Waste crime levy: overview of feedback and our response
Updated 15 May 2026
© Crown copyright 2026
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/environment-agency-charge-proposals-for-waste-crime-and-hourly-rates/outcome/waste-crime-levy-overview-of-feedback-and-our-response
Illegal waste activity harms communities, the environment and the economy. It is estimated to cost nearly £1 billion to the taxpayer and legitimate industry. In the most recent waste crime survey, we found that 18% of waste (34 million tonnes per year) may be managed illegally at some point in the waste cycle.
There are clear benefits to gain from investing in enforcement against waste crime. The waste management industry is worth almost £7 billion per year. Investing in enforcement against waste crime will support legitimate waste businesses to grow. This will also reduce environmental damage and help communities suffering from illegal waste operations and related criminality.
We proposed a waste crime levy to generate additional income to help deal with waste crime. Our proposal was to introduce charges relating to the regulation of activities covered by the Environmental Permitting Regulations for waste operations. The proposal was for a 10% levy applied to annual subsistence charges of permits for ‘waste transfer treatment’ and ‘landfill and deposit for recovery’.
The overall response to the levy proposal (excluding those who did not answer or selected ‘do not know’, or ‘not applicable’) showed:
- 23% agree or strongly agree
- 34% neither agree nor disagree
- 43% disagree or strongly disagree
The following section describes the main themes identified within free text comments, and our response to each.
Business approach – feedback
A significant number of respondents shared a strong sentiment that the levy should be funded by the government or through penalties against criminals, rather than law-abiding businesses. One response said:
“It is our view that criminals should pay for their illegal activities. The income from fines should be ringfenced to support the EA in their endeavours to stop waste crime thereby motivating more prosecutions. It is agreed that more funding is required to stop waste crime, but the EA should be funded appropriately by the Government to carry out their responsibilities.”
Some respondents offered partial or qualified support for the levy proposal, for example saying they would support this provided it leads to better enforcement and more tangible benefits for legitimate business. Examples include:
“It is recognised that the Environment Agency is currently under resourced to address the level of waste crime in the country and proposals to increase resources are therefore welcomed”.
“Agree with the proposed 10% levy on annual subsistence charges to address waste crime. It is reasonable to expect the industry to contribute to enforcement efforts.”
Impact for customers – feedback
Respondents raised concerns about the financial implications of the proposed levy, and the overall impact on their businesses. They told us the additional costs will place a financial burden on businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), in times of economic uncertainty. Example responses include:
“For small companies, which have been hit hardest by economic conditions, a 10% levy on waste permit subsistence charges would be yet another long term unsustainable financial burden, further exacerbating the challenges to remain on the market”.
“The industry is very supportive of more enforcement activity to reduce waste crime and recognises that there is a cost to deliver this. However, there are some concerns about this cost due to the unprecedently challenging market conditions which the industry is facing. There therefore needs to be consideration made to SMEs working within this sector and the financial burden this places on them.”
Suggestions were also made on the scope of the levy including expanding it to cover all waste operations under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016, and considering bringing Carriers, Brokers and Dealers within scope as part of on-going regulatory reform.
Some respondents also mentioned that higher charges may impact affordability leading to fewer permitted waste operators and an increase in illegal activity such as illegal dumping, due to the increased costs for legal waste disposal. Examples from these respondents include:
“Any additional waste charges discourage some individuals from disposing of waste properly and will encourage more fly tipping.”
“This further penalises those who are responsible operators and discourages obtaining a permit.”
Others believe that the levy is a reasonable measure if it results in tangible benefits and improved enforcement for the operators who are within scope of the levy. One respondent said it was:
“…willing to provide additional revenue for the EA to tackle waste crime, which undercuts the legitimate sector, inhibiting investment in the circular economy, as well as harming the environment and communities.”
Service we provide – feedback
The service we currently provide for our customers and society was a concern for some. Respondents said increases in charges must lead to a visible improvement in the service we provide to tackle waste crime. This included increased enforcement, stronger actions against illegal operators and fairer and more effective use of resources. One response said:
“We would all like to see these benefits but improved efficiency within the EA and more decisive action would achieve this much more effectively.”
Many respondents welcomed the intention to do more to reduce waste crime and recognised the need for additional funding for this area of our business. They said that the current allocation of resource to fight waste crime is both insufficient and ineffective and called for greater transparency on the use of future levy income. One response said:
“We seek greater clarity on how the additional income generated by the levy will be used to enhance enforcement efforts and reduce waste crime. Without clear evidence that the levy will result in tangible improvements, it is difficult to justify the additional cost to legitimate operators.”
Waste crime levy – outcome and next steps
We considered all the information available before making our final decision on the waste crime levy. The responses we received were very helpful in understanding respondents’ concerns and issues. After careful consideration, the waste crime levy will not be taken forward at this time.
Expanding enforcement activity is key and the Environment Agency will increase its on-the-ground activity against waste criminals – intervening earlier on larger sites. Backed by an additional £45 million from the government over the next 3 years, this will strengthen enforcement activity and ensure waste criminals face the consequences of their actions. This represents a significant uplift of the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget, which stood at £10 million in 2024 to 2025.