Draft Scottish Marine Litter Strategy: Analysis of Consultation Responses

Question 18 - 21 Strategic Direction 4

• Strategic Direction 4: Improvement of monitoring at a Scottish scale

Q18. What are your views on the possible actions?

Q19. Which do you believe is the most important possible action in helping to deliver the Marine Litter Strategy?

Q20. Can one or more of these possible actions be delivered under existing activities or do you think more action is needed under the Marine Litter Strategy?

Q21. Do you think any of the existing actions need to be improved?

For the purposes of analysis, Questions 18 - 21 will be considered together based on the comments received to the consultation.

25 respondents commented on this section and the responses were generally supportive in terms of the possible actions outlined in the consultation document. There was overall consensus that actions would require a co-ordinated and standardised approach. Some respondents did, however, highlight recommendations which included: determining a data baseline; aligning multi-organisation research to assess impacts of marine litter the need for co-ordinated monitoring methodology.

In response to Question 19, many respondents identified the first two options under possible actions in the consultation document as being most significant. Two respondents felt that improving monitoring should not delay implementation of other possible actions outlined.

Six respondents highlighted that establishing a baseline for coastal litter would be very important, both for informing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and in measuring progress. It was suggested that detailed surveys be conducted at representative locations using standard protocols.

Four respondents considered that the alignment of current and future monitoring, methods and organisations was most important.

Three respondents expressed a view that each possible action identified is integral to support the Strategic Direction.

Three respondents expressed a view that a review of 'where we are at' as the most important action.

One respondent expressed a view that the development of a baseline survey and the development of a standardised monitoring approach should be expedited.

One response indicated the most important actions as being the alignment of non-governmental organisations, developing a baseline for coastal litter and standardised monitoring approaches.

One respondent thought more action will be required to define possible actions. A similar point was raised by a respondent who suggested that more action is required to fulfil proposed actions under the Strategy.

In response to Question 20, three responses suggested that delivery of the possible actions would be difficult to achieve under existing activities, and will require additional measures. Additionally, four respondents commented that while some actions could be carried out by existing organisations and schemes, this would depend on additional resources being available.

In response to Question 21, one respondent commented that they would like to see many of the existing actions at a more advanced stage. Two respondents suggested that more detailed investigation and review of the existing actions may be needed to ensure alignment with the possible actions. One respondent commented that existing actions need to be strengthened to provide the baseline data required for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

Many respondents agreed that there was a need to develop and agree a standardised method for monitoring and recording. Respondents offered suggestions for possible methods for monitoring and recording:

• Monitor the occurrence of specific indicators at regular time intervals rather than overall counts for every litter type.
• Impacts as well as amounts of litter items should be considered when selecting effective indicators.
• Attitudinal and behavioural indicators could be used to track improvements in awareness of and behaviour changes around marine litter.
• A central reporting system for the removal of particular categories of litter, particularly where it might present a hazard. It was also suggested that there may be scope for the use of citizen science in a monitoring programme.
• Two respondents suggested that certain beaches/coastal areas should be identified as reference beaches and local volunteer groups, and others encouraged to carry out quarterly surveys.
• One respondent stated a view that voluntary beach cleaning should continue, and linked to this, a workshop with all data providers and those collating data should be a priority. One respondent stated that support should be provided through incentives for volunteers. Another response suggested that more training of volunteers may be required to ensure a high and consistent standard of surveying, together with recognition that the surveys are very valuable.
• One respondent suggested that there needs to be a national coastal litter survey initiative that targets a range of beaches.
• One respondent commented that increased surveillance was required to enable the development of longer term targets. It was also suggested that the dissemination of monitoring results should continue beyond 2020.
• Two respondents thought that an integrated approach to the monitoring of activities undertaken by key delivery organisations should be co-ordinated by Marine Scotland.
• Two respondents suggested that an additional action could be the monitoring and recording of litter, in line with key legislation, as for land based sources, types and grades.
• One respondent highlighted that there was also a need for more research to establish baselines and that the co-operation of research providers and agencies, and knowledge exchange with the plastic industry, should be promoted.
• One respondent identified that Local Authorities need to be fully involved in the consideration of any monitoring system, and monitoring of the success of the Strategy should link to existing reporting systems in place.

In addition, respondents offered suggestions for improvement; or issues that they felt should be considered:

• Three respondents expressed a view that organisations and data must be aligned so that information is shared and research co-ordinated.
• A few responses referred to the importance of linking the Strategy with recommendations made by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive subgroup on litter.
• Four respondents commented that the Strategy should align with the recommendations from the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Technical subgroup on Descriptor 10 (Litter), to ensure consistent methodology.
• Four respondents highlighted that it needs to be recognised that there may be variances with monitoring between Europe and Scotland. One respondent identified that consideration will be needed as to which areas should be monitored as baseline data and resulting action will vary widely.
• One respondent suggested that the monitoring of microplastics could be improved, and another respondent felt that this particular issue should be addressed within the Strategy. One respondent highlighted that more research into microplastics was required.
• One respondent highlighted that the monitoring programme needs to be better integrated with other monitoring activities, and further developed to make better use of existing monitoring resources. The latter point was echoed by a further two respondents.
• One respondent suggested that the impact of coastal landfill sites needs to be evaluated.
• One respondent suggested that 'Determine' should replace 'Develop' as a more accurate description of action required to establish baseline conditions.
• One respondent suggested that additional monitoring of plastic particles in Waste Water Treatment plants could also be undertaken on a periodic basis, particularly in marine protected sites.