A new approach to EU environmental policy-making? The Auto-Oil I Programme

Friedrich, Axel; Tappe, Matthias; Wurzel, Rüdiger K.W.

doi:10.1080/13501760050165389

Cited by 28 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in the 1980s the committee successfully pushed the Commission to bring forward several pieces of legislation, including directives banning the use of lead in petrol and the import of skins from seal pups, and a green paper on the urban environment (Judge, 1992). The committee has also had plenty of scope to amend legislative measures, not least because it dealt with more legislation adopted under co‐decision than any other EP committee up to 2004, 1 and it seems to have responded well to the challenge, securing important compromises in relation to car emissions and consumer and health legislation (European Parliament, 1999; see also Friedrich et al. , 2000).…”

Section: The European Parliament: Reputation and Powersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Co-Decision Good for the Environment? an Analysis of the European Parliament's Green Credentials

Burns

Carter

2010

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Parliament (EP) has long been regarded as a positive force for environmental change in the EU, but there has been little detailed empirical scrutiny to determine whether its reputation as a green champion is deserved. Nor has there been any evaluation of the environmental impact of the increase in EP powers under co‐decision. These oversights are rectified by an evaluation of the EP's amendments to environmental legislation using typologies that rank them in terms of their level of ecological commitment and importance. EP amendments proposed under three procedures of decision making are compared in order to determine whether recent increases in the EP's powers under the co‐decision procedure have affected its ability and willingness to adopt ‘green’ amendments. It is clear that the EP has consistently tried to strengthen environmental legislation but there is some ambiguity as to whether co‐decision has been good for the environment.

show abstract

Section: The European Parliament: Reputation and Powersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Co-Decision Good for the Environment? an Analysis of the European Parliament's Green Credentials

Burns

Carter

2010

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only when it realised this was not going to be the case, did it start a heavy lobbying campaign to influence all the parties directly or indirectly involved in the legislative process. This process continued to become increasingly politicised (for a detailed description of these different phases, see Friedrich et al 2000).…”

Section: Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers in different fields have therefore studied the case of emission regulation intensively. Most of the analyses that take the emissions regulations of vehicles as a case study take a political science perspective or a European study perspective (Arp, 1993, Brackley 1987, Corcelle 1985, 1986, 1989, Friedrich et al, 2000. Other authors also describe in detail the technical and economic ramifications from an industry perspective (Roqueplo, 1988, Boehmer-Christiansen and Weidner, 1995, Taminiau, 2001.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Pendulum: The Auto-Oil Programmes Revisited

Taminiau¹,

Molenkamp²,

Tashchilova³

2006

Energy & Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The were considered a new model on how to solve environmental issue by close cooperation between the European Commission and industry, in particular the automobile and the oil industry. These programmes, in their larger context, are interesting cases to analyse the complexity of emission regulation. These cases are described in some details in this paper in order to distinguish patterns in the type of policy-making that have emerged over time. The main conclusion points to high complexity created by two types of tensions. One tension is that between the drivers of environmental policy: should it be target-based or should environmental policy serve the development of "state of the art technology"? The second tension relates to the question of the manageability of this policy area: should technical experts provide the main input for policy or should all parties that have a stake in this policy area become involved the so-called stakeholder approach? These questions illustrate the dilemmas that face the policy-makers. Different approaches or models can be distinguished over time. This results is a swing back and forth between them, best be described by the metaphor of a pendulum. This idea of shift in policy-making over time complements the existing models of European policymaking, in particular the work on policy-making by participation.

show abstract

“…Since 1992, there has been a substantial shift in the dominant regulatory philosophy of the Commission , Friedrich et al 2000. Much of the 'dirigiste' legislation remains in place, and has been difficult to revise in a way that reduces the command and control nature of EU environmental legislation.…”

Section: Patterns Of Nepi Use After 1992mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Doubts have been raised about the legitimacy, legality and transparency of creating an EU instrument (interviews 2001; Mol et al 2000;Friedrich et al 2000;CEC 1996a). The lack of an explicit treaty base and consultation, especially with the EP, has made the adoption of EU level VAs controversial.…”

Section: Voluntary Agreementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

European governance and the transfer of ‘new’ environmental policy instruments (NEPIs) in the European Union

Jordan

Wurzel

Zito³

et al. 2003

Public Administration

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the use of 'new' environmental policy instruments (NEPIs), particularly market-based instruments (for example, eco-taxes) and voluntary agreements, in the European Union (EU). It focuses on the actor motivation behind the recent increase in the adoption of new and innovative instruments in EU (and member state) environmental policies while also taking account of the external international arena. The article assesses whether new ideas put forward by policy entrepreneurs, such as member governments, EU institutions, expert groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), are main motivation behind the EU adoption of NEPIs, or whether market and harmonization pressures are the main driving forces. It concentrates on eco-taxes, voluntary agreements and eco-labels, using the following three theoretical perspectives: (1) policy learning and transfer/ideational; (2) garbage can; and (3) institutional approaches

show abstract

A new approach to EU environmental policy-making? The Auto-Oil I Programme

Cited by 28 publications

References 7 publications

Is Co-Decision Good for the Environment? an Analysis of the European Parliament's Green Credentials

Is Co-Decision Good for the Environment? an Analysis of the European Parliament's Green Credentials

The Pendulum: The Auto-Oil Programmes Revisited

European governance and the transfer of ‘new’ environmental policy instruments (NEPIs) in the European Union

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About