Despite the speculation – and our concern – that the environment wouldn’t be part of the UK-EU Reset talks, 30 of the 61 points in the Common Understanding document produced as part of the Reset come under the heading IV. Strengthening our economies while protecting our planet and its resources. The volume of environment related policy shows both the richly intertwined nature of UK and EU environment and climate policy and their shared ambitions which allows for this alignment to be more easily contemplated.

And still to the casual follower of the Reset you wouldn’t know it. These policy areas are woven deeply into many other aspects of policy, particularly trade, energy and economy, which is appropriate, rather than being seen as bolt-ons. This is an economically driven agreement but one that has environmental consequences. A silver cloud with a green lining. Ben Reynolds delves deeper into the agreement, and explores the questions it raises about the forecast ahead for the environment.

Emissions Trading

One widely welcomed outcome is the proposed alignment of the UK and EU Emissions Trading System (ETS)  to create a single and larger carbon market (and something that we put on our list of low hanging fruit for the UK EU Reset).  Once operational, this will, in principle strengthen both markets and the effectiveness of the system, and provide greater regulatory certainty- although there is a lot of detail to navigate which could take some time.  In the bigger picture, while it benefits climate policy, it is essentially  a return to the position before Brexit when the UK was part of the EU wide ETS. It has been brought about at least in part by the looming economic impact of the EU’s CBAM mechanism which will result in levies on a range of UK exports from January 2026 unless the carbon price is at least as high as in the EU.

It sits alongside a less concrete commitment to explore UK participation in the EU internal energy market. This has potential benefits for both sides, not least because a more connected system provides greater security and an improved capacity to manage the transition to renewables across the continent.

Alignment of product and chemicals standards

Given the Government’s priority of fostering economic growth, it was perhaps odd not to see greater alignment with (more ambitious) EU product standards feature in the announcement. This would include those standards relating to chemicals and circular economy.

Sure, it is not a headline issue like defence and security, but many of the elements are being put in place from the UK-side to do so, not least the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. And given the Chancellor’s statements (FT, 2024) on potentially aligning on chemicals standards and other facts raised in our recent briefing, it would seem that both sides would gain from UK alignment, and not a contentious part of negotiations, or even something where negotiations are needed. But when you look further into the detail, specifically Clause 11 of the Common Understanding paper in the agreement (under Health Security), states: chemical security should be part of regular exchanges at all levels, in appropriate fora, with a view to protecting public health. This is a welcome signal of  a more cooperative approach. Could it also lead to steps to protect the UK market from being flooded with chemicals that have been banned from the EU if, as expected, UK regulations lag behind? Is this a nod to the spectre of PFAs which many countries are taking action on, or looking to? If so, what mechanisms does the UK have in mind to do so – will it cooperate with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to align with their decisions on chemical registrations?

Veterinary Agreement

In order to secure the Veterinary/Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) agreement to reduce trade barriers for agri-food exports/imports the UK has committed to dynamically align with the EU (Clause 26 and 27) i.e. the UK will follow  relevantEU rules as they develop in the years to come (and as many will point out – with little say). This provides a mixed bag, and adopting the EU’s higher pesticide standards would be a welcome move for UK biodiversity. In Oral evidence to the EFRA Committee on the morning of 20 May 2025, Secretary of State Steve Reed clarified that alignment on gene modification and precision breeding is still under negotiation, with the UK seeking an exemption to have different standards and regulations on this technology. This may see this permitted in the UK, as Government plans to, for example, but not allowed for export to EU.

It is also not yet clear what process the Government will put in place to allow for Parliamentary scrutiny and to allow stakeholders (particularly farmers and food supply businesses) to prepare. For those ready for the rabbit hole on these issues, the 2025 Lydgate et al paper is worth a read: An EU-UK SPS Agreement: The perils and possibilities of (re)alignment | CITP)

Technical and scientific cooperation with partners across Europe

As a symbolic gesture of resetting the relationship with the EU and European programmes, one thing that has been raised with Defra is whether it is exploring rejoining the European Environment Agency and its sister network, the European Environment Information and Observation Network (Eionet), (given EU membership is not required to be part of these).

In this context Clause 31 of the Common Understanding documents states The United Kingdom should have appropriate access to relevant European Union agencies, systems and databases in the areas covered by the SPS Agreement. Might this extend to the EEA, Eionet or the European Chemicals Agency?

We hope so. As with Horizon and Copernicus, building links between scientists and technical specialists only enhances knowledge and understanding on both sides of the Channel. In environmental policy, working together through the EEA, Eionet and European Chemicals Agency is the way to go.

Fishing and the marine environment

The agreement on fishing clearly came in so late in the day that the detail was not included in the main agreement documents published around the Reset. The main elements include an extension (to 2038) to the existing fishing quotas and access agreements made by the last Government, and the announcement of a £360m fund for UK fishing communities (over this same period). Give the recent Tribunal ruling on the Sandeel fishing dispute with the EU though, one of the big questions was whether the agreement, which they admit the details of which are still being finalised, will affect Government potential to extend similar restrictions to other parts of its waters?

SoS Steve Reed was clear in the EFRA Committee evidence session (20 May) that this would not be the case and that the UK reserved its autonomy over these matters. But having the powers to use them, and actually using them are another matter, and in the renewed spirit of cooperation with the EU, it is unlikely that the Government will be the poopers at the party this quickly. Conversely, they may want to push back at some of the scepticism over the fishing deal by demonstrating the powers they still have.

Future negotiations

As the UK Prime Minister, Council and Commission Presidents were at pains to stress in their press conference; the 19 May talks set out a roadmap. It was the start of the Reset and not the destination. Many details are still to be worked out, but they paint the overall picture of what the relationship should look like.

Over the next months and well into 2026 when the review of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement is underway, IEEP UK would hope that further detail is added to those areas that are mentioned – SPS, fishing and emissions trading; but also other concrete actions on environmental protection, such as around chemicals and product standards and the sharing of technical and scientific expertise.

Photo by Matthew Smith on Unsplash