»Ê¼Ò»ªÈËwelcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation on waste exemptions.
While we support the goals of improving environmental standards and regulatory clarity, we have concerns about the proposed banding of exemptions, compliance charges, transparency of how these charges have been calculated and their affordability for the agricultural sector.
These changes risk placing unnecessary financial and operational burdens on farmers, particularly small and family-run businesses, while failing to reflect the low-risk and environmentally beneficial nature of many agricultural practices.
Farmers are working under enormous pressure to produce healthy and nutritious food alongside protecting and enhancing our environment.
The current waste exemption registration system is well understood by the agricultural industry, supports farmers and growers to ensure compliance with waste regulation and safeguard their activities against environmental harm while conducting their day-to-day operations.
Affordability and sectoral impact
»Ê¼Ò»ªÈËacknowledges the EA’s efforts to reduce costs for 15 ‘common on-farm’ exemptions, but we remain concerned about the broader financial impact on small and family-run farms.
Farmers operate on tight margins and rely on exemptions to manage waste sustainably while delivering environmental benefits. Increased costs could hinder innovation, reduce compliance, and create unintended consequences such as increased fly-tipping
»Ê¼Ò»ªÈËunderstands that, as of November 2024, the Environment Agency had 126,661 waste exemption registrations in England, and approximately 62% of all those registrations are situated on farms.
If all 78,129 of these registered exemption holders, paid the basic charges for the registration fee (£48) and the ‘common on farm list’ (£88), proposed to be £144 every three years, our calculations are that these changes would cost the agricultural sector £11,250,576 every three years, or £3,750,129 annually.
These estimated figures exclude any waste exemptions not covered by the ‘common on-farm list’ that could bring significant additional costs.
Inclusion of additional exemptions in the common on-farm list
»Ê¼Ò»ªÈËwould support the creation of the common on-farm list, but with several additional exemptions included.
Based on feedback from our members, the NFU recommends the inclusion of the following exemptions in the common on-farm list:
- T6 (Treating waste wood and waste plant matter by chipping, shredding, cutting, or pulverising).
- T29 (Treatment of non-hazardous pesticide washings by carbon filtration for disposal).
- T32 ( Treatment of waste in a biobed or biofilter).
These exemptions reflect common farming activities that align with low-risk operations and environmentally responsible practices.
Banding of waste exemptions
Band 2 exemptions: »Ê¼Ò»ªÈËis concerned that key agricultural activities such as D1 (depositing waste from dredging inland waters) and U10 (spreading waste to benefit agricultural land) are classified as moderate-risk.
These activities are environmentally beneficial, and pose minimal risk when managed responsibly. We recommend reclassifying these exemptions to Band 3 to reflect their low risk and significant environmental and agricultural benefits.
Band 3 exemptions: »Ê¼Ò»ªÈËagrees with the classification of Band 3 exemptions, which represent low-risk activities critical to sustainable farming practices, including the use of mulch, plant matter, and ash.
Retaining these exemptions in Band 3 is essential to minimise regulatory costs and support environmentally sound agricultural practices.
Upper band exemptions: We agree with the inclusion of T8, T9, and U16 in the upper compliance band as these are high-risk activities not typically relevant to farming.
Compliance charges
Proposed charges (table 6): »Ê¼Ò»ªÈËdisagrees with the proposed charges, particularly the £420 fee for Band 1 exemptions.
These charges are excessive for small-scale or infrequent farming activities and do not account for the low-risk nature of many agricultural practices.
This disproportionate financial burden risks discouraging compliance and may exacerbate issues such as fly-tipping, for which farmers already bear significant costs.
Additional exemptions (table 7): »Ê¼Ò»ªÈËsupports the proposed reduced charges for additional exemptions, as this offers a fairer and more affordable solution for farmers needing multiple exemptions outside the common on-farm list.
Farmer-specific guidance
»Ê¼Ò»ªÈËalso believes that farmer-specific guidance is essential to ensure clarity and ease of compliance.
Many farmers, especially small and family-run businesses, may not have the resources or expertise to navigate complex regulatory frameworks.
Clear, accessible guidance tailored to the agricultural sector is necessary to help farmers understand the specific requirements of waste exemptions and avoid unnecessary penalties.
Providing guidance in a practical, farmer-friendly format, such as templates or dedicated support channels, will increase compliance and foster positive environmental outcomes.
Further recommendations
Ensure that compliance charges are proportionate to the scale and risk of agricultural activities.
Monitor the impact of these reforms to ensure they do not discourage compliance or innovation, particularly for small-scale and low-margin farming operations.
Maintain clear communication with the agricultural sector to refine and improve the waste exemption system over time.
»Ê¼Ò»ªÈËremains committed to supporting regulatory reforms that are fair, effective, and environmentally sound.
We look forward to continued dialogue with the EA to ensure these objectives are met.