{"id":2336,"date":"2017-01-13T15:36:53","date_gmt":"2017-01-13T15:36:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/qpol.qub.ac.uk\/?p=2336"},"modified":"2017-01-13T15:36:53","modified_gmt":"2017-01-13T15:36:53","slug":"environment-protection-brexit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/environment-protection-brexit\/","title":{"rendered":"Four \u2018green lines\u2019 for Brexit negotiators looking to protect the environment"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Brexit risks harming the UK\u2019s environment unless the government passes stiff new legislation before it triggers Article 50. That\u2019s the conclusion of a major new report by the Environment Audit Committee<\/a>, a cross-bench group of 16 MPs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the run-up to the referendum, most experts<\/a> were very worried about the environmental impact of Brexit and, since the vote, some of these concerns have been confirmed \u2013 think, for example, of Michael Gove and John Whittingdale inviting companies to draw a wish list for a bonfire<\/a> of EU social and environmental legislation. On the other hand, some environmental NGOs have launched a campaign to achieve a \u201cGreener UK\u201d after the vote, seizing Brexit as an opportunity to increase, not decrease, environmental ambition<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, which way is Britain going to go? This depends on whether Theresa May\u2019s government uses the Brexit negotiation to actually deliver on its manifesto commitment to \u201cbe the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than it found it\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As with anything Brexit-related, a \u201cgreen Brexit\u201d is full of uncertainties, and faces both technical and political difficulties. However the audit committee\u2019s report can help us draw \u201cgreen lines\u201d on which to judge how eco-friendly Brexit is really likely to be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Adopt clear policy guidelines<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Long before the referendum, the government started working on two parallel 25-year plans<\/a> for the environment and agriculture\/food. But progress has been slow, and consultation on this flagship policy has still not started. As with Brexit more generally, clear environmental goals have been promised but not yet delivered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The absence of clarity on what the government is trying to achieve for farming and the environment makes it difficult to ensure these unknown objectives are not inadvertently thwarted during the Brexit negotiations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A first Brexit green line, then, is that negotiating objectives should be, as much as possible, aligned with the 25-year plans. The MPs\u2019 report suggests the basic framework and consultation on both plans should take place before the government officially starts negotiating to leave the EU. This would ensure any conflicts between the two plans and the Brexit negotiation brief are considered and hopefully mitigated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.  Beware of regulatory gaps<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The prime minister has called for a \u201cGreat Repeal Bill<\/a>\u201d to transfer to UK law all applicable EU law and ensure a smooth transition. But copy-pasting legislation is not so straightforward: the environment secretary, Andrea Leadsom<\/a>, told the environmental committee that, of the 800 or more pieces of European environmental legislation, up to a third would not be automatically carried over. What is striking in the committee\u2019s report is how little is known about what these gaps actually are, and which policy areas are particularly at risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A second green line for Brexit would be to identify these gaps as soon as possible and make sure they are effectively plugged by the time the UK leaves the EU. To do this, the committee suggests that \u201cany provisions which cannot be transposed into UK law should form the basis of a new Environmental Protection Act\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Coordinate across the UK<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

May\u2019s government is working on a Brexit deal for the \u201cwhole UK<\/a>\u201d, but environmental policy is a devolved area. While there are of course EU-wide rules, they\u2019re implemented slightly differently in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Common rules limit regulatory divergence, although it still exists: for example, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have banned their farmers from growing genetically modified crops<\/a> but England has not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Great Repeal Bill therefore risks fuelling constitutional tensions within the UK. Establishing UK-wide rules, such as minimum pollution standards, would see Westminster taking back control from the devolved administrations, and not just from Europe. It would be politically difficult \u2013 indeed the Scottish government<\/a> is clearly opposed to it \u2013 but may be, to some extent, environmentally necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A third green line for Brexit would thus be to achieve both minimum standards throughout the UK and to respect devolved administration\u2019s competences to adopt more ambitious and innovative policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Don’t stick environmental policy in a silo<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Coordination will not only be needed between devolved and central administration, but within central administration itself. How the UK answers the two central Brexit questions \u2013 in or out of the single market? In or out of the customs union? \u2013 will have major impacts<\/a> on the environment. Notably, if the UK opts for a hard Brexit (out of both single market and customs union) and is to negotiate its own trade deals, environmental standards could be at risk. Just think of the Europe-wide mobilisation against the EU-US trade deal TTIP<\/a> on this very basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A fourth green line for Brexit is that the UK environment should not lose out from these new deals. The committee asks that \u201cthe government should guarantee that it will not trade away environmental protections, animal welfare and food safety standards, as part of the negotiations to leave, or as part of future trade deals\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These four green lines will allow us to gauge the Brexit negotiation from an environmental perspective. A first test will be in how the government responds to the Environment Audit Committee\u2019s report. But the key test will be the UK\u2019s official negotiation position and whether it makes any mention of the environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article first appeared in The Conversation.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The featured image<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/em> has been used courtesy of a <\/span><\/em><\/span>Creative Commons licence<\/span><\/em><\/a>.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Following a recent report by the Environment Audit Committee into the impact on the UK environment of leaving the EU, Dr Viviane Gravey highlights how we can judge just how eco-friendly a Brexit is really likely to be. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2490,"featured_media":2352,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[206,41],"tags":[42,480,527],"class_list":["post-2336","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-environment-and-climate-change","category-europe","tag-brexit","tag-environment","tag-theresa-may"],"mb":[],"acf":{"authors":{"simple_value_formatted":"","value_formatted":null,"value":null,"field":{"ID":9774,"key":"field_66d0cbf58f930","label":"Authors","name":"authors","aria-label":"","prefix":"acf","type":"relationship","value":null,"menu_order":1,"instructions":"","required":0,"id":"","class":"","conditional_logic":0,"parent":9772,"wrapper":{"width":"","class":"","id":""},"post_type":["authors"],"post_status":["publish"],"taxonomy":"","filters":["search"],"return_format":"id","min":0,"max":10,"allow_in_bindings":0,"elements":["featured_image"],"bidirectional":0,"bidirectional_target":[],"_name":"authors","_valid":1}},"description":{"simple_value_formatted":"","value_formatted":"","value":"","field":{"ID":9776,"key":"field_66d2183027749","label":"Description","name":"description","aria-label":"","prefix":"acf","type":"wysiwyg","value":null,"menu_order":3,"instructions":"","required":0,"id":"","class":"","conditional_logic":0,"parent":9772,"wrapper":{"width":"","class":"","id":""},"default_value":"","allow_in_bindings":0,"tabs":"all","toolbar":"basic","media_upload":0,"delay":1,"_name":"description","_valid":1}}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/76\/2017\/01\/Field.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"amp_enabled":true,"mfb_rest_fields":["title","jetpack_featured_media_url","jetpack_sharing_enabled","amp_enabled"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2336","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2490"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2336"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2336\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2352"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2336"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2336"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2336"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}