Close

Brexit and Agri-Environment and Fisheries in the UK: A New Dawn?

The EU has had a profound impact upon UK agriculture and fisheries policy. ‘Brexit’ will lead to considerable change in both sectors. We are launching today in London two policy briefs which bring clear, balanced and systematic academic evidence together with the views of leading practitioners on the implications of Brexit for future UK Agri-Environment and Fisheries.

For more information about the event

The Future Under a 'Hard' and a 'Soft' Brexit (August 2016)

‘Brexit means Brexit’: but what does Brexit mean for the environment? In this new study, Dr Charlotte Burns (University of York), Prof Andrew Jordan and Dr Viviane Gravey (University of East Anglia) explore what Brexit may mean for UK environmental policies and governance processes by comparing two scenarios: a ‘soft’ and a ‘hard’ Brexit. A ‘soft’ Brexit would see the UK remain as close as possible to the EU, establishing a new relationship akin to Norway’s relationship with the EU. Conversely a ‘hard’ Brexit would see the UK trade with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules. Both will generate radically different impacts on policies, systems of governance and levels of environmental quality in the UK – key issues that should inform forthcoming negotiations to effect Brexit. The study concludes with suggestions for future research and policy.


Watch Dr Viviane Gravey’s introduction to the study:

How has EU membership affected the UK and what might change in the event of a vote to Remain or Leave? (April 2016)

This expert review provides a detailed review of the academic evidence on how EU membership has influenced UK policies, systems of decision making and environmental quality. Containing 14 chapters and over 60,000 words, it documents how the EU has affected UK environmental policy and how, in turn, the UK has worked through the EU to shape wider, international thinking. It has been authored by 14 international experts, who have drawn on the findings of over 700 publications to offer an impartial and authoritative assessment of the evidence.


Watch Prof Andrew Jordan’s introduction to the review: