Why resource policy fails, as told by government insiders – Inside track

This parliamentary term kicked off with a promise of change, including a clear commitment to create a circular economy. It sits alongside explicit aims around growth, new jobs and accelerating the green economy. Overhauling how we use resources underpins all of this. But many seasoned advocates working in this area whoâ€ve been witness to previous governments†attempts to bring about a circular economy might be getting a distinct feeling of déjà vu.

Past strategy was stuck on recycling
Englandâ€s 2018 resources and waste strategy had similarly impressive ambitions to make the UK a leader in resource efficiency and waste reduction. However, in the time since, nearly every milestone it set has been missed. Beset by backtracking and delay, the strategy became bogged down in the weeds of recycling reform. Key policies, like extended producer responsibility for packaging, faced repeated delays, and the much anticipated deposit return scheme, promised nearly a decade ago by the former Environment Secretary Michael Gove, wonâ€t now be launched until 2027. Some of the strategyâ€s proposals, like the pledge to meet or exceed EU ecodesign standards, seem to have been dropped entirely.

Where did it all go wrong?
We have interviewed 17 individuals close to the decision making process around the previous strategy to find out what went wrong, including MPs, peers, members of Scottish parliament and the Welsh Senedd, political advisers and other Westminster insiders. Together, they had a wealth of knowledge and they shared their insights on what they saw as the barriers to progress and how to overcome them.

One major barrier they identified was a basic lack of knowledge about what a more resource efficient economy means. In 2016, Thérèse Coffey, then a junior minister responsible for resources, remarked, “The words circular economy, to me, is at risk of implying there isnâ€t growth†and our insiders reported repeatedly encountering these kinds of misunderstandings and prejudices across government, including from the Treasury.

Insiders spoke of the repeated failure to understand that resources policy covers more than just waste and recycling, as well as a false perception that it is somehow in competition with action on the climate and nature crises, even though better use of resources is neededvital to address them both .

Speaking anonymously allowed our interviewees to be more candid. Many identified powerful individuals whose lack of knowledge blocked progress. One former Number 10 adviser frankly admitted their own role in this, confessing: “I think I was part of the problem. Some civil servants were ahead of the curve in thinking beyond recycling at the time, but not many.â€

Politicians have misunderstood what people want
Misunderstanding public attitudes was another sticking point, with politicians wrongly believing people donâ€t care about or want ambitious resources policy. They have assumed these initiatives increase costs, ignoring the potential savings that can be made. Reusing products, for example, could save UK households between £72 and £280 per year on average and wasting food alone costs the average household £600 a year. They failed to understand the powerful behavioural drivers beyond price and convenience. Our research with Cardiff University found that a staggering 90 per cent of people believed there was a strong or very strong need to shift towards a society that uses resources more efficiently, with 60 per cent supporting shifts, even if it meant substantially changing their lifestyle.

Too often, the government focuses on single issues where there is strong public interest. Plastic pollution, for instance, became an almost universal concern, thanks, in part, to David Attenboroughâ€s Blue Planet II series. Most resource policies have, therefore, addressed waste management and recycling issues. Recycling is tangible, familiar and practical, whilst the ‘circular economy†is a more abstract and complex concept. This has kept politicians away from acting on the more interventionist impactful policies needed.

We need to move from the abstract to the concrete
In an effort to avoid this governmentâ€s strategy meeting the same fate as its predecessor, we have summarised the main messages we heard from the government insiders, outlined in more detail in our policy insight. In short, they advocate better messaging: using more effective framing of the issues, in terms of the concrete benefits, and staying away from abstract language. The importance of good champions of a more circular future, including businesses, was emphasised to inspire and drive momentum. They also highlighted that this government must target the short term wins soon, to show people whatâ€s possible.

Longer term, circular economy strategy needs a clear framework and plan, with actionable targets across sectors, emulating the UKâ€s approach to climate change. The governmentâ€s commitment to launch a new Circular Economy Strategy for England, to be codesigned with a taskforce representing industry, civil society, academia and local authorities, is a unique opportunity. If this and its supporting roadmaps for different sectors are executed well, we will witness positive transformation, shifting us away from ‘take-make-waste’ towards the virtuous circle of growth in a more resource efficient economy.