View
214
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on
environmental legislation
Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors
University of Bath, 6 October 2009
Dr Charlotte Burns (University of Leeds)Professor Neil Carter (University of York)
Dr Nick Worsfold (University of York)
http://www.polis.leeds.ac.uk/research/projects/eu-environmental-champion.php
Championing Europe’s Environment?
• The European Parliament often sees itself, and is seen by others, as the defender of environmental interests (Weale et al. 2000: 91)
• Sets the political agenda, forms coalitions and exploits political powers to full through amending and strengthening legislation.
• But portrayal based upon: (1) partial evidence and (2) historical record.
Research Questions
• Is EP REALLY an environmental champion?
• How environmentally stringent are its amendments?
• How successful are they?
• Is there a relationship between the strength of an amendment and its chance of adoption?
• Has the EP’s behaviour changed over time? If so, how?
Methodology
• Analysed 5,234 amendments made to 94 proposals
• Legislation classified according to the stage at which it was concluded and the policy area that it addressed.
• Each amendment was classified according to
– the reading at which it was proposed;– its environmental ambition; – its importance; – and the degree to which it was adopted by the
Commission and Council of Ministers.
Environmental Ambition Typology
• Fivefold typology
• Based on ecological modernisation.
• Policy paradigm informing EU environmental policy
Environmental Ambition Typology
• Strong EM (3) – stronger, binding, sanctions, costs
• Weak EM (2) – tightens, some costs and new policy instruments
• Marginal (1) – rhetorical, vague, limited impacts and costs
• Neutral (0) – no environmental impact
• Negative (-1) – overall negative impact
Importance and Adoption Typologies
Importance 1-5 from insignificant to highly important
Multiplied with EA to give a score for overall environmental importance
Adoption• 0 = not adopted• 1 = <50% adopted• 2 = >50% adopted• 3 = fully adopted• M = text changed so amendment no longer
relevant
Co-Decision
• Commission proposes
• EP 3 readings, conciliation and veto
• EP and Council = co-legislators
• Increasing pressure to agree at first reading or second reading
• Informal meetings used to reach agreement
Is the EP adopting environmentally important amendments ?
0
10
20
30
40
50
%
-1 0 1 2 3
Environmental Importance
Importance of EP amendments
Strong Amendments
Distribution of Strong Amendments
WFD
LCPDETS
WEEE
0
5
10
15
20
Proposals attracting strong amendments 1996-2006
Num
ber
of am
endm
ents
Is the EP adopting environmentally important amendments?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
%
-1 0 1 2 3
Importance of EP amendments by Session
EP5
EP6
Is the EP Successful?
OVERALL• 40% rejected• 11% partially adopted
BUT
• 36% fully adopted• 11% largely adopted
Success by Session
0
10
20
30
40
50
%
0 1 2 3
Adoption
Is the EP Successful?
EP5
EP6
Evolving procedures
Stage at which legislation was concluded
• EP5 (1999-2004) – 47% cases concluded after conciliation
• EP6 (2004-2009) – 23% cases concluded after conciliation, – 46% concluded via fast track 1st reading
What is fast track 1st reading?
• Commission proposes legislation• Legislative proposal goes to
Environment Committee• Committee adopts its opinion, which
becomes the mandate for rapporteur to open informal negotiations with Council
• If agreement is reached the plenary endorses the joint text
Summary
• EP is trying to strengthen legislation
• Stronger amendments concentrated
• Success depends on strength of amendment, reading and session
• Differences between EP5 and EP6 – latter less ambitious but more successful
Explaining distribution of strong EP amendments
• Nature of policy – air and water attract stronger amendments
• New/updating legislation?
• New approaches to policy-making – framework directives
Why change over time? (1) Institutional
• EP has got its extra powers• Commission – doing less, but doing
it better• Informal norms under codecision
are evolving • Personnel Changes
Why change over time? (2) Enlargement
• New states less developed. Focus on economic prosperity.
• Weak environmental movement. No green MEPs 2004-09.
• EU saw political centre of gravity shift ‘to the Right and to the east’
Why would enlargement make a difference? (cont.)• EPP position consolidated and EPP
regards environment as less salient
• Increasingly heterogeneous political groups affect distribution of positions of power.
• EP Groups still cohesive but some evidence of national blocks amongst new states.
Evolving Norms
• Why is the EP now prepared to engage in these practices?
• Pre 2004 - Preparation for enlargement.
• Post 2004 – established practice. New MEPs – care less about empowering the Parliament
Environmental behaviour
• Appointment of Ouzký
• On Climate Change legislation clear that there was pressure from new states
• Aviation – over half of those who voted against resolution were Poles/Czechs
• But RCV data ltd by new voting behaviour
Summary
• Enlargement has clearly led to the evolution and consolidation of norms within the EP.
• Perception in EP that balance of power has shifted – making EP less environmentally radical.
• Expect this trend to continue with current economic climate.
New parliament
• Buzek President of EP – committed to using fast-track procedure less.
• Changed dynamics on the Right. EPP did well but ECR split away. However, EPP no longer has to appoint R-W Czechs/Poles to key positions.
• Left weaker, but Jo Leinen (German SPD) new Chair of Env. Ctte.
Conclusions
• EP is an ‘environmental tweaker’ rather than an ‘environmental champion’
• Economic context and political make-up of EP means that will continue.
Further reading……
• See Burns and Carter ‘Is Codecision Good for the Environment?’ Political Studies (published online)
• http://www.polis.leeds.ac.uk/research/projects/eu-environmental-champion.php
Recommended