UK regulators have moved to prevent enforcement action against packaging producers that fall short of some 2026 recycling obligations, after tighter accreditation and export rules reduced the supply of packaging recycling evidence.
Regulatory Position Statements issued on 9 October set reduced enforcement thresholds for three materials. Regulators will not normally take action where businesses meet at least 83% of the statutory plastic recycling obligation, 92% of the steel obligation and 90% of the wood obligation. Full compliance remains required for all other packaging materials.
The intervention follows concerns that some producers and compliance schemes could otherwise struggle to demonstrate compliance with their 2026 obligations. It relates to Packaging Waste Recycling Notes (PRNs) and Packaging Waste Export Recycling Notes (PERNs), the evidence used to show packaging waste has been recycled or exported for recycling.
Why evidence supply tightened
According to the Foodservice Packaging Association (FPA), the position statements follow changes introduced during 2026 to strengthen the integrity of the PRN/PERN system. These include tighter accreditation requirements for reprocessors and exporters, a new fit-and-proper-person test, increased enforcement activity and changes to export rules.
Under the revised export rules, PERNs can only be issued once packaging waste reaches the overseas reprocessing facility. Defra says the measures have improved transparency and helped tackle fraud and error. It also acknowledges that they have reduced the number of accredited reprocessors and exporters and increased the time taken for PERNs to be issued, constraining the supply of recycling evidence.
Relief is limited to 2026
The Environment Agency’s Regulatory Position Statement 383 makes clear that statutory recycling obligations have not been amended. Businesses that satisfy the conditions of the RPS will not normally face enforcement action for missing the original targets for plastic, steel and wood, but the reduced thresholds do not change the underlying legal obligations.
The regulator also confirms that Certificates of Compliance will continue to record non-compliance with statutory recycling obligations where those obligations have not been met, even if a business has satisfied the reduced RPS thresholds. Businesses relying on the RPS must retain supporting records for five years, meet their full obligations for other packaging materials and continue to comply with all other applicable requirements. The intervention applies only to the 2026 compliance year.
FPA calls for review of 2027 targets
Defra has described the circumstances as exceptional and committed to reviewing recycling targets for 2027. It says the review will take account of factors including the introduction of a deposit return scheme (DRS) and the delayed mandatory kerbside collection of plastic film in England.
The FPA said the impact of DRS will be particularly significant. Under current arrangements, in-scope PET plastic bottles and aluminium and steel drinks cans collected through DRS will no longer generate PRNs or PERNs. That will remove valuable, relatively high-quality material from the existing recycling evidence market, even though it will continue to be recycled through the new scheme.
The delayed introduction of mandatory kerbside collections for plastic film in England, now scheduled for April 2030, adds another consideration when assessing the volume of material likely to be available for recycling and the generation of PRNs. The FPA said the 2027 review must establish whether targets are supported by demonstrable domestic and overseas recycling capacity and reliable evidence supply, and must account for DRS in October 2027 and the later film collection start.
The association added that there is a distinction between relief from enforcement and resolving the underlying compliance problem. It said producers need clarity about what the reduced thresholds mean in practice, including any wider implications, and should not face unpredictable compliance costs arising from a mismatch between regulatory obligations and the evidence market.
The FPA also said that regulators having to intervene to prevent enforcement action raises serious questions about how the system is being managed and how future targets are set. It supports stronger accreditation, verification and transparency, but argues that if improving integrity exposes a substantial shortfall in evidence availability, the assumptions behind recycling targets should be fundamentally examined. Longer-term reform of the PRN/PERN system remains under consideration following consultation on measures intended to improve transparency, reduce fraud and create a more level playing field between UK reprocessors and exporters.