December 2016. The last month of what has been a turbulent year. I imagine that when historians look back at this year, some may use the word ‘change‘ or the phrase ‘defining moment‘ as they describe the various events that occurred between January 1st 2016 and December 31st 2016. It is easy to think why in some respects – more of this later.
But how would I write up 2016? For me?
Well, if I were to sum up 2016 in a single word, it would be ‘busy’. This is my fifth full calendar year of trading; and my sixth year overall. It has, by some distance been my busiest year. You can tell because I haven’t written much on this blog. Despite the events that I will come on to in a bit.
And if I were to sum up what I have been up to in a single word, excluding ‘ecology‘, it would have to be ‘invertebrates‘. That is not to say exclusively invertebrates as ‘birds‘, ‘botany‘ and ‘reporting‘ have all played a role in the (business) calendar year. You can read all about it in my latest client newsletter (click on the image to upload).
So what of recent events?
Of course, I suspect that the Kiribati parliamentary elections passed you, as it did me, by; and probably the Niger presidential elections did too? It is also entirely conceivable that a June referendum failed to get your attention…No…not this one; but this one.
So what does this all mean for the UK’s nature conservation professionals? Whilst there is plenty of comment on a wide range of subjects, there is relatively little in the way of discourse relating to Brexit’s implications on our legislation and policy in the general media. There is a comprehensive account of more technical communiques on CIEEM’s bespoke webpage on this subject and there is limited value in repeating or sign-posting to individual articles – explore this web-resource.
But what are my thoughts? Well, I am of the opinion that the definition of ‘leave’ is probably an overlooked element of the whole debate; which is of course focussing on whether the UK should remain within the single common market (or not), retain some element of freedom of movement (or not) and a myriad of other elements to consider. My view, for what it is worth, is that the Government will trigger Article 50; will negotiate a new relationship with the EU; and will leave the EU. But the post-leaving relationship is very difficult to discern, given the changing language coming from Government and individual Ministers. I suspect that when we leave, the relationship will not be sufficiently different for those that voted to leave; and rather too different, at least initially, for those that wanted to remain.
The critical view from my perspective, and no doubt many other nature conservation professionals, will be the UK’s relationship with the various environmental and biodiversity Directives (e.g. the Habitats Directive and the EIA Directive) in a post-Brexit world. There is no obligation for the UK to retain either of the two examples cited when we leave the EU; even if we remain within the European Economic Area. In order to retain the legal status quo, there would be a requirement to replicate the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended); and the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended) in to domestic law. However, this would be dependent on a/ the Government’s willingness to do so; and to the extent of any cherry-picking applied. If, as many fear, the Government has a significant degree of apathy towards nature conservation, which may be emphasised if leaving the EU causes economic distress, then the requirements of any existing environmental regulations may be diluted, or even excluded in any post-Brexit legislative environment.
It is therefore pleasing to note that CIEEM are engaging early with the process and I am pleased to be involved with the relevant Brexit Task Group. My current mood is orientated towards a future that will be different to the current legislative environment. This may mean that the seeming current emphasis on European Protected Species such as great crested newts and bats may change to a broader, biodiversity or ecosystem focus. In my view, if managed correctly, and the harbingers of ‘expert advice should be ignored’ are ignored themselves, this could open up an opportunity for more cohesive biodiversity protection than currently is the case. Well, that is my positive outlook anyway!
As for how everything pans out in terms of a timetable, this will be dependent on the outcome of the recent Supreme Court case, expected in early 2017; and of course the result of the negotiations which we all assume will officially commence in spring 2017. Thus, we can be certain that eDNA, amphibian and bat surveys will continue as before in 2017 (at least). And hopefully, for me, invertebrate surveys too!
Leave a comment