Is the European Parliament an Environmental Champion? IES March 2010 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
28
Embed
Is the European Parliament an Environmental Champion? IES March 2010 Dr Charlotte Burns (University of Leeds) Professor Neil Carter (University of York)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Is the European Parliament an Environmental Champion?
IES March 2010
Dr Charlotte Burns (University of Leeds)Professor Neil Carter (University of York)
• Air quality proposals attract 26% of the amendments
• But 47% of strong and 42% of negatives
Importance of EP amendments by session
-1 0 1 2 30
10
20
30
40
50
60
EP5EP6
Is the EP Successful?
OVERALL• 35% rejected• 8% partially adopted
BUT
• 48% fully adopted• 8% largely adopted
Success by Session
0 1 2 30%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
EP5
EP6
Adoption
Is the EP Successful?
Hypothesis:
Adoption of EP amendments by the Council of Ministers is affected by the amendment’s environmental importance, the reading at which the amendment was introduced and the session of the EP.
Testing the Hypothesis
• Generalized linear model, fit by maximum likelihood, binomial error structure and logit link function
• Response variable: adopted/not adopted
• Explanatory variables: envimp, session, and reading
• Tested for interaction
Findings
• More environmentally important = less likely to be adopted
• Second Reading amendments were more likely to be adopted
• Amendments introduced in EP6 more likely to be adopted
Interactions
• Effect of reading on likelihood of adoption strongly dependent on session in which amendments were introduced
Summary
• EP is trying to strengthen legislation
• Adopts disproportionately more strong and negatives in some policy fields
• Success depends on strength of amendment, reading and session
• Differences between EP5 and EP6 – latter less ambitious but more successful
Explanations
• Nature and costs of regulation
• Shifting norms of decision-making
• Enlargement
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
Evolving Procedures
Stage at which legislation was concluded• EP5 (1999-2004)
– 47% cases concluded after conciliation
• EP6 (2004-2009) – 16% cases concluded after conciliation, – 56% 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
Success by Session
0 1 2 30%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
EP5
EP6
Adoption
Explanations
• Nature and costs of regulation
• Shifting norms of decision-making
• Enlargement
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’
Enlargement
• 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.
Conclusions
• EP is an environmentally benign actor, but it is no longer championing the environmental cause.
• Unlikely to become more radical
Future Directions
• Rapporteur – longevity/group
• Committee amendments
• New EP – patterns persisting or shifting?
• Commission – nature of environmental legislation