Brussels accuses Britain of being overly environmentally conscious in Brexit eel dispute

09 May 2024 , 21:22

525 0

Snakey fish fight is center stage as U.K.’s new environmental measures rub the EU the wrong way.

When the U.K. left the EU, Brussels insisted on strict “level playing-field” rules as a check on Tories turning their country into a deregulated offshore tax haven.

But fast-forward to 2024 and it’s tougher new U.K. environmental measures that are increasingly rubbing the EU up the wrong way — at least when it comes to protecting sea-life.

In March, irate French ministers asked the European Commission to investigate whether a ban on “bottom trawling” in protected marine areas — brought in on conservation grounds — breached the terms of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) between the two countries.

And now the Commission has triggered a separate dispute under the TCA, questioning whether another U.K. conservation measure — a ban on the fishing of sand-eels — breaches the terms of the trade agreement.

The snakey fish — which live on the floor of the North Sea — are a favored food of seabirds, and conservationists say overfishing is having a knock-on effect on avian numbers. The U.K. government stepped in, and has found itself in a confrontation with Brussels.

It’s an unforeseen direction that hasn’t been entirely welcomed by everyone in Britain’s ruling party. Last month David Frost, the man who negotiated Britain’s exit from the bloc, said the country had been “furring up the arteries” with regulations, adding: “We need to liberalize.”

But for other Brexiteers, the policies help illustrate the flexibility the U.K. has outside the EU on matters which would have previously been subject to lengthy negotiation under the Commons Fisheries Policy — and which Brussels and member states are outright hostile to for their own reasons.

Countdown begins

Announcing the Commission’s legal action, Virginijus Sinkevičius, the EU Commissioner for the environment, said the U.K.’s “permanent closure of the sand-eel fishery deprives EU vessels from fishing opportunities” and also “impinges on basic commitments under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement.”

“Healthy sand-eel stocks are not just vital for the delicate balance of our marine ecosystems, but also for the livelihoods of our fishers,” he argued, noting that other measures are already in place to protect the species, such as low catch quotas and closed areas.

Under the TCA the U.K. and EU have until May 16 to work out a mutually agreeable solution among themselves — before the Commission has the option of taking the issue to a dispute resolution panel, which will rule on whether the U.K.’s environmental measure breaches the agreement.

If the panel rules against the U.K. and London fails to comply, Brussels could legally retaliate with tariffs or other measures.

Political gold

Wildlife campaigners in the U.K. are livid at the line coming from Brussels.

Katie-jo Luxton, the RSPB’s director of conservation, described the EU’s legal challenge as “outrageous” and accused it of kicking “the future of beautiful birds like our much-loved Puffins around like a political football.”

She noted that 62 percent of seabird species were in decline across the U.K., adding: “While some EU countries seem hell-bent on hoovering up sand-eels on an industrial scale to feed to livestock, we believe they should be restoring marine ecosystems and nourishing baby Pufflings.”

All of this is political gold for the U.K.’s Conservatives, who have sometimes struggled to illustrate the upsides of leaving the bloc, especially to those outside of their core support.

“We are able to take these steps because of our exit from the EU, using our Brexit freedoms to make space for nature to recover across our marine habitats," one Conservative official granted anonymity to discuss the ongoing dispute said.

Widening standards gap

But environmentalists say it’s important not to get too carried away.

Doug Parr, policy director of Greenpeace UK, said the measures on bottom trawling and sand-eels “should be getting a bit more praise and attention than they are.”

"Partly because they are undoubtedly good things, protecting marine and coastal ecosystems that were under severe pressure. But mainly because they illustrate how the U.K. government did accrue the power to go further and faster than the EU on much-needed environmental protections, and should bear full responsibility for going nowhere slowly on most of them," he said.

Parr says the maritime conservation measures aren’t exactly typical of the U.K.’s approach to the environment since Brexit. Despite having "taken back control" the U.K.’s rivers, city air, and drafty housing stock are in a sorry state, with embarrassingly little action on plastic pollution, "forever chemicals", and replacing the Common Agricultural Policy, he says.

"The government’s enthusiasm for fixing any of these problems appears to have been substantially weakened by removing the EU’s institutions from the discussion but retaining all of the corporate lobbyists, as the gap between European and British standards gradually widens."

James Smith

Print page

Trade, Brexit, UK North Sea, United Kingdom