The EIP: 10 Days of the 10 Goals

Chapter 3 of the Environmental Improvement Plan 2025 (EIP) is all about creating a more ‘circular economy’, described as a system which:

“... replaces the linear make, use and throw model. Sharing, repairing, refurbishing, remanufacturing and recycling creates a closed loop that gives products and materials a new life again and again”.

Which brings us onto Goal 5 and the topic of waste. The overarching aim being to “minimise waste by designing it out of the system, reusing and recycling materials wherever possible” and “turning waste into economic potential”.

These concepts are not new. In Britain, ideas reminiscent of the circular economy were around even in the Victorian period. In the 1840s, the Poor Law Commissioner Sir Edwin Chadwick proposed a comprehensive plan for transforming London’s excess urban waste into agricultural manure as a means of increasing productivity and feeding the working population. In Charles Dickens’ Our Mutual Friend, the main character’s fortune is built on the trade of rubbish sourced from combing the dust heaps of London. The latter was no doubt in large part a critique of the material condition of mid-century urban Britain and the excesses of the upper classes, but both Chadwick and Dickens present an idea of society built on limited resources and waste processing capacity, where reformers sought to make these resources productive through the reduction, reuse and recycling of materials.

Channeling the spirit of Chadwick, Goal 5 seeks to support the transition to a circular economy by committing to: (1) minimising waste, (2) tackling waste crime, and (3) producing a circular economy growth plan.

Minimising waste

The EIP sets out eight interim targets for the purposes of the waste target in the Environment Act 2021 (note: the Environment Act requires that each statutory target has at least one interim target set in the EIP which covers the five years from publication of the latest revision of the EIP).

Those interim targets include ensuring that by December 2030 the total mass of residual waste (excluding major mineral waste) in the most recent calendar year does not exceed 437kg per capita; and that residual municipal waste does not exceed 333 kg per capita. There are similar interim targets for plastic (42kg), paper and card (74kg), metal (10kg), glass (7kg) and food (64kg).

We are told these interim targets “will be achieved mainly through the delivery of the government’s collection and packaging reforms”. By this the EIP means the Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging (pEPR) scheme being implemented under The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024.

The 2024 regulations introduced a new obligation for producers to pay disposal fees in relation to household packaging, which are then passed on to local authorities to fund their household packaging waste management costs. Founded on the “polluter pays” principle, the intention is to shift responsibility away from local authorities and motivate producers to prioritise sustainability when designing and marketing their packaging. From 2026 onwards, producers will be charged higher disposal fees for less recyclable packaging.

Draft amending regulations to the 2024 regulations have already been laid before Parliament and are due to come into force on 1 January 2026.^{^[1]} These will, among other things, allow producers to deduct tonnage of recycled plastic packaging from their pEPR obligations where these have been collected from consumers directly and reprocessed into food grade recycled material via a closed-loop system. The proposed amendments will also grant powers to the scheme administrator (PackUK) to appoint and delegate its functions to a Producer Responsibility Organisation (PRO) in an effort to facilitate more involvement from producers with the pEPR scheme.

Aside from the pEPR, the EIP sets out further actions to minimise waste, including introducing a Deposit Return Scheme for drinks containers from October 2027, a ‘Simpler Recycling in England’ system from 2025, and separate food waste collections for all households from 2026.

Tackling waste crime

Here the EIP sets out the government’s commitment to “removing criminal threats to a circular economy” by reducing both illegal waste sites and fly tipping incidents from 2023/2024 levels by 2030.

This is to be achieved by:

amending regulation;
encouraging investment in new technology and infrastructure, and
tackling the gap of 23% in landfill tax duty evasion, which is said to result in approximately £150 million lost tax revenue annually.^{^[2]}

On the regulatory front, the key actions appear to be amending the existing Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 to both stop the use of permit exemptions to hide illegal waste activity, and also bring the regulation of waste carriers, brokers and dealers within the scope of the environmental permitting system. Waste exemptions allow operators to carry out certain low-risk waste activities under a registration scheme, without needing an environmental permit.

The proposed amendments are not set out in the EIP itself, but we know from the consultation which ran earlier this year^{^[3]} that the amendments would allow certain regulators (the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales) to create, amend and remove types of exempt facilities and activities which are not required to hold an environmental permit. DEFRA also published a policy paper in July 2025^{^[4]} proposing the following changes:

removing three permit exemptions (depolluted end-of-life for parts, mechanically treating end-of-life tyres, and recovery of scrap metal);
tightening seven other exemptions (including waste in construction, treatment of waste wood, burning of vegetation, and storage in containers and secure places);
prohibiting or limiting how many exceptions can be used at a single site or sites with a permit; and
increasing requirements for waste operators to record information about exemptions.

At this stage, the consultation documents and policy paper only provide a high level overview of what the amendments will cover, so the devil will be in the detail. We know little about how and when the new proposed powers will be used, and some consultees have raised concerns that greater flexibility could make it difficult for operators to plan and invest with confidence.^{^[5]} The potential costs of the proposed powers are also unclear – which will impact both operators and regulators who will need to fund the additional work in administering the exemptions. Finally, if the powers are poorly implemented, higher-risk activities may potentially be able to escape under the radar without adequate oversight, as well as the cumulative impacts of many low-risk activities which collectively pose a greater risk to human health and the environment.

In respect of new technology and infrastructure, the EIP refers to the introduction of a ‘digital waste tracking service’ to modernise record keeping and enable better detection of illegal activity, although no details are provided. We are also told DEFRA intends to publish guidance in early 2026 to support local councils to seize and crush more vehicles used for fly-tipping, including by using new technologies.

Producing a circular economy growth plan

The EIP commits to publishing a circular economy growth plan in early 2026, followed by its implementation through a ‘monitoring and reporting’ approach against progress indicators which are still being developed.

Conclusion

Ultimately, Chadwick’s vision never materialised. His plan for a circular economy required an element of centralisation which was anathema to much of Parliament, local authorities and the national press. Today, the concept of a circular economy is no longer a radical proposal: the European Union adopted its Circular Economy Action Plan in 2015, part of the evolution in policy making that resulted in the launch of the European Green Deal in 2019 which aims to cut emissions by 50% by 2030. The EIP and the generally positive response to consultations such as those to reforming the environmental permitting system demonstrate that the political will which was absent in the 1840s is alive at least.

The framework envisaged under the EIP, however, will require teeth so that it can be enforced. It relies on industry buy-in and, crucially, dramatic changes in both producer and consumer behaviour. Regulations will need to be drafted and implemented. Guidance, we are told, is on its way. And we await further detail on the various localised schemes/measures promised to manage recycling and waste collection. With that in mind, the timescales for delivery by 2030 are rather ambitious, but they are a step in the right direction, and one which Chadwick would likely have approved of.

Edward-Arash Abedian focuses on public, planning, and environmental law at Landmark Chambers.

^{^[1]} The draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

^{^[2]}https://www.gov.uk/government/...

^{^[3]}https://consult.defra.gov.uk/e...

^{^[4]} ‘Reforming the waste exemptions system’ (DEFRA, 15 July 2025). Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/...

^{^[5]}https://www.gov.uk/government/...