Sandeels vs the EU: how the puffin’s favourite food sparked first post-Brexit courtroom trade battle | Fishing

“WI did it!” were those words The RSPB said so last year When, after 25 years of campaigning, it was done The UK government has banned fishing for sandelfish In the North Sea and Scotland. These small, eel-like fish may not seem like the likely species to inspire a decades-long battle – but they are valuable food for one of Britain’s rarest and most threatened seabirds, the puffin, as well as many other seabirds and marine species in the UK.

But the celebrations did not last long. The European Union has thrown its weight behind it Denmark – the country with the largest sandal fishing fleet ever – has defied the ban, meaning that this week, the humble sandal fishery will become the focus of the first courtroom trade battle between the UK and the EU since Brexit.

The ban, which applies to all UK and EU vessels, came after concerns about how sandfish fishing would impact puffins, kitties and the wider marine environment. Although British vessels had already stopped fishing for these species before the ban began, they represent an important catch for the Danish fleet, which holds 96% of the EU quota for the species.

The EU argues that the ban discriminates against Danish vessels and therefore violates the UK-EU trade agreement which provides for full fishing access to UK waters.

“The European Union argues that the Trade and Cooperation Agreement [which governs the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit] “It takes the UK back to the same kinds of processes for environmental laws that the UK moved away from when it left the EU – fisheries law again trumps environmental law,” says Charles Clover, co-founder of Blue Marine, a marine conservation organisation. Non-governmental organization.

Formal talks to resolve the dispute failed, and a last-minute settlement was not reached, and UK and EU lawyers will discuss the matter in an arbitration court in The Hague, in a three-day hearing starting on January 28.

The UK government will defend the hunting ban, arguing that it used the best scientific evidence available, according to documents published on the court’s website. It will reject EU claims that the ban discriminates against the Danish fleet, noting that it applies to all ships.

The issue comes at a difficult time for Keir Starmer, who is keen to “reset” relations between the UK and the European Union. But he is also on record as not wanting to “tear up” environmental rules. If the UK loses, it could be required to change or drop the fishing ban, or face trade tariffs.

Clover says a negative outcome for the UK could be “catastrophic” for environmental protection and could lead to further challenges to Britain’s other marine protections.

“Brexit meant that the unique exemptions from environmental law that the fishing industry enjoyed fell, and for the first time fishing had to be treated like any other industry,” he says.

“The irony is that the legal protections for barges and MPAs used by the UK are based on EU law. Environment groups in Germany and the Netherlands are taking legal action to enforce these laws at home.” Europe. Britain is seen as a rare success story by European conservationists.

In March of last year, France asked the European Union to investigate Whether Britain’s ban on trawling in marine reserves violates the terms of the trade agreement.

The EU said the broad area covered by the ban was not justified by scientific advice on stock levels used by the UK. In her submissions to the court, she said fluctuations in sandelfish numbers were due to “natural mortality not directly or indirectly linked to the North Sea sandelfish fishery”. She added that the UK had also failed to consider the “economic and social” impacts of the ban.

Espen Sverdrup-Jensen, President of the European Association fish Producer organizations (EAPO) say the Danish sandel fishery is worth €50 million (£42 million) a year. It was one of the “most important fisheries for Danish communities on the west coast”, with families involved in the business for four generations.

He added: “The rules and provisions (of the trade agreement) are very clear. There is wide scope for environmental protection but it must be based on scientific advice. There is no strong scientific advice to impose a ban of this size in UK waters.”

Environmentalists say sandelfish form the base of the North Sea food chain, and are eaten by seabirds, porpoises, cod and haddock. They are not caught for human consumption, but are converted into fishmeal and oil for animal feed.

Joel Ryland, a researcher at the UK’s Center for a Changing Europe, says the row risks tarnishing the wider relationship between the UK and the EU. The UK has several options: either hope the committee rules in its favour, accept its conclusions if it rules against it, or propose compromise measures to end the proceedings.

Ryland says that if the result favors the EU, the UK will be asked to take action. “If the UK refuses to take action, there are reasons to demand remedial measures which could take the form of trade tariffs. But given that both sides want to take this further, there is a strong incentive to resolve the issue in a more orderly way.”

A UK Government spokesperson said: “We are committed to protecting our seabirds and the wider marine environment, in accordance with our commitments to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement and other international agreements.”

When contacted for comment, the European Commission said it had nothing to add to a previous press statement, explaining the reasons for the dispute.

A court decision is not expected until April, and there is no room for appeal.