{"id":106842,"date":"2025-05-16T17:35:14","date_gmt":"2025-05-16T17:35:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/106842\/"},"modified":"2025-05-16T17:35:14","modified_gmt":"2025-05-16T17:35:14","slug":"the-sandeel-is-an-unlikely-barometer-of-brexit-benefits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/106842\/","title":{"rendered":"The sandeel is an unlikely barometer of Brexit benefits"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"
\n Image: Colin Ward\/ Shutterstock<\/p>\n

The UK\u2019s decision to leave the EU sparked frenzied debate about the UK\u2019s environmental protections, and whether these would \u2018keep pace\u2019 with EU law making. Many feared the UK would regress on the environment, either because we wanted to (cue those who yearned for a regulatory\u202ffree for all<\/a>), because we\u00a0could<\/a>\u00a0or because we would do so\u202fpassively<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

While the question of whether the UK would maintain high environmental standards was hotly debated, no-one predicted that the first meaningful test of its resolve would involve a tiny fish most commonly seen hanging from a puffin\u2019s beak. The humble sandeel.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The UK and the EU signed a\u202fTrade and Cooperation Agreement<\/a>\u202f(TCA), to provide guardrails on high standards, setting out arrangements to enable co-operation, level the playing field and specify environmental commitments.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The TCA was designed to be tested, so it was no surprise when its built-in arbitration process was called into action last year. Given Brexit history, it was ironic to many that this was to rule on a challenge from the EU to an environmentally progressive decision by the UK and Scottish governments.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s what happened. In January 2024, governments\u202fin Holyrood and Westminster\u00a0announced<\/a>\u202fthat, following public consultation and a call for evidence, they would close the English North Sea and all Scottish waters to sandeel fishing from March 2024. Designed to protect endangered seabirds, this was\u00a0welcomed<\/a>\u202fby nature groups who had campaigned for decades.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The\u202fevidence the closure was compelling. More than\u00a0half<\/a>\u00a0the seabird species breeding on British and Irish coasts have declined over the past 20 years. This has been exacerbated by the recent ravages of bird flu. In Scotland, home to over half of the UK\u2019s seabirds, this figure rises to 70 per cent of species in decline. Shockingly, we have lost around one in four puffins across the UK since 2000. Puffins and kittiwakes, which feed on sandeels, are threatened with global extinction and are \u2018red listed\u2019 as of highest conservation concern.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But, instead of respecting this obviously positive decision, the EU contested it. In April 2024, the bloc announced it would challenge the UK, a move\u00a0condemned<\/a>\u202fby international nature NGOs as \u201cshameful\u201d. In October 2024, the EU\u202frequested<\/a>\u202fan arbitration tribunal.\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only \u00a38.99 per month<\/p>\n

The Permanent Court of Arbitration, based in the Hague, weighed up the evidence and decided whether the proposed sandeel fisheries closures were compatible with the TCA.\u00a0Reams of evidence<\/a>\u00a0were submitted by both sides and a hearing took place in January, with conservation organisations and other interested parties also allowed to make submissions.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Of course, the court\u2019s decision was deeply important for marine conservation, but it has also taken on much wider significance as a major test of how the TCA is applied. It also tested the new Labour government on whether it would stick by the previous government\u2019s view that the UK should take control of its fishing waters to protect fish stocks and those whose livelihoods depend on them.\u00a0<\/p>\n

On 2 May, the court published its\u00a0ruling<\/a>. It was good news for the UK and seabirds. The court found that the UK and Scottish governments\u2019 case was based on sound conservation science and evidence.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Scottish government\u2019s decision was\u00a0upheld<\/a>\u00a0in full, meaning the closure of Scottish waters to the fishing of sandeels remains.\u00a0The UK government\u2019s case was also found to be sound, though the court did not wholly rule in the UK\u2019s favour due to procedural errors.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The government in Whitehall is\u00a0clear<\/a>\u00a0that the ruling as it stands does not mean it has to reverse the closure of English waters for sandeel fishing. It has committed to comply, although it is not yet clear what this means in practice.\u00a0<\/p>\n

As the UK and the EU reach a crucial moment in their relationship reset, environmental measures do not feature high on their list of negotiating priorities: youth mobility, a defence pact and energy security are at the top of the list. The decision on the fate of the tiny sandeel is unlikely to have a major bearing on the reset.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But the story of the sandeel should not be forgotten. Given the overwhelming public support for the UK measures to protect seabirds by restricting sandeel fishing, and the clear ruling that they are legal and fair, the UK and Scottish governments must now end any speculation and protect puffins by making the closures permanent. Now that would be a meaningful Brexit benefit.\u00a0<\/p>\n

This email first appeared in the Green Transition, a weekly newsletter on the move towards a new, green economy by New Statesman Spotlight. <\/p>\n

Content from our partners<\/p>\n

Related<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\"Kemi<\/a> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Image: Colin Ward\/ Shutterstock The UK\u2019s decision to leave the EU sparked frenzied debate about the UK\u2019s environmental…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":106843,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5226],"tags":[802,748,2000,299,5187,1699,4884,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-106842","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-brexit","8":"tag-brexit","9":"tag-britain","10":"tag-eu","11":"tag-europe","12":"tag-european","13":"tag-european-union","14":"tag-great-britain","15":"tag-uk","16":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114518722109321127","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106842","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=106842"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106842\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/106843"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106842"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106842"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106842"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}