When the United Kingdom exited the European Union, EU Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič proposed an equivalence agreement on veterinary safety standards. This proposal was declined by the UK[1], citing concerns over the jurisdiction of the EU Court of Justice in dispute resolution.
Faisal Islam writing for the BBC has reported that speaking at the World Economic Forum 2025 hosted in Davos, Maroš Šefčovič has identified that that a full-scale veterinary agreement focused on dynamic alignment for EU-UK farm and food exports would reduce trade friction. Maroš Šefčovič stated “we would have to have the same rules and we have to upgrade them at the same time, we call it dynamic alignment.”[2]
The United Kingdom has been invited to meet with leaders of the European Union at a UK-EU Summit in early 2025, providing opportunity for a reset on discussions with the United Kingdom’s closest trading partner. Whilst the key topic of conversation is likely to entail cooperation on defence, security and immigration, there has been significant ripples of discussion within the agri-food sector, which have identified that both the United Kingdom and the European Union would stand to benefit from an agreement on veterinary standards. With a scope for revision to the bilateral Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA)[3] available from 2026, Alinea Customs reflect on the key regulatory implications of a potential new framework agreement on veterinary standards.
The UK retained sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) controls derive from EU legislation, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2007[4] and Regulation (EU) 2017/625[5] as part of its third-country recognition framework, extending these through the framework of The Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020[6]. In contrast to the agreements that the EU has negotiated with Norway and Switzerland, the TCA benefits from duty-free access for agricultural products. Prior to the exit from the European Union, the United Kingdom was part of the customs union and therefore no border controls were required for products of animal origin (POAO) – e.g. meat, fish, and dairy products, that are covered by SPS controls.
As of 1 January 2020, the EU began enforcing full SPS controls on UK exports, requiring:
- Export health certificates for medium- and high-risk products of animal origin,
- Recognition of approved establishments in the TRACES system[7]
- Creation of common health entry documents (CHED) via TRACES
- Border Control Post (BCP) documentary and physical inspections
- Potential inspections at SIVEP border posts.
The economic impact of these measures was notable. In the year leading to September 2019, the UK’s exports of products of animal origin were valued at £4.83 billion. Post-Brexit, exports declined to £3.95 billion in 2021 but have gradually rebounded to £4.81 billion in the latest available figures.
The United Kingdom – in recognition of the significant impact to the internal market and costs in establishing BCP’s capable of handling inspections, took a cautious approach to the introduction of the Border Target Operating Model (BTOM)[8], gradually implementing SPS controls over the course of more than three years. The full obligations became mandatory from 30th April 2024. This required:
- Export health certificates for medium- and high-risk products of animal origin,
- Recognition of approved establishments in the Import of Products, Animal Food and Feed System (IPAFFS)
- Export Health Certification for medium risk in addition to high risk categories
- Prenotifications using the IPAFFS system across all risk categories, and introduced new costs:
- A minimum charge of £10 for low-risk consignments, rising to £29 for medium- and high-risk commodities, capped at £145 per consignment.
- Additional document and physical inspection fees charged by Border Control Posts for their services – (e.g., Ashford Port Health charges £66 per Common Health Entry Document).
In March 2024, Allianz Trade estimated that the full implementation of BTOM could cost British importers £2 billion and increase inflation by 0.15 percentage points.[9]
Challenges and Opportunities for an SPS Agreement
The UK’s Industrial and Trade Strategy: Invest 2035, which is anticipated to be released in Spring 2025, will outline the government’s priorities, and potentially address steps towards an SPS agreement. However, such an agreement would need to account for divergences in regulations between the UK and EU since Brexit, and additionally present complexity in justifying the significant government expenditure on the introduction of the BTOM which has occurred at central government and local Port Health level.
An SPS agreement could:
- Enhance market access for UK exporters by reducing veterinary and phytosanitary border inspections.
- Lower trade frictions and costs, benefiting both exporters and importers.
- Maintain high biosecurity standards, though care must be taken to prevent risks from reduced border inspections.
Legal Alignment Required for an SPS Agreement
A potential SPS agreement between the UK and EU would need to address several areas of legal alignment to ensure compatibility between their regulatory frameworks:
- Veterinary and Food Safety Standards:
The UK would likely need to align with updates to EU standards under the General Food Law Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 178/2002) and the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) 2016/429)[10] introduced since Brexit. This could involve adopting EU-recognised methods for disease surveillance, animal welfare, and food hygiene.
- Residue Monitoring and Control Plans:
A EU has updated its regulatory framework through Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/405[11] and its 2024 amendment[12], which expanded the scope of approved residue control plans for third countries. In contrast, the UK has not updated its retained EU law (2011/163) in this area. To facilitate mutual recognition, the UK may need to harmonise its own retained EU law (e.g., 2011/163) to reflect these changes.
- Border Controls and Inspections: Legal alignment on risk assessment frameworks and inspection protocols would be crucial. This could include recognition of each other’s BCPs, streamlining documentary requirements, and minimising physical inspections where standards are deemed equivalent.
- Geographical Indications and Labelling: Alignment on labelling rules, including those related to country of origin and food traceability, would ensure that products meet the EU’s consumer information standards.
- Animal Welfare and Environmental Standards: Given the EU’s emphasis on sustainability and ethical production practices, the UK may need to adopt equivalent measures to demonstrate compliance with EU environmental and animal welfare objectives.
- Dispute Resolution and Governance: A key point of contention in previous negotiations has been the issue of governance and dispute resolution. The EU typically insists on oversight mechanisms that include the European Court of Justice (ECJ), while the UK has resisted this. A future SPS agreement would need to outline mutually acceptable governance structures, potentially using arbitration mechanisms similar to those in the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA).
- Dynamic Alignment and Updates: Any agreement would need to include provisions for dynamic alignment, ensuring that as EU SPS standards evolve, the UK remains compliant to maintain market access. This could involve a joint committee or consultation process to oversee updates.
Implications of Legal Alignment
Achieving legal alignment would reduce trade frictions and facilitate the flow of POAO between the UK and EU. However, it would also limit the UK’s ability to independently develop its own SPS standards, potentially constraining its flexibility in negotiating trade agreements with other countries, such as those prioritising lower SPS thresholds (e.g., the US).
Recent Developments
The outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Germany has underscored the importance of robust SPS controls to protect biosecurity. Meanwhile, the delayed introduction of the Single Trade Window—a centralised system for submitting border documentation—has highlighted the UK’s administrative challenges.
While some view SPS controls as trade barriers, they play a critical role in safeguarding against pests and diseases. An agreement aligning UK and EU standards must strike a balance between reducing trade friction and costs and maintaining biosecurity.
[1] House of Commons Library, ‘UK-EU Trade Relations Post-Brexit’ (2024) https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk accessed 22 January 2025.
[2] Islam F and Jordan D, ‘EU Trade Chief: Bloc May Consider UK Joining Pan-Europe Customs Scheme’ (BBC News, 23 January 2025) <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq5g48yx0dvo> accessed 23 January 2025
[3] Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part [2020] OJ L444I/14.
[4] Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2007 of 12 November 2019 laying down rules for the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 as regards the general rules for the organization of official controls [2019] OJ L314/1.
[5] Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety [2002] OJ L31/1
[6] The Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1488).
[7] TRACES, ‘The TRACES System’ (European Commission, 2023) https://ec.europa.eu/food/traces_en accessed 22 January 2025
[8] UK Government, ‘Border Target Operating Model’ (gov.uk, 2023) https://www.gov.uk accessed 22 January 2025.
[9] Allianz Trade, ‘Economic Impact of SPS Measures’ (March 2024) https://www.allianz-trade.com accessed 22 January 2025.
[10] Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on animal health law and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health [2016] OJ L84/1.
[11] Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/405 of 24 March 2021 laying down rules for the approval of residue monitoring plans submitted by third countries, amending Annexes VI and XV to Regulation (EU) 2017/625 [2021] OJ L105/1.
[12] Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/334 of 19 January 2024 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/405 [2024] OJ L26/6.