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

5 Recycle: maximising the value of materials (Q8-Q12)

5.1 Section 3 of the consultation paper discussed actions taken by the Scottish Government and local authorities to-date to improve recycling rates in Scotland. However, the consultation paper noted that, while household recycling rates have improved significantly over time, overall progress on recycling is not what it needs to be if Scotland is to meet its recycling targets and secure the high quality recyclate needed to attract reprocessing capacity to Scotland. There are ongoing problems with contamination of household recycling collections, meaning that some of the material collected is not being recycled. There is also local variation in household waste recycling performance, and concerns about variation in approaches to recycling across Scotland, resulting in confusion among householders about what can be recycled.

5.2 To address these issues, the Scottish Government is proposing a move away from the current voluntary approach of Scotland's Household Recycling Charter towards a more mandated approach.^[19] This would enable Ministers to place further requirements on local authorities regarding household collection services, which could include, for example, placing aspects of the Charter and its supporting Code of Practice on a statutory footing, specifying materials to be targeted for collection or mandating how they are collected. The consultation included five questions on this issue.

Question 8: Do you agree with the principle of enabling Scottish Ministers to place additional requirements on local authorities in order to increase rates and quality of household recycling? [Yes / No / Neither agree nor disagree] If yes, what should these 'additional requirements' be?

Question 9: Do you agree with the principle of greater consistency in household recycling collections in different local authority areas? [Yes / No / Neither agree nor disagree]

Question 10: Do you consider that we should move away from the current voluntary approach to Scotland's Household Recycling Charter towards a more mandated approach, whereby implementation of the Charter and its supporting Code of Practice becomes a statutory obligation? [Yes / No / Don't know]

Question 11: Do you consider that householders' existing obligations are sufficient? [Yes / No / Don't know]

Question 12: Are there any other measures that you consider Scottish Government should take to help accelerate the rate and quality of household recycling in Scotland, taking account of experience and approaches elsewhere and existing householder behaviours? [Yes / No / Don't know] If yes, please specify.

Local authority requirements regarding household recycling (Q8)

5.3 Question 8 asked respondents if they agreed with the principle of Scottish Ministers placing additional requirements on local authorities to increase household recycling. Table 5.1 shows that a large majority of respondents (80%) supported this principle. Individuals (88%) were more likely than organisations (65%) to have this view. However, among organisations, those in the public sector were more likely than other organisations to answer 'no' in response to Question 8. While around 1 in 10 (12%) of organisations overall said 'no', the proportion was nearly 4 out of 10 (38%) among public sector organisations.

Table 5.1: Q8 - Do you agree with the principle of enabling Scottish Ministers to place additional requirements on local authorities in order to increase rates and quality of household recycling?

Organisation type	Yes		No		Neither agree nor disagree		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Environmental charities, third sector and community sector organisations	25	89%	-	0%	3	11%	28	100%
Public sector organisations	11	42%	10	38%	5	19%	26	100%
Food, drink, hospitality, tourism and retail organisations	13	68%	1	5%	5	26%	19	100%
Environmental consultancies & resource management organisations	16	94%	1	6%	-	0%	17	100%
Academic and professional bodies and business representative bodies	8	73%	-	0%	3	27%	11	100%
Packaging and other manufacturing organisations	8	62%	3	23%	2	15%	13	100%
Beverage and vending companies	1	8%	-	0%	11	92%	12	100%
Total organisations	82	65%	15	12%	29	23%	126	100%
Total individuals	233	88%	17	6%	16	6%	266	100%
Total organisations and individuals	315	80%	32	8%	45	11%	392	100%

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

5.4 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 'place additional requirements on local authorities and individuals to increase rates and quality of recycling of household items'. It may be inferred that these individuals have answered 'yes' to Question 8.

5.5 It is worth noting that there was a lack of consensus on this question among local authority respondents (included in the public sector category in Table 5.1 above). Nine local authorities answered 'yes', ten answered 'no, and two answered 'neither agree nor disagree'. One further local authority did not answer the closed question but offered comments. This respondent said that they supported the principle but thought that there were more effective ways to increase the quantity and quality of household recycling than placing additional requirement on local authorities; they said they wanted further detail about the proposal before they could answer.

5.6 Question 8 included a follow-up question: If yes, what should these 'additional requirements' be? Altogether, 270 respondents (89 organisations and 181 individuals) provided further comments. Although the follow-up question was directed to those who supported the principle of placing additional requirements on local authorities in relation to recycling, respondents who answered 'no' or 'neither agree nor disagree' also offered their views. These are discussed below - after the views of those supporting the principle.

Suggestions for 'additional requirements' that could be placed on local authorities

5.7 Those in favour of placing additional requirements on local authorities in relation to household recycling made a wide range of suggestions about what these additional requirements could involve. These related to six main topics: (i) better public engagement, education and communication, (ii) improving recycling systems and infrastructure, (iii) collecting a wider range of materials, (iv) improving the quality of recyclate, (v) expanding processing capacity, and (vi) monitoring / reporting progress. Each of these topics were raised by organisations and individuals. Some respondents discussed just one of these issues; others discussed several of them. The topics raised most often were in relation to better public engagement, education and communication; improving access to recycling facilities; and funding for local authorities.

5.8 All six of the topics are discussed briefly below.

Better public engagement / communication

5.9 Respondents thought local authorities should engage in better and more frequent communication with householders, businesses and the wider public in relation to recycling. Specifically, they saw a need to address householder and business confusion about what can and cannot be recycled. This group called for 'sustained communication and education' at both a national and local level (including in schools), as part of a nationwide public education strategy. The point was made that 'if the comms are not correct, then all the investment in infrastructure will be wasted'. Some respondents went further and directly attributed the lack of improvement in both the quality and quantity of recyclate in recent years to a lack of funding for local authorities for public communication.

5.10 In terms of the messages that need to be communicated, respondents thought householders and businesses needed to be better informed about the options available to them both for recycling and for reusing; and about what constitutes 'contamination', why this needs to be avoided, and how to avoid it.

5.11 Respondents suggested that engagement with the public should be simplified (using videos, pictures and social media where possible) and made more positive. They argued that people want to know why they are being asked to recycle, what happens to the material they recycle, and how that benefits their communities, rather than simply being told when their bins will be uplifted. There was a recurring view (and some respondents cited evidence and personal experience) that many members of the public believe that waste collected for recycling often ends up in landfill. This belief was seen to be undermining efforts to improve recycling rates; respondents thought it should be counteracted with better information about where local waste is recycled, and what the recycled material is used for.

5.12 More generally, in relation to the issue of public engagement / communication, organisations and individuals repeatedly stated that greater consistency between councils in terms of what was recycled was important to avoid confusion among householders, businesses and members of the public.

5.13 Individuals were more likely than organisations to highlight the importance of better, more consistent labelling on packaging, so that householders knew what was recyclable and what wasn't. Some individuals also made very specific suggestions about how to improve public engagement with recycling. Examples included (i) education officers going door to door so that people have the opportunity to ask questions; (ii) the introduction of local 'champions' to support neighbourhood recycling; (iii) providing stickers for bins with pictures of permitted materials; (iv) providing assistance to elderly, disabled or 'busy households' in sorting their recycling. Individuals cautioned against assuming that 'everyone is computer literate or has access to the internet from home'.

Improving recycling systems and infrastructure

5.14 Respondents thought local authorities should be required to take action to expand access to recycling facilities. Suggestions about ways in which this could be done included:

• More frequent collections of a wider range of materials
• More local recycling centres (including in rural areas)
• More frequent uplift of bottle banks so that residents do not have to travel to find a bottle bank with space for their bottles
• A review of on-street recycling in areas where there are shared bins to identify ways of improving infrastructure for communal recycling in cities
• Improved on-the-go recycling, including more consistent, easily recognisable recycling bins in towns and cities and in all public buildings
• Better support and systems for recycling at certain times of year (e.g. August in Edinburgh) and in areas where short-term lets and tourism are important to the local economy
• Better support to recycle larger items including lower charges for collection of these items (said to be important to prevent fly-tipping)
• Extended opening times for recycling centres (e.g. Sunday opening)
• Good waste management principles to be incorporated into new build and redevelopment projects at the planning stage.

Collecting a wider range of materials

5.15 Respondents often suggested that household recycling should be expanded to enable collection of a wider range of materials in all local authority areas. The materials suggested most often were clothing, shoes, textiles more generally, aluminium foil, batteries (including portable lithium-ion batteries), small electronics, food waste, garden waste, drinks cartons, paper cups and a wider range of plastics.

5.16 However, there was also a suggestion that all local authorities should be required to collect a 'core set' of materials - rather than all authorities trying to collect everything - and that these should be closely aligned to market demand for the materials.

Improving the quality of the recyclate

5.17 Respondents in favour of placing additional requirements on local authorities in relation to household recycling emphasised that the quality of the recyclate is crucial in enabling a circular economy. Most commonly, respondents wanted to see separate collections for a wider range of materials - for example, not only separating out metal cans, paper and plastic, but also different types of plastics (e.g. PET and HDPE). They noted that contamination of recyclate was more likely to occur where a single recycling bin was used to collect mixed waste, and there were suggestions that single recycling bins for mixed waste should be banned where the greatest contamination occurs.

5.18 However, some individual respondents disagreed with this view and argued instead for one bin to be used for as many materials as possible. The latter group thought that the local authority should take responsibility for sorting materials.

5.19 Some organisational respondents commented that contamination of household waste streams is having a particular impact on local authority contractual arrangements due to the changes to the recycling export market. Some respondents (organisations and individuals) identified a range of very specific actions that local authorities could take to address the problem of contamination:

• There should be a comprehensive and strategic approach to contamination management across Scotland to ensure policies can be successfully implemented and supported. This activity requires sustained funding to put enough staff on the ground to enable contamination management to be proactive, rather than reactive.
• Current agreed levels of contamination in contracts between local authorities and processors need to be reviewed to ensure the levels are practical and result in feedstocks that can be effectively recycled.
• There should be a requirement for local authorities to improve the quality of green waste feedstocks they collect for recycling and deliver to sites for processing. In particular, organics (food and garden waste) are required to be recycled to set end-of-waste standards (British Standard Institution's PAS 100 and PAS 110^[20] ) but local authorities often provide feedstocks to plants that make these standards very difficult to achieve. Composting and anaerobic digestion sites have to spend time and money removing contamination that should not be present in the first place.
• Currently there are few repercussions for householders who do not recycle or who contaminate their bins; nor are there incentives to 'do the right thing'. Some respondents suggested introducing incentives to encourage householders to recycle properly (e.g. a reward-based system where householders can redeem points earned when they recycle correctly, or a council tax discount). More often, however, respondents thought local authorities should have increased powers to (i) reject bins, (ii) fine householders who routinely present contaminated bins for recycling, or (iii) withdraw the waste collection service from individual households. It was also suggested that landlords should be responsible for ensuring that their tenants comply with recycling requirements. However, some respondents thought that exceptions would need to be made for vulnerable individuals.

Expanding processing capacity - and markets for the materials

5.20 Respondents often argued that there was little point in increasing the quantity and quality of household recycling unless there was sufficient local capacity within material recycling facilities (MRFs) to sort and process the recyclate - and secure markets for the materials. It was suggested that more MRFs were needed in Scotland to manage a wider range of waste streams, and that any new facilities should be located as close as possible to areas where waste is produced. In addition, respondents wanted to see new markets for materials being opened up in Scotland, rather than having to ship recycled materials overseas.

5.21 Some respondents highlighted a specific need for better infrastructure for processing 'compostable' plastics.

Monitoring / reporting

5.22 Some respondents (both organisations and individuals) referred to the experience of Wales (discussed in the consultation paper) and suggested that it would be helpful to set targets for local authorities in relation to recycling. Some also wanted to see targets set for reuse. Those who mentioned this issue called for improved / more accurate recording of recycling rates for all key materials (including materials going to landfill due to incorrect recycling, and transparent reporting).

Other suggestions for 'additional requirements' on local authorities

5.23 Occasionally, respondents who were in favour of additional requirements being placed on local authorities argued that greater attention needed to be given to efforts 'higher up in the waste hierarchy' - to support more sharing and reuse - and that local authorities could play an important role in promoting and enabling these. In particular, there were suggestions that (i) all local recycling centres should have an associated outlet for items which can be repaired and reused; (ii) a reuse target should be introduced in line with EU recommendations; (iii) a 'hire first' economy should be developed at a local level, where it is more attractive to commission a service or rent rather than buy a product.

Other issues raised by those supporting additional requirements on local authorities

5.24 Respondents who supported additional requirements being placed on local authorities nevertheless frequently highlighted caveats. In particular, they pointed out that improving the rate and quality of household recycling would depend on local authorities having the necessary knowledge, infrastructure and funding before any additional requirements are placed on them. This view was expressed repeatedly by a range of organisational and individual respondents. Some respondents suggested that the timing of any additional requirements on local authorities should be linked to the timetable for EPR reform and implementation of a deposit return scheme (DRS) in Scotland with changes in requirements on local authorities coming only after funding was available through these two routes. (However, some noted that one of the impacts of the DRS may be a fall in household recycling across Scotland.) There was also a view that any additional requirements on local authorities to increase the quantity and quality of recycling could only be effective if it took place in tandem with action by packaging manufacturers to rationalise packaging and to ensure that all packaging is able to be recycled.

Views not in support of placing additional requirements on local authorities

5.25 Respondents who answered 'no' or 'neither agree nor disagree', or who did not answer the closed question at Question 8, often raised similar issues. Some of those who answered 'neither agree nor disagree' said that they agreed in principle with additional requirements being placed on local authorities, but only if local authorities were adequately funded to meet those requirements. These comments came not only from public sector organisations (including local authorities), but also a range of private and third sector organisations and individuals. Those who answered 'no' at Question 8 often did so because they believed any additional requirements on local authorities would have to be appropriately resourced.

5.26 Other respondents in this group expressed concerns about, or highlighted challenges and barriers to, any new actions by local authorities to increase the quantity and quality of recycling in Scotland. The points raised by this group included the following.

• Local authority respondents, in particular, questioned how increasing obligations on householders could be applied and enforced in practice. This group reported the challenge of engaging with and persuading householders to change their behaviours, particularly where residents are unwilling, or not easily able to do so (e.g. due to physical or mental illness / dementia). They specifically highlighted the problem of enforcement in areas with communal bins that were accessible to passers-by in the street. They also pointed out that working with householders to encourage them to take responsibility for the waste they generate can be extremely resource intensive for local authorities. At the same time, it was also suggested that financial incentives may help change householder behaviour.
• Local authorities thought that any additional requirements placed on local authorities were unlikely to achieve very much unless additional obligations were also placed on householders.
• Some respondents suggested that efforts to collect more recycling could have a negative impact on the quality of the materials collected. Materials can require pre-treatment to get it to the standard required for processing, or may need to be disposed of - both of which create an addition cost for local councils. There was also a concern that any increased demands on householders / residents, or increased restrictions on household waste disposal could lead to an increase in waste accumulation or fly-tipping.
• Some local authorities argued that, rather than placing additional demands on local authorities, efforts should focus primarily on ensuring that producers use packaging materials that can be easily sorted and reprocessed through the existing infrastructure - and which have relatively secure long term markets. Nearly all the individual respondents answering 'no' to Question 8 did so because they did not believe that it was the responsibility of local authorities (or householders) to increase rates and quality of household recycling. This group argued that the onus for increasing recycling in Scotland should be on producers and retailers who, in their view, were creating the waste in the first place. They repeatedly emphasised that everyone who produces something must be made to understand that they are responsible for the 'whole life cycle' of that object - regardless of what that object is.
• Like those in favour of additional responsibilities for local authorities (see paragraph 5.24 above) those who were not in favour thought that the timetable for introducing any new responsibilities should be delayed until there was clarity about how EPR reform and the DRS would interact with these proposals.
• Some local authorities commented that there are different recycling arrangements in different local authorities for a variety of reasons, and these often related to the geographical context that those authorities operate in. Attempting to standardise recycling systems would not necessarily be cost-effective for authorities in some parts of Scotland, depending on whether they were urban, rural or island authorities.

5.27 Like those who supported the principle of additional responsibilities for local authorities, those who were not in favour highlighted the importance of national and local communication strategies. Some suggested that this should be the main priority - led by the Scottish Government - rather than putting additional requirements on local authorities.

5.28 Finally, a small number of organisational respondents with an industry perspective (i.e. those in the food, drink, hospitality, tourism and restaurant sectors, and packaging manufacturers) answered 'no' at Question 8 because they believed any steps to place additional requirements on local authorities should be debated in the Scottish Parliament. This group wanted to ensure that funds made available through EPR were used solely for the purpose of collecting and recycling a core set of materials, and they wanted this core set of materials to be consistent across the UK.

Improving consistency in household recycling (Q9)

5.29 Question 9 asked respondents if they agreed with the principle of having greater consistency in household recycling collections across different local authority areas. Table 5.2 shows that the vast majority of respondents (89%) agreed. There was a similar pattern of response among organisations (81% said 'yes') and individuals (92% said 'yes'). Among both groups, respondents who did not answer 'yes' to this question were more likely to say 'neither agree nor disagree' rather than 'no'. Among the local authorities, 18 out of 22 respondents answering this question said 'yes'.

Table 5.2: Q9 - Do you agree with the principle of greater consistency in household recycling collections in different local authority areas?

Organisation type	Yes		No		Neither agree nor disagree		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Environmental charities, third sector and community sector organisations	26	93%	1	4%	1	4%	28	100%
Public sector organisations	22	81%	1	4%	4	15%	27	100%
Food, drink, hospitality, tourism and retail organisations	20	91%	-	0%	2	9%	22	100%
Environmental consultancies & resource management organisations	17	100%	-	0%	-	0%	17	100%
Academic and professional bodies and business representative bodies	9	82%	-	0%	2	18%	11	100%
Packaging and other manufacturing organisations	10	83%	1	8%	1	8%	12	100%
Beverage and vending companies	1	8%	-	0%	11	92%	12	100%
Total organisations	105	81%	3	2%	21	16%	129	100%
Total individuals	247	92%	5	2%	16	6%	268	100%
Total organisations and individuals	352	89%	8	2%	37	9%	397	100%

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Moving to a mandated approach to household recycling (Q10)

5.30 Question 10 asked respondents if they thought Scotland should move away from the current voluntary approach to household recycling towards a more mandated approach whereby implementation of Scotland's Household Recycling Charter and its Code of Practice become a statutory obligation. Table 5.3 shows that around three-quarters of respondents overall (76%) agreed with this proposal. Individuals (82%) were more likely than organisations (64%) to agree. Among organisations, those in the public sector were more likely than others to answer 'no' - half of public sector organisations (52%) said 'no', compared to 13% of organisations overall.

Table 5.3: Q10 - Do you consider that we should move away from the current voluntary approach to Scotland's Household Recycling Charter towards a more mandated approach?

Organisation type	Yes		No		Don't know		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Environmental charities, third sector and community sector organisations	26	93%	-	0%	2	7%	28	100%
Public sector organisations	10	37%	14	52%	3	11%	27	100%
Food, drink, hospitality, tourism and retail organisations	15	75%	-	0%	5	25%	20	100%
Environmental consultancies & resource management organisations	14	82%	1	6%	2	12%	17	100%
Academic and professional bodies and business representative bodies	7	64%	-	0%	4	36%	11	100%
Packaging and other manufacturing organisations	9	75%	1	8%	2	17%	12	100%
Beverage and vending companies	-	0%	-	0%	12	100%	12	100%
Total organisations	81	64%	16	13%	30	24%	127	100%
Total individuals	219	82%	14	5%	34	13%	267	100%
Total organisations and individuals	300	76%	30	8%	64	16%	394	100%

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

5.31 It is worth noting that, within the public sector group, local authorities were generally opposed to this proposal - all 22 local authorities and their representative bodies responded to the closed part of this question, with 7 answering 'yes', 13 answering 'no' and 2 answering 'don't know'.

Householders' existing obligations for recycling (Q11)

5.32 Question 11 asked respondents if they thought current householder obligations for recycling were sufficient. Table 5.4 shows that 70% of respondents overall said 'no'. Individuals (75%) were more likely than organisations (59%) to say 'no'. Respondents who did not answer 'no' to Question 11 were more likely to answer 'don't know' rather than 'yes'.

Table 5.4: Q11 - Do you consider that householders' existing obligations are sufficient?

Organisation type	Yes		No		Don't know		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Environmental charities, third sector and community sector organisations	4	15%	18	69%	4	15%	26	100%
Public sector organisations	5	19%	19	73%	2	8%	26	100%
Food, drink, hospitality, tourism and retail organisations	-	0%	8	47%	9	53%	17	100%
Environmental consultancies & resource management organisations	3	18%	14	82%	-	0%	17	100%
Academic and professional bodies and business representative bodies	3	27%	5	45%	3	27%	11	100%
Packaging and other manufacturing organisations	2	17%	6	50%	4	33%	12	100%
Beverage and vending companies	-	0%	1	8%	11	92%	12	100%
Total organisations	17	14%	71	59%	33	27%	121	100%
Total individuals	30	11%	200	75%	37	14%	267	100%
Total organisations and individuals	47	12%	271	70%	70	18%	388	100%

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

5.33 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 'place additional requirements on local authorities and individuals to increase rates and quality of recycling of household items'. It may be inferred that these individuals have answered 'no' to Question 11.

Other measures to improve household recycling (Q12)

5.34 Question 12 invited views about whether the Scottish Government should take any other measures to help accelerate the rate and quality of household recycling in Scotland. Altogether, 299 respondents (98 organisations and 201 individuals) provided comments.

5.35 The seven most common suggestions made at Question 12 largely repeated suggestions made at Question 8 - which asked if any additional requirements should be placed on local authorities to increase the rate and quality of household recycling. Indeed, some respondents emphasised the importance of the Scottish Government working closely with local authorities on these issues. These suggestions were:

• Improving communication with and information to householders (including through schools, simpler / more informative labelling, etc.) to address widespread confusion about what can and cannot be recycled
• Expanding national and local facilities to process recycling and developing new (local) markets for recycled materials
• Proper funding of recycling services via EPR
• Improving recycling systems and infrastructure, and collecting a wider range of materials
• Taking action to reduce the use (by producers) of non-recyclable packaging in Scotland
• Banning recyclable waste from landfill and / or charging for collection of residual waste based on weight (or weight in excess of a standard amount)
• Introducing stronger sanctions (e.g. fines) and incentives (council tax reduction, reward schemes) to increase compliance by householders.

5.36 As each of these points have been discussed in some detail in relation to Question 8, they are not covered again here.

5.37 Some respondents (including environmental charities, third sector organisations and community groups, public sector organisations, and individuals) identified scope for additional legislation in this area. Alongside a legislative ban on recyclable materials being sent to landfill, and powers for local authorities to charge for collection of residual waste (mentioned above), this group wanted to see:

• A move towards regulations and enforcement along the lines of the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011
• Regulations targeting manufacturers and supermarkets - to reduce the quantity of packaging produced and sold and to phase out the use of hard-to-recycle materials
• Increased requirements to use recycled materials as feedstocks in manufacturing
• Greater traceability and accountability for the processing of waste, not only by local authorities, but also by waste contractors - and more regular reporting back to members of the public about what has been achieved
• The transposition of the EU Ecodesign Framework Directive (often referred to as the 'Right to Repair' Directive) into Scottish legislation.^[21]

5.38 Respondents often identified other countries, or other parts of the UK, that offered learning that could potentially be applied in Scotland, including:

• Wales: Wales was frequently highlighted, both by organisations and individuals, as having the highest recycling rates in the UK, with key success factors identified as: (i) significant investment, (ii) a blueprint followed by all but a few local authorities, and (iii) an increased focus on separate collection of different materials. Respondents encouraged the Scottish Government to observe the trial currently taking place in Wales involving the micro-chipping of food waste bins.
• Elsewhere in the UK: It was reported that parts of the UK where collections have been subject to competition have higher recycling levels and standards of performance than areas where there is no competition.
• France: It was reported that a system using transparent bin liners allows waste operators to check the contents meet recycling requirements. If not, a notice is put on the bin, and the householder must comply before their waste is uplifted.
• Flanders (Belgium): This region's 'save as you recycle' and 'pay as you throw' scheme was said to have resulted in high rates of recycling. Respondents noted that the pre-requisites for such schemes are that all householders have access to good recycling and reuse services.
• Netherlands: This country was reported to use a system involving specific 'landfill refuse bags' purchased by householders from designated places. The high fee charged for these bags encourages households to recycle as much as possible.
• Japan: This country was reported to have 'one of the most successful recycling systems' - based on separation of different materials and cultural investment in the importance of recycling.
• Italy: Awareness campaigns were reported to have had a positive impact on recycling rates. These campaigns have involved direct marketing (letters to residents, posters, leaflets and bin stickers), direct contact with building managers, a smart phone app, public meetings, a customer contact centre and school recycling projects.

5.39 Other countries / regions reported to have high recycling rates were Germany and the countries of Scandinavia. However, no further details were provided about recycling arrangements in these countries.

5.40 Occasionally respondents suggested that there were also lessons to be learned from the introduction of initiatives that had not been successful in increasing recycling rates.

5.41 Some respondents suggested that the Scottish Government should support research into, for example, (i) ways of expanding deposit return systems to take items other than drinks containers and (ii) identifying the obligations and interventions that will encourage householders to fully and correctly participate in Scotland's recycling systems.

5.42 Other respondents thought the Scottish Government should have a role in trialling initiatives that have been used successfully elsewhere (in Scotland and in other countries) and supporting their wider roll-out. Some highlighted initiatives such as Project Beacon in Tayside, which was reported to support complete plastics recycling through the use of new technologies and an innovative integrative approach.^[22] Others suggested that funding was needed for schemes to maximise the reuse / recycling of bulky materials (mattresses, furniture) which often end up in landfill. Occasionally, respondents proposed their own initiatives (e.g. supporting local green groups to inspire and educate people in their neighbourhoods, etc.).

5.43 Finally, there was a recurring view among respondents with an industry perspective (i.e. food, drink, hospitality, tourism and restaurant trade; and packaging and manufacturing organisations) that there should be consistency in approaches to recycling across the UK.