An arbitration panel has delivered a split decision in a post-Brexit fishing rights dispute between the UK and the European Union, according to the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
The ruling adds another layer of complexity to the UK’s attempts to recalibrate its relationship with the bloc.
At the heart of the disagreement was a British ban on sandeel fishing in its North Sea waters, a measure the EU argued violated the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
A three-person tribunal found the ban disproportionate in English waters, directing the UK to take the necessary steps to comply with their decision.
However, the panel sided with the UK regarding the ban’s application in Scottish waters, rejecting the EU’s challenge.
The EU also claimed the ban was discriminatory and not rooted in scientific evidence, arguments the tribunal dismissed.
The UK government maintains the ruling fully validates its closure of Scottish waters to sandeel fishing and doesn’t necessitate reversing the closure in English waters.
“We will undertake a process in good faith to bring the UK into compliance on the specific issues raised by the tribunal,” a British government spokesperson said.
The European Commission said it was still analysing the ruling.
In financial terms, the case is trifling. Britain puts the revenue loss for non-UK vessels at 45 million pounds ($60 million) in a worst-case scenario.
Politically, it could prove awkward.
Britain and the EU are preparing a summit on May 19 that could lead to closer defence cooperation and pave the way for agreements to ease agricultural and food trade. The EU wants fishing rights in UK waters to be part of the discussions.
Britain argues that the fishing ban is necessary, given the role sandeels play in the food chain of predators – larger fish, marine mammals, and seabirds such as puffins.
British boats do not fish for the sandeels, but the small eel-like fish are caught by Danish fleets and used as animal feed and as a source of oil.
