Brexit would damage UK environment, say experts

Leaving the EU would be damaging for the UK’s environment and quality of life, a group of academics and former high-ranking government officials has said.

“The case is clear: we will be better able to protect the quality of Britain’s environment if we stay in Europe,” said the group, which includes past heads of the RSPB, the National Trust, the Environment Agency and Natural England, in a letter to the environment secretary, Liz Truss.

“Britain’s membership of the EU has had a hugely positive effect on the quality of Britain’s beaches, our water and rivers, our air and many of our rarest birds, plants and animals and their habitats,” the 13 experts wrote.

“Being part of the union has enabled us to coordinate action and agree policies that have improved our quality of life, including the air we breathe, the seas we fish in, and have protected the wildlife which crosses national boundaries. Higher European manufacturing standards for cars, lights and household appliances have lowered consumer energy costs, and stimulated business innovation.”

The former heads of government bodies and conservation charities who wrote to Truss include Chris Smith, former chair of the Environment Agency; Baroness Young, former chief executive of the Environment Agency; Poul Christensen, former chair of Natural England; Sir John Lawton, former chair of the royal commission on environmental pollution and the Natural Environmental Research Council; and Dame Fiona Reynolds, former director general of the National Trust. The letter was coordinated by the thinkthank Green Alliance.

Whether the UK would tear up all of its existing commitments on environmental protection, most of which are codified under the EU, in the event of an exit from the bloc is unclear, but is seen as a key danger. Many campaigners for a no vote have argued against environmental regulations and targets. For instance, the former chancellor Nigel Lawson is a leading voice of climate scepticism, and Ukip’s Nigel Farage has frequently railed against windfarms.

Even if the UK continues to adhere to some existing rules, which would be likely to involve protracted negotiations, the experts said, Westminster would have little say over reforming or crafting new commitments that could ultimately affect the UK’s natural environment. This is important as so many environmental issues are inherently cross-border, such as pollution, carbon emissions, biodiversity, and animal and plant diseases.

“We would no longer be able to shape EU policy and our influence on the environmental performance of other member states would decline very sharply once we were no longer at the negotiating table,” the experts wrote.

Lady Young, a former chief of the Environment Agency and of the RSPB, said: “Environmental quality, clean air, healthy oceans and rich natural resources can only be secured by collaboration across national boundaries, and common EU standards promote new technologies and businesses. Brexit would halt and even reverse four decades of progress.”

Renewable energy and clean technology companies, as well as those involved in environmental remediation, waste, recycling, energy and water, are likely to be significantly affected by a no vote and the subsequent renegotiations. Investors in these businesses are likely to face a long period of uncertainty as the prime minister first seeks to set out his terms in Brussels before the campaigning begins in earnest.

Agriculture would also be significantly affected by a possible exit, as about £3bn a year comes to the UK’s farmers from EU subsidies, some of it in return for conservation and stewardship work. “I can’t believe that anyone who cares about the environment or farming could contemplate leaving the EU,” said Christensen.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has yet to respond to the letter.