Better out than in?

If the UK was to leave the European Union, what difference would it really make to our environmental laws?

UKIP’s increased influence on the political agenda and David Cameron’s eurosceptic-appeasing promise to hold an in/out referendum has rapidly turned the UK’s exit from a pipe-dream to a real possibility. Both sides of the debate are spending considerable time and effort informing the public (and each other) about why the UK should remain in/leave the EU; how obvious it is that continued EU membership is essential/detrimental to turning the economy around; how crucial/unnecessary it is to our geopolitical influence – in fact, how the EU is the solution to/cause of most of the UK’s problems.

In this article I want to look specifically at environmental policy, where the EU sets a high but level playing field between member states so that competition is not distorted by some countries choosing to cut environmental corners in areas such as air and water quality, climate change and waste management.

There seems to be an overlap between euroscepticism and enviroscepticism, and UKIP seems adamant about rolling back a range of environmental laws that the party believes unnecessarily stifle the economy. So, has the EU wrapped us in green tape, or might the UK have reached much the same policy position as the rest of Europe on its own? And, critically in terms of the current debate, how much might renegotiated membership or an EU exit change UK environmental law?

What has the EU ever done for us?

EU membership led to a shift in the goals and style of UK environmental policy. Before EU membership, environmental legislation tended to be developed reactively, to solve problems that had already created indisputable, even irreversible, damage to the environment – consider the Clean Air Act 1956, adopted in reaction to the Great Smog of 1952. EU environmental policy on the other hand, adopted the style of ‘environmental pioneers’, the likes of Germany, Denmark and Sweden, which focussed on prevention and conservation.

Since joining the EU, the UK has become a cleaner and healthier place to live. The Bathing Water Directive has significantly improved UK rivers and beaches by requiring action to better manage sewage and other releases into our waters. Although levels nitrogen dioxide still exceed Air Quality Framework requirements, our air is better than it might have been without the measures it prompted, such as congestion charges and road tax incentives for lower-emission vehicles. The prospect of multi-million Euro fines, whether borne by councils or the Government, is almost certainly concentrating minds on how non-compliance can be tackled.

EU legislation is also behind many significant changes to the way waste is handled and treated. The Landfill Directive (1999) set targets for reducing the amount of biodegradable waste sent to landfill, prompting a 62% reduction between 2002 (when it was transposed in to UK law) and 2012. Similarly, the Packaging Directive (1994) and the Waste Framework Directive (2008) have ensured that much more material is recycled. Back in 2002, less than 15% of UK municipal waste was recycled; now it’s more than 43%.

Could’a, Should’a, Would’a

Perhaps, though, the UK might have shed its ‘dirty man of Europe’ reputation without European influence. The Environmental Kuznets curve graphs the (disputed) hypothesis that, as an economy develops, an initial decline in environmental quality is eventually reversed as efficiency and technology improves. So would this have happened in the UK?

It seems not. As it is, the UK is falling short of European minimum standards – not just on air, but also often on bathing water quality. Without the threat of fines, it is improbable that we would have moved forward so far. Certainly, the current Government has been anything but an environmental leader. The EU recently sought to set binding national 2030 targets for energy efficiency and renewables. David Cameron claimed credit for the influence in Europe that the UK showed in blocking the move. Our existing 2020 renewables target of 15% still looks challenging, not helped by Eric Pickles repeatedly blocking onshore wind power projects, often against planning inspectors’ advice. So, whilst the UK possibly could have moved just as far on its own, it seems unlikely that it would have.

That’s despite the fact that, if they followed public opinion, the UK’s politicians should have been motivated to act. Unfortunately, it appears that the public perhaps have undue faith in the UK government to deal with the issues that concern them. The 2014 Eurobarometer report found that 50% of Brits believe decisions about protecting the environment should be taken on a national level, while only 45% believe decisions should be taken jointly with the EU. Or maybe it’s just that Brits care more about national sovereignty than about the environment. It would be interesting to explore which of these people give the highest priority.

Norway on earth

Under a Conservative government, Britain would be offered an ‘in or out’ referendum on EU membership, but only after negotiations on a revised membership package – a step that UKIP would skip. The Tories’ aim would be to find a position where the UK can keep its influence over policy while opting out of rules to which it objects. There are already countries such as Norway and Switzerland that enjoy free trade agreements with the EU without being formal members, so clearly there is scope for an accommodation to be reached.

Zurich is stained (temporarily): would life outside the EU mean a decline in UK environmental standards? Photo by Felix Eggmann, via Wikimedia Commons.

Because the Conservatives officially aim to renegotiate the UK’s position while staying within the EU, they reject both the Norwegian and Swiss models – neither is an EU member. Nevertheless, they make for instructive examples of the boundaries of the possible, whether Cameron’s reverie of renegotiation is realised, or we quit the EU for a Farage fantasy of free trade agreements.

Norway (along with Iceland and Liechtenstein) is a member of the European Economic Area (EEA). Following their example would give the UK access to the single market, while allowing independent action on contentious policy areas such as Justice and Home Affairs, Common Foreign and Security Policy and Common Fisheries Policy. It might also allow the UK to bin certain environmental policies, including directives on birds, habitats and shellfish. However, in order to ensure that trading states are on an equal footing, EEA membership would require the UK to abide by many EU laws and regulations, including the Waste Framework Directive and its recycling targets.

EEA members pay for the privilege of access to the single market, although the UK would be likely to save in comparison with its current net contributions to the EU. However, this halfway house is unlikely to satisfy even the most modest of eurosceptics, not least because it would leave the UK with virtually no input into many policies that would still affect the country. While the range of laws originating in Brussels would be reduced, the attenuated sovereignty that comes from shared decision making in many other areas would be lost entirely.

Swiss role?

The other option is the Swiss model. Switzerland is a member of the European Free Trade Area, and benefits from access to the single market through a series of bilateral agreements. In practice, the country has a policy of “voluntary adoption” of almost all legislation linked to the single market. Each piece of regulation is negotiated individually, but while the Swiss may influence how far they adopt certain policies, they have no say in their formulation.

Switzerland is not bound by the EU’s Climate and Energy targets or the Waste Framework Directive, but has never been under pressure over compliance: the Swiss already outperform the UK in both areas, due to national environmental policies that are sometimes more stringent than the EU’s. If the UK were to try to negotiate its own bilateral deals with the EU, it would do so from a very different environmental starting point and quite probably with rather different legislative results.

It is impossible to predict with confidence how much flexibility the EU might allow the UK while enabling it to maintain member status. However, the degree of compliance is unlikely to be less than that of a non-member like Norway. In that case, renegotiated membership wouldn’t greatly reduce the UK’s environmental obligations.

Perhaps such a limited renegotiation wouldn’t be acceptable to the British public, and a referendum might go against continued membership. Even then, the example of Switzerland shows that as part of the conditions of a free trade agreement, the UK would be likely to need to adopt – or independently achieve the same results as – a great deal of EU environmental law.

Only if the UK exited without seeking extensive free trade agreements would the Government be wholly free to roll back many of our environmental laws – and that’s something not even UKIP is offering. Perhaps, then, neither the environmental losses nor the sovereignty gains that might result from all this euro-bickering are as significant as we’ve been led to believe.