The fate of Britain this week will be decided on many issues but it is the environment that is central to the British quality of life. An environmental impact assessment on Britain’s exit from the European Union was under way well before the political war over a possible Brexit started heating up.

The British will vote to decide if they should leave or remain in the EU. Most voters believe they are making one of two possible choices. In reality there are a number of different scenarios between an outright vote to leave or to stay. A ‘No’ vote will mean a total exit, followed by a see-what-comes-next approach.

The question that will be put to British voters on Thursday is “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?” It is not followed up by any further question about what path should be chosen in the event of a negative vote.

If, after a Brexit, Britain applies for privileged access to the single market as a member of the European Economic Area, this still comes with many EU obligations and some contributions to the EU budget.

The common agriculture and fisheries policies would not apply if Britain is accepted as an EEA member after exit from the EU.

As an EEA member the UK would take back control of fish within its 200-mile exclusive economic zone. Yet given the migratory nature of fish, this area would benefit more from trans-national governance. UK fisheries would still remain subject to scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea so it seems unlikely that the UK’s quotas would change a great deal.

Photo: Philip BirdPhoto: Philip Bird

Where the UK can nationalise agricultural policy there may be scope for the development of more sustainable farming practices but it will depend on the government of the day. Even though no longer governed by the Common Agricultural Policy, the UK is likely to fall under the same rules on grounds of competition.

Although most environmental legislation will still apply, there are some important exceptions – notably the directives on bathing water, habitats and birds.

Protected sites in the UK were being lost at a rate of 15 per cent a year before the adoption of the EU habitats and birds directives. Losses declined to a rate of one per cent after the directives were implemented. Britain needs to work with its European partners to protect this legislation at European level.

The present UK government is already known for leaning toward weaker habitats protection, the release of certain genetically modified organisms in the EU and a weak stance on introducing stronger pesticide regulations. Once outside the EU, a UK government would have a free hand to discard many of the hard-won environmental gains.

Without the external pressure and legal avenues afforded by EU membership it is less likely that UK policy-makers would make an effort to secure citizens’ health

University of Cardiff expert in environmental policy Dr Charlotte Burns admits, in a report for Friends of the Earth UK, that there are some valid criticisms against the EU “from a lack of democracy to the prioritisation of economic growth over environmental and human wellbeing…”.

Even when this is taken into account, from an environmental perspective Dr Burns argues that there is a strong case for Britain to come out in favour of continuing EU membership in the referendum.

If on Thursday the British public choose to exit the EU then the UK government could opt to pursue membership of the European Economic Area. Then the British will have little say over the EU regulations to which they will still be subject, for example, pollution controls on industry or rules on chemicals in products.

Photo: Helen HotsonPhoto: Helen Hotson

EEA member countries may attend technical and advisory discussion on the preparation of draft implementing rules but are not able to influence the final decision-making process. They have no MEPs to influence legislative outcomes through the European Parliament. Given the trans-boundary nature of many environmental problems, it makes better sense to participate in European regional policy-making.

The European Commission has enforcement powers over members of the European Economic Area and fines can be imposed for non-compliance. Most EU environmental legislation would continue to apply for countries within the EEA, as it does for Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein.

A watchdog scoreboard by the European Free Trade Authority scoreboard as at October 2015 shows that infringement proceedings were started over Iceland’s lack of conformity with EU rules on petrol vapour recovery. Both Iceland and Liechtenstein have been hauled in over pending infringements related to geological storage of carbon dioxide.

A shining example of an EEA country is high-performance Norway, which came out top with all directives implemented on time. This country’s own bid to join the European Union had fallen through when the UK backed a last-minute Irish demand to fish mackerel in Norwegian waters, which Norway’s foreign minister accepted. This so upset the fishing community of west Norway that it toppled the 1994 referendum, with the majority saying ‘No’ to membership.

It wasn’t the first time Norwegians had voted against membership of the European Union. In 1972, when many regarded maintaining local agriculture and coastal fishing as important to protect nature and cultural landscapes, ensure food safety and self-sustainability, the country voted to stay out.

Another key policy of concern to the environment is the Transatlantic Trade Partnership (TTIP), which has been criticised for potentially weakening environmental standards and consumer protection in the EU.

Photo: Jenny CottinghamPhoto: Jenny Cottingham

According to Dr Burns: “For many, TTIP represents much that is negative about the EU – it exemplifies a neo-liberal approach to trade and has been negotiated by Commission officials largely behind closed doors. It is at least subject to democratic oversight in the European Parliament.

“If the UK leaves the EU but joins the EEA it will still be covered by all elements of TTIP that shape the single market rules, but with little say in their implementation. If the UK leaves the EU entirely it is likely that the UK would seek to join TTIP as a matter of priority.”

Britain was known as the ‘Dirty Man of Europe’ back in the 1970s and 1980s when its sulphur dioxide emissions were the highest in Europe and the practice of dumping raw sewage in the sea was rampant.

In those days, policy was dictated by so-called ‘sound science’, with action taken only when incontrovertible damage had been proven. This policy direction ignored the precautionary approach and was ultimately damaging, especially in the case of Mad Cow Disease.

At the time, policy makers would react to problems only as they emerged, in a fragmented and ad hoc way. A voluntary approach to regulation combined with close relationships between policy-makers and those they were meant to regulate led to pitiably low pollution thresholds. Where targets were breached, legal action was rare. EU membership ended up having a revolutionary effect on UK environmental policy through a shift in policy style and goals.

Policies pursued by green leaders Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands have driven up environmental standards within the EU and prevented weakening of environmental policies by less progressive states.

Without the external pressure and legal avenues afforded by EU membership it is less likely that UK policy-makers would make an effort to secure citizens’ health.

In 2011, Green law firm ClientEarth took the government to court for failing to meet nitrogen dioxide targets in several large urban centres, including London. The relevant EU directive requires member states that have failed to meet air quality limits to draw up plans and achieve them in the shortest time possible.

However, the UK had no intention of meeting NO2 targets until after 2030, 20 years after the original deadline. After a four-year legal battle, the UK Supreme Court ordered the government to come up with a new plan to meet air quality limits sooner.

Green MEP Caroline Lucas puts it simply: “It is unclear 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, but it’s seen as a key danger.”

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.