OATA’s ideas for EU/UK SPS Agreement

September 2025

OATA’s written evidence to the Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs Committee call for evidence: Animal and Plant Health

The Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association (OATA) represents more than 800 UK businesses which provide fish-keepers with everything they need to set up and maintain a successful home aquarium or garden pond. Our members include retailers, breeders, importers, manufacturers and plant growers, many of which are SMEs. Analysis has found that the UK ornamental aquatic trade is worth over £1bn annually, of which £660m is generated from retail sales.

1. What is a realistic timeline for the negotiation and implementation of an SPS agreement?

Any negotiations must be performed in a robust manner with clearly defined objectives from the UK’s perspective. Communication with stakeholders regarding the status of these objectives is vital – as is keeping stakeholders up to date with the progression of negotiations. An SPS agreement has the potential to greatly benefit UK businesses, and it would be in the best interests of Government to highlight these positives throughout the process – while being realistic about what can be achieved within given timelines.

Engagement mechanisms (such as business forums and formal consultations) are essential throughout the negotiations. This will allow businesses to receive guidance, seek clarity and provide a forum where concerns can be raised. The success of such engagement relies on the attendance of knowledgeable officials who can freely discuss the realities of negotiations, including timelines and progress. The current status quo is not good for business. For example, EU imports of live fish entering the UK via road/seaports are not currently subject to any physical checks, whereas those arriving from the rest of the world are subject to check levels of 5-10%. A lack of consistency particularly affects businesses which rely on live fish imports from non-EU countries – which make up the bulk of our industry.

If the objective of the SPS agreement is to increase alignment and reduce regulatory burden, then implementation should be relatively straightforward, in theory. However, technical issues would remain and need to be addressed. Since Brexit, Great Britain has replaced the EU’s TRACES system with its own IPAFFS system. Both serve the same purpose of recording, tracking and validating the movement of live animals (and other goods which are subject to sanitary and phytosanitary controls). However, Northern Ireland continues to use TRACES under the NI Protocol/ Windsor Framework. This inconsistency of systems creates practical challenges for businesses. TRACES provides shared visibility across all EU member states, whereas IPAFFS is designed solely for the UK market. Without interoperability and visibility for UK businesses, moving goods across the GB/EU/NI border may face duplication of data entry, delays, or inconsistencies in certification. These technical aspects must be considered throughout negotiations and continued engagement with stakeholders will allow for industry specific input.

Increased alignment and the presence of common understandings will reduce burdens. This should be able to be implemented promptly with no transition period. This would provide an opportunity to instantly reduce costs and save time for both business and Government – leading to further growth in the economy.

2. What opportunities and risks are posed by the introduction of dynamic regulatory alignment with the EU?

 Consistent regulation with the EU would reduce friction, costs to both business and Government and directly support growth. The UK’s recognition and acceptance of EU plant passports would instantly benefit UK businesses by removing a layer of bureaucracy. Currently, traders operating both within the UK and with the EU must comply with two overlapping regimes, creating inefficiency and unnecessary cost.

Currently, UK businesses exporting live animals must use the EU’s Export Health Certificate (EHC). The format, wording and assertations must explicitly match EU templates and requires a signature by an Official Veterinarian. Similarly, imports into Great Britain require a UK Health Certificate which mirrors domestic rules. Since there is no mutual recognition of health certificates businesses face duplication, higher costs and uncertainty. The impact is particularly felt in industries built on smaller, more frequent consignments, such as the ornamental aquatics trade, where the cost of veterinary sign-off and repeated paperwork can be a large portion of the value of the consignment. A similar problem arises in trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Since Northern Ireland applies EU SPS rules, GB-NI movements must also meet EU health certification requirements. This barrier has led several businesses to scale back or stop trading with Northern Ireland altogether on account of the increased cost and paperwork burden.

Reciprocal acceptance of EU and UK health certificates would provide an immediate solution. It would deliver immediate, tangible benefits of lower costs to both business and Government, fewer delays and increased stability for business – at the same time supporting the Government’s growth agenda by reducing unnecessary bureaucracy while maintaining high biosecurity standards. For GB–NI trade, it would reopen trade routes and ease the flow of goods. For UK–EU trade, it would cut compliance costs, remove duplication of paperwork and give UK businesses a greater competitive edge both in EU and global markets.

Changes to Animal Health Certificates can currently be made twice a year, with each change having a three month “transition period” to allow the scientific authorities in foreign countries time to prepare and raise queries. In practice, this creates ongoing uncertainty for industry, increased costs in terms of both time and money and has questionable benefit: with some changes to certificates making little or no difference to the health or welfare of animals. The details of changes in health certificates can be slow to reach the relevant personnel in foreign Scientific Authorities. Updates are typically provided to the Chief Veterinary Officer of a given country and may take some time to filter down to the officials who issue the certificates day-to-day. This shortens the effective “transition period” and increases the risk of non-compliance – such mistakes or delays ultimately fall back on UK businesses and result in increased costs and disrupted trade. Introducing less frequent and more meaningful updates to health certificates would provide stability and reduce administrative burdens without compromising biosecurity standards.

Dynamic regulatory alignment could reduce the UK’s ability to set its own rules on invasive species. For example, the water hyacinth, a fast-growing aquatic plant, is classified as a Species of Union Concern in the EU due to its potential to disrupt waterways. While it cannot survive UK winters and therefore poses limited practical risk domestically, it thrives in warmer climates in some EU countries. After Brexit, the UK made the decision to delist water hyacinth, however this delisting is yet to happen. This delay has already cost businesses due to a lack of trade. Under full alignment, the UK could be required to apply restrictions or reporting requirements that are not proportionate to the actual risk in, simply to maintain consistency with EU law. This would mean that effective trade bans would be in place without demonstrable benefits to biosecurity or conservation.

Legislatively, this highlights a broader challenge – alignment would require the UK to track EU law closely and amend domestic regulations to mirror changes, even when those changes do not reflect UK ecological or commercial realities. This creates ongoing compliance costs for Government and businesses alike, and may restrict the UK’s flexibility to adopt targeted, risk-based measures.

In regard to alignment on CITES regulations – the UK should only align with environmental goals which have a proven conservation benefit, especially if those goals run counter to growth. Industry must be asked to inform on any risk assessments associated with introduced measures.

Unless regulatory alignment is completely reciprocal it is unlikely to give any advantage to UK businesses – which would face the same compliance costs and obligations if the EU does not formally recognise UK standards. Our businesses could ultimately bear the cost of alignment without gaining any competitive advantage. In many industries, rest-of-world is a larger trade partner than the EU and we would not want to see this trade stifled by any EU-UK trade arrangements. Similarly, alignment has the potential to open smuggling routes as enforcement would be reliant on surveillance.

3. How should traders, producers, businesses and policy makers prepare in sectors where regulatory divergence already exists or may emerge, such as in precision breeding, animal welfare and crop protection?

 Animal welfare remains a devolved matter both in the UK and across EU Member States and we advise it to remain this way. A UK-wide SPS alignment with the EU may be perceived as undermining devolved authority if the agreement aims to “lock in” common rules which devolved nations cannot adjust to – this may cause political friction.

4. How should the UK Government engage with industry stakeholders and devolved administrations to ensure the agreement aligns with wider agri-food and environmental goals?

 Animal health goals should be explicitly included here and be a key component of considerations – for example The Aquatic Animal Health (England and Wales) Regulations 2009.

In the recently published Backing Your Business report produced by the Department for Business and Trade the Government states a key action is to “Cut the administrative costs of regulation for business by 25%, to save businesses time and money so they can focus on running successful businesses”. Several of the measures proposed in this response would provide an excellent opportunity for the Government to address this key action without any compromise on the UK’s biosecurity, animal health and welfare or conservation status. Those include the reciprocal acceptance of health certificates, less frequent updates to Animal Health Certificates, differentiated and risk-based physical border inspections, recognition of EU plant passports and streamlining systems (TRACES/IPAFFS) on the border to prevent duplication. It is paramount that any alignment or introduced measures must have quantifiable conservation, animal health/welfare or biosecurity benefits in light of statements made in the above report.

Any measures being considered should be included in early and transparent consultation with stakeholders – to allow for co-design of a regulatory framework to reflect sector-specific needs. The UK Government must acknowledge the differences in sectors and outcomes must be proportionate – avoiding penalising one sector for the sake of another.  Some of the potential outcomes of measures may be hidden to Government and stakeholders are the best placed to advise on potential negative outcomes. Whilst we appreciate our early involvement via this consultation, it is vital that stakeholder communications are heard throughout the process, especially regarding informing on any risk assessments associated with introduced measures. Part of this process involves clear communication of realistic timelines. Implementation of the Border Target Operating Model (BTOM) has been delayed, and communication has not always been timely. This leaves businesses in a position of uncertainty and can stifle plans for future growth.

5. What could the implications of an SPS agreement for trade and border controls be, including border infrastructure, resources, biosecurity, trade friction, growth and the treatment of imports from non-EU countries

 Any action towards simplification of procedures at the border is welcomed by industry – it is currently unclear whether current measures are proportionate to the risks posed by imports.

Although trade patterns are hard to predict, shifts towards EU trade are likely to occur in some sectors as businesses take advantage of reduced burdens. Our sector relies heavily on trade from outside of the EU and it is important that this trade is not stifled by any EU trade agreement. The introduction of electronic health certificates would streamline processes on the border immensely for global trade. Indonesia has already implemented a QR code-based system for certification, whereas the UK continues to rely on physical documents requiring a wet signature.

Reduced pressure on staff at Border Control Posts (BCP) as a result of reduced bureaucracy would save the Government time and money. In our sector this would only be the case if we move away from all live animals being categorised as high-risk. Under the current BTOM we expect to see bottlenecks, which will have negative welfare implications for the animals concerned. Removing these checks would free up Government spending for investment for BCP’s which serve the rest of the world – such as maintenance fees and staff expenditure.

Trade friction, delays and the associated negative animal welfare outcomes could be reduced for low-risk commodities, but this depends on reciprocal flexibility in physical check levels. Physical check levels should not be increased on high-risk commodities without reducing checks on the lower risk commodities. This should be reflected in any EU/UK agreement.

The categorisation of all live animals as “high-risk” simply does not make sense for ornamental fish. Our animals are destined for closed-systems and, in the case of freshwater species, are already regulated under the Import of Live Fish (England and Wales) Act 1980. Under this framework, any freshwater fish not included on the permitted list, or not explicitly exempted from license conditions under The Prohibition of Keeping or Release of Live Fish (Specified Species) (England) Order 2014, cannot be imported, sold, kept or released. The species permitted under ILFA have undergone a formal risk assessment and are not considered to pose a threat to native ecosystems, biodiversity or human health. Regarding saltwater fish, the ornamental industry trades in coral reef fish with tropical ranges. The waters around the UK are too cold for these fish to survive and hence they pose no risk of becoming invasive.

6. How might an SPS agreement affect the UK’s internal market, particularly considering regulatory divergence across the devolved nations?

The outcomes of the negotiations should always reduce friction. There is an increased risk of fragmentation and more trade barriers if devolved nations adopt different SPS standards. Differing rules across devolved nations will increase costs – both in economic and time – reduce consumer choice and ultimately increase prices for the end consumer.

Divergence of rules without appropriate enforcement could result in disproportionate blanket bans. As an example, Florida and Cuban Gars can be imported legally into Scotland, but not England or Wales. These fish can currently be processed at an English BCP and transported to Scotland, so long as they remain in controlled transport packaging. Although it is illegal to import, sell or own a Florida/Cuban Gar (or any hybrid) in England, cases have been observed where specimens imported into Scotland are moved across the border into England. In practice, enforcing this legislation is extremely challenging and the same would likely be compounded with further divergence. Nevertheless, the option of imposing a blanket ban on the import, sale and/or keeping of these Gar across the UK would be a very blunt instrument to address enforcement issues.

7. What impact could the proposed SPS agreement have on upcoming Defra agri-food and environmental strategies, such as the Land Use Framework, Food Strategy, Farming Roadmap, and efforts to improve farming profitability and sustainable growth?

 Not applicable.