A Local Botanist's View on EU Environmental Regulations

River Mersey at sunrise.
Water quality improved in the river due to EU legislation.
Photo: Dave Wood, Flickr

As a local botanist, I am very concerned about the future of our environment and wildlife. My personal position is that the highest protection we currently have for special places like The Dee Estuary, and threatened species like bats and great crested newts, is under EU legislation. Major schemes like the proposed Hoylake Golf Resort have to go through detailed consideration of the environmental effects before applying for planning permission, so that our environment is properly considered. It is very unclear whether this would continue if the UK left the EU; both sides in the debate need to say what provision they would make for nature conservation. The EU-derived nature conservation legislation would be particularly at risk of being reduced by future governments. As the recent publicity over pollinators has shown, we need our wildlife, including the little species. It is the EU that has imposed a temporary ban on neonicotinoid pesticides, and the current UK government that allowed exceptions to that last year, against scientific advice.

I am also old enough to remember when UK pollution legislation was weak (remember Octel's pollution and the state of the Mersey?), and it was the tightening of EU rules that was key to improving our air and water quality. I do not want any risk of going back to those days.

But the influence of the EU has not always been good, especially the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy. Both have been improved in environmental terms recently, but need to go further.

Please consider these aspects when deciding how to vote in June. Ask those lobbying for either side how they would make sure that nature conservation and pollution legislation is maintained and updated, particularly when the government of the day is hostile to such protection.

Hilary J Ash MA, PhD, MCIEEM