an evaluation of the impact of the european parliament on environmental legislation please do not...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
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Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors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
![Page 2: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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.
![Page 3: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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?
![Page 4: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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.
![Page 5: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Environmental Ambition Typology
• Fivefold typology
• Based on ecological modernisation.
• Policy paradigm informing EU environmental policy
![Page 6: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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
![Page 7: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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
![Page 8: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Is the EP adopting environmentally important amendments ?
0
10
20
30
40
50
%
-1 0 1 2 3
Environmental Importance
Importance of EP amendments
![Page 10: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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
![Page 12: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Is the EP Successful?
OVERALL• 40% rejected• 11% partially adopted
BUT
• 36% fully adopted• 11% largely adopted
![Page 13: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
![Page 14: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Success by Session
0
10
20
30
40
50
%
0 1 2 3
Adoption
Is the EP Successful?
EP5
EP6
![Page 15: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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
![Page 16: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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
![Page 18: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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
![Page 20: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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’
![Page 21: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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.
![Page 22: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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
![Page 23: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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
![Page 24: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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.
![Page 25: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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.
![Page 26: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Conclusions
• EP is an ‘environmental tweaker’ rather than an ‘environmental champion’
• Economic context and political make-up of EP means that will continue.
![Page 27: An evaluation of the impact of the European Parliament on environmental legislation Please do not quote from these slides without permission from authors](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5515e158550346d46f8b4d19/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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