Review of the Resources
and Waste Strategy

ciwm.co.uk

Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION
At the start of 2024, CIWM set up a Task
and Finish Group to review the Resources
and Waste Strategy (R&WS), following
discussions at its Policy and Innovation
Forum. This was in anticipation of a
possible change in Government and ageneral election that would happen in 2024.
The P&I Forum saw an opportunity within thispossible political change to review where the
R&WS was and what really needed to change
to bring about the ambitions of net zero.
CIWM believes this review can support the new
Government in their first 100 days that are seenas crucial for them to grasp what is needed for amore economic and resource resilient UK. It also
provides the thoughts and foundations for the
longer-term policy thinking and changes that areneeded to create a resource resilient UK, movetowards a circular economy and achieve net zero.
As a sector, there is a real need to move the
UK to become a resource resilient country. The
current Resources and Waste Strategy does not
go far enough and does not contain the policy
levers to achieve this. That means developing
a new strategy for the sector, a Resource
Resilience Strategy that is aimed at facilitatinga move to a circular economy, that keeps

resources in economic use and brings about achange in the way products are designed andused. This change in perspective for the policy
drivers impacting our sector will ultimately help
to mitigate climate change.

The review was undertaken in two parts.

Part one
The first task of the working group was toundertake a fundamental review of the 2018
Resources and Waste Strategy (R&WS). They
analysed the policies that had been proposedin it and how far the government had got
in implementing them. There was also a
recognition of the external context policy makers
were operating in during this period that could
influence their ability to get things done.

Part two
The second part then built on this and lookedat where we are today and how conversations
and thoughts have advanced since 2018. Whatwould a strategy need to include today if you
produced a successor to the R&WS? And more
importantly, what should such a strategy be
focused on and, at a high level, be looking toachieve and facilitate?

2

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Executive Summary

Part one: the pastand the present
When the Resources and Waste
Strategy was published in December
2018, it was met with a high levelof support from the sector.
The Strategy was wide-ranging andincluded a large number of policy
proposals, including several – such as
the introduction of Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR) for multiple waste
streams – that had the potential torevolutionise the UK’s approach to the
crucial issue of resources and waste
management.
The R&WS is over five years old andprogress on implementing policies in it has
been slow, leading to the sector becoming
frustrated at the lack of progress andfocus, which has concentrated almost
solely on the “big three” policies ofconsistent collections, DRS and EPR.

There are some genuine reasons, outside thecontrol of Defra, delaying the implementationof R&WS, mainly:

Prime Ministerial and
Ministerial Changes post 20181

Preparing for EU Exit

The Covid-19 pandemic

CIWM have summarised the few areas where R&WS proposals have been
fully implemented (the green list), followed by those partially implemented(the amber list). It ends with a list of all the policies which have yet to be
implemented (the red list). These are detailed in Annex 1 of Part One.

3

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Executive Summary

CIWM determined eight policies
that have been fully implemented
by Government. In some instances,
their real-world impact is currently
unclear. It is also interesting to notethat Defra was the lead department
or organisation on only three ofthese policies.

•

Plastic packaging tax (HM Treasury)••

Greening government commitments(Cabinet Office)Creation of a Joint Unit for Waste Crime(Environment Agency)•

Strengthen intelligence gathering(Environment Agency)•

Introduction of Conditionality(HM Treasury).

CIWM scored 21 policies as amber
entries. Amber entries are thosethat show some progress or havebeen implemented. The full list is
shown in Annex 1 of Part One.

Some examples of key policies listed as amber are:•Encouraging an expansion in reuse•

Implementing Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR) for packaging•

Introducing mandatory food waste
reporting by businesses.

•

Improving levels of eco-design

There are ten policies that arescored as red entries. Red entries
are listed due to, at most, only
being in their first steps, eitherwith a consultation or legislation
drafted along with stakeholder
engagement. The full list is shownin Annex 1 of Part One.

Some examples of key policies that CIWM
have listed as red are:•Introducing consistent household waste
collections in England•

Introducing EPR for other waste streams
than packaging•

Introducing mandatory weekly food waste
collections across the whole of England•

Introducing a Deposit Refund System(DRS) for drinks packaging•

Reform Carriers, Brokers and Dealers regime.

•

Mandatory food waste hierarchy (Defra)•

Appointing a food waste champion (Defra)•

Food labelling (Defra)

The thoughts and conversation around resources, carbon and climate change have also progressed considerably in the past
five years and the concept of the circular economy is now very much to the fore. In some respects, this makes the R&WS alreadylook dated and perhaps not fit for what is now needed when it comes to keeping resources in economic use in the UK.

4CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Executive Summary

Part two: the future
CIWM believes it is not just about
producing a new strategy full of
good policies, there must be full
implementation, moving forward any
objectives with robust action plans
and effective monitoring of progress.
We must learn the lessons of previous
strategy implementation so thatmeaningful outcomes are delivered.
CIWM is therefore calling for Government
to commit to a new strategy – a Resource
Resilience Strategy – which continues todrive forward the best elements of theexisting R&WS, but integrates further policy
asks into an updated narrative reflecting
the key strategic and political drivers ofaction in this area in 2024 and beyond.

CIWM has chosen nine policy measures which should be included in a new Resource Resilience Strategy.

01

Implement the relevant
existing Resources andWaste Strategy policies.

06

Regulating for the new reality.

02

Create a cross-government
resource resilience task force.

07

Price raw materials so thatprices include negativeenvironmental externalities.

03

Focus on green skills.

08

Introduce targeted economic
instruments.

04

Introduce targeted strong
Extended Producer Responsibility(EPR) regimes for several key
product types.

09

Strengthen eco-design
and waste prevention.

05

Introduce targets across the
top half of the waste hierarchy.

5

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Executive Summary

In CIWM’s view, two key objectives
need to be stated clearly upfront in
the new strategy and everything that
follows should link back to them, toensure that there is clarity of focus.

CIWM believes that the successor to the R&WS should include:

In 2024, there are two high priority
objectives for action in our area:

Objective 1
Delivering a circular
economy; andObjective 2
Ensuring our sector playsa full part in helping the
UK achieve net zero

A move to get to the heartof what is needed to drive
better product stewardship,e.g. widespread carbon
taxation, relaxation of VAT
on reuse, more work on
product standardisation.

Better alignment withother policies / strategies,
e.g. industrial strategy,
development of clean-tech,building domestic supply
chain resilience, alignment
with Advertising Standards
Association position on
green claims, etc.

Focus on consumption notproduction, not just counting
domestic raw material usage
and climate emissions, but
incorporating those associatedwith our imports of products
and services from abroad, tobe used by UK consumers. Thisurgently needs to change if weare to get an accurate view of theactual impact of the UK on global
resource use and circularity.

6Conclusion
Progress on implementing the policies
proposed in the 2018 R&WS has been slow
and in those five plus years, the context
our sector operates in has changed.
It is no longer about maximising recycling, it isabout the move towards a circular economy,
the progress towards net zero and then throughboth of these helping to mitigate the impacts ofclimate change. Even if we saw all the policies in
the R&WS implemented, they are not designed to
do this to the scale or at the pace that is needed.
A new Resource Resilience Strategy is neededwith policies that are focused on the circular
economy and net zero. This does not mean
abandoning all the policies in the R&WS,
CIWM members and the sector expect to see
consistent collections/simpler recycling, pEPR,
reform to Carrier Brokers Dealers and digitalwaste tracking fully in place.

CIWM has existed, our members have been
providers of solutions to others’ problems, theproblems society were content to throw away.
Now we are in a place where we can provide
solutions to keeping resources in economic
use, reducing the take on the planet andmoving to a resource resilient UK.

Our members, our sector, ourprofession can work with policy
makers in a way that means we will
move to a world beyond waste. This
review outlines how we can takethose next few steps on that path.

CIWM has produced nine policy asks the
Resource Resilience Strategy should have that
the Institution believes will see the UK take great
strides in the right direction. They are not yet
fully formed and do not provide all the answers.
But they do provide part of the answer and show
where we need to ask further questions alongwith where the sector can support the new UK
Government and other policy makers across the
UK and Ireland. Throughout the 125 years that7

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Part One

PART

ONE
The past and the present

Review of the 2018
Resources & Waste
Strategy for England
The Resources and Waste Strategy isover five years old and progress on
implementing policies in it has been slow.
The sector has become frustrated at the lackof policy implementation and focus was almost
solely on the “big three” policies of consistentcollections, DRS and EPR. What was needed wasa thorough review of the strategy, to remindourselves of the policies that were promised andthe progress that had been made on all of them.
What was the true picture for the sector, what
had been done and what still needed to be done?
By reviewing the progress and having a clear
picture, it would then mean we know what
the scale of the current problem is. The
discussion has moved on since 2018 and thecircular economy, net zero and climate change
mitigation are much more to the fore. The
review helps to see what parts of the strategy
are still relevant and need implementing, andwhere the gaps are that might need a new setof ideas and policies.

8INTRODUCTION
When the Resources & Waste Strategy(R&WS) was published in December 2018,
it was met with a high level of support
from the sector.
The Strategy was wide-ranging and included
a large number of policy proposals, including
several – such as the introduction of Extended
Producer Responsibility (EPR) for multiple
waste streams – that had the potential torevolutionise the UK’s approach to the crucial
issue of resources and waste management.
However, in the five years since the Strategy
was published, implementation of those
proposals has been extremely limited. Most of
the key proposals are behind schedule, whilesome have been reduced in scope or cancelled
completely. Useful recent summaries of these
problems are contained in:•

the Public Accounts Committee’s reportpublished on 1 December 20232; and•the Office for Environmental Protection’s
Progress Report for 2022/23, publishedon 18 January 20243.

In this first part of the paper, we review what
was promised in 2018 against what has – andhas not – been delivered by the middle of 2024.
In the second part of the paper, we then go on
to consider some of the key issues that were
not addressed in the R&WS, and which need
to be included in any successor.
It is important to acknowledge that there aresome genuine reasons, outside the control of
Defra, why implementation of the R&WS has
been slower than was intended. CIWM believes
the three main ones are:Prime Ministerial and
Ministerial Changes post 20181

Preparing for EU Exit

The Covid-19 pandemic

9

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Part One

Prime Ministerial and
Ministerial changes post 2018
When the R&WS was published, Theresa May
was the Prime Minister (PM). However, she wasunable to successfully conclude negotiations
with the European Union (EU) over the termsof the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, in a waythat would meet with the approval of the
UK Parliament, which ultimately led to her
resigning as PM in May 2019.
A leadership election followed, with Boris
Johnson succeeding her as PM in July 2019.
Finding himself unable to gain Parliamentary
approval for his plans for EU Exit, he called
a General Election in October 2019, with theelection taking place in December 2019. In July
2022, Boris Johnson resigned as PM. This led
to another leadership election, with Liz Truss
eventually becoming PM on 6 September 2022.
She was Prime Minister for 44 days before she
resigned, which led to Rishi Sunak succeeding
her on 25 October 2022 as the fourth UK Prime
Minister in three and a half years.
Each period of instability has led to a pause inpolicy making until civil servants can be clear
what the priorities of the new Prime Ministerare. Most recently, environmental policy has
been a low priority under both Liz Truss andRishi Sunak, leading to further delays andchanges in policy focus.

There were also numerous Environmental
Secretary changes at Defra, adding to delays– Steve Barclay replacing Thérèse Coffey, who
followed Ranil Jayawardena, George Eustice,
Theresa Villiers and Michael Gove.

Preparing for EU exit
Over the second half of 2019, prior to the UK’s
formal exit from the European Union (EU) on 31
January 2020, staff at Defra, including several of
those working on R&WS implementation, werepartly or wholly diverted from their normal roles
to deal with the urgent policy work needed incase the UK exited the EU without an agreed
withdrawal deal.

The Covid-19 pandemic
For very good reasons, this took priority over
all other issues globally for much of the period
from March 2020 until the widespread roll-out
of vaccinations over the first half of 2021. This
caused significant delays in policy development
and occupied much management time acrossgovernment and the sector over this period,
pushing other issues to one side.

GeneralWhile the three reasons are allunderstandable, it does not explain the slow
pace of progress in implementing the R&WS.
Even with the events listed, it is believedthat policies should be further along and isa source of concern both within, and for the
resources and waste sector.

10

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Part One

What has, and has not, been implemented
Given the very limited progress that has been made to date, CIWM have summarised the few areas where
R&WS proposals have been fully implemented (the green list), followed by those partially implemented(the amber list). We end with a list of all the policies which have yet to be implemented (the red list).
A full review of the implementation of the 2018 R&WS is set out in Annex 1 of Part One.

Green list – fully implemented

Amber list – partially implemented

Red list – not yet implemented

CIWM are aware of eight policies thathave been fully implemented:

There are 21 policies that are scored as
amber entries. Amber entries are thosethat show some progress or have been
partially implemented. The full list is
shown in Annex 1 of Part One.

There are ten policies that are scored as
red entries. Red entries are listed due toundertaking initial steps, either with aconsultation or legislation drafted, alongwith stakeholder engagement. The full listis shown in Annex 1 of Part One.

•

Plastic packaging tax (HM Treasury)•

Greening government commitments(Cabinet Office)•Mandatory food waste hierarchy (Defra)•

Appointing a food waste champion (Defra)•

Food labelling (Defra)•

Some examples of key policies listed
as amber are:•Creation of a Joint Unit for Waste
Crime (Environment Agency)

Implementing Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR) for packaging•

Improving levels of eco-design•

Strengthen intelligence gathering(Environment Agency)•••

Introduction of Conditionality(HM Treasury).

Although all eight of these policies havebeen fully implemented by Government,in some instances their real-world impact
is currently unclear. It is also interesting tonote that Defra was the lead department ororganisation on only three of these policies.

Some examples of key policies that CIWM
have listed as red are:•Introducing EPR for other waste
streams than packaging

Encouraging an expansion in reuse•

Introducing mandatory food waste
reporting by businesses.

Introducing a Deposit Refund System(DRS) for drinks packaging•

Introducing consistent household
waste collections in England•

Introducing mandatory weekly foodwaste collections across the wholeof England•

Reform Carriers, Brokers and Dealersregime.

11

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Part One

The table below outlines the progress of some of the key policies contained in the R&WS,
over the past five years.

YEAR

2019

2020

2023

MILESTONEPROGRESSDRS introduced

Not achieved – Postponed until 2027

Recyclables quality assured

Not achieved – Mix of comingled andsource separation collection still occurring

EPR

Not achieved – Postponed until 2025

Food waste champion

Achieved – Ben Elliot appointed

Biodegradable plastic standard

Delayed – Published 2021

Consultation on food waste reporting

Delayed – Published 2022

CE Transposition

Delayed – Published 2020

Consultation on food waste reporting

Delayed – Published 2022

Digital waste tracking

Not achieved – Delayed to 2024

Review of high-risk waste permitting
exemptions

Delayed – Published 2024

Waste carrier duty of care

Delayed – Published 2022

WEEE Consultation

Delayed – Published 2023

50% HH waste recycling

Not achieved – 44% currently

Removal of SUP for Gov property

Not aware of any action

DRS rollout

Not achieved – Postponed to 2027

Packaging EPR

Not achieved – Postponed to 2024

Legislation for mandatory separate foodwaste collections

Not achieved – Expected 2024

Revision of Resources and Waste Strategy

Delayed until 2024

12

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Part One

Issues that have arisen during
implementation of the strategy
Timescales for many of the key reforms
have slipped, and it is not yet clear if the
new Government will produce a clear planfor ensuring that longer-term targets canstill be met given the ongoing delays.
The milestones set out do not include theextension of Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)
to cover energy-from-waste, so in any updateof the implementation plan this needs tobe addressed given the significant financial
impacts it will have on local authorities andthe wider waste sector. There are wider issues
that the Government needs to address in thiscontext, such as the inclusion of fossil content
as one of the factors affecting the modulationof producer fees under EPR.
It is inevitable that different parties andorganisations will have specific interests (andthat these will differ, sometimes significantly,
within sectors). The task for Defra has therefore
been to fully understand these differences,to find workable compromises that deliveron the wider environmental needs, and tolead the implementation of these. However,
it is recognised that this has been a very
difficult thing to do as the world of waste /secondary resources is legally and commerciallycomplex. The ‘sprints’ that were set up to help

Defra develop a way forward for packaging
EPR brought the value chain together in acoordinated way, but the timescales that
Defra originally set out for this process slipped
significantly. In addition, the number of obligatedproducers that are engaged on EPR appears to
be relatively small.
Ideally Defra needs to focus on achieving
its strategic objectives of reducing society’s
environmental impact (including achieving Net
Zero) in a timely way and at the lowest overall
cost to society. In doing so, it will need to haveregard to the distribution of those costs and will
therefore need to come back to the questionsof who is able to make choices that drive such
improvements (product and service design,energy generation, transportation, usageimpacts, product return post-use), and how tosteer them to make choices that meet Defra’s
strategic objectives.

The need for investment is evident across thevalue chain, whether by local authorities inservices, the waste industry in new/expandedfacilities, or producers in supply chains.
However, there is no structure in place for
ensuring this investment is coordinated acrossthe whole value chain to deliver the best overalloutcomes, nor does it appear that Defra intends
to actively manage this or provide bankablecircumstances; instead, Defra appears to beleaving it to the market.

A clear and realistic plan for driving
investment across the value chain by boththe public and private sectors is required,backed up by appropriate regulations thatgive investors (including local authorities)
the certainty they need to justify capitaloutlay and revenue commitments.

In doing this, Defra needs to keep all sectors
focused first on the same outcome, and tokeep all sectors confident that they will not becommercially disadvantaged relative to any
competitors (including those who substituteproducts or services). Otherwise, there is the riskof each party just fighting for its own interests.

13

Links to other strategies

Impacts on regulation

There is little mention made in the R&WS of
the interim municipal waste arisings reduction
targets to be achieved by 31 January 2028.
These were announced through Defra’s fiveyear Environmental Improvement Plan as afirst revision of the 25 Year Environment Planbut get virtually no mention. It’s also the case
we now have government policy positions that
directly counter the aims of waste reduction
targets, e.g. the position in Simpler Recyclingthat residual waste should be collected noless frequently than fortnightly. There isclear evidence here of a lack of joined-up,
complementary policy making.

CIWM believes that the Environment Agency (EA)
remains severely under resourced, particularly interms of front-line staff, which makes it difficult
for them to regulate effectively in some cases.
This means that there is a danger that illegal
waste site numbers are higher than the sector
and the regulator want them to be. Illegal waste
exports have been a challenging area for the EA,
particularly when it comes to having to repatriate
illegally exported waste.

From a household / municipal waste
perspective, actions at the top of the hierarchy
have continued to receive far too little focus/ support in any of the strategy-related
commitments. Whilst waste reduction has
been subject to consultation in England as anation, it is lagging far behind where Wales is,in relation to circular economy. The whole issueof resource efficiency, joining up secondarycommodities with manufacturing, seems tohave been forgotten about. External factors
linked to global supply chain disruptions
have done more to motivate change thanany Government strategy in this space.

The creation of the Joint Unit for Waste Crime
has been one of the successful deliverablesfrom the R&WS. It shows that investment
in good regulation is required and that byproviding resources, progress can be madeon removing criminality from the sector.

14

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Part One

Issues for local government
Finance
The current approach to new burdens does notappear to fully cover the costs of implementing
new collection arrangements for food waste. The
system needs to ensure that it does not leave any
local authorities worse off as a result of nationalchanges; this is especially true for food wastes
but will apply to other wastes/changes too.
The R&WS contained a commitment to the“polluter pays” principle and for producers to
pay the “full net cost” of their products throughtheir whole life cycle, including recycling anddisposal. The emerging approach to EPR
payments appears to not fully implement thoseambitions and will leave local authorities having
to fund some aspects of packaging collection,
recycling and disposal. Local authorities award
all waste contracts as the best available inthe market at the time and will have been
subject to internal and external scrutiny/auditof this at the time. It is not reasonable for EPR
payments to reassess this retrospectively. It isessential that local authorities are now able tospecify new contracts that align with the new
EPR, DRS, Simpler Recycling and ETS regimes.
For example, in East London over the next
six months they are preparing residual waste
contracts to commence in late 2027 and run

for 10-15 years. Going forward, the interests ofproducers and local authorities will be aligned
strategically, as both will want to see valuefor-money for themselves, consumers andresidents; but producers cannot additionallybe second-guessing the outcome of properly
run local authority procurements.

Overall, local authorities would benefit
from a clear and stable policy and legal
environment so that they can procure ingood time with fair and value-for-money
risk allocations so the private sector caninvest in a timely way.

15

Operations

Behaviour change

Local authorities (and others) require a clear line
on if/when a DRS will be implemented and what
the precise scope of it will be. This is importantas it has the potential to make a significant
difference to recycling and residual waste
contracts, due to changes in both waste volumes
and composition (which will in turn affectthroughput and value to relevant contractors).

EPR and ETS both represent a commercialised
approach to driving a more circular economy,
but there has not been sufficient recognition
that local authorities have statutory duties
with regards to waste and recycling as wellas limited powers to enact behaviour change.
A comprehensive new set of powers is likely tobe required to drive up participation in recycling
services, particularly in multi-occupancy
developments. This should include more powers
under the planning process to require newdevelopments are designed to encourage higher
levels of recycling, both now and in the future
as services evolve. CIWM would like to see Defra
consult with local government about either the
restoration of enforcement powers in this area,or the design of new enforcement powers toaccompany the new pEPR environment andsubsequent EPR regimes.

A key issue is Government needing to provide
a clear policy and legal environment thatrecognises the real-world practical lead times
for change. In the meantime, contracts are
expiring and having to be replaced, but local
authorities cannot specify with any precision
what their needs will be and when, which
undermines value-for-money to the publicpurse. It appears that business-to-businessservices will also have the same difficulties, but
if they are free to procure in a nimbler way, thismay not have quite the same impact on them.
Having different implementation years forchanges to commercial waste collections
and household waste collections creates
potential issues for local authorities (and theircontractors, collection and treatment) who
often combine these for economies of scale.

16

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Part One

Views from the resources and waste sector
CIWM contacted a cross-section of members as part of undertaking this review and sought
their views on the progress of the R&WS. Some of their thoughts are outlined below.

“Some credit must be given to the progression ofvarious consultations and the general ‘mood’ that
there has been much more to talk about as a resultof the R&WS. However, my headline conclusion isthat it has probably hindered short-term progress(e.g. towards higher recycling) because the delays
getting clarity on measures such as Consistency,
EPR have meant decisions have been postponed(on changes to collection services etc.).”“Time will tell whether the political ‘wind-back’ on comingled
collections will prove to deliver high quality recycling andresources for a locally (UK) sustainable circular economy;
technology developments, e.g. AI, image recognition, robotics,
probably has the greatest potential to salvage the situation.
I see too many really badly contaminated recycling bins fromflats, businesses, recycling on-the-go etc. to think that justcarrying on as we are now (as is pretty much proposed inEngland) will lead to a better outcome.”“Moreover, the politically motivated move back frommulti-stream collections, due to the perception of too
many containers, and restrictions on the frequency withwhich local authorities can collect residual waste goescounter to all of the evidence around what is needed toachieve higher, better-quality recycling. Defra has lost
credibility in this regard and the messaging I hear fromlocal government is that officers within the department
lack the domain knowledge needed to build confidence
that the right decisions are being taken.”“I have worked on various local authority options
appraisals and strategy reviews over the past 6 years thathave ‘gone through the motions’ or have subsequently
sat on shelves waiting for clarity that never came. It isinteresting to observe that in our options evaluation
exercises cost was being given a much lower weighting
in the period when new burdens and other measures
were first mooted. That has now reverted given thatthe reality of local government financial positions
has come to the fore in the past 12-18 months.”17

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Part One

Conclusion
The past five years since the R&WS was
published have been some of the most
turbulent in recent times, with global
events having local impacts.
Progress on delivery of the policies in the R&WS
do need to be considered against this backdrop.
The thoughts and conversation aroundresources, carbon and climate change have also
progressed considerably in the past five years
and the concept of the circular economy is now
very much to the fore. In some respects, thismakes the R&WS already look dated and perhaps
not fit for what is now needed when it comes tokeeping resources in economic use in the UK.
However, the R&WS promised a step change
in resources and waste policy, a once in a
generation shift. This means that the amount ofchange the waste sector is facing is the biggest
in decades. There is feeling amongst some inthe sector that it feels rushed and ill thought
through, with a lack of clarity or guidance andyet timescales coming thick and fast. Thereis a danger these ever-changing and often
condensed timetables will not be deliverable.
Industry will be reluctant to invest without thecertainty that the detail brings and this leaves
us in a precarious position.

CIWM believes that a number of key
policies from the R&WS are still relevant
and need to be seen through andimplemented. If they are not then recycling
rates will not increase and the sector will
become less attractive to investors andso less able to play the key role it has inmoving the UK to a circular economy.

18

CIWM Review
CIWMof the
Review
Resourcesof the andResources
Waste and
Strategy
Waste– Executive
Strategy –Summary
Part TwoPART

TWO
The future

The need for a Resources
Resilience Strategy
Moving from a Waste Strategy to a
Resources and Waste Strategy in 2018
was seen as ground-breaking during its
development, but the planet’s natural
resources have become more finite sincethen, with advances in technology andwar-torn areas limiting access.
CIWM members believe, as a sector, there is areal need to move the UK to become a resource
resilient country. The current Resources andWaste Strategy does not go far enough and does
not contain the policy levers to achieve this. Thatmeans developing a new strategy for the sector,a Resource Resilience Strategy that is aimed
at facilitating a move to a circular economy,
that keeps resources in economic use andbrings about a change in the way products aredesigned and used. This change in perspective
for the policy drivers impacting our sector will
ultimately help to mitigate climate change.
But it is not just about producing a new
strategy full of good policies, there must be full
implementation of these policies, moving forward
any objectives with robust action plans andeffective monitoring of progress. We must learn
the lessons of previous strategy implementation
so that meaningful outcomes are delivered.

19

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Part Two

INTRODUCTION
When the Resources & Waste Strategy(R&WS) was published in December 2018,
it was met with a high level of support
from the sector.
However, implementation over the succeeding
five years has been both partial and slow, as
outlined in part one of this report. In addition,
the resources and waste agenda has continued
to develop and has moved on since 2018.
The 2018 Strategy was primarily focused onwaste, i.e. what can be done to improve things
around the middle of the waste hierarchy. Allof the areas of traction / media attention overthe past few years have still been focused onrecycling, e.g. Consistency / Simpler Recycling /DRS. Whilst Extended Producer Responsibility(EPR) starts to shift thinking and emphasis on
to producers, and should ultimately lead to
product design changes, this policy continues
to use recycling costs and the existing recycling
systems as the driving force behind it. This has
been a long time in coming and still remains a
few years off before calibrated modulated fees
start to make an impact.
As a starting point, CIWM is calling for a new
Resource Resilience Strategy (along with ahigher-level Circular Economy Plan) and haschosen nine policy measures which should
be priorities for inclusion in the new Strategy.

They are briefly summarised below, and set out in more detail in Annex 2 of Part Two:

01

Implement the relevant
existing Resources andWaste Strategy policies.

06

Regulating for the new reality.

02

Create a cross-government
resource resilience task force.

07

Price raw materials so thatprices include negativeenvironmental externalities.

03

Focus on green skills.

08

Introduce targeted economic
instruments.

04

Introduce targeted strong
extended Producer Responsibility(EPR) regimes for several key
product types.

09

Strengthen eco-design
and waste prevention.

05

Introduce targets across the
top half of the waste hierarchy.

CIWM is therefore calling for Government
to commit to a new strategy – a Resource
Resilience Strategy – which continues todrive forward the best elements of theexisting R&WS, but integrates further policy
asks into an updated narrative reflecting
the key strategic and political drivers ofaction in this area in 2024 and beyond.

20

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Part Two

Objectives of a new Resource Resilience Strategy
If a new Strategy is to drive the rightpolicies and actions, it will need to havethe right objectives. In CIWM’s view,
these objectives need to be stated clearly
upfront and everything that follows shouldlink back to them, to ensure that thereis clarity of focus.
In 2024, there are two high priority objectives
for action in our area:

Objective 1
Delivering a circular
economy; andObjective 2
Ensuring our sector playsa full part in helping the
UK achieve net zero

Objective 1: delivering
a circular economy
The objective of delivering a circular economy
has nominally been the focus of UK government
policy for at least the last five years. However,in practice, there has been very little attention
paid – in England, at least – to achieving
genuine circularity, and most policy measures
have been focused on the more traditional
issue of improving recycling rates. As is clear
from Defra’s own statistics, these efforts havefailed, with household waste recycling rates
having broadly flatlined since 2010. Indeed,as per the January 2024 statistics report,
recycling rates are now falling slightly5.
The fact that most of those target dates
have been missed and/or there has been no
feedback on how things have progressedversus the strategy, tells its own story. Looking
at that timeline, there’s very little in the R&WS
that really gets to the heart of what is needed toenable a circular economy. It is also concerningthat key targets such as the interim residual
waste reduction targets set for 2028 get very
little mention in policy circles. If this was atarget with some teeth, it could really drive
progress around a circular economy. EPR isdriving circular economy innovation aroundpackaging, but nothing more.

21

CIWM believes that a new Resource Resilience
Strategy should include an explicit objective todeliver a genuine circular economy, preferably
by a set deadline (e.g. 2040). In terms ofadvancing the circular economy, the Resources
and Waste Strategy has not had a lot of impact.
Whilst in Wales and Scotland there have been
dedicated funds linked to enabling circular
economy initiatives, no such funding exists
in England. Other ‘drivers’ have been more
influential, e.g. wider R&D supported by thelikes of Innovate UK and the circular economy

hubs that have been set up. As materials andbusinesses do not stop at borders, initiatives inneighbouring devolved nations have inevitably
had a ‘ripple’ effect, prompting businesses
across the UK (and stretching beyond) to
explore circular economy business models, etc.
No attempt was made to develop an indicatorof circularity, to help understand if the UK
economy is getting more circular or not. A
Strategy that has achieving a circular economy
as one of its objectives will need to addressthese points.

According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF)6, “The circular economy
is a system where materials never become waste and nature is regenerated.
In a circular economy, products and materials are kept in circulation throughprocesses like maintenance, reuse, refurbishment, remanufacture, recycling,
and composting. The circular economy tackles climate change and otherglobal challenges, like biodiversity loss, waste, and pollution, by decoupling
economic activity from the consumption of finite resources.”22

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Part Two

The EMF have produced a helpful ‘butterfly diagram’ for visualising what is involved
in implementing a circular economy7. This is reproduced below.

As can be seen from thedefinition and diagram,delivering a genuine circular
economy goes way beyond
recycling, and requires anentirely different approachto the previous paradigms
of “waste management”
and “resource efficiency”.
However, the delivery ofa circular economy also
promises to generate
substantial economic
and social, as well as
environmental, benefits.
These include job creationand economic growth, bothof which will appeal topolitical decision-makers.

23

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Part Two

Objective 2: helping the
UK achieve net zero
There is broad agreement that climate change
is one of the most serious environmental
threats facing humanity at present. For
example, in October 2023, shortly before the
COP28 climate conference, a coalition of climate
scientists declared that “climate change poses
an existential threat to life on Earth”8.

CIWM therefore believes that the second
main objective of the new Resource
Resilience Strategy should be to ensurethat our sector plays a full part in helping
the UK achieve net zero.

For the last 20 years, up until the last 12
months, the UK has played a leadership role
globally on the issue of climate change, having
been the first major economy to put a targetof achieving net zero by 2050 into domestic
legislation in June 20199.
Our use of resources, and the different ways
in which we deal with the waste that results,
requires energy, generates greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, and contributes to climate change.

Indeed, according to
WRAP, “With 45%
of GHGs arisingfrom what we make,sell, and use… thecircular economy is
crucial in addressing
the climate crisis”10.

45%

24

Other strategic issues to consider in the
new Resources Resilience Strategy
Prioritising eco-design, waste prevention
and reuse
If the new Resources Resilience Strategy is
to drive progress towards a genuine circular
economy, it will need to include a particularfocus on promoting those aspects of circularitythat have received insufficient attention todate. Three early priorities here are eco-design,waste prevention and reuse, which are key
approaches to building circularity into
products and services from the beginning.
A new Resources Resilience Strategy needs
to integrate eco-design, waste prevention
and reuse from the start, reflecting theirimportance at the top of the waste hierarchy.
To achieve this focus, CIWM recommends thatthe issues of eco-design, waste prevention
and reuse should be prioritised in the new
Resources Resilience Strategy – for example,
by forming the first substantive chapter of the
new Strategy, or, if the document is structured
in a different way, by being the first sub-sectionin each chapter, so that every chapter focuses
first on these issues, before moving on to othertopics, such as recycling.

In a truly circular economy, products andmaterials are kept in use throughout theirproduct lifecycle and waste is eliminated.
Systems built with an emphasis on reuse,
repair, refurbishing, and (when a product canno longer be of use) recycling are necessary forsuch an approach to work. That entails alteringboth the products we make and the processes
by which we produce them. It may entail using
modular design11, utilising renewable materials,
making repairs and disassembly simpler,and creating new products with backward
compatibility in mind to extend the useful life ofcomponents. Such as shifting from an emphasis
on fast fashion and from textile blends that
can’t be separated towards natural fibres or
blends that lend themselves to be cycled.

25

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Part Two

Priority waste streams
Although the new Resources Resilience Strategy should be applicable to all major resources and all
major waste streams, some may deserve additional focus. CIWM believes that the following threewaste streams are deserving of this additional attention:

FOOD: (not food waste, but food):
Food production and consumption are
responsible for around 30% of global
carbon emissions12, so if the new Strategy
is to contribute to achieving the UK’s net
zero target, it needs to prioritise food.
WRAP does good work in this area, but it is
now clear that a solely voluntary approachto the prevention of food waste, from foodproduction, is not sufficient. Mandatory
food waste reporting by businesses should
be introduced as an early priority, withregulatory requirements to follow.

TEXTILES:
The clothing and textiles sector is carbon
and water intensive, and the growth of fast
fashion is leading to increasing volumes oftextile waste. As with food, WRAP is doing
good work, but the voluntary approachhas proved insufficient. The 2018 R&WS
promised a consultation on introducing
EPR for textiles by the end of 2022, but thiswas cancelled in 2023. This policy should
be reintroduced and implemented.

PLASTIC:
Plastics are increasingly ubiquitous, butthey are largely manufactured from fossil
fuels and create ever larger volumes ofwaste, including microplastics, whose
negative impacts on human and animal
health are only starting to be understood.
Given that a Global Treaty on Plastic
Pollution is currently under negotiation
at the United Nations, the UK’s piecemeal
approach to tackling plastic is unlikely toprove sufficient. A much more ambitious
and holistic approach is needed.

26

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Part Two

Support and funding

Regulatory barriers

Emissions Trading Scheme

More support for businesses is needed if weare to embed true circularity. There should
be grander ambitions to develop further hubs
for circular innovation, that facilitate morecollaboration across the value chain andacross industries. Fundamentally, we needa new approach to goods and services.

Regulatory revisions or conflicting regulations
can create uncertainty for businesses andinvestors. When the regulatory landscape isunclear, it becomes difficult to plan and invest
in circular economy initiatives.

The move to include Energy from Waste (EfW)
in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) could
have the kind of transformative impact on theway we deal with residual waste as the landfill
tax did in driving the sector away from landfills
to the use of modern EfW plants. It is also likely
to bring additional costs onto local authorities
at the same time as they look to implementchanges brought about by EPR and simpler
recycling. It is unclear if ETS is complimentary,
separate or contradictory to these policies.

There needs to be more funding to local
government to effect behaviour change andinfluence consumption attitudes. This need to
go beyond the potential funds that packaging
EPR is intended to provide for national andlocal communications. Incentivising repair
will require changes in consumer mindsets,manufacturing approaches and incentives
from governments. Increasing circularexpertise and skills and making it easierfor the general public to ‘do the right thing’.

Legislation that hinders the use of ‘circularmaterials’ in production processes is one of
the biggest barriers. The rationale behind such
legislation is frequently motivated by aspectsof health and consumer protection and often
undermines opportunities and benefits ofcircular approaches.
There is currently a lack of legislation setting
parameters around reuse and repair in productdesign. The plastics packaging tax showsthat setting minimum levels can bring aboutchange in product design and use of secondary
resources and materials.

There is also the Carbon Border Adjustment
Mechanism (CBAM) to consider as the previous
government indicated that it would be
implemented in 2027.
There is recognition that tradable allowances
may not always be the best way to drive
investment. Modelling may conclude that they
are the lowest cost way of driving change, butwhen investment decisions need to be takenover ten, twenty or more years, they do not giveas much confidence as a guaranteed payment
over a substantial time period.
A clear line on how ETS costs will be managed isimportant. At present it appears that in contract
terms these costs will be a Qualifying Change inLaw, so local authorities will have to pay throughtheir contracts, despite having no control about
the nature of wastes arising in their areas.

27

What was missing, and needs to be included
Although the 2018 Resources & Waste Strategy represented a significant advance on previous
strategies, there were still several issues that were not tackled. Some were important issues
at the time, but were not priorities for Defra, while others have come to prominence more
recently. In both cases, CIWM believes that the successor to the R&WS should include them.

What should be included next time:

There should be a moveto get to the heart of whatis needed to drive better
product stewardship, e.g.
widespread carbon taxation,
relaxation of VAT on reuse,more work on productstandardisation.

Better alignment withother policies / strategies,
e.g. industrial strategy,
development of clean-tech,building domestic supply
chain resilience, alignment
with Advertising Standards
Association position on
green claims, etc.

Focus on consumption notproduction, not just counting
domestic raw material usage
and climate emissions, but
incorporating those associatedwith our imports of products
and services from abroad, tobe used by UK consumers. Thisurgently needs to change if weare to get an accurate view of theactual impact of the UK on global
resource use and circularity.

There also needs to be afundamental review aroundthe role of different actors
in the materials handlingchain, recognising that local
authorities are good at certain
things, the third / community
sector and private sector are
better at others.

28

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Annex 1: Part One

ANNEX 1PART ONE
Implementation review of the
Resources and Waste Strategy
This annex lists the policy measures proposed in the 2018
Resources & Waste Strategy for England, and indicatesfor each whether, by the end of 2023, it had been fully
implemented, partially implemented, or not implemented.
It provides the data that underpins Part 2 of the paper.

29

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Annex 1: Part One

1A: Five strategic ambitions of the R&WS

1B: Major policies

These are listed in the graphic on p.13,
and the list on p.17, of the R&WS.

POLICYREF•

Double resource productivity by 2050:
Red. No measures taken to implement.

Plastic packaging tax

p41•

Eliminate avoidable waste of all kinds
by 2050: Red. Very few measures.

Treasury was lead department – has been increased
since initial introduction. Appears to be driving
change in packaging

EPR - packaging

p31-35•

Eliminate avoidable plastic waste by 2042:
Amber. Some measures.

Late, reduced in scope (e.g. business packaging)and still unclear whether it will work

EPR – other streams

P38-39•Work towards eliminating FW to landfill
by 2030: Amber. WRAP work.

No progress – work focused on packaging under
Thérèse Coffey

DRS

P60-61•Work towards all plastic packaging
being recyclable etc. by 2025: Amber.
UK Plastics Pact.

Late. Scottish scheme collapsed and latest indication
is no scheme UK wide until 2027 – has createdproblem of credibility with stakeholders

Consistent collections

P68-70Late, and the Simpler Recycling proposals are weaker
and unlikely to solve the problems. In particular,consistency for business collections was crucial
to reaching 65% recycling by 2035, yet the latest
proposals are very weak on business consistency

Weekly food waste

p70-73Late, and the proposals in the Simpler Recycling
package are weaker than originally planned

STATUSNOTES

30CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Annex 1: Part One

1C: Other policies
POLICYREF

STATUSNOTESGreening Gov Committees

p64-65In operation with some strong targets in place: www.gov.uk/government/publications/greeninggovernment-commitments-2021-to-2025/greening-government-commitments-2021-to-2025

Bans

p54

Some piecemeal bans have happened, but not on anything important

Taxes

p52

Doubled to 10p and extended to all shops, but there’s no enforcement leading to instancesof small shops that continue to give out free carrier bags

Coffee cup recycling

P61

Action by industry but no mandatory collections in place yet

Eco-design

p40

Legislated for through Part 3 of the Environment Act 2021, but no further progress

Management of chemicals

p46

UK Chemicals Strategy due 2023, signed up to Global Framework on Chemicals.
Impact of Stockholm Convention for POPs high for the sector

Improving reuse at HWRCs

p56

LAs making progress but it is not driven by the strategy or a resultant action plan

Other ways of encouraging reuse

p57-59Limited action seen in this area

Research and innovation projects

p122-132

Some projects have been funded (e.g. WRAP, UKRI). Their real-world impact is so far unclear

ONS national materials datahub

p143

Behind schedule

Work on monitoring and evaluationp133-144

Lots of activity, but has any of it had any impact? E.g. we have no indicator for circularity yet

Development of RE clusters

p44

Case study research by WRAP in 2019 https://www.wrap.ngo/sites/default/files/2020-08/
WRAP-Clusters-research-report%20.pdf

RE construction

p45-46

Green Construction Board task group on waste and sustainability take considerationof reuse, material efficiency

Extended warranties

p55

Not aware of any action

Green public procurement

p63-65

Green paper published in 2020 but no further actions taken or plans in place https://www.
gov.uk/government/consultations/green-paper-transforming-public-procurement

Improving EfW efficiency

p77

32 operational plants with R1 status https://wiki.monksleigh.com/R1_Recovery_Facility

International leadership

P110-121

EU exit has reduced our international influence. CCOA fell apart during COVID. GPAP hasn’t
done much. UK aid money has been cut from 0.7% of GNP, stopping projects

Promote resource productivity

p130-131

No substantive action since the Industrial Strategy was abandoned

31

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Annex 1: Part One

1D: Food waste policies (other than weekly collections p98-109)
POLICYREF

STATUS

NOTES

Publish new food waste hierarchyp103-104

Achieved

Appoint a food waste champion

p103

Achieved

Food labellingp107

Achieved, although impact is unclear

Plastic free isles

107-108

Some instances, but take up very low level£15 food waste reduction fundp100-102

Impact unclear

Support WRAP Courtauld 2025

p104

Now Courtauld 2030, impact unclear

Food waste reporting by business

p103

Consultation undertaken but remains voluntary despite support
for mandatory reporting in the consultation responses

Supporting WRAPs food waste reduction strategy

p108-109

Food Waste Reduction Roadmap, progress report for 2023

1D: Waste crime policies (p84-97)
POLICYSTATUSNOTESStrengthen intelligence gathering
Create a Joint Unit for Waste Crime

EA have also introduced its new Economic Crime Unit which is all abouttackling money laundering

Increase awareness of waste regulations and publicise positive
work of enforcement bodies as they tackle waste crime
Improve the transportation, management and descriptionof waste by reforming existing regulations
Prevent illegal activity being hidden through waste exemptions
by reforming the existing regime

Consultation was undertaken but has not yet been implemented, date
moved to autumn 2024

Mandate the digital recording of waste movements

Consultation undertaken but long delay in response to this being issued
by Government

Tougher penalties for waste criminals

32

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Annex 2: Part Two

ANNEX 2

PART TWO
Policy asks
The following nine policy asks of the UK government havebeen developed by CIWM members to help move the UK toa resource resilient country, to facilitate a shift to a circular
economy, and ultimately to mitigate climate change. They
should be incorporated into a new Resource Resilience
Strategy. They are split into policies needed in the first two
years of the next Parliament and policies to be deliveredin years three to five.

33

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Annex 2: Part Two

Years one and two
Policy 1: Implement the existing Resources & Waste
Strategy policies
As a matter of priority, the key policies contained in the Strategy
but currently part way through implementation should be fully
implemented. In particular, EPR, consistent collections in England (nowknown as Simpler Recycling) and digital waste tracking. We would
welcome DRS for packaging being held in reserve until the impacts of
the other reforms are determined. However, DRS or similar on batteries
would be most welcome as this would help address one of the biggest
risks in our sector right now: fires.

Policy 3: Focus on Green Skills
The next Government should support CIWM and other professional andindustry bodies in championing the green credentials of our sector andencourage people to seek a career in it. There should be a Green Skills
Fund created to pump prime the transition to a greener and morecircular sector that not only the resources and waste sector could accessbut also other heavy carbon and rapidly decarbonising sectors.

Policy 2: Create a cross-government resource resiliencetask force

There should be adoption of the recommendations of the Skills
Commission’s Skills 2030 report, with a particular focus on using thefull Apprenticeship Levy, diversifying its use across a broader rangeof training and qualifications, and increasing access to lifelong learning
through high-quality funded provision that meets the needs of
employers and provides wider societal benefits.

The next Government must take a serious cross cutting approach toresource resilience, net zero and climate change. By building a resource
resilient UK, we can move more quickly to a circular economy, which inturn plays a huge role in climate mitigation.

Most importantly, the Government must release the draft Green Jobs
Delivery Plan and extend the tenure of the Green Jobs Delivery Group to
help fashion a compelling cross sectoral campaign to attract investment into
sector training, careers mapping and careers advisory education support.

With responsibilities currently spread across multiple government
departments, a task force is needed to bring urgency and focus tofacilitate the joint working needed to take forward critical policies tobring about the circular economy. This should bring together Defra,
DESNZ, DHLUC, DSIT and DBT as a minimum.
Keeping resources in economic use is at the heart of the circular economy
and the resources and waste sector is the catalytic nucleus to doing that.

Policy 4: Introduce targeted Extended Producer Responsibility(EPR) for several key product types
With EPR for packaging underway, attention needs to be focussed
on other products where end of life management can be challenging,and producers should be held accountable for the subsequent net costsof turning these products back into resources. We propose Waste
Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), batteries, textiles, andmattresses a good starting point. In each case, producers should facemodulated fees which are lower for more circular products or services,and higher for more linear products and services, to drive productinnovation and resource resilience.

34

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Annex 2: Part Two

Policy 5: Introduce targets across the top half of thewaste hierarchy
Introduce new targets across the top half of the waste hierarchy, i.e.,
for prevention, re-use, and repair. These should start as UK Government
targets, but should subsequently be devolved down to business, thepublic sector, and households. They should start at an achievable level,but increase over time, to drive innovation and improvement.

Policy 6: Regulating for the new reality
Strong regulators are key, and drive standards and professionalism,
but they are currently under funded and asked to enforce regulations
that are out of step with current thinking. We are still regulating ’waste’
when we need to be facilitating the capture and use of ‘resources’.
There needs to be an injection of funding and resources into theEnvironment Agency, and other regulators, alongside a wholesalechange in how we determine the ‘end of waste’13 and we need tostop defining resources as waste.

Years three to five
Policy 7: Price raw materials so that prices include negativeenvironmental externalities
This policy would ultimately aim to reduce the use of resources, andparticularly those that create the most damaging environmental impacts
across a product’s lifetime. The recent introduction by the EU of a Carbon
Border Adjustment Mechanism could provide a useful starting point.

Policy 8: Introduce targeted economic instruments
Consideration should be given to introducing further economic
instruments (similar to the introduction of the Plastic Packaging Tax
in 2022) to drive focus and activity away from the bottom of the wastehierarchy and towards more sustainable circular activities and processes.
For example, targeted subsidies should be introduced to encourage
the creation or development of ‘circular’ products, paid for by taxes
on ‘linear’ products.
CIWM would welcome the accurate inclusion of externalities in
the costing of products and services (not just carbon) to drive new
business models that are focused on refill, repair and reuse, as well as
encouraging alternative consumption patterns like leasing and sharing.

Policy 9: Strengthen eco-design and waste prevention
Introduce stronger drivers for product eco-design and waste prevention,
including a right to repair. The ideas underpinning the latest revisions
to the EU Eco-design Directive could provide a template for this.
CIWM would like to see the production of a new and much stronger
Waste Prevention Programme for England by the end of 2025. CIWM
would encourage the devolved governments to do the same and would
like them to be mandatory. They should contain key actions and targets
for the relevant sectors of the UK economy and openly consider how
we curb over consumption of resources.

Thanks to Patrick Mahon in assisting, along with
the Task and Finish group of CIWM members.

35

CIWM Review of the Resources and Waste Strategy – Sources

SOURCES
Review up to 30 April 2024

1	‘Government’s programme of waste reforms’, Committee of Public Accounts, HC 333, 1 December
2023. Available at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmpubacc/333/
summary.html

23	‘Progress in improving the natural environment in England 2022/2023’, OEP, 18 January 2024,
Chapter 6. www.theoep.org.uk/report/government-remains-largely-track-meet-its-environmentalambitions-finds-oep-annual-progress

4

Review up to 30 April 2024

5

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local-authority-collected-waste-management-annual-results

6

www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/overview

7

www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy-diagram

8

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-life-earth-existential-threat-climate.html

9www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-becomes-first-major-economy-to-pass-net-zero-emissions-law

10

https://wrap.org.uk/blog/2023/11/circular-economy-prejudiced	https://www.circularonline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Root_CIWM_PresidentialReport_
Final-Issued_v4.pdf

11	IPCC (2019), Special report on climate change and land, Chapter 5, Food security.
www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-5/

1213

https://www.circularonline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Presidents-Report-on-theRegulation-of-Circular-materials-vFINAL-v3.pdf

36

Together, we stand for a world beyond waste
ciwm.co.uk