The EU is choosing industrial fishing over seabird conservation

The UK’s decision to leave the EU sparked years of often frenzied debate about the UK’s environmental protections, and whether these would ‘keep pace’ with the EU’s progressive law making. Many feared the UK would diverge regressively, either because we wanted to (cue those who wanted a regulatory free for all), because we could (the ‘taking back control’ tribe) or because we would do so passively.

Most EU laws were transferred to the UK statute book in 2018 and 2019. Each UK nation has set up a new national environmental governance system, except for Wales where legislation is expected in the Senedd in 2025. But fears of regression remain, fuelled by threatened bonfires of former EU laws. The previous government’s reckless approach to retained EU law was one such example, in which thousands of vital protections for the environment, animal welfare, consumer protection and worker rights were at risk of overnight removal. Facing a major cross sector campaign, the previous government opted for a more sensible approach, although stubbornly refused to embed a test of non-regression in law.

There is a growing gap between UK and EU policy The threat of domestic regression has not gone away. Chemicals campaigners have detected a growing gap between the UK and EU on ‘forever chemicals’. And the Institute for European Environmental Policy is also tracking divergence in UK-EU environmental policy. It has found increasing incidences as the EU forges ahead with a higher level of ambition by expanding and deepening its environmental policy and laws. The UK has tended to move more slowly and has taken a less stringent approach to regulation, flirting with weakening laws on nutrient neutrality, the water framework directive and air pollution.

The UK and the EU signed a Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), which sets out arrangements to enable co-operation on mutual interests, ensure a level playing field and contains a number of environmental commitments.

Given the history, we might have expected the first major environmental test of the TCA to be the EU challenging an act of UK regression. Not so. The EU is instead challenging an environmentally progressive decision by the UK and Scottish governments to put in place measures to protected endangered populations of seabirds, to further marine conservation.

Ending industrial fishing of sandeels will protect endangered seabirds In January 2024, the UK and Scottish governments announced that, following public consultation and a call for evidence, they would be prohibiting the fishing of sandeels in the North Sea from March 2024. This announcement was met with jubilation by nature groups, following decades of campaigning.

The 2023 seabird census found that more than half the seabird species breeding on British and Irish coasts have declined over the last 20 years. In Scotland, which is home to over half of UK seabirds, this figure rises to 70 per cent of species in decline. Shockingly, around one in four puffins has been lost from across the UK since 2000. Puffins and kittiwakes, which depend on sandeels for food, are threatened with global extinction and are red listed as birds of highest conservation concern.

Instead of embracing this positive conservation decision, the EU has contested it. In April 2024, the bloc announced it would be challenging the UK’s approach, a move which was condemned as “shameful” and “retrogressive”. In October, it requested the establishment of an arbitration tribunal to rule on the compatibility of the UK’s sandeel policy with the TCA.

Brexit borne ‘fish wars’ are not new but the EU’s intervention on sandeels runs much deeper than a simple dispute over access to territorial waters. It puts industrial fishing interests over the conservation of globally threatened species, which is all the more bizarre given that the EU’s own Birds Directive has been instrumental in designating areas of sea for at risk seabirds like puffins, known as Special Protection Areas.

The EU has chosen to flex its muscles on a decision which is evidence-led, pro-conservation and popular (as the outcome of the public consultation showed), and in doing so, is denting its own reputation within the UK environmental community, who are accustomed to a more progressive approach.

The puffin and its fellow auks occupy a special place in UK hearts. Their striking appearance, plucky behaviours and summer visits to many favourite coastal and island locations means they are a conservation icon for the UK.

They are also a creature of rich coastal folklore, depicted as a guardian or messenger of the sea, believed to offer guidance and protection to sailors and fishermen, possessing the knowledge and wisdom of the ocean depths which give them special prophetic powers. Puffin burrows were seen as portals to the otherworld, adding to the mystique and enchantment associated with these birds.

We fully support the UK and Scottish governments’ efforts to protect these precious seabirds from industrial overfishing. The tribunal must rule in their favour. If it doesn’t, this would cast a heavy shadow over both the efficacy of the TCA on environmental protection and the EU’s commitment to it.