Environmental knowledge and values permeate policy and management processes in numerous ways, with some forms often having a stronger impact than others. These processes can be relatively slow and long-term. Some, however, are more immediate and rapidly evolving. Many of us engaged in contemporary research on environmental matters in the UK are concerned with the potential shape of environmental management and governance following the UK’s ‘planned’ departure from the European Union (EU) next year (‘Brexit’). Conversations, calls for research, and workshops on the subject are happening everywhere – continually announced in email inboxes and on social media. The environment (protections, land use, resilience, change) is at the heart of the ‘Brexit’ debate as the UK’s ‘green’ policies, practices and economies have evolved in a deeply mutualistic fashion with the rest of the EU’s. The Natura 2000 network and 2020 climate and energy targets can be cited as examples of such co-ordinated, mutually reinforcing approaches. Many of the questions currently being posed are long-standing and have a broadly familiar tone – How can land-managers be supported to deliver public benefits? What shape should our energy sector be in order to deliver on climate change commitments? – but have the new suffix ‘... following the departure of the UK from the EU?’ (and with notably shorter timeframes in which to produce an answer!). However, the current deliberations do provide an opportunity to re-examine and challenge some of the core structures of EU schemes such as the much-debated Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Certainly those in favour of leaving the EU wish to characterise it as such. Recently the UK’s Prime Minister stated that leaving the CAP was a ‘real opportunity for the future’1 and earlier this year another senior UK politician described the CAP as ‘fundamentally flawed’, ‘unjust’, and as producing ‘perverse outcomes’.2 Claims such as these deserve attention – whatever one’s thoughts about those who make them. Some see an opportunity for the UK to escape the perceived EU ‘straightjacket’ and create stronger, more effective environmental protections. Rigorous border controls, for example, have commonly been called for by those concerned with biosecurity. Reference has also been made to strengthening animal welfare standards in farming, and the potential for a more open approach to plant science’s use of genomics.

中文翻译：

---

政策和管理途径：知识、流程和地点

环境知识和价值观以多种方式渗透到政策和管理过程中，某些形式通常比其他形式具有更大的影响。这些过程可能相对缓慢和长期。然而，有些是更直接和快速发展的。在英国从事当代环境问题研究的许多人都关注英国明年“计划”脱离欧盟（“脱欧”）后环境管理和治理的潜在形式。关于这个主题的对话、研究呼吁和研讨会无处不在——不断在电子邮件收件箱和社交媒体上公布。环境（保护、土地利用、复原力、变化）是“脱欧”辩论的核心，因为英国的“绿色”政策，实践和经济以与欧盟其他国家的深度互惠的方式发展。Natura 2000 网络和 2020 年气候和能源目标可以作为这种协调、相辅相成的方法的例子。目前提出的许多问题都是长期存在的，并且具有广泛熟悉的语气——如何支持土地管理者提供公共利益？为了兑现气候变化承诺，我们的能源部门应该采取什么样的形式？– 但是有新的后缀“...在英国离开欧盟之后？” （并且产生答案的时间范围明显更短！）。然而，当前的审议确实提供了一个机会来重新审视和挑战欧盟计划的一些核心结构，例如备受争议的共同农业政策 (CAP)。当然，那些支持离开欧盟的人希望这样描述它。最近，英国首相表示，退出 CAP 是“未来的真正机会”1，今年早些时候，另一位英国高级政治家将 CAP 描述为“存在根本性缺陷”、“不公正”，并且会产生“不正当的结果”。 2诸如此类的声明值得关注——无论人们对制造它们的人有何看法。一些人认为英国有机会摆脱被认为是欧盟的“紧身衣”，并制定更强大、更有效的环境保护措施。例如，那些关心生物安全的人通常要求严格的边境控制。还提到了加强农业中的动物福利标准，以及对植物科学使用基因组学采取更开放的方法的潜力。