What will a BREXIT mean for environment issues in the UK?

BREXIT debate is mostly focusing on economics and the migrant crisis. But what about the environment? What are the implications if UK goes it alone when key commitments to environmental protection and management of natural resources operate under the EU?

Any European - yes, including Brits - working in the areas of nature conservation or natural resource management will be able to tell you, almost by rote, the cornerstone European Directives that they work by.
These Directives provide a solid and evolving common framework to tackle common cross border environmental issues. They bring together expert researchers, statutory bodies and stakeholders to guide responsible and sustainable stewardship of the natural environment and the myriad services it provides us with. So what will happen if the BREXIT goes ahead, following the referendum to be held this June? BREXIT debate is firmly focused on economic aspects and the migrant crisis. But what about the natural environment and the bases for its management?
Cornerstone environmental European Directives that come to my mind as a researcher in freshwater ecology, biomonitoring and river restoration are the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the Floods Directive, the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive. The order reflects pure professional bias, nothing more. However, they are all related in a truly holistic sense in that actions carried out under the mandate of one Directive (e.g. river restoration projects as Programmes of Measures under the WFD) will certainly affect other Directives (i.e. river restoration measures can reduce the risk of flooding and improve habitats that support many bird species).
The Birds Directive came into force in 1979. The most recent, the Floods Directive, came into force towards the end of 2007 as land use and climate change effects made themselves felt in many low lying areas of Europe which suffered unprecedented and ever more frequent flood events. The Natura 2000 network, established under the Habitats Directive, provides protection for rare and threatened species and habitats across the European Union. Introduced in 2000, the WFD is a milestone Directive, recognising the importance of the river catchment as a natural geographic unit for effective management, public participation as a fundamental part of the planning process and bringing ecological indicators centre stage in the assessment of ecosystem health.
No Directive comes into effect as a finished product; it is not written in stone. There have to be mechanisms that allow amendments and modifications for several reasons. The first is to ensure that hindsight from practical experience of implementation across the Member States, plus findings from research carried out by powerful consortia in the European scientific community, are used to improve and guide the process of governance (see notes on the WFD after 10 years in operation). Another reason is that the natural systems protected by these Directives are highly dynamic and therefore relatively unpredictable. Natural systems and processes don’t always do what we think they will do in the way we have predicted they will probably do it. This is especially true under scenarios of climate change. This means that a fair amount of uncertainty must be considered when developing measures for effective, proactive management of the environment. Further, some ecosystems covered by the Directives – for example island ecosystems - are somewhat “quirky” in nature and deserve special consideration.
By leaving the EU, by no longer being a Member State, the United Kingdom will exclude itself from being able to jointly contribute to developing coordinated actions and targets to protect the environment and its resources. This is highly counterproductive, since most environmental issues (climate change and carbon emission impacts, biodiversity, the movement of invasive species and pathogens, pollution, air and water quality are just a few obvious examples) do not stop at political borders. They are transboundary problems; a potentially isolated UK faces the prospect of tackling them alone, away from the hub of innovation. Such problems can only be addressed through coordinated and agreed policies that drive collaborative funded research, carried out by international, transdisciplinary research teams of experts to produce results and deliverables (reports, scientific articles, white papers and tools such as predictive models) that guide effective governance. The true cost of departing the EU will require massive recalibration of the UK structures and regulations that oversee responsible stewardship of the environment in UK. Alone.
World leading UK based research institutions, many of which were strategic expert contributors to drawing up the very Directives I have mentioned, will be excluded from any further EU funding and collaboration in the protection of the environment if the BREXIT goes ahead. It is no surprise that members of the UK research community are campaigning against this (https://twitter.com/Scientists4EU, https://www.facebook.com/scientistsforeu) by
forming the Scientist4EU movement. Influential representatives of this Scientists4EU have sent an open letter to The Times (see photo) clearly arguing the benefits of remaining in the EU. They are very persuasive.

"Britain’s membership of the European Union has had a hugely positive effect on the quality of Britain’s beaches, our water and rivers, our air and for many of our rarest birds, plants and animals and their habitats". These words were penned in another open letter written by a group of highly respected UK academics and conservation experts to Liz Truss, the UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They went on to write “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”.
My colours are firmly nailed to the EU mast. Continued and effective protection of the natural environment and the ecosystem services it provides need coordinated action across Europe to guide governance, which can only be achieved through funded transdisciplinary research, active cross sector stakeholder engagement and public participation. And that must include the UK.