In response to the upcoming referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU, the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) surveyed its members on their views on what Brexit would mean for the UK’s natural environment.
Baker Consultants has made clear why we are concerned about Brexit, publishing several pieces on our views on why the EU is important for nature legislation and the negative implications of Brexit for the ecology and construction sectors and the environment. (See our pieces titled: ‘Brexit could worsen the construction sector’s skills shortage‘; ‘UK’s potential exit from the EU threatens economic and regulatory uncertainty‘; British exit from EU would be bad for UK renewable energy business‘; and ‘The EU is good for business and the environment‘).
Given this, we welcomed CIEEM’s survey and our Managing Director, Andrew Baker, and other colleagues made up several of the 841 respondents.
Today, CIEEM has publicised the results of the survey, showing that an overwhelming majority of ecology professionals (nearly 87% of respondents) are concerned about Brexit having a detrimental impact on the ecology and environmental management sector as a profession. Only 1% said Brexit would be beneficial.
CIEEM members are concerned about Brexit and its potentially negative impact on our efforts to safeguard our environmental quality and its effects on our health, well-being and prosperity. Other concerns include less effective and integrated action on climate change, invasive species and plant and animal diseases, as well as negative impacts on protected areas and environmental schemes on farmland.
Here we pull out some of the key statistics from CIEEM’s survey:
- 67% indicated that Brexit would have a negative impact on their company or organisation
- Over 93% believed that EU environmental legislation has been beneficial to the UK’s natural environment
- If the UK were to leave the EU, respondents felt that there would be significant negative impacts on:
- Protection of certain wildlife species (90%)
- Protection of the natural environment for its environmental benefits (89%)
- Benefits to migratory species (e.g. birds and cetaceans) (87%)
- Improved water quality and the recovery of freshwater fish populations (77%)
- Reduction of nitrates in the environment (74%)
- Recovery of marine fisheries (74%)
- Improvements in air quality (70%)
- 85% do not believe current UK environmental policies would have been delivered to the standard that they are now if we had remained outside the EU
- 93% say EU environmental directives have had positive additional benefits on UK habitats and species
- 73% believed that UK nature conservation policy and legislation delivery is dependent, at least to some degree, on EU funding mechanisms
- Nearly 84% of respondents thought that the UK had achieved more for nature conservation as an EU member than it would have done if it had relied only on international nature conservation agreements.
Furthermore, the timing of the UK’s proposed exit from the EU could have implications for large infrastructure projects such as HS2.
As CIEEM President, Dr Stephanie Wray, says: A change in regulatory regime, or worse, a policy vacuum, would be disastrous at a time of high construction output, both for the environment, and for the contractors attempting to deliver major projects without a clear legislative framework.”
In summary, CIEEM CEO, Sally Hayns said:
“It is clear that leaving the EU would have far-reaching effects for those employed in ecology and management of the natural environment. Not only would there be an impact on jobs and livelihoods, with over 50% of our members expressing concern about their own job security, but the industry would be severely damaged. The skills that are playing such a significant role in delivering improvements in environmental quality could be lost, and there would be significant repercussions for the UK’s natural environment.”
Read the full results here.