If you’re waiting for a ‘green Brexit’, you might find yourself disappointed

Massive gaps in environmental regulations and enforcement have opened because of us leaving Europe, writes Craig Bennett

‘Clearly, the list of “must do better” for the government is long’ (PA)

Seventies staples are all the rage now: flared trousers and toad-in-the-hole are, I’m told, back. But do we really want that other throwback – to be the “dirty man of Europe” – once more?

That’s what the UK was called when we joined the European Economic Community in 1973; when there was sewage on our beaches, and otters were nearly extinct, poisoned by agricultural pesticides in rivers. Europe made us clean up, to an extent. And then, four years ago, the then secretary of state for the environment, Michael Gove, promised a “green Brexit” – and, more specifically, to “maintain and enhance” environmental standards as we left the EU. That promise was very welcome.

The Wildlife Trusts and 12 other green charities pledged to hold ministers to their word, but the government has mostly not delivered. Out of eight areas monitored, half are red alert: nature, chemicals, air quality and waste are all at the highest level of risk, with potentially disastrous consequences for standards and protections. The outlook for the others – water, climate, sea life and agriculture – is uncertain at best.

Read more:

• Cumbria coal mine controversy: What happens next?
• US needs to reduce emissions two-thirds by 2030
• ‘Absurd’ video of bitcoin mine hooked to an oil well sparks outrage

Let’s not pretend that the EU was the ultimate guardian angel; half of the UK’s wildlife is now in trouble, and many species, including red squirrels, cuckoos and porpoises, are threatened. The collapse in the abundance of nature also means our ecosystems are not working properly. We can – and must – do better.

Massive gaps in environmental regulations and enforcement have opened because of us leaving Europe, however. What we need now are strong, legally binding targets to reverse nature’s decline by 2030. Instead, the government has published a weak set of goals full of loopholes – and talk of deregulation prevails.

This matters for people, nature and our ability to tackle climate change. But a determination within government to develop their own “interpretation” of well-established legal principles, such as the precautionary principle, could make matters worse.

In January, for instance, the environment secretary, George Eustice, announced an “emergency derogation” to allow the use of a bee-killing neonicotinoid, with no suggestion that the evidence of the harm it causes has changed. Luckily, a cold snap means it will not be used this year after all. But is the future of our pollinators best left to the mercy of our weather, rather than to a precautionary review of the science?

Last year, all English rivers failed pollution targets. This is a disgrace, and now the UK has now left the EU’s world-leading chemical regulation system to set up an inferior domestic version that will cost the chemical industry more but with fewer resources for enforcement. There’s a great danger that more chemicals could cause harm and that new chemicals will get the green light.

There are also concerns over the new Office for Environmental Protection (OEP). The OEP is to be tasked with protecting our natural world, yet it is set to be a pale shadow of what it’s replacing – the European Commission and European Court of Justice. It can’t issue fines, and its budget and board members are determined by government. Comparative bodies are not hamstrung in this way. Ministers need to strengthen this body if they are to deliver the promised “independence” or “teeth”.

Clearly, the list of “must do better” for the government is long. The questions go on: why are offshore marine protected areas still being damaged by trawling and dredging? Why are exciting plans for nature-friendly farming being watered down by the government’s sustainable farming incentive? It’s deeply frustrating because all this could be fixed if the government were to raise its ambition and commit more funding. Please, no more slippery get-out clauses and polluter-benefiting deregulation!

We were promised a green Brexit. Let’s see it – it’s well overdue.

Craig Bennett is the chief executive of The Wildlife Trusts