Consultation outcome

Environment Agency charge proposals for notified international waste shipments: consultation response

Updated 2 April 2024

1. Introduction

In October 2023, the Environment Agency published its consultation ‘Environment Agency charge proposals for notified international waste shipments’. We asked for your views on our proposed charging structure for regulating waste shipments sent under notification controls.

In this document, we outline how the consultation took place, summarise the responses we received and provide our reply to the main themes that were identified. We also confirm our final proposal which reflects the changes to our original proposals as outlined in this document.

1.1 Background

Waste shipment notification controls help protect the environment and human health during the shipment and management of waste. We have an obligation to recover our costs of regulating waste shipments subject to notification controls (known as ‘notified waste’) through charges to waste importers and exporters. We review our charging schemes regularly and consult with the public whenever we make changes.

1.2. Consultation overview

The consultation outlined how the proposals aim to make sure we recover the full cost of our regulatory activity whilst delivering a consistent and transparent approach for notified waste charges. The most recent changes to the international waste shipment charges took place in 2012. The cost of our regulatory activities is currently greater than the fees we charge and as a result we are unable to regulate effectively and provide the quality service waste importers and exporters would like. In developing the proposals, we reviewed the regulatory activity we need to do. This activity analysis informed the proposed charges.

We asked for your views on the following proposals:

• the definition of a single shipment and changes to shipment charging bands
• changes to charges listed in our current charging scheme
• changes to our refunds policy

Most respondents supported the underlying principle of the Environment Agency seeking to recover the full costs of its regulatory activity through the proposed charges. There were challenges and requests for greater transparency around how our charges are formed. We have sought to address this in in the document Environment Agency guide on how we calculate our charges, which outlines our approach to developing charges.

We have listened to feedback and have made changes to our proposals, including our proposed refunds policy. These amendments are outlined in the relevant sections.

Charges for notified waste shipments have not changed for over 10 years. The new charges will create a fair and streamlined charging scheme that helps to make sure waste importers and exporters are complying with the law and not harming the environment. They will allow us to deliver an efficient and effective service by recovering the costs of our regulatory work.

1.3 How we ran the consultation

The consultation ran for 8 weeks, from 4 October 2023 to 29 November 2023. The consultation was hosted on GOV.UK and our Citizen Space consultation website and was open to anybody to take part. Those not able to respond online were able to request a printed copy of the documents to allow them to respond by email or post.

We ran the consultation in line with our legal requirements to consult following the Cabinet Office’s consultation principles and after approval from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

It was important for us to give our customers the opportunity to understand the proposals and the impact they will have. We encouraged our customers to give us their views through the consultation and publicised it widely.

Throughout the development of the proposals and before the consultation, our staff engaged with exporters and importers of notified waste as well as consultants and trade associations to discuss our proposals and listen to views. We ran 2 stakeholder engagement events in May 2023 to outline the proposals, gather feedback and respond to queries, with a total of 148 attendees.

We contacted nearly 400 exporters and importers of notified waste, as well as 7 trade associations, directly by email to inform them of the consultation, as well as releasing press statements to reach other potential stakeholders.

2. Summary of key findings and action we will take

In total we received 31 responses. Of these, 28 were submitted through our Citizen Space consultation website and 2 were sent using our consultation response form. One further response was received by email. The email was considered alongside the other responses but could not be included in the numerical summaries because it did not align with the format of our consultation questions.

Some of these respondents were organisations and trade associations representing larger numbers of interested parties and charge payers.

The breakdown of responses by customer group were:

• 2 individuals
• 29 organisations or groups
• 0 others

Annex 1 provides a list of organisations and groups who participated in the consultation.

2.1 Shipments

Q1. Do you think our refined definition of a single shipment is clear for the purposes of this charging scheme? 

Summary of responses:

• yes – 25
• no – 5

Most customers were happy with the refined definition of a shipment.

Respondents said that the definition was clear and not open to interpretation. Some respondents queried whether the definition needed to include other types of transport such as ‘cassettes’. One respondent suggested that the definition should be changed so that we charge less for ‘part of’ an offshore installation. There were some other requests to clarify how the definition will be applied in specific scenarios.

 Q1. Our response

We are content that all relevant modes of transport are covered by the definition. We are also content that ‘part of’ an offshore installation is equivalent to ‘one’ offshore installation in terms of the regulatory effort required for notifications involving these shipment types. We therefore do not intend to make any changes to the definition outlined in our consultation based on feedback relating to these points.

We have clarified the definition by adding ‘or at any point during the shipment while in the United Kingdom’ to part 3 of the definition. This change reflects the fact that a notification must relate to the shipment’s initial point of dispatch (where the waste is loaded), in line with the regulations. Our guidance has been updated to explain how the definition is applied in specific circumstances including when cassettes are used.

The final definition is as follows.

For the purposes of charging, ‘a shipment’ is either:

1. One shipping container, or
2. One lorry trailer, or
3. A bulk shipment, where the waste is transported in a ship (and the waste is not in shipping containers or in lorry trailers whilst on the ship or at any point during the shipment while in the United Kingdom), or
4. One ship (where the waste is a ship), or
5. One offshore platform, or part of an offshore platform (where the waste is an offshore platform or part of an offshore platform).

Q2. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to include the refined definition of a single shipment in this charging scheme? 

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 8
• agree – 13
• neither agree nor disagree – 5
• disagree – 3
• strongly disagree – 1
• do not know – 0
• not applicable – 0

Most respondents agreed with the proposal to include the refined definition of a single shipment in the charging scheme.

Respondents said that the definition increases transparency, consistency, and fairness. It was recognised that the definition will better allow us to recover our costs and regulate effectively. Some respondents commented that the definition would lead to an increase in costs, especially for containerised shipments, and that this was unfair. They suggested that there may be an increase in bulk shipments as a result. Other comments included that the definition was not in line with other non-UK competent authorities and could increase overseas costs and administrative work as a result.

Q2. Our response

We agree that the definition will increase transparency, consistency and fairness, and allow us to better recover our regulatory costs. We developed the definition in line with the principles of HM Treasury rules on managing public money to make sure that we recover the costs of our regulation and that people only pay for the regulatory service they receive.

We agree that the refined definition may mean that some notifications are categorised as a higher number of shipments and fall into a higher charge band. However, we believe this is fair because it means customers pay for the regulation they receive. We believe we were previously under recovering for our regulatory work in some instances due to the definition of a single shipment being open to interpretation.

We will implement the definition as outlined in question 1.

Q3. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed changes to the shipment charging bands for international waste shipments? 

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 2
• agree – 18
• neither agree nor disagree – 7
• disagree – 3
• strongly disagree – 0
• do not know – 0
• not applicable – 0

Most respondents agreed with the proposed changes to the shipment charging bands.

Respondents said that the current bands are too broad, and the introduction of additional and narrower shipment bands makes things fairer. Two respondents suggested that we should charge more for shipments that involve interim sites. One respondent suggested that charging bands based on tonnage rather than shipments would be fairer. One respondent said that more transparency is needed on how these bands have been developed.

There were also comments on the impacts on customers falling into the 1 to 5 and the over 1,000 shipment charging bands, and a suggestion that the structure of the individual charges should be changed. These points were also raised in response to question 4 of this consultation and are addressed in our response to that question.

Q3. Our response

We agree that the proposed changes to the shipment charging bands makes things fairer for our customers. The new bands make sure that there is a greater correlation between the amount we charge and the work we do, allowing us to better recover the costs of our regulation.

The shipment bands and the variables that dictate how much we charge have been developed in line with managing public money rules to make sure that we recover our costs and only charge customers for the regulation they receive. Our regulatory activity is linked to ‘shipment’ rather than ‘tonnage’, which is why this variable determines which charge category our customers fall into. There is more information on how we develop our charges in the document Environment Agency guide to how we calculate our charges.

We will implement the shipment charging band structure as outlined in our consultation.

2.2 Charge Scheme

Q4. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed changes to the costs of the shipment charging bands for international waste shipments? 

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 1
• agree – 11
• neither agree nor disagree – 7
• disagree – 9
• strongly disagree – 2
• do not know – 0
• not applicable – 0

A similar number of respondents agreed as disagreed with the proposed changes to the costs of the shipment charging bands.

Some respondents said that the charges are fair and proportionate and are necessary for regulation to improve. It was recognised that international waste shipment charges have not increased for a long time. Respondents said it was important that increased costs result in a better service for customers. One respondent suggested that customers should be entitled to refunds where we do not process notifications within statutory timeframes.

A significant number of respondents were unhappy that the changes will in some instances result in increased charges, particularly for notifiers in the smaller shipment bands. It was felt this group are disproportionately impacted. Some suggested it would be fairer to charge more to those making larger notifications. It was also commented that the new charge for notifications of over 1,000 shipments would have a significant impact. Some suggested the changes may lead to unintentional outcomes such as an increase in waste going to landfill or changes in the notification types we receive, leading to an overall reduction in charge income.

Respondents said it is wrong for it to be slightly cheaper to import for disposal than for recovery. Some respondents said that the structure of the individual charges should be different; it was suggested that there could be a fixed application fee with a compliance fee pro-rated by number of shipments. Respondents said that more transparency was needed about how the charges are calculated and what they pay for.

One respondent said that the impact assessment provided was not detailed enough and more information was needed on the overall financial impact of the revised charging scheme.

Q4. Our response

We believe that the current charging scheme does not adequately fund the regulation we need to do, and that individual charge payers are not always paying for the full cost of the regulation they receive. It is right to bring our charges in line with the managing public money guidance as this means charges reflect true costs. Otherwise, costs could be paid by the general taxpayer.

This does mean that charges will increase for some customers, including those in the lower shipment bands, and those notifying over 1,000 shipments. However, we have been significantly under recovering for these notification types.

The way we work has changed since charges were last reviewed. Our review has shown that a greater proportion of work is done up front for notifications. Because this work is needed regardless of the number of shipments, there is now less variance between the bands. Our extra charges for over 1,000 shipments make sure we are resourced to regulate effectively when there is a notification for a very large number of shipments.

We agree that the service we provide to our customers’ needs to improve. We have faced resourcing and resilience issues which has caused notification processing delays. Introducing the proposed new charging scheme will help us to meet our statutory timeframes and we will continue to work with industry to improve the service they receive.

We have revisited the data that informed the charges for import for disposal. Because we receive very few of these notification types, the sample size from which we analysed our activity was very small. Having reconsidered the available data, we think that import for disposal incurs the same regulatory costs as import for recovery. We will therefore be changing the charges for import for disposal so that they match the charges for import for recovery as outlined in our proposal.

We believe it is better to have one single upfront charge at the point of notification instead of separating out ‘application’ and ‘compliance’ fees. There are efficiency savings in charging once, and we believe it would be difficult to separate out the different costs because the associated processes are often linked. A separate ‘compliance’ fee also creates the possibility of bad debt; this would then need to be factored into our processes and reflected in our charges. More information on how our charges are formed can be found in the document Environment Agency guide on how we calculate our charges.

For transparency, we can share that our projection for the expected overall annual income following implementation of the new charges is approximately £4.6 million. Our current income is approximately £3 million.

We will implement the charge amounts detailed in our proposal, except for the charges for import for disposal. These will now match the charges for import for recovery.

Q5. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed additional charges for notifications involving mercury, ozone-depleting substances (ODS), fluorinated gases (F-gases) or naturally-occurring radioactive materials (NORM)? 

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 2
• agree – 6
• neither agree nor disagree – 7
• disagree – 2
• strongly disagree – 3
• do not know – 4
• not applicable – 6

More respondents agreed than disagreed with the proposal, although for most the question was not applicable or respondents neither agreed nor disagreed.

Some respondents recognised that notifications for these waste types would mean more work and it is fair to charge an additional fee.

Two respondents said that the charge was unnecessary given the other charge increases and two respondents were unclear about what work the charge is funding. One respondent said that the charge penalises people for doing the right thing. There were some requests to clarify how and when the charge will be implemented in specific circumstances.

Q5. Our response

We believe it is fair to charge more for notification types that require more work. This is in line with managing public money rules where customers pay for the regulation they receive.

Our analysis has shown that for notifications involving these waste types, additional work is required. This work includes seeking advice and guidance from specialist teams. Our guidance will be updated to make it clearer how the charge is applied in specific circumstances.

We will implement the additional charge for notifications that involve these specific waste types, as outlined in the consultation.

Q6. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed standalone fixed charge for notifications of import or export of ships or offshore installations?

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 1
• agree – 5
• neither agree nor disagree – 7
• disagree – 0
• strongly disagree – 0
• do not know – 2
• not applicable – 15

Most respondents said this question was not applicable to them, or neither agreed nor disagreed.

No one disagreed with the proposal and 6 respondents agreed. Two respondents said that the charge should be higher. One respondent said that the charge is overly harsh for shipments of ‘part of’ an offshore installation.

Q6. Our response

We believe it is fair to charge more for notification types that require more work. This is in line with managing public money rules where customers pay for the regulation they receive.

Our analysis has shown that these notification types involve complex assessments that take a lot of time. We are content that ‘part of’ an offshore installation requires an equivalent amount of regulatory effort as ‘one’ offshore installation.

We will implement the standalone fixed charge for ships and offshore installations as outlined in the consultation.

Q7. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed standalone fee for the assessment for pre-consented status?

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 0
• agree – 10
• neither agree nor disagree – 7
• disagree – 3
• strongly disagree – 2
• do not know – 1
• not applicable – 7

Twice as many respondents agreed as disagreed. Around half of the respondents either said the question was not applicable to them or neither agreed nor disagreed.

Several respondents said that the charge was fair and that it is right for us to charge for this additional work. Others felt that the fee was excessive or that the assessment was not needed at all. Some customers thought the charge would apply to notifications for shipments sent to pre-consented sites, on top of the relevant banding fee. This is incorrect; the charge is applied to the site applying for pre-consented status and lasts for a maximum of 10 years unless revoked. All notifications relating to a site which holds pre-consented status will benefit from an extension of the usual consented period to a maximum of 3 years.

Q7. Our response

To fulfil our regulatory duty, we need to assess applications for pre-consented facilities. We do not currently charge for this work which means we are not adequately funding our regulatory activity. We believe the charge is fair and representative of the work we carry out.

We will implement the standalone fee for the assessment for pre-consented status, as outlined in our consultation. The fee will apply to the site applying for pre-consented status, not notifications for shipments sent to pre-consented sites.

Q8. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed administrative charge for amendments to notifications and associated documents including financial guarantees?

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 0
• agree – 8
• neither agree nor disagree – 4
• disagree – 8
• strongly disagree – 8
• do not know – 2
• not applicable – 0

Twice as many respondents disagreed as agreed with this proposal.

Some respondents agreed with the premise of charging for amendments because of the additional work required. However, a significant number of respondents said the charge was too high and that it is unfair to charge, particularly for those changes thought to be outside of a customer’s control. This includes changes requested by the overseas competent authority. Some respondents said that the charge should apply only after a notification has been consented by all competent authorities. There were several requests to make it clearer how the fee will be implemented in practice and what constitutes an ‘amendment’ (change).

Q8. Our response

As a result of the comments received, we have revisited the work we need to carry out when responding to a change request  and have revised the charge. We still believe that the notification being sent to the overseas competent authority is a key point in the process, with changes after this requiring significantly more effort. We will therefore continue to apply the charge after this point.

We can confirm that our intention has never been to charge for changes requested by any of the competent authorities involved in the waste’s journey. We will issue guidance to make it clearer how the amendment fee is applied in specific circumstances.

Some of the responses suggested that changes are an important part of managing a business’s operations or risks. We agree with this and allow certain changes to take place to allow this flexibility. Processing these changes does however require additional work which we need to recover through this charge.

We will implement an administrative charge of £82 for any (permissible) changes to notifications and associated documents including financial guarantees, after the notification is sent to the overseas competent authority for their approval.

2.3 Refunds

Q9. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach to refunds?

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 3
• agree – 4
• neither agree nor disagree – 9
• disagree – 8
• strongly disagree – 6
• do not know – 0
• not applicable – 0

Twice as many respondents disagreed as agreed with this proposal.

Some respondents said that the proposal was fair and reasonable and that the Environment Agency should be able to have more certainty around their planned activity. Others said that the proposed refund ‘window’ of one month was too short and that it would be unfair to refuse a refund if no shipments have been made. It was suggested that we would be retaining money for work we have not done. Respondents said that refunds are sometimes required for reasons outside of their control and that contingency notifications are crucial to the running of their business. Some respondents suggested that the proposed refund policy could lead to significant financial impacts for industry and more waste being sent to landfill.

Some respondents also said that the amount retained by us is too high and overly harsh  to those in the 1 to 5 shipment band. It was suggested that it would be fairer to retain a percentage or proportion of the charge instead of the whole 1 to 5 band fee.

Q9. Our response

We have listened to your feedback around the impacts that this proposal would have on industry. Due to the concerns raised, we have decided not to change our refunds policy and not to proceed with the approach proposed in the consultation.

We recognise that we will be retaining more money for refunds as the 1 to 5 band has increased for all activities. We believe we were under recovering previously and that the new 1 to 5 fee recovers the costs of the work we carry out on notifications which are then refunded.

We will maintain our current position on refunds which is the following.

You may request a refund from the Environment Agency if:

• your notification application is objected to
• you withdraw your notification before it receives consent
• your notification has received consent, but none of the waste has shipped

Your charge will be refunded minus the ‘minimum charge’. The minimum charge is the amount for your activity for 1 to 5 shipments, as shown in the charges table.

You must apply for a refund within 12 months of the notification’s date of consent. You cannot move waste on a notification once you have received a refund. 

2.4 Economic context

Q10. To what extent do you agree or disagree with our assessment of the economic context?

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 1
• agree – 10
• neither agree nor disagree – 7
• disagree – 7
• strongly disagree – 3
• do not know – 2
• not applicable – 0

Around a third of respondents agreed with our assessment of the economic impact, a similar number also disagreed with parts of our assessment.

Several of the themes raised in response to this question are already covered in questions 1 to 9 so we will not repeat them in this section.

Some respondents said that that the changes would have a material impact, and that there may be unintended consequences as a result, such as an increase in waste crime and more waste going to landfill. Some respondents disagreed with our suggestion that additional costs can be passed down to waste producers. Others said that comparing charges to the other costs involved in international freight is not helpful. This is because customers will need to bear both costs and that the charges for international freight  have been higher than normal due to COVID-19 and the energy crisis. Some respondents called for a more detailed economic assessment of the impacts.

Q10. Our response

We are grateful for your feedback which has helped us to better understand the economic impact of the charge proposals.

We have considered your responses when developing our final proposals. We still need to bring our charges in line with managing public money which means that charges will increase for some of our customers, but we believe the changes we will implement are fair and proportionate.

As a result of your feedback, we have changed some of our proposals. We are maintaining our current refund policy, and we are decreasing the charge for changes, which we believe will reduce the impact on customers.

Q11. Please share any additional comments that you think may help us improve our current proposals

Summary of responses:

Several of the themes raised in response to this question are already covered in questions 1 to 10 so we will not repeat them in this section.

Additional themes raised included implementation:

• a warning that there may be a spike in applications before the charges change leading to further processing delays
• queries around the transition to the new charges
• a request for a longer lead-in time

They also included suggestions for further amendments to international waste shipments processes and charges, including opportunities for self-regulation and performance-based regulation.

Q11. Our response

We are grateful for your feedback and have considered your responses when developing our final proposals and preparing for implementation. We intend to provide guidance to operators to make sure it is clear how the new charges apply.

We have developed our final proposals in line with HM Treasury guidance managing public money and we believe that they are fair, proportionate and will allow us to regulate effectively.

We are committed to continuous improvement. We will make sure  any additional comments submitted that are outside of the scope of this consultation  are considered as part of any future review of our charges and or processes for international waste shipments.

3. Next steps

The new Waste (Miscellaneous) charging scheme 2024 will come into force on 1 April 2024 having gained approval by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Defra and consent of HM Treasury. The changes will be implemented under existing legislation in Section 41 of the Environment Act 1995.

This will be published as ‘Waste (miscellaneous) charging scheme’.