Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of MRW, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Folly of the EA’s hands-off approach

Paul Dawson

“Often, regulation gets in the way.” That was one of the open­ing phrases from resource min­ister Therese Coffey during a debate on the circular economy (CE) last November.

She argued that markets, not governments, were best placed to develop opportunities for resource efficiency, delivering benefits for both the environ­ment and the bottom line.

The minister is correct that the journey to a resource-effi­cient economy relies on busi­nesses embracing the principle wholeheartedly. But the Gov­ernment’s own regulatory authority has to do likewise.

Regulation must continue to provide the correct market signals and help to move demand patterns in the right direction. It can only do this if it regulates fairly, setting the correct balance between envi­ronmental protection and the need to encourage recycling.

Product Certrification

Product Certrification

For a horticultural company such as Rolawn, regulation is important in helping to improve our resource efficiency while ensuring compliance with the law. But the current regulatory framework designed by Defra and the Environment Agency (EA) is hampering these efforts.

This is evidenced by the dif­ficulties businesses such as ours face in achieving certification for products, even when there is a legal, economic and environmental case for grant­ing end-of-waste (EoW) status.

This barrier to market became significantly higher when the EA decided to close the Definition of Waste Panel. While the panel had been crit­icised for its excessive analysis, the replacement, a self-assess­ment method called Isitwaste, presents clear challenges.

Isitwaste places the onus on operators to determine if their recycled products meet EoW criteria. This might appear sensible but the reality is that it may deter investment. Busi­nesses need some regulatory certainty and, without it, many will not invest significantly in research and innovation.

Many EoW submissions would benefit from technical collaboration and dialogue with the EA – not this ‘hands-off’ approach. Other organisations appear to share our concerns, with 360 Environmental saying that the “un-wieldy” tool “struggles with practicalities”.

Rather than unleashing a CE revolution, this regulatory change could have the reverse effect. The EA’s decision could also present challenges for enforcement as the ‘bad guys’ take advantage of the lack of Government oversight.

The industry is already feel­ing the effects. For Rolawn, it threatens job losses and a sig­nificant loss of revenue, not to mention investment plans being put on hold.

Paul Dawson is managing director of Rolawn

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.