My own small contribution to the campaign to keep the UK in the European Union takes the form of a scientific paper. This will probably not raise many eyebrows outside the small band of specialists amongst whom I work but it offer it as an antidote to the rhetoric of the anti-EU campaigners and their scaremongering about the Brussels bureaucracy. I have made no secret that I am pro-EU (see “What has the European Union ever done for us?”) and that I think the UK benefits from EU environmental legislation. What one person thinks to be sensible regulation can easily be portrayed by the disingenuous as excessive red tape peddled by faceless, unelected Brussels bureaucrats.
Our paper deals with about half a sentence in an annex of an 80 page Directive that deals with how EU Member States should assess the quality of lakes. Should the suspended algae, the attached algae and the larger plants be used to assess lake condition, or can you get the same outcome by just using two of these three components? Interpretation of those few words can, however, result in considerable and recurring expense for a large Member State such as the UK. Opinion on how they should be interpreted differed between the 28 countries of the EU. How do you find the balance between the environmental risks associated with lax interpretation of EU law and the extra costs that a stringent reading of the Directive would entail?
I was contracted, along with two colleagues, by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre to look into this issue by examining the datasets of those countries that had analysed all three components to see how much extra information additional types of monitoring added to a manager’s overview of lake condition. One additional twist to the problem was that my own particular specialism, the attached algae, was the Cinderella at this particular ecological assessment Ball, with about 60% of EU states deciding that these were not necessary. Ironically, my career as Fairy Godmother to fellow algal specialists was extremely short-lived, as the outcome of our analyses was that, if a lake had a problem, it could usually be detected using the suspended algae and higher plants (the “ugly sisters” … metaphor overload .. no more of this, I promise). There are situations when all three are needed to understand how to manage a lake but, for strategic overviews of the condition of a country’s lakes, little was gained by including them.
So what has all this got to do with our EU referendum? In brief, this was a matter of interpretation discussed by representatives of all Member States at meetings mediated by European Commission representatives. Having identified a difference of opinion, they brought us in to work on an evidence-based solution which was then discussed, in depth, at another meeting of national representatives (mostly ecologists). Many agreed with our conclusion; a few made the case for continuing to use all three components. Ecological arguments were put forward by both sides but, in essence, we were debating whether this was an issue that should be decided within or between Member States. Most were happy that this level of detail could be determined within Member States. Even if the outcome had been in favour of imposing a more rigorous interpretation of the Directive, it would have been the consensus of Member States enacted through the Commission, not a blanket edict from these (hypothetical) faceless bureaucrats that the right wing press constantly demonises.
An interesting coda to this story is that after our report had been circulated and discussed my colleague at JRC was contacted by people from one Member State who were slightly alarmed by the conclusion. The point that they made was that devolving responsibility to individual countries would lead to many dropping the use of attached algae, simply on the grounds of financial expediency. I had some sympathy (one of the authors was a fellow consultant who, like me, makes part of his living from this type of work) but it also touched on something that has been exercising my mind over recent months. Do countries use this type of monitoring because they have to (i.e. the Directive tells them to) or because they need to (i.e. it contributes valuable information to lake management)? It shifts the onus on us, as advocates of a sub-discipline, to make a reasoned case for the continued use of attached algae, rather than simply assume that “Brussels” will guarantee our livelihood.
Note: the photograph shows Derwent Water in the English Lake District, looking south from Friar’s Crag, July 2015.
Kelly, M.G., Birk, S., Willby, N.J., Denys, L., Drakare, S., Kahlert, M., Karjalainen, S.-M., Marchetto, A., Pitt, J.-A., Urbanič, G. & Poikane, S. (2016). Redundancy in the ecological assessment of lakes: Are phytoplankton, macrophytes and phytobenthos all necessary? Science of the Total Environment http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.024.