Volume 70, September 2016, Pages 124–127
1. Introduction
The
United Kingdom is the EUs third most populated country and its second
biggest economy, but this might change soon. On 23 June 2016, British
voters will decide if the country will remain part of the European Union
or if it should leave. The scenario in which Britain exits the EU is
commonly referred to as ‘Brexit’. There are ongoing negotiations and
debates on the topic, and opinion papers, columns and articles appear in
the media on a daily basis. The mere fact that there is a possibility
of the UK leaving the EU fuels the debate about the future importance,
approach and direction of European policy making. The topics that are
subject to broad media coverage are the impact on trade and finances,
and legal or illegal immigration issues.
A
Brexit would, however, have repercussions for many domains. One such
domain is forest policy, including both “forest sector” or “sustainable
forest management” policy (Pülzl et al., 2013) and forest related environmental (e.g. climate, biodiversity, legality) policy (Winkel and Sotirov, 2015).
While these issues have not been covered, e.g., by David Cameron's
recent ‘renegotiation deal’, a Brexit would have an effect on this
sector given the overall influence and often specific positioning the UK
has shown over the years on forest and forest related environmental
issues. While the EU does not hold a legal competency to regulate forest
product markets, it has nevertheless a significant influence on forest
policies of the member states through forest-related policies, notably
via agriculture, environment, energy and regional development, and, in
this sense, de facto, an EU forest policy exists (Pülzl et al., 2013).
In
this paper, we take a look into the “what if” question of a Brexit.
Basically, we ask what the possible implications of the United Kingdom
exiting the EU would be for EU forest and forest related environmental
policy. As the dynamics related to these EU policies are complex and
largely unpredictable, this paper does not aim to model or forecast the
implications of a Brexit. Rather, it aims to discuss possible
implications of a Brexit for European forest related policy making based
on expert assessment. The paper hence intends to explore the “what if”
question, and to open up the scope for possible implications of a
Brexit, rather than pin down possible concrete scenarios for the future.
2. Methods
The
exploration of possible implications of a Brexit on EU forest and
forest related environmental policy has been done in two methodological
steps. Firstly, a brief literature review was carried out to better
understand the role and importance of the UK in EU forest and forest
related environmental policy. Secondly, nine policy experts on the topic
were consulted by means of a qualitative expert interview and extensive
E-mail communication. These experts have been selected based on the
criteria of long-term expertise related to EU forest and environmental
policy making, and with the expectation of distinct and possibly
complementary perspectives on the issue. Respondents included both state
and non-state actors at national and European policy level. Many of
them hold key positions related to EU forest and environmental policy
making, and for that reason it was important to them to stay anonymous.
Consequently, in the paper, these experts will be referred to by
numbers, with the numbers in this list corresponding to the ones used
throughout this paper.
- 1)
- Expert with long term working experience for EU institutions
- 2)
- Director of an environmental research institute
- 3)
- Director of the international division of a global forest governance oriented institution
- 4)
- Head of a European environmental NGO
- 5)
- Commission and FAO expert
- 6)
- Assistant of an MEP of the European Green Party
- 7)
- Senior staff of an environmental and natural resource research institute
- 8)
- Professor in environmental policy
- 9)
- Professor in agricultural policy
Five
interviews were conducted via telephone or face-to-face, while four
other experts were successfully contacted through e-mail. The
interviews, although based on the same framework, varied greatly in
length. By keeping the moderation limited, we managed to collect broad
and partially personal views and reflections. Each interview was fully
recorded and subsequently transcribed. The quotes in this paper are
excerpts from the literal transcriptions of the interviews.
The
interviews targeted three main issues: (1) the role and importance of
UK in EU forest and environmental policy making in the past until this
day; (2) the possible consequences of a Brexit for UK forest and (forest
related) environmental policy; and (3) the possible impact of a Brexit
for EU forest and (forest related) environmental policy. In the
following, we will present and discuss only the findings for the
central, last question, but will partly also include data on the first
two issues when needed to illustrate the responses on this third
question. In doing so, we condense our findings down to seven theses
relating to possible impacts of a Brexit on EU forest and forest-related
environmental policy, followed by short summarizing conclusions.
3. Results: What would a Brexit mean for EU forest and forest-related environmental policy?
- 1)
- A Brexit will have an impact on EU forest and forest related environmental policy.
While
all experts agreed that forest policy issues, and to a large degree
also environmental policy issues, do not play any significant role in
the current Brexit debate, there was a similarly shared assessment that a
Brexit could have significant implications on EU forest and
environmental policy in the future. Yet, there was far less agreement
with regard to the magnitude and quality of the impact, with experts
showing only limited agreement relating to some core issues, while
disagreeing on other points. In the following, first, the points where
experts tend to agree, or at least did not disagree, will be introduced
(Theses 1 to 5), followed by issues where there was more disagreement
amongst the experts (Theses 6 and 7).
- 2)
- Without the UK, the EU's forest (related) policy will become more producer and less consumer (importer) oriented.
Several
experts underlined the importance of the UK as a timber importing
nation. Together with The Netherlands and Denmark, the UK is seen as
part of a “club of three countries which always dances a different dance
[…] than the rest of the European family with respect to forestry” (I1
as published in Sotirov et al. submitted for publication).
The importers' perspective combined with a rather “advanced” (I3) level
of consumer responsibility and an active environmental movement in
Europe has been crucial for the UK's long-term support for policies
against illegal logging and timber trade. The UK played a key role in
pushing the EU Timber Regulation through despite the, at least initial,
resistance of several forest rich EU member states (Sotirov et al. submitted for publication). A Brexit would significantly diminish this specific perspective in the European forest policy arena.
- 3)
- Without the UK, the EU will lose impact in international negotiations on forest governance.
Another
main line of agreement was that, with the UK leaving the EU, the Union
would substantially lose influence and diplomatic standing in global
forest governance: “I would say that we are weakening our position
without UK […in] international negotiations. […] The UK is really […] a
sort of driving engine and we will weaken also our position in the way
that we are no more speaking for that country, they are no more part of
the European voice.” (I1)
More
specifically, a Brexit could weaken the EU's positioning and influence
relating to important forest related environmental issues such as
climate change, illegal logging and, broader, good governance. The UK is
described as being a “leader in this climate and tropical forest
related EU policy.” (I3) This importance of the country in EU foreign
forest policy is, by some interviewees, contrasted with a rather limited
importance in forest policy within the EU territory itself: “The impact
on EU forestry, I would say, has been relatively limited, but the
influence on policies affecting tropical forests, notably the FLEGT
program, is relatively big — and also on the REDD funding, the UK plays
quite a big role.” (I4)
Beyond
a specific, topic-wise interest in European foreign forest policy,
possibly driven by the UK's importance as a timber importer and
consumer, more general diplomatic skills are mentioned as having been
crucial for the UK's impact on global forest policy: “That is for sure,
because they are exclusively good communicators, they are exclusively
good transporters of good ideas, and they have always played a very
proactive role in the UN” (I5). With the UK exiting the Union, these
diplomatic skills – that some interviewees related back to the
advantages of being native English speakers as well as the heritage of
the British Empire – would be lost for the EU. On the other hand, one
interviewee also mentioned that the UK has in the past been rather
sceptical about delegating negotiation competencies to the European
Commission, and would have tended to maintain their own representation
in global policy making. This being the case, one may speculate how an
expected loss of influence of the EU in the event of a Brexit would
relate to the effect of then having UK as an additional ally (not
anymore represented through the EU), at least in the case both the EU
and a then non-EU UK would still share a similar position, or would even
coordinate their positioning.
- 4)
- Without the UK, the EU's internal diplomatic capacities will be affected, and negotiation power within the Union might shift towards Central Europe.
Related
to the observation of a possible loss in negotiation power and
diplomatic skills at the global policy level, some of the interviewees
were quite explicit about a suspected negative impact of a Brexit on the
EU's internal negotiation processes. As one expert puts it, in forest
related policies, the Union would “suffer from the Brexit, because the
UK, even if they were very critical sometimes and opposed to European
federation ideas, they were always prepared, they were playing an
important role and we would lose these, surely critical, but
constructive contributions in coordination agreements” (I1). In line
with this statement, the UK is described as playing a very professional
role in Brussels, they would actually be “one of the best lobbyists in
Brussels. […] They have been first and before the whistle is sent out,
they already hear it. This is something which is, according to my
experience in Brussels, one of the most remarkable properties of the
British colleagues.” (I5). This critical, partly selfish, but also
professional and constructive role is related back, by some, to the
“history of the UK as an influential nation” (I3) that would have been
“always very clever how to make sure that those things that are
important for them, they can influence” (I3). In line with this
observation, again, the empire is mentioned — in a slightly ambivalent
way. Against a background of “270 years of experience in managing
colonies” (I5), the relationship between UK and the EU could to some
degree be understood as a “colonial relationship” by the UK, which would
“know how to conquer systems” (I5). According to this expert, this
specific facet of the relationship of the UK to the EU is not
necessarily a disadvantage for the functioning of the EU.
Finally,
some experts point out that with UK leaving the EU, the negotiation
power within the EU would shift towards Central Europe, with Germany
specifically mentioned (see next thesis).
- 5)
- Without the UK, the focus on free trade and market based mechanisms in EU forest and environmental policy would decrease.
An
observation shared by most experts is that with the UK exiting the EU,
the focus on trade and market based mechanism in forest and forest
related policy might get weaker. In the UK positioning on global forest
(related) policy issues, the “free trade ideal is [….] very present”
(I1. Yet, it is connected to the idea of having “the right regulatory
and public money intervention framework that free trade can function”
(I1) in a way that would suit both the UK's economy and the general
acceptance of free trade with regard to environmental concerns. As
regards EU environmental and climate policies, the UK position would be
frequently marked by the idea of economic efficiency. The country would
be “ideologically in favour of what they would see as an efficient
market-based low price decarbonization strategy” (I2). With the UK
exiting the EU, this focus on market based mechanisms is seen as losing
importance compared to more hierarchical approaches, e.g. related to
directives and regulations, which by some are described as being
championed specifically by the German government: “Without the UK you
could see that there would be more regulation, less resistance to
regulation amongst a lot of countries, and the German government, which
is often in favour of regulation, would have less opposition and the UK
is quite important, if you like, [to have a] counterweight to the German
position.” (I2)
While –
despite the indicated nuances – these five theses are rather consensual
in the sense that none of the experts have argued against them (with
not all experts, however, commenting on them), the last two theses are
more controversial, and there was no agreement amongst the consulted
experts about them.
- 6)
- The effects of a Brexit on EU forest related environmental policies are ambiguous.
The
consulted experts had considerable difficulties assessing the effects
of a Brexit on EU (forest related) environmental policy. Several experts
point out the importance of UK in initializing and pushing through
crucial forest related environmental policies: “You have to look into
Birds Directive which […] has been shaped by British NGOs, very very
effectively without any doubt. They have good basic data, good
information, good structure, [are] well organized, and the advantages as
a native speaker do pop up in any session (…) So they have been
constructive in nature protection, they have been constructive in rural
development, they are also leading in climate change adaptation.” (I5)
Others, however, perceive the UK's role as less clear-cut, or even as
negatively affecting EU environmental policy making, and highlight the
importance of the country in blocking or delaying some major
environmental legislation. In addition, the UK's current positioning
related to the debate about EU's nature policy is mentioned here: “I do
know that the UK was expected to be one of the driving forces to open up
the Birds and Habitats Directives, and includes biodiversity offsetting
mechanisms within that […]. We have been fighting very hard against
that because we think [it will undermine] the Birds and Habitats
Directives if that would happen and the UK certainly was not an ally;
they were very much in favour of biodiversity offsetting.” (I4) On the
other hand, experts underline a general pro-environmental impetus in the
UK that would also have an impact at the EU level in case of a Brexit:
“There's a lot of discussion about the environment, the [UK] government
agencies are the biggest agencies in Europe, the [UK] NGOs are some of
the biggest in Europe, the media talks a lot about it, and the
government is rather active on all the dossiers, so I think the
attention paid to the environment could [decrease], and it could also
result in the more sceptical countries, for example Poland, the Visegrad
countries [Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia], feeling more
confident about their position. If you lose one of your larger, richer
and more environmentally interested countries, it gives more weight to
the countries who say ‘let's go for the economic development first’”.
(I2)
In conclusion,
there is no consensus on the possible effects of a Brexit on EU (forest
related) environmental policy, with the perception of losing impetus and
a push for environmental issues, especially also from the NGO and
science community, slightly outweighing the characterization of the UK
as a blocker or delayer of EU environmental policy projects.
- 7)
- Without the UK, there might be a greater chance of establishing a coordinated EU forest policy which might focus more on the economic aspect of forestry.
A
last and central point concerns the question of what a Brexit could
mean for EU forest policy. As said initially, the EU does not have a
common forest policy approach comparable with the Common Agricultural
Policy. At the same time there is a broad set of forest related policies
that affects forest management. Overall, none of the consulted experts
expects a significant effect of a Brexit on this overall EU forest
policy related setting. A shared perception is that the UK's role in EU
internal forest policy debates is “relatively limited” (I4), as the UK
does not have an important (economic) forest sector. Experts reflected
on the question as to how far a Brexit might ease the debate about a
common European forest policy given the more proactive position and
interest of other EU countries on the issue: “Maybe the UK going would
make that easier, I'm not sure, it's difficult to say. I don't think
that other countries would support a very much more proactive EU
forestry policy. I suspect the days of that are not around the corner at
the moment. There's a bit of an emphasis on subsidiarity, rather than
the ambition for having a European common approach. The UK departure
might make it slightly easier to have more of a European strategy.” (I2)
Related to this point, experts point at the more environmental focus of
British forestry in comparison to forestry in most other parts of
Europe. With the UK being out of the debate, that might, according to
some, create a new chance to strengthen a more coordinated EU forest
policy approach with a stronger focus on economic issues. Yet, as other
experts point out, the power houses relating to forestry, and also the
opponents of a common EU forest policy approach, would be elsewhere:
“the UK has not been the big driver of forestry policy. On the other
hand, it hasn't been the big sceptic either. Obviously the Scandinavian
countries have a very strong view on forestry and I think the UK has
been inclined [to align itself with] countries that don't want to have a
support regime for forestry, not to try to have a kind of full-scale
common policy like for agriculture. Because its forest sector is
actually quite small, it hasn't been a big player. In some issues I
think it has been a positive player on environmental issues.” (I2)
Hence, in conclusion, while the UK's positioning on an EU internal
forest policy is mostly described as having been rather indifferent, it
seems that the country has not supported an EU common forest (sector)
policy, and specifically not with a focus on economic aspects of
European forestry, while on the other hand it has partially pushed for
environmental topics (cf. also Winkel and Sotirov, 2015).
A Brexit may hence increase the chances for a more coordinated EU
forest policy approach coming more from an economic perspective. Yet,
the UK has not played a key role regarding this question, which is
neatly summarized in the response by one expert when being asked about
the increasing chances for a common EU forest policy in the event of a
Brexit: “It's an interesting question, but I think because of the
limited power of the UK and the already overwhelming power and effective
political lobbying — I mean, as soon as Austria, Finland and Sweden
joined the EU, within months the key positions in the Commission dealing
with forestry were filled by Finns I seem to remember. You know, the UK
doesn't really care about forests that much, so the countries who do
care a lot put a lot of political weight behind it.” (I4)
Finally,
one question that some of the experts reflected upon was whether a
Brexit might also affect European trade and forest product markets. Two
experts reflect on the likelihood that a more substantial part of the
timber and forest products imported to the UK could come from non-EU
countries in the future. This being the case, a Brexit might also
slightly negatively impact the EU's forest sector depending also on the
question of whether the UK would remain in the common market. Impacts of
such an effect on EU forest policy, if there would be any, remain very
speculative.
4. Conclusions
What
can be learned from the exploratory assessment that has been done in
this paper? We would like to warn against any far-reaching conclusions
being drawn based upon this essay. Clearly, our data set is very small,
and there was considerable disagreement amongst our small group of
experts regarding key questions. Also, even if we to strove for a
diversity of perspectives, viewpoints and arguments, and felt that this
was achieved when analyzing the data, the views of nine experts are, and
cannot be, all-encompassing. However, we found our conversations with
the small but very experienced set of experts insightful. Expert
elaborations on the impact and importance of the UK for the European
Union's forest and forest related environmental policy remain relevant
and an interesting starting point for further discussions, regardless of
whether there is a Brexit or not. Given that the Brexit decision will
have, most likely, been taken when this paper is read, it is then up to
the readers of this essay if they discuss our theses against the
background of a Brexit, or if they consider them as a basis to assess
the future role and importance of the UK as an important country that
remains a member of the European Union. In either case, it would be
interesting to “re-do” the small empirical exercise we have carried out
for this essay at a later time, and to explore the issue in much more
depth through a broader policy oriented analysis, in order to better
understand either the “nature of the Brexit”, or the nature of the
United Kingdom as an important member country of the European Union.
Acknowledgements
We
are deeply grateful to our interviewees for sharing their rich and deep
knowledge about the issue with us. We further thank the Academy of Finland for supporting our work under the Strategic Research Funding as part of the FORBIO-project (decision number 293380).
Finally, we would like to thank the Editor in Chief of Forest Policy
and Economics for providing space for this paper in a very short time
frame.
References
- Pülzl et al., 2013
- ,in: H. Pülzl, K. Hogl, D. Kleinschmit, D. Wydra, B. Arts, P. Mayer, M. Palahi, G. Winkel, B. Wolfslehner (Eds.), European forest governance: issues at stake and the way forward, EFI Series: What Science can Tell us, Vol. 2 (2013) (100 p.)
- Sotirov et al., 2016
- The Politics of the European Union's Timber Regulation: How Baptists, Bootleggers, Devil Shifting and Moral Legitimacy Drive Change in the Environmental Governance of Global Timber Trade
- (2016) (submitted for publication)
- Winkel and Sotirov, 2015
- Whose integration is this?
- European Forest Policy Between the Gospel of Coordination, Institutional Competition, and New Spirits of Integration, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy (2015) http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/c1356j (Available online)
© 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V.
