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

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)

• But portrayal based upon partial evidence and

potentially outdated assumptions about EP behaviour.

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• Mixed approach employing qualitative and quantitative

methods

• Coded 7,094 amendments made to 113 proposals adopted under codecision by the EP plenary between 1999 and 2009

• Coding relies on qualitative judgements and data analysis

• Also gained practitioner feedback at seminar in EP and used elite interviews

• Case study analysis

Methodology

• Legislative proposal 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

Council of Ministers.

Environmental Ambition Typology

• Negative (-1) – overall negative impact

• Neutral (0) – no environmental impact

• Marginal (1) – rhetorical commitment to environment, vague, limited impacts and costs

• Weak (2) – tightens limits and standards, some costs and new policy instruments

• Strong (3) – stronger, binding, sanctions, costs

Importance and Adoption Typologies

Importance 1-5 from insignificant to highly important

Multiplied with environmental ambition 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

Is the EP’s plenary adopting environmentally important amendments?

-1 0 1 2 30

10

20

30

40

50

60

%

Distribution of strong and negative amendments

1996/02001998/02471999/00682000/01692001/01072002/00262002/03042003/02052004/02182006/00182007/02952008/01650

5

10

15

20

25

negativestrong

Distribution of strong and negative amendments

• 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%

EP5EP6

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%

EP5EP6

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