Recent reporting by Channel 4 News has renewed public concern about the increasing use of Enforcement Undertakings in response to serious pollution incidents. The Cotswolds Rivers Trust believes this framework risks being misused where repeated pollution offences avoid meaningful prosecution.
An Enforcement Undertaking is a form of civil sanction used by the Environment Agency as an alternative to criminal prosecution for certain environmental offences. It is a legally binding agreement in which the polluter admits wrongdoing, commits to corrective action, and funds environmental restoration projects linked to the affected area.
Reports suggesting the Environment Agency may be directing potentially criminal conduct by water companies towards Enforcement Undertakings, rather than prosecution, are deeply concerning. Enforcement Undertakings are intended for isolated incidents where it is genuinely in the public interest to avoid lengthy legal proceedings. The framework was never designed to become a routine mechanism through which repeated environmental harm is effectively normalised or allowed to bypass meaningful prosecution.
The Cotswolds Rivers Trust strongly opposes allowing water companies to escape prosecution on a mass scale by accepting Enforcement Undertakings.
The Cotswolds Rivers Trust has previously accepted funding through an Enforcement Undertaking, albeit not from a water company, where the Environment Agency’s approach aligned with our policy and where the outcomes deliver clear environmental benefit. Used appropriately, Enforcement Undertakings can be a force for good. However, they cease to serve the public interest when polluters can treat them as a predictable and recurring operational cost rather than a genuine deterrent.
There is also a wider responsibility across the environmental sector to ensure charities and community organisations remain vigilant against viewing Enforcement Undertaking funding as an easy or routine income stream. Restoration funding should never become dependent on the continuation of pollution events. The sector must remain focused on securing healthy rivers through prevention, accountability, and strong regulation, not on relying on environmental harm as a funding mechanism for recovery.
There is also a growing concern that some water companies may view Enforcement Undertakings as a comparatively inexpensive alternative to making the long-term investment required to properly resolve underlying infrastructure and operational failures. Where the cost of remediation payments is outweighed by the cost of addressing root causes, the framework risks creating perverse incentives. The legislative structure must drive meaningful change in behaviour and sustained investment in infrastructure, not provide a cheaper route for managing the consequences of repeated pollution incidents.
Where serious or repeated pollution offences occur, prosecutions should happen more quickly and transparently. Equally, where an Enforcement Undertaking is deemed the appropriate response, that decision and its rationale should be clearly communicated to the public.
The Cotswolds Rivers Trust calls for clearer national guidance on the use of Enforcement Undertakings, greater transparency in enforcement decisions, and faster prosecution of serious or repeat pollution offences. Restoring public confidence in river regulation will require visible accountability, stronger enforcement, and sustained investment in preventing pollution at source.
