An international court has ruled in favor of the United Kingdom’s continued ban on commercial sandeel fishing in the North Sea, marking a significant victory for environmental conservation and marine biodiversity. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), based in The Hague, dismissed a challenge brought forward by the European Union, particularly Denmark, which had contested the legality and fairness of the ban.

Why Ban Sandeel

Sandeels, though small in size, play an outsized role in the marine food chain. These slender, silvery fish are a critical food source for a wide range of seabirds, including iconic species such as puffins and kittiwakes, as well as marine animals like seals and larger fish. The UK government, citing concerns over declining sandeel stocks and their cascading effects on the wider ecosystem, implemented the ban in early 2024 across both English and Scottish waters.

The move was welcomed by conservationists, who have long warned that overfishing sandeels not only threatens the species itself but also disrupts the delicate balance of the North Sea ecosystem. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), among other organizations, provided evidence supporting the ecological necessity of the measure.
Beccy Speight, chief executive of the RSPB, expressed relief at the court’s ruling, stating:

“We are absolutely delighted the panel has found the ecological case for the closure of industrial sandeel fishing is sound. Safeguarding sandeel stocks is a key part of the jigsaw that will help set our puffins, kittiwakes and the wider marine environment on the path to recovery.”

The Legal Challenge from Denmark and the EU

Denmark, whose fishing industry has long relied heavily on sandeel harvesting, spearheaded the EU’s challenge to the ban. Danish fishing organizations argued that the UK’s restrictions were unnecessary, claiming that scientific assessments showed healthy sandeel populations. The Danish Pelagic Producers’ Association, represented by Esben Sverdrup-Jensen, contended that the ban removed nearly half of the traditional fishing grounds Danish fleets had depended on for decades.

“It means we have lost about half of the fishing grounds that we have traditionally fished on for decades,” Sverdrup-Jensen said. “Sandeel is probably the best managed fishery in the world.”

The EU argued the ban was discriminatory and disproportionate, violating terms of the post-Brexit Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) between the UK and the EU. They claimed the move unfairly restricted access to shared waters and posed a serious economic threat to Danish fishers.

The Court’s Verdict and Its Implications

The PCA ruling, a comprehensive document spanning nearly 300 pages, concluded that the UK was within its rights to implement the ban on ecological grounds and was not legally obligated to reverse the closure orders. The court acknowledged that while the ban in English waters technically breached the proportionality clause under the TCA, this did not invalidate the UK’s decision to prioritize marine conservation.

The UK’s Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) welcomed the court’s decision, emphasizing that the measures were based on “the best available science.” A spokesperson stated:

“The UK successfully demonstrated that the measures taken to close English and Scottish waters were rooted in sound scientific evidence, and aimed at preserving the long-term health of our marine ecosystem.”

Meanwhile, Scotland’s Rural Affairs Secretary, Mairi Gougeon, reinforced Scotland’s stance:

“Protecting our marine ecosystem is vital to Scotland’s environment, and to the people and communities who rely on it. The ruling reaffirms the appropriateness of the actions we took last year.”

Although the PCA noted that elements of the ban breached the trade agreement, it did not impose an obligation for immediate reversal. Defra confirmed that it would work to “bring the UK into compliance” while maintaining conservation goals.

A Balancing Act Between Ecology and Economy

The case highlights the complex interplay between environmental protection and economic interests. On one hand, the North Sea’s rich biodiversity supports not only seabird populations but also tourism and broader ecosystem health. On the other, sandeels are commercially valuable, primarily harvested for animal feed and oil production — industries that Denmark’s coastal communities heavily depend on.

While Danish fishers face significant economic repercussions, the ruling underscores an emerging global trend: greater judicial recognition of environmental conservation as a legitimate and sometimes overriding justification for resource management decisions.

The European Commission, while acknowledging disappointment over the trade breach finding, welcomed the clarity provided by the court. A statement from the Commission read:

“The UK is required to immediately comply with the final ruling and shall inform the EU within 30 days of the measures it will take.”

What’s Next for North Sea Fisheries?

Moving forward, the UK government will need to outline how it plans to address the minor compliance issues identified under the trade agreement without weakening environmental protections. Potential steps could involve enhanced consultation mechanisms with EU counterparts or revised procedural transparency.

For conservationists, however, the ruling represents a milestone. It not only protects a keystone species but also sets a precedent for how ecological concerns can — and should — be weighed against economic pressures in international resource disputes.

As climate change, overfishing, and habitat degradation continue to pose threats to marine ecosystems globally, rulings like this may become increasingly important in balancing sustainable resource management with economic realities.