Developing Scotland's circular economy - proposals for legislation: analysis of responses

3 Reduce: tackling our throwaway culture (Q1-Q3)

3.1 Section 1 of the consultation paper discussed the Scottish Government's efforts to begin building an economic system that is not based on items being designed to be disposable.

3.2 The consultation paper set out the Scottish Government's proposal to include within the Circular Economy Bill a power to enable Scottish Ministers to introduce charges on certain items such as single-use disposable items that are (i) harmful to the environment, (ii) can be replaced with sustainable alternatives, or (iii) are problematic to recycle. In addition, the Scottish Government has proposed that such a charge should be applied to single-use disposable beverage cups as a first priority. This proposal would be in line with a recommendation from the Expert Panel on Environmental Charging and Other Measures (EPECOM).^[5]

3.3 The consultation included three questions inviting views on (i) the principle of introducing environmental charging, (ii) introducing a charge on single-use disposable beverage cups, and (iii) whether there are other items that these powers could be applied to in the future.

Question 1: Do you agree in principle that Scottish Ministers should have the power to set charges for environmentally harmful items, for example single-use disposable beverage cups? [Yes / No / Neither agree nor disagree]

Question 2: Do you agree with the proposal to prioritise introduction of charges for single-use disposable beverage cups? [Yes / No / Neither agree nor disagree]

Question 3: Are there any other items that these new powers for environmental charging should be applied to in the future? [Yes / No / Don't know] If yes, please specify.

3.4 These three questions were all tick-box questions and the findings are presented in Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 below. Question 3 included a follow-up question for those who answered 'yes' to the tick-box question.

3.5 Respondents often made comments at Question 3 which related to Questions 1 or 2. Any comments relating to the principle of environmental charges (the subject of Question 1) are discussed together with comments at Question 3 below. However, any comments relating specifically to the proposal to prioritise charges for single-use disposable beverage cups are discussed, briefly, after Table 3.2.

A new power to set charges for environmentally harmful items (Q1)

3.6 Question 1 asked respondents if they agreed in principle that Scottish Ministers should have the power to set charges for environmentally harmful items. Table 3.1 below shows that a large majority of respondents overall (89%) agreed. Nearly three-quarters of organisations (73%) and almost all individuals (97%) answered 'yes' to Question 1. However, 8 out of 12 beverage and vending companies and 5 out of 11 packaging and other manufacturing organisations disagreed.

Table 3.1: Q1 - Do you agree in principle that Scottish Ministers should have the power to set charges for environmentally harmful items, for example single-use disposable beverage cups?

Organisation type	Yes		No		Neither agree nor disagree		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Environmental charities, third sector and community sector organisations	28	97%	-	0%	1	3%	29	100%
Public sector organisations	24	92%	1	4%	1	4%	26	100%
Food, drink, hospitality, tourism and retail organisations	12	55%	5	23%	5	23%	22	100%
Environmental consultancies & resource management organisations	16	89%	2	11%	-	0%	18	100%
Academic and professional bodies and business representative bodies	9	75%	1	8%	2	17%	12	100%
Packaging and other manufacturing organisations	2	18%	5	45%	4	36%	11	100%
Beverage and vending companies	4	33%	8	67%	-	0%	12	100%
Total organisations	95	73%	22	17%	13	10%	130	100%
Total individuals	261	97%	5	2%	3	1%	269	100%
Total organisations and individuals	356	89%	27	7%	16	4%	399	100%

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

3.7 In addition, 1,244 individuals who submitted responses through the Friends of the Earth Scotland campaign stated that they fully supported the Scottish Government's proposal to 'set charges for environmentally harmful items'. It may be inferred that these individuals have answered 'yes' to Question 1.

Prioritising charges for single-use disposable beverage cups (Q2)

3.8 Question 2 asked respondents if they agreed with the proposal to prioritise the introduction of charges for single-use disposable beverage cups. Table 3.2 shows that a large majority of respondents overall (82%) were in favour of this. However, organisations were less likely than individuals to have this view (58% of organisations compared with 93% of individuals answered 'yes' to Question 2). Among the organisational respondents, half of packaging and other manufacturing organisations (6 out of 12), and all 12 of the beverage and vending companies answered 'no' to this question.

Table 3.2: Q2 - Do you agree with the proposal to prioritise introduction of charges for single-use disposable beverage cups?

Organisation type	Yes		No		Neither agree nor disagree		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Environmental charities, third sector and community sector organisations	22	76%	-	0%	7	24%	29	100%
Public sector organisations	24	92%	1	4%	1	4%	26	100%
Food, drink, hospitality, tourism and retail organisations	10	43%	9	39%	4	17%	23	100%
Environmental consultancies & resource management organisations	12	67%	1	6%	5	28%	18	100%
Academic and professional bodies and business representative bodies	7	64%	1	9%	3	27%	11	100%
Packaging and other manufacturing organisations	1	8%	6	50%	5	42%	12	100%
Beverage and vending companies	-	0%	12	100%	-	0%	12	100%
Total organisations	76	58%	30	23%	25	19%	131	100%
Total individuals	250	93%	8	3%	10	4%	268	100%
Total organisations and individuals	326	82%	38	10%	35	9%	399	100%

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

3.9 Some respondents made comments at Question 3 in relation to the proposal to prioritise the introduction of environmental charges for single-use disposable cups.

3.10 Among those who were supportive of this proposal, there was a recurring view that single-use beverage cups make up only a tiny fraction of Scotland's waste, and placing environmental charges on them would be 'a drop in the ocean'. In general, this group thought that environmental charges on a much wider range of items and materials should be prioritised. (See Question 3 below.)

3.11 Those who were not supportive of this proposal (mainly packaging and manufacturing organisations; beverage and vending companies; and organisations in the food, drink, hospitality, tourism and restaurant trade sectors) made the following points:

• They did not agree with the description of single-use beverage cups as 'environmentally harmful'. They argued that paper cups are manufactured with sustainable and certified fibre and are fully recyclable.
• According to this group, in most everyday scenarios, a paper cup has the lowest carbon footprint to any alternatives and is always a hygienic choice. These respondents argued that reusable cups would need to be lightweight, used multiple times, and be washed efficiently for them to result in lower greenhouse gas emissions than paper cups. In addition, they would need to be recyclable.
• These respondents said that the proposal to charge for these items neglects to take into account (i) recent 'big increases' in the number of recycling return points available for paper cups across the UK, (ii) the large increase in capacity for recycling of paper cups and (iii) growing market demand for the recycled material. The point was made that paper cups can also be composted at some facilities.
• This group wanted any charges on packaging to only be considered after Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) reform comes into force, and the impact on business of EPR reform has been assessed. They believed there was insufficient detail in the consultation paper about how such a charge would be levied, how it would interact with other environmental measures, how it would be applied equally to all businesses to ensure a level playing field, and how remittances to councils would work in practice.

3.12 In general, this group did not agree that use of disposable paper cups followed a linear consumption pattern, and thus they did not think these items should be a target for environmental charges. They wanted the proposal to charge for disposable paper cups to be fully debated in the Scottish Parliament.

3.13 Some respondents also asked for clarification about whether the intention was to introduce charges only on single-use disposable hot beverage cups (in line with EPECOM's recommendation), or whether there was also an intention to include single-use disposable cold drinks cups. In relation to the latter, there was a concern raised about the possible health / hygiene implications of filling reusable cups brought in by customers in a quick-service restaurant context.

Other items to which environmental charging should be applied (Q3)

3.14 Question 3 asked respondents if new powers for environmental charging should be applied to any other items in the future. Table 3.3 shows that slightly less than three-quarters of respondents overall (72%) thought they should. Individuals were more likely than organisations to say this (79% vs 59% respectively). Respondents who did not answer 'yes' to this question were more likely to say 'don't know' than 'no'. However, among the organisational respondents, half of packaging and other manufacturing organisations (5 out of 10), and 11 out of 12 beverage and vending companies answered 'no' to this question.

Table 3.3: Q3 - Are there any other items that these new powers for environmental charging should be applied to in the future?

Organisation type	Yes		No		Don't know		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Environmental charities, third sector and community sector organisations	24	83%	-	0%	5	17%	29	100%
Public sector organisations	21	81%	-	0%	5	19%	26	100%
Food, drink, hospitality, tourism and retail organisations	6	30%	4	20%	10	50%	20	100%
Environmental consultancies & resource management organisations	15	83%	2	11%	1	6%	18	100%
Academic and professional bodies and business representative bodies	6	60%	-	0%	4	40%	10	100%
Packaging and other manufacturing organisations	1	10%	5	50%	4	40%	10	100%
Beverage and vending companies	1	8%	11	92%	-	0%	12	100%
Total organisations	74	59%	22	18%	29	23%	125	100%
Total individuals	204	79%	4	2%	51	20%	259	100%
Total organisations and individuals	278	72%	26	7%	80	21%	384	100%

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

3.15 Respondents answering 'yes' to Question 3 were asked to specify the items any new powers for environmental charging should be applied to in the future.

3.16 Altogether, 307 respondents (98 organisations and 209 individuals) provided comments. There are several points to make about the responses:

• The follow-up question was targeted at respondents who had answered 'yes' to the closed question. However, some respondents who answered 'no' or 'don't know', and some who did not answer the closed question also made comments. These comments are discussed at paragraphs 3.32 and 3.33 below.
• Individuals generally responded to the follow-up question by providing a list of items that new powers of environmental charging should be applied to in the future. Some organisations also provided a list of items but, more often, organisations raised general points about the purpose of environmental charging and how these new powers could be most effectively used. These comments were diverse, and there were different opinions on these matters between and within different organisational groups.
• Some of those commenting at Question 3 discussed the proposal to introduce charges on single-use beverage cups. These comments have already been discussed above (see paragraphs 3.9 to 3.13).

3.17 Respondents' views about the other items that environmental charging should be applied to in the future are discussed first below.

Other items that environmental charging should be applied to in the future

3.18 Individuals and organisations who answered 'yes' to Question 3 identified a wide variety of items - both specific items and more general categories of items - that they thought environmental charging should be applied to.

Specific items suggested for environmental charges

3.19 Among the most common suggestions made by respondents were that charges should be applied to plastic takeaway food containers (including salad and sandwich pre-packed boxes, and any food containers made of polystyrene), disposable cutlery, stirrers and straws - in other words, items that would be covered by a ban or restrictions when the EU Single Use Plastic Directive is transposed into Scottish Law. Some respondents suggested that environmental charging for these items should be seen as an interim measure before a legislative ban or restrictions come into place.

3.20 Other items mentioned frequently by respondents for environmental charges were:

• Disposable nappies
• Single-use plastic drinks bottles
• Cigarettes
• Throwaway novelty items (free toys with takeaway meals, or conference 'freebies')
• Plastic packaging on fruit and vegetables in supermarkets

3.21 In relation to all these items, respondents argued that they are either not recyclable or not necessary, and / or that recyclable, reusable or biodegradable versions existed (for nappies and drinks bottles). In relation to cigarettes, respondents noted that both cigarette butts and packaging contribute substantially to litter and are not recyclable, and in the case of the butts, the plastic filter does not prevent harm from smoking, which is its intended purpose. Those who raised this issue called for cigarette manufacturers to take greater responsibility for addressing the problem of environmental waste from their products.

3.22 A subject raised on a recurring basis by respondents was the amount of waste generated by the building / construction industry. This issue was highlighted by individuals and a range of organisations (including those who said they worked in the construction industry). Respondents considered that the lack of any interventions targeted at this sector was a significant omission in the Scottish Government's proposals. Respondents called for the Scottish Government to support construction companies and architects in their efforts to reduce the environmental impacts of new building projects. Some thought that environmental charges should extend to the built environment and cover, for example:

• Plastic items such as PVC windows and doors, drainpipes, tiles, floor coverings and insulation materials that will not biodegrade at the end of their useful life.
• New housing on land where (i) there are not high-quality facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, and (ii) there is no access to efficient, public transport infrastructure
• New buildings that are not designed for dismantling and reuse
• New buildings that do not have an embodied energy calculation.

3.23 Finally, respondents suggested that environmental charging could be applied to a wide range of other items. These were numerous and often mentioned by just one or two respondents. Some examples for illustration were: (i) balloons (both helium and air-filled); (ii) non-rechargeable batteries; (iii) disposable razors; (iv) plastic plants and plant pots; and (v) chewing gum.

General categories of items suggested for environmental charges

3.24 Respondents (both organisations and individuals) also repeatedly suggested that environmental charging (or bans) should apply to entire categories of items, including the following examples:

• Anything non-recyclable (including packaging made of mixed materials) or non-reusable
• All single-use plastic and / or all single-use packaging of any material
• Any liquid or solid packaged in a plastic container of less than two litres
• All items made from materials sourced from oil (or fossil carbon) (e.g. fuel, paint, plastics, etc.).

3.25 Some organisational respondents (including some public sector organisations and some respondents from the food and drink, hospitality, tourism and restaurant sectors) noted that some businesses have begun to move to compostable or easily recyclable takeaway containers and cups, rather than plastic or polystyrene. These new types of containers are more expensive than non-recyclable versions, and these respondents suggested that it may be appropriate to consider different levels of charges on different types of packaging.

General points about the purpose and implementation of environmental charges

3.26 Organisations who answered 'yes' to Question 3 often explicitly stated that they supported the principle of charges being applied to environmentally harmful items. This group of respondents agreed that Scotland should not allow the use of such materials to continue. They thought the primary purpose of such charges should be to incentivise the use of reusable alternatives - both by businesses and consumers - and that the charges should be sufficient to achieve this. Some respondents commented that environmental charges should not be seen as a way of making money and should not enable those who can afford it to continue to cause environmental harm.

3.27 Among organisations, there were differences in views about the kinds of items that environmental charges should be applied to. The most common view was that charging should apply to single-use, not easily recyclable items, where alternatives were available - as proposed by the Scottish Government. A second view was that all single-use material should be considered for charging unless there is a reason why the item must be single-use (for example, for clinical / medical reasons). However, a third view expressed by a range of organisations (both those who answered 'yes' and those who answered 'don't know') was that clarification was required (particularly for the purposes of legislation) about what, exactly, constituted 'single-use' and 'environmentally harmful'.

3.28 A fourth view - held by some environmental charities, third sector and community sector groups, and some public sector organisations - was that, rather than identifying individual items for environmental charging (which involved considerable time and resources), a more holistic approach would involve charges on any item (not just single-use and not just plastic) that is environmentally harmful, difficult to recycle, or has a high carbon impact relative to tonnage.^[6] Thus, charging should apply to the whole of the economy, not just to individual single-use items, and should be levied on the items which have the most environmentally damaging impacts. Respondents recognised that this type of approach would be complex and may need to be applied at a UK level. However, it might involve, for example:

• Requiring all companies placing products onto the Scottish market to set out the materials and inputs needed to make them so they can be assessed against Section 140 of the Environment Protection Act (1990)^[7]
• Prohibiting materials that are environmentally harmful, except in cases of legitimate use (i.e. medical supplies)
• Where alternatives are available but not widely used, setting a target date for prohibition to give the market a clear signal of intent
• Requiring companies to accept back all packaging and all used products - and to explain how those materials will be reused or recycled.

3.29 It was suggested that the Circular Economy Bill should create a framework that allows Scottish Ministers to introduce further charges or bans on additional items in the future (not just on a limited specified set of items) without having to amend legislation (or regulations).

3.30 Organisations often offered suggestions about different aspects of the implementation of environmental charging. For example, there were suggestions that:

• Charges should be specified and not simply rolled into the price of the item - to communicate to the public that there is a charge.
• The income derived from charges should be used to support circular economy measures to reduce material consumption and pollution.
• Charges should reflect the full economic, social and environmental costs of extraction, manufacture, use and disposal - and the full cost of the charge should fall on the supplier, not the consumer.
• Any action to reduce the use of single-use items (including environmental charging) needs to go hand-in-hand with requirements on manufacturers / producers to design products that can be easily recycled. Action will be needed to prevent producers switching to alternative packaging that is less recyclable than plastic. It was suggested that this should be addressed in a reformed EPR scheme.
• The Scottish Government should work with local authorities to encourage start-up firms and existing packaging manufacturers to move to more sustainable practices.
• The Scottish Government should work with industry to obtain a thorough understanding of the feasibility and timings of finding alternative packaging solutions before introducing any new environmental charges (beyond those proposed for single-use beverage cups).
• Decisions about implementation and / or future priority items should be based on sound research, full impact assessment and life cycle analysis.

3.31 Organisations made a range of suggestions for other policy actions that would help to tackle the throwaway culture in Scotland. These suggestions did not specifically involve the use of environmental charging, and are discussed in Chapter 9, in relation to Question 22.

Views of respondents who did not answer 'yes' to Question 3

3.32 Around a third of respondents did not answer 'yes' to Question 3. These respondents either answered 'no' or 'don't know', or they made comments without answering the closed question. This group mainly comprised organisations with a business / industry perspective - i.e. beverage and vending companies; food, drink, hospitality, tourism and restaurant trade organisations; and packaging manufacturers and other manufacturing organisations. This group also included some public sector organisations.

3.33 Some of these respondents (especially those who answered 'no') expressed concerns or queried aspects of the implementation of environmental charging and / or the proposal to put an environmental charge on single-use beverage cups in particular. Others made more general comments about the proposals set out in the consultation paper. Additional main points made by this group in relation to Question 3 were that:

• Assuming that single-use beverage cups are prioritised, no additional items should be considered for environmental charging until there is robust evidence that such charges are effective at driving changes in consumer behaviour.
• The focus for any future charges should be on non-recyclable / hard-to-recycle items rather than items which are 'single-use' but can be recycled. Items which are infinitely recyclable (glass and aluminium) should not be included in any environmental charging scheme.