The Post-Amsterdam Role of the Eurpean Parliament in EU Environmental Legislation

David Bowe
Member, European Parliament
Member, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy
United Kingdom

Introduction
The Parliament and its Environment Committee have long been recognized as champions of higher environmental standards. Our ambitions are now complemented by our increased powers under the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty, which expanded the application of the co-decision procedure from 15 to 38 Treaty articles. As a result, nearly all environmental policy is covered by co-decision. In practical terms, this means that longstanding members of the European Parliament who had previously only read about co-decision now have the opportunity to actually become involved in the process. Furthermore, in the new European Parliament, new members have been getting to grips with complicated procedures. Added to which, the European Parliament has changed its rules of procedure. For example, in the last mandate we could not amend the common position at second reading unless the text had been substantially changed from the original Commission proposal, or new information had come to light. However, we can now amend a common position if there has been an election between first and second reading, if the Group leaders feel it is desirable to do so. The past few months have been particularly interesting as we have been scrutinizing Common Positions on issues such as 90/220, on the deliberate release on genetically modified organisms into the environment, the parliamentary report for which I wrote, and which is currently in conciliation.

The Amsterdam Treaty
The Amsterdam Treaty has had a significant effect on relations between the Commission, Council and European Parliament. After seven years of co-decision we have found effective ways of dealing with each other. Due to the European Parliament’s powers of veto and conciliation, the Council now carefully considers the position of the European Parliament. We now meet Council officials face-to-face and negotiate compromises, which was completely unthinkable a few years ago. It is now not uncommon for Council officials and European Parliament representatives to sit down and discuss legislation early on in the legislative process before conciliation is even a foregone conclusion. Informal meetings between Council and European Parliament to work out compromises are the norm. For example, the auto-oil conciliations, which dealt with as many as 103 European Parliament amendments, required four European Parliament delegation meetings, four trialogues, and five technical meetings. Agreement was reached on 71 amendments in the space of just two months, which is a phenomenal achievement. It is also a testament to how much the institutions can achieve via mutual respect, determination and hard work. But these institutions need to cooperate with each other – to talk to each other, and more importantly listen!

The Commission has a vital role to play in bringing the Council and the European Parliament together. Yet, once in conciliation, the Commission needs to be prepared to assist the two institutions and draw them closer together, rather than sticking rigidly to its original proposal. If the Commission fails to recognise the important role that it can play as an arbiter between the Council and European Parliament, it would fall into danger of being marginalized, which occurred in the Novel Foods conciliation, where the Council and Parliament came to an agreement without calling upon the Commission for its opinion.

Furthermore, if the first-reading fast-track procedure introduced under Amsterdam is to be used successfully, the Council and Commission need to come to talk to the Parliament earlier in the process. The Commission has been relatively successful with this, yet the Council is just learning. Moreover, if one would reduce the number of cases going to conciliation – which is, after all, a time-consuming process, it will be necessary to continue to improve dialogue between the institutions.

However, this raises concerns with regard to the new timetables for Amsterdam and the new fast-track procedure. At first glance it appears easy to consider that the extension of co-decision to a wider number of areas, and the expansion the European Parliament’s role has led to an increase in accountability and transparency. The push for legislative efficiency, i.e., pushing through legislation as fast as possible – may encroach upon the principle of transparency. Informal meetings between the institutions after the European Parliament’s first reading are a useful tool for reaching agreement as they allow a frank exchange of views unthinkable under other circumstances. However, if the fast-track procedure is to be employed successfully it will, in many cases, require informal exchanges before the European Parliament’s opinion has even been given. This prospect means that we would be in danger of denying groups who have not yet participated in the process, the ability to do so. I therefore suspect that the fast-track process will only be used for the most straightforward and mundane legislation, and maybe not even then!

On the issue of the third reading, it is a good thing that the Council no longer has the ability to re-impose its common position after conciliation and is thereby forced to negotiate and reach a compromise with the Parliament in conciliation. This amendment, in most cases, actually reflects the reality of the conciliation process that has incrementally developed along fairly cooperative lines. Yet the amendment of the treaty in this manner sends an important message to the Council that the European Parliament can no longer be ignored.

In summary, the extension of the co-decision procedure and the reforms to the procedure will hopefully continue to build upon the strengthening relationship between the institutions and continue to contribute towards the democratization of the Union should be welcomed. The procedure should be extended to all areas of environment policy including budgetary matters which, at this time, are still excluded from the co-decision provisions.

Integration
The issues of integration and the environmental guarantee also merit attention. Integration is a complex issue – it has long been an environment policy sound-bite, everyone wants it, and believes it to be a good thing, but actually achieving it is a much more difficult matter. One of the dilemmas when trying to achieve integration is managing the balance between a concentration of expertise and knowledge within the environmental policy sector. The environment is a policy area that requires a holistic vision – a vision that captures all policy sectors, and all levels of government: local, national, supranational and international. So, whilst hiving off the environment into its own government ministry gives a signal of the environment’s importance as a policy area and allows for the development of expertise, there is a danger that environmental concerns become marginalized and that environmental policies are considered to be separate from, for example, industrial, energy and transport policies. Indeed, the real challenge is to change the mindsets of those working in other policy areas. In order to achieve this, there are several practical steps that can be taken. Several integration strategies are under way or being prepared by the European Commission to facilitate integration of environmental considerations into other policy sectors, for example, agriculture, transport, energy, development, industry and the single market.

In policy terms, a key area that needs to be "greened," and which is particularly pertinent at the moment, is the field of international trade. A key issue for us is the need to amend Article XX of GATT, which covers general exemptions from the rules governing trade agreements. We want to see Article XX widened in scope in order for it to specifically allow for the protection of the environment and animal welfare to be used as a justification for non-trade discriminatory measures. The Environment Committee feels very strongly that the EU should be not obliged to accept imports of goods that fall below minimum environmental standards acceptable in the EU. It is no good us trying to build a strong environmental policy in the European Union if we accept goods that have been produced in other countries, where processes of production come nowhere near our standards of protection for the environment.

Moreover, Member States that have high levels of environmental protection should not feel obliged to lower those standards in order to comply with EU directives. The European Parliament has always believed in high environmental standards and has always pressed for them. We shall continue to do so and to support Member States who also try to do so. Of course, such a commitment to high standards does not mean that Member States should be able to impose unjustifiable trade restrictions, but the Commission should to try to ensure that all its proposals contain the highest possible levels of environmental protection.

Conclusion
The changes to the treaties discussed above are welcome, although I think we can still go further – both in extending co-decision to new areas (particularly fiscal) and including references to the environment throughout the treaty. However, now we face the challenge of ensuring that the commitments to integration and higher environmental standards become more than just words on a page. To quote Commissioner Wallström, we need to move "from words to deeds." To realize our ambitions for the environment, co-operation between the institutions is essential, which is why the extension of the co-decision procedure as a means of facilitating and improving dialogue should be embraced.