The ongoing fishing dispute between the United Kingdom and the European Union is poised to reach a crucial juncture, as the humble sandeel becomes the focal point of the first courtroom trade battle since Brexit. This notable case revolves around the UK’s decision to ban European vessels from harvesting sandeel in its North Sea waters, a measure taken to safeguard marine wildlife that heavily relies on this specific fish as a source of nourishment.
The UK government justifies this ban with assertions that it aims to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems. However, the EU has raised concerns regarding this prohibition, arguing that it unfairly discriminates against Danish fishermen, who traditionally rely on sandeel for their livelihoods. The European Union contends that this defensive maneuver violates the stipulations laid out in the post-Brexit trade agreement, and thus, the matter is now set to be addressed by an international trade tribunal. Formal discussions to arrive at a solution have proven unsuccessful, necessitating a three-day hearing at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, commencing on the upcoming Tuesday.
If a resolution is not achieved in the interim, this case will mark the inaugural instance in which the two sides have sought arbitration under the trade deal negotiated by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson in 2021. The tribunal will consist of three impartial international trade judges, who will deliberate over the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. They have the discretion to uphold the UK’s ban or compel the UK to modify or abolish it. Should the UK be required to comply and subsequently refuse to do so, the European Union reserves the right to impose tariffs on UK exports as a percentage of retaliation.
As stipulated in the terms of the trade agreement, a final ruling by the tribunal is expected by the end of April. However, it’s essential to note that there won’t be an option for appeal, putting considerable pressure on each side to substantiate their arguments effectively. This conflict arises in a broader context, as the UK braces itself for challenging negotiations with the EU regarding new fishing quotas set to take effect in June next year when the current contractual arrangements expire.
At the center of this dispute is the sandeel, a relatively small fish species that holds great ecological significance despite its absence from culinary menus across Europe. It serves as a crucial food source not only for other fish species—such as cod and haddock—but also for seabirds that are currently under threat, including puffins and kittiwakes. Since 2021, the UK has effectively barred its own trawlers from targeting this fish through a comprehensive licensing regime, citing necessary conservation efforts to prevent overfishing and restore health to the North Sea ecosystem.
The UK’s Conservative government, led by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, extended a blanket ban on all vessels fishing for sandeel in English waters in March 2022, with similar restrictions implemented by the Scottish National Party (SNP) in Scotland. This decision drew praise from conservation groups that had long advocating for such protective measures to ensure the thriving population of seabirds. Despite enjoying support from various political factions, Danish fishermen have voiced considerable discontent, asserting their right to fish based on the agreements established in the post-Brexit trade deal, where they typically capture the vast majority of the EU’s allocated share of sandeel in UK waters.
Moving forward, the judges will face the challenging task of balancing environmental obligations against the economic rights of EU fishermen. The UK government claims to prioritize environmental conservation while still adhering to its trade commitments, although the full details of its position remain under wraps. The outcome of this tribunal will carry decisive implications, not only for the sandeel and the affected fisheries but also for the broader dynamics of UK-EU relations in a post-Brexit landscape.
