UK membership of the EU: what it means for wildlife and what might happen if we leave

Yesterday, I spoke at an event in Manchester on the UK in the EU.  It was an opportunity to inject an environmental dimension (see here) into the EU Referendum debate in the city where the result will be announced  on 24 June.

My starting point was to say that the RSPB had always believed in international action: if we wanted to save just one species from extinction - say turtle dove (which we to address its 78% decline in Europe since 1980 and 91% decline in the UK since 1985 - see here) - then we must be prepared to intervene across its flyway.  That means we must do what we can on its breeding grounds at home (where it is struggling to find enough food to rear it's chicks), during its migration (where it is vulnerable to unsustainable levels of hunting) and on its wintering grounds in West Africa (which is also experiencing changing land use).  

This is why we invest in our Birdlife International partnership and support international agreements with enforceable governance arrangements.

Today, the theme continues with the publication of a report (see here) written by the Institute for European Environmental Policy jointly commissioned last year by the RSPB, WWF and the Wildlife Trusts.  We are keen to cut through the emotion of the debate and try to present the evidence about the environmental impact of our membership and potential consequences of the UK leaving the EU.

IEEP is very well placed to comment, given that it has 40 years of experience of navigating EU policy on the environment, agriculture and fisheries.  The report will be discussed by both sides at an event today in London and I encourage you to read what it says.

David Tipling's fabulous image of two turtle doves

The context for those that care about nature, is that our shared wildlife is in trouble, that the pressures are growing and that we need a response that is commensurate with the scale of the challenge.  The fact that there are 421 million fewer birds in Europe than there were 30 years ago (see here) clearly suggests that not everything is working perfectly for nature although we do know that European legislation designed to restore nature is working for some species (see here).

So, we are keen to know whether we are better placed to tackle these problems from within the EU or outside.

The findings of the report are as follows...

"...Membership of the EU has had, and continues to have, a significant positive impact on environmental outcomes in the UK as well as other parts of Europe, with cleaner air, water and oceans than otherwise could be expected although significant concerns remain around some sectoral policies (especially for agriculture and fisheries) and environmentally harmful subsidies.

...This is because of a range of legislative, funding and other measures with the potential to work in combination. EU environmental legislation is backed up by a hard legal implementation requirement of a kind that is rarely present in international agreements on the environment; and which is more convincingly long-lasting, and less subject to policy risk, than national legislation.

...Complete departure from the EU (Brexit Scenario 2) would create identifiable and substantial risks to future UK environmental ambition and outcomes. It would exclude the UK from decision making on EU law and there would be a risk that environmental standards could be lowered to seek competitive advantage outside the EU trading bloc.

...Departure from the EU whilst retaining membership of the EEA (Brexit Scenario 1) would lessen these risks, as most EU environmental law would continue to apply. However, there would be significant concerns related to nature conservation and bathing water, as well as to agriculture and fisheries policy. In addition, the UK would lose most of its influence on EU environment and climate policies.

...Under both exit scenarios, significant tensions would be created in relation to areas of policymaking where responsibility is devolved to the governments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but where a broadly similar approach has been required as a result of EU membership, including environmental protection, agriculture, and fisheries.

...The uncertainty and period of prolonged negotiation on many fronts caused by a UK decision to leave would, itself, create significant risks both for environmental standards and for the green investment needed to improve the UK's long-term environmental performance."

The uncertainty about UK withdrawal from the EU is neatly summarised by table on page 8 of the report (and shown below).  Uncertainty breeds anxiety which is why we think it is important that voters in the Referendum are told what those advocating either position would do to improve the prospects for wildlife.  We shall think about the best way of eliciting this information but for now, I encourage you to read the report and let me know what you think.

It would be great to hear your views.