in the Hrodna Voblast, as nuclear power is still considered a source of substantial risks, despite extensive media campaigns and policy assurances on the exceptional nature of the Chernobyl accident.
Concluding remarks
A changing geopolitical context and gradually shifting priorities in the Belarusian foreign policy will undoubtedly affect various dimensions of the energy security of this transitional Eastern European country.
When evaluating consequences of external or internal factors for energy security, it is necessary to keep in mind that this is a complex, multifaceted issue. The main concerns to be considered about Belarusian energy security include primary energy source distribution (diversification of energy sources, especially away from natural gas, and reduction of the economy’s energy intensity), international trade and geopolitical context (with a special focus on diversification of energy suppliers and an optimal use of the country’s gas- and oil- transporting systems) and environmental considerations of the energy use (related to both actual and prospective impact of the energy production and consumption on the environment). Other dimensions of relevance include social impacts of the energy production and consumption, sustainability of the energy use another important elements beyond the scope of this brief.
The main trends that will alter energy security in Belarus within the coming decade most likely will include the shale gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG) revolution, the launch of the Nord Stream, possibly the construction of the Astravets nuclear plant as well as the effort of Belarus to diversify hydrocarbon suppliers.
In the next part of the analysis forthcoming in the FREE policy brief series I will analyze in detail these and other existing trends and will discuss their potential positive effects and challenges as well as potential measures for addressing the adverse effects in the context of energy security of Belarus.
Recommended Further Reading
- Cherp, A, A. Antypas, V. Cheterian and M. Salnykov. 2006. Environment and security: Transforming risks into cooperation. The case of Eastern Europe: Belarus-Moldova-Ukraine. UNEP/UNDP/UNECE/OSCE/REC/NATO Report.
- Chester, L. 2010. “Conceptualizing energy security and making explicit its polysemic nature”. Energy Policy, 38(2): 887-95.
- CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) 2010. CIA World Factbook. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2003.html)
- IEA (International Energy Agency) 2010. “Key World energy statistics”.
- WB (World Bank) 2005. “Belarus – Window of opportunity to enhance competitiveness and sustain economic growth – a Country Economic Memorandum for the Republic of Belarus”.
- WB (World Bank) 2010a. “Belarus – Industrial performance before and during the global crisis: Belarus economic policy notes.”
- WB (World Bank) 2010b. “Lights out? The outlook for energy in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union”.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.