Environment and the Level Playing Field

Dr Olmos Giupponi argues that the UK’s draft non-regression clause on environmental standards (i.e., a commitment not to lower protections to attract trade/investment) is too vague as it stands. She says it must explain clearly what “level of protection” actually means, whether in qualitative terms (e.g., the substance or quality of protections) or quantitative terms (e.g., specific numerical standards or targets). Without this, it’s not possible to judge if both parties are truly keeping protections aligned or equivalent.

📌 Why This Matters

Legal certainty and enforceability: Without clear definitions, it will be difficult for either side (or a dispute panel) to assess whether obligations have been met and what remedies should apply.

Equivalence vs. alignment: The debate isn’t just about maintaining the same rules but about whether different approaches can achieve an equivalent level of environmental protection. That requires clarity on the criteria used.

Negotiating trust: Clear definitions contribute to mutual trust in the UK-EU relationship—trust that neither side will undercut environmental protection for economic advantage.

📌 Broader Implications

Trade agreement design: This issue reflects a broader tension in modern trade deals, where commitments on standards (environment, labour, etc.) lack precise metrics, raising challenges for oversight and enforcement.

Regulatory divergence: If “level of protection” isn’t clearly defined, future divergence between UK and EU standards could occur with little objective way to measure impacts, potentially leading to disputes or erosion of environmental outcomes.