On 19 May 2025, the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU) held a summit at which they agreed on a ‘renewed agenda for EU-UK cooperation.’ Fisheries cooperation was one part of a larger political agreement which covered a wide range of issues, including defence and border security, energy cooperation, competition, and trade controls. A separate SPICe blog provides a summary of the wider UK-EU summit.
This blog post explains the nature of the political agreement on fisheries (referred to as the ‘new fisheries agreement’ in this blog) struck by the EU and the UK, how it compares with arrangements between the UK and other coastal states, and what happens next.
Why is there a need to cooperate with the EU?
Since Brexit in 2021, the UK has been operating as an independent coastal state for the first time since before it joined the EU in 1973. As a result, it has taken control over fisheries resources in its Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone – a sea area up to 200 nautical miles from the UK’s maritime baselines (see SPICe Briefing on Fisheries Governance after Brexit).
However, many fish species are ‘shared stocks’ because they are migratory and cross one or more countries’ maritime boundaries at different times of the year or at different stages in their lifecycle (e.g. to reach spawning grounds). This is the case for many species caught in UK waters, which also pass through the seas of various EU Member States.
The concept of shared stocks has arisen from international law in recognition of this. The UK is signed up to a variety of commitments in International law which requires cooperation between coastal states to manage shared stocks to ensure catches are sustainable. This includes:
- an obligation to take appropriate conservation and management measures for stocks within its waters;
- a duty to cooperate with other states over the management of shared stocks.
Negotiations with other states should cover:
- agreeing the quantity of fish that may be caught (a total allowable catch or ‘TAC’) for the shared stocks, and;
- how to share the TAC between all states with an interest in the stock.
Total Allowable Catch (TAC) is the maximum amount of fish that can be caught from a specific fish stock in a given period, usually a year. It acts as a catch limit, helping to manage fisheries sustainably and prevent overfishing. TACs are set based on scientific advice and negotiated between different coastal states who share those stocks.
Negotiations may also cover exchanges of the share of TACs and granting access to foreign fishing vessels to fish within the Territorial Sea or Exclusive Economic Zone, as well as possible common technical measures (such as restrictions on what types of fishing gear can be used) to further the conservation of the stock or the protection of the wider marine environment.
How has the UK cooperated with the EU since Brexit?
In terms of shared stocks, the EU — which acts on behalf of its Member States — is by far the most important partner for the UK. There are more than 100 fish stocks which are shared between the two sides.
Since Brexit, fisheries cooperation between the UK and the EU has taken place within the framework of the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement which was applied provisionally from 1 January 2021 and entered into force on 1 May 2021.
Under this arrangement, the parties negotiate the TAC for relevant stocks on an annual basis, which is then shared according to the pre-agreed percentages contained in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (Annex 35).
The UK’s share of the TAC has progressively increased over the first five years of the agreement (2021-2025), which the previous UK Government suggested amounted to a gain of ‘around 25 per cent of the value of the average EU catch from UK waters’.
Under this agreement, the UK increased its share of TACs for all stocks with the exception of some stocks which remained unchanged. The UK did not give up any share of any TAC to the EU. As illustrated by the chart below, however, the gains vary from stock to stock. This reflects the different commercial interests of UK and EU fishing fleets.
The example below shows changes in quota in a sea area known as Area VIa ‘West of Scotland’ – which encompasses both the UK and EU (Republic of Ireland) Exclusive Economic Zone.
The Trade and Cooperation Agreement established that the division of the stocks would remain stable from 2026 onwards, unless the parties mutually agree to further changes to their share of fishing opportunities.
How has the Trade and Cooperation Agreement affected UK and EU fishing fleets?
The impact of the fisheries provisions in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement is complex and reflects the varied composition of different nations’ fishing fleets, including where they fish and the species they target.
To understand the impact, it’s worth considering both the weight of landings and the value, which can vary by species according to market prices.
Scottish sea fisheries statistics show that total landings by Scottish vessels increased by 27% in weight and 16% in value (increase of £95 million) in 2023 (after Brexit) compared to 2019 (before Brexit). This varied by main species:
- Shellfish landings decreased by 10% in weight (4,918 tonnes) and fell by 5% in value (£8.5 million)
- Demersal species remained relatively stable with a slight increase of 4% in weight (1,667 tonnes) but a slight drop in value of 3% (£6 million).
- Landings of pelagic species increased by 76% in weight (71,756 tonnes) and 82% by value (£70 million). Pelagic landings therefore offset declines in Shellfish landings resulting in an overall net increase in landings of all species in 2023 compared to 2019.
Not all the species are subject to quota under the terms of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. However, key pelagic species such as mackerel which are the key driver of overall growth in landings since Brexit are affected by increases in the UK’s quota share.
It’s worth noting that changes in the total allowable catch (rather than the share of the TAC) is an important factor affecting changes in the weight and value of landings.
An analysis by The UK Government attempted to account for this by estimating the value of the UK’s quota share increases under the Trade and Cooperation using historic landings. It valued fishing opportunities received by the UK between 2012-20 and compared this to the value that the UK would have received if it had the final 2026 quota shares under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
This analysis estimated an average increase of £143.9 million a year in value to the UK fleet. Based on the assumptions in this estimate, West Coast Mackerel would have accounted for an additional £38.9 million per year on average representing 27% of total gains.
So far, post-Brexit increases in the UK’s quota shares and overall increases in landings have not led to growth in Scotland’s fishing fleet.
The total number of fishers employed on Scottish vessels fell by 645 (15% decrease) between 2019 and 2023 and there were 92 less active Scottish registered fishing vessels (4% decrease). The number of fishing vessels has declined for all of the main fishing methods except for pelagic vessels over 10 metres in length which was the same in 2023 and 2019.
In terms of the impact on the EU fleet, a report by the European Parliament indicates that:
- France has seen the greatest reduction in value (€28 million or 27% of the EU’s loss in value).
- Changes in quota shares have cost EU fishing fleets a total of €107 million.
- Denmark has been most affected by quota reductions (22,000 tonnes by volume or 29% of EU’s loss of quota share).
Scottish sea fisheries statistics show that landings by foreign vessels (both EU and non-EU) into Scotland decreased by 68% by both weight (decrease of 28,000 tonnes) and value (decrease of £34 million) in 2023 compared to 2019.
What is the current arrangement on access to waters?
In terms of access, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement put a transitional arrangement in place from 1 January 2021 to 30 June 2026, during which time, each Party agreed to ‘grant to the vessels of the other Party full access to its waters’ (emphasis added) to fish for quota stocks ‘at a level that is reasonably commensurate with the Parties’ respective shares of the [total allowable catch]’, as well as access to fish for non-quota stocks ‘at a level that equates to the average tonnage fished by that Party in the waters of the other Party during the period 2012–2016’ (TCA, Annex 38, art 2).
Put simply, access is reciprocal, meaning that UK vessels can fish in EU waters and EU vessels can fish in UK waters provided they have an agreed quota share of the total allowable catch. Where they haven’t previously had an agreed quota, access is based on historical fishing patterns.
In the UK, access is managed through the grant of licences to EU vessels under the Fisheries Act 2020. Whilst fishing in UK waters, EU vessels must abide by conditions attached to their licence, as well as any other regulatory requirements imposed by law. Scottish Ministers have delegated their responsibilities to grant fishing vessel licences to EU vessels (and other foreign vessels) to the UK Single Issuing Authority, which acts on behalf of all fisheries administrations in the UK.
What would have happened after 2026 without a new fisheries agreement?
Once the transitional period had come to an end, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement provided for annual consultations on access between the UK and the EU. However, the Agreement also clarified in Article 500(4) that the outcome of the annual consultations should ‘normally’ result in each Party granting access to fish for quota stocks in the Exclusive Economic Zone at a level that is ‘reasonably commensurate with the Parties’ respective shares of the TACs’ and access to fish for non-quota stocks in the Exclusive Economic Zone at a level ‘that at least equates to the average tonnage fished by that Party in the waters of the other Party during the period 2012–2016’.
This provision does not constrain the discretion of the parties to negotiate a different outcome. However, it does set an expectation for continued access that approximates to current conditions.
Additionally, where a party is unsatisfied with the level of access that is provided, it is given the right in Article 501 to ‘take compensatory measures commensurate to the economic and societal impact of the change in the level and conditions of access to waters’, including the possibility to suspend preferential tariff treatment for fishery products (potentially increasing the costs to export fish).
In other words, it’s probably unrealistic to expect that the UK could have prevented EU vessels from accessing UK waters without suffering increased export costs or other unfavourable measures imposed by the EU in return.
It’s not possible to predict whether the EU would have taken such a step. However, the potential consequence of this provision is that any attempt by the UK to withhold full access may have had implications for UK vessels’ ability to export their catch to the EU. This is where much of the current demand for fish caught by the UK fleet lies.
What does the new agreement on fisheries do?
As was the case for the negotiation of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, fisheries was one of the more difficult issues to be addressed by the recent talks, reportedly only settled through a last minute compromise.
On fisheries, the final text of the common understanding amounts to one sentence which simply records ‘the political agreements leading to full reciprocal access to waters to fish until 30 June 2038[…]’. There are no further published details on the new fisheries agreement and it may be subject to further detailed negotiations.
The effect of the most recent agreement appears to be an extension of these existing access arrangements for a further 12 years, instead of annual negotiations on access.
What doesn’t it do?
The new agreement does not affect the way that negotiations on total allowable catch and exchanges of fishing opportunities will take place between the UK and the EU. The parties will also continue to be able to voluntarily exchange TAC shares outside of the formal negotiations (so-called ‘quota swaps’) using the mechanism agreed at the Specialised Committee for Fisheries established under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
Nor does the new agreement affect the ability of the UK to adopt and apply technical measures (e.g. types of fishing nets or vessel tracking and monitoring systems) for all vessels fishing in UK waters.
What has been the reaction to the fisheries agreement in Scotland?
The Prime Minister described the deal as ‘good for fishing’, a view echoed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when appearing before a House of Commons Committee on 20 May.
However, the deal has been criticised by many fisheries industry representatives, with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation describing it as a ‘horror show.’ This view was echoed by the Scottish Government, with the Deputy First Minister describing it as a ‘sell out.’
The 12-year continuation of the existing arrangements is what many connected with the UK fishing industry considered as a ‘betrayal’.
From a fishing industry perspective, annual negotiations would have been preferable as a means of giving the UK government additional leverage by allowing trade-offs between exchanges of fishing opportunities and access to waters – a greater quota share in exchange for continued access.
Supporters of annual access negotiations would also point out the benefits of access to UK waters, where fish can often be caught at a time of year when the quality and value of the catch is greater.
How is this agreement different to the way the UK negotiates with other non-EU states?
Critics of the new fisheries agreement had hoped that beyond 2026, the UK would replicate annual negotiations with the EU like those already in place with Norway and the Faroe Islands.
In these cases, the parties have agreed to annual negotiations without any conditions as to the precise extent and conditions of any access to each other’s waters.
There are also risks with such an approach. As annual negotiations with Norway and the Faroes have shown, there is no guarantee that negotiations will be successful or that the UK will always get what it wants out of the negotiations.
Trade-offs may also have to be made in annual negotiations between the interests of different sectors of the fishing industry (e.g. those catching mackerel versus those catching whitefish like cod and haddock). Therefore, fishing opportunities may be less predictable under a model of annual negotiations, making it more difficult for fishers to plan and invest for the long-term.
What about EU vessels’ access to the territorial waters?
A further disappointment of the fishing industry has been the failure to take back control of access rights in the territorial sea, as had been demanded in UK parliamentary debates.
However, this was only an issue for the fisheries in the English channel, where the transitional arrangements under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement had granted continued access to qualifying EU vessels to fish for stocks between 6 and 12 nautical miles.
In contrast, EU fishing rights in the territorial sea around Scotland were completely removed under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (although a dispute remains over access to waters around Rockall – for further information, see SPICe guest blog on Rockall).
How do other aspects of the UK-EU summit interact with the fisheries agreement?
The political agreement to work towards a Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS Agreement) is the other key element of the summit relevant to the fishing industry.
This agreement would address many of the issues that have arisen in respect of moving agri-food products between the two trading partners since Brexit, which has affected the export of seafood to the EU.
For example, Seafood Scotland told a Scottish Parliament Committee inquiry into the Trade and Cooperation Agreement that delays at ports and borders to the EU ‘can ultimately undermine the profitability (and, in some cases, viability) of the aquaculture, fisheries and fish processing sectors in the UK, particularly in Scotland‘ and that trade in seafood between the EU and UK is ‘manageable but sub-optimal at present.’
The common understanding suggests that the new agreement should ‘ensure the application of the same rules at all times by providing for timely dynamic alignment’ subject to a ‘short list of limited exceptions’. This would involve the UK agreeing to abide by EU law and rules in all areas within the scope of the agreement.
What happens next?
The details of the new agreement are still to be negotiated, but it’s hoped that it will ease border checks, making it easier to get fresh seafood products more rapidly to market in the EU. The new agreement should also make it easier for the UK to export bivalve molluscs (mussels and oysters) to the EU, which has been a significant problem since Brexit.
At present, the agreement between the UK and the EU on all these matters represent a political commitment to strengthen cooperation, but the deal must still be formalised into a binding legal agreement between the parties.
Given current access arrangements under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement continue until 30 June 2026, there is no immediate urgency to take this step and there may be advantages to ensuring that negotiations on the SPS Agreement are also completed before doing so given the connections between the two issues for the fisheries sector.
In any case, as access to UK waters is managed through licensing, not legislation, it is not obvious that there will a requirement for any changes in the domestic legislative framework before giving effect to the new agreement on fishing access.
The Scottish Government has criticised the lack of consultation by the UK Government on key aspects of the deal, particularly on fishing.
Looking ahead, there may be little, if any role for the Scottish Parliament to formally scrutinise and give consent to implementation of the fisheries agreement.
Professor James Harrison, University of Edinburgh
Damon Davies, Researcher, SPICe
Iain McIver, Senior Researcher, SPICe
Professor James Harrison is Professor of Environmental Law at the University of Edinburgh Law School. Prof. Harrison has previously written guest blogs on ‘the UK as an international fisheries actor’ and ‘Unpacking the legal disputes over Rockall’ and SPICe briefings on UK-EU fisheries negotiations, Fisheries Governance after Brexit and the UK Fisheries Bill.
Title image: Photo by Richard Bell on Unsplash