|
Current situation: Identification and review of reduction at source initiatives and approaches ( KM) |
Awareness raising campaigns and behaviour change tools |
- Scottish Water
- Awareness campaign
- Bag it and Bin it (households)
- Fat disposal
- Information on SW website
|
- Compliance with campaigns is not mandatory
- Could be more widely advertised
|
- Awareness campaigns have been running for years
|
- Labelling could be improved to help raise awareness ( future)
|
- GRAB trust
- Awareness raising (schools and beach cleaning)
- Funding from SNH, landfill tax and the Crown Estate
|
- There are other examples
- Not coordinated at the Local Authority level
|
- MCS also do this type of work
- It depends on volunteer uptake
|
- Limited, part time engagement (difficult to keep momentum up beyond an initiative)
|
- General litter campaigns (not targeted at marine/coastal)
|
- Encourage re-use of bags
- Biodegradable bags don't biodegrade in cold marine environment
- Has been a recent reduction in use of plastic bags (1 billion fewer/year)
|
- Some Local Authorities have banned balloon races (a form of littering)
|
- Bag it and Bin it campaign: need to keep it in the public eye otherwise littering behaviour returns to pre-campaign levels
|
Chain of responsibility |
- Manufacture (polluter pays?) - consumers (do pay)
|
- What is the source of litter? Often higher up the chain
|
- Scottish Government states that the responsibility for marine litter lies with the producer
|
Harbour litter facilities (including KIMO) and shipping legislation |
- Peterhead, KIMO: fishing for litter
- Only 12-16 larger ports involved around Scotland
|
- Aberdeen harbour dropped its KIMO skip
- However port waste plan does provide removal of shipping waste with a mandatory charge (which goes mainly to landfill)
- Fishing boats can also use port waste facilities but no payment required
- Port waste plans part of wider international agreements
|
- Aberdeen Harbour has a new boat to collect port litter
- This will include litter brought from upstream and in by the tide
- It may be possible to monitor the volume collected
|
|
|
- MARPOL regulation relating to offloading waste at every port: needs further implementation and more policing
- Issue with boats transporting litter
- Economic viability of waste collection
- Reporting required but not always provided
|
- Harbour cleaning boats: also used on the upper Clyde and by Forth Ports (?)
- Why? It's regulation and self interest that drives this
- There's lots of supermarket sourced litter: responsibility lies with them?
- Health and safety is another driver
|
Engagement with marine industries and fisheries |
- Issues of engagement with marine industries
|
- "Seafish" provides local training focus for "responsible fishing"
|
- FUTURE Leasing fishing nets (not tried yet)
|
Regulation - Good Ecological Status to 3km |
- Scottish Water: the industry is increasingly regulated
- Investment is made as early as possible to achieve Good Ecological Status ( GES) out to 3 nautical miles by 2015
- Screening at shellfish and bathing water sites for GEC (pollution affects this)
|
Combined Sewerage Overflows |
- Pumping stations and combined sewerage overflows ( CSO)
|
- Address the screening of CSOs including ideal mesh size and working to reduce the inputs to them
|
Environmental standards (e.g. ISO for Fishfarms) |
- Environmental standards for fishfarms?
- Increasing ISO standards and these are covered in advance by ESAs ( SEA? EIA?).
- Could this approach be applied elsewhere or in other sectors?
|
Mechanical tools for litter removal/recovery |
- Future : recycled plastic booms currently being tested for litter recovery in Southern France
- Possibility of expanding its use across Europe
|
- River grills (on outside bends of rivers to trap litter)
|
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships ( MARPOL) and introduction of ship waste management systems |
- MARPOL
- Example from U.S. cruise ship fined $300k, dumping at sea reported by passenger
- New ships are fitted with waste management systems including the sorting of recyclables
- Older boats are not required to retrofit these systems (difficult)
|
Encouraging re-use (e.g. deposit/return) |
- Re-use items
- Encourage through reverse spending (e.g. deposit/return).
- Can work out to be too costly to implement?
- E.g. BARRS one of few companies left who still do this (and fund beach cleanups?)
- Expand and normalise such an approach
|
|
Enforcement and incentives |
- Enforcement
- Fixed penalties for fly-tipping etc.
- Is the legislation good enough?
- Can it be policed effectively?
|
- Benefits of wider policing
|
Alternatives to plastics / product development and reduced packaging |
- Cotton buds: move to wood/cardboard sticks (with Coastal Partnerships? )
|
- Use of popcorn as a packaging material!
- Fungal packaging being developed!
|
- Plastic vs paper bags (pros and cons)
|
Summary points: |
- What is 'reduction at source?' To be clarified in the Marine Strategy
- Some industry led initiatives have worked (e.g. reduction in plastic bag usage) - further reduction in packaging is possible
- Need to increase the re-use of bottles, fishing gear etc.
- Current initiatives are ad-hoc, coordinate and learn from each other.
|
|
Current situation: identification and review of existing governance approaches ( TP) |
? |
- Effectiveness of voluntary schemes?
|
|
- No coordinating role for marine litter issues
- Potential for Marine Scotland
|
? |
- Individuals/maritime/industry
- Uncoordinated
- Reforms
- Scale?
|
? |
- Individuals / organisations
- Balance of enforcement versus and awareness
|
? |
- Governance is good but behavioural change is needed
|
Awareness raising campaigns and behaviour change tools |
- Social awareness is gathering momentum, it's a social process
|
- Linking to the Zero Waste Plan
|
|
- Social/cultural psychology of littering: where does the UK / Scotland sit?
|
- Social acceptability of littering
|
- Recent issue on the radar, people now realise that it is a problem
|
- Fly-tipping is convenient
|
Chain of responsibility |
- Packaging partnerships with retail to help reduce the problem
|
- Is there a cross-link to marine industry / marine litter sources?
|
- Less litter, less littering
|
- Non attributable litter raises problems for enforcement ( ? 20% from MCS )
|
- Role of business to encourage customers
|
- What is the extent of business to consumers (?)
|
- Easy to get around the system e.g. landfill
|
- Landfill is becoming more expensive and less accessible
|
- Should we be reducing the overall scale of litter rather than shifting litter?
|
- Mass littering through retail activities (e.g. balloon release kits) yet illegal to dump litter
|
Harbour litter facilities (including KIMO) and shipping legislation |
- Harbour Boards / LGAs have bins out but not being used
- More innovative infrastructure required
|
Engagement with marine industries and fisheries |
- "Fish for Litter", provide incentives?
|
Regulation - Good Ecological Status to 3km |
- Framework for industrial polluters?
|
|
Enforcement and incentives |
- Strengthen the enforcement regime?
|
- How do you regulate everything from individuals to industries at sea?
- Very difficult to enforce and prosecute
|
- What is the current enforcement regime?
- Local authorities, limits from local officers
- Maritime industries
- 'rubbish log'
- Not enforced
- Ports Directive
- Highly difficult to police
|
- It is hard to enforce even in harbour let alone at sea
|
- Incentive to drop overboard is high
- Every boat should be charged a fee across the board
|
- Combine carrot and stick approach
|
- Lack of enforcement, who has the power?
|
- Difficult to enforce rules on land let alone at sea
|
- Despite clear evidence it's hard to regulate or prosecute
|
- Enforcement problems at local authority level
|
- Very high requirement for evidence to prosecute
- Local Government Act 2003
- Environment Protection Act
|
Alternatives to plastics / product development and reduced packaging |
- Statutory targets for recycled content?
|
Scale, including coordination between local and national scales |
- Local Authorities
- Edinburgh got tough on enforcing litter (?)
- By-laws on Aberdeen beach £40-50 but not enforced
|
|
- Micro-management to macro-management scale
|
Litter facilities e.g. type and availability of bins |
- What is the effectiveness of recycling activities?
- Focus on recycling charges and waste charges
- Perceived lack of action and of awareness
|
Policy coordination, governance and implementation |
- Review of legislative options in Scotland
|
|
- Lots of good examples but no coordination limits effectiveness
|
- Climate change act
- Waste provisions?
- How to implement?
|
|
- Is it high up the political agenda?
- It is up the media agenda
- High up the Scottish ( political?) agenda particularly through marine strategy framework
|
Private and NGO initiatives and lobbying |
- Big companies are driving this issue
- Partly being driven by NGOs
|
- There's still an interest in environmental performance by private companies e.g.
- "Love where you Live" launched in England and Wales in March (2010 or 2011?) with £200k funding
|
- W.R.A.P. is working to reduce waste and packaging
|
- Key retailers are signed up to targets to reduce packaging and increase recycling
|
|
Current Situation: Identification and review of existing removal, cleaning and monitoring operations - EH |
Awareness raising campaigns and behaviour change tools |
- Wealth of activity by recreation groups
- Underwater surveys
- RYA Green Blue
- Sailing clubs
- Responsible fishing scheme by SeaFish for commercial fisheries
- Though current funding issues for SeaFish may decrease success
|
- Green Blue
- Very active currently with education
|
- Eco Schools has a compulsory unit on litter
- Could this be expanded to include marine litter and its impacts
- Using emotive images (eg those form John's ppt)
- Needs to link wit curriculum
- Local Coastal Partnership Litter DVD for marine litter as part of 5-14 yrs curriculum link to possible funding from the climate challenge fund
|
Chain of responsibility |
- Crown Estate
- Lack of responsibility
- Monitoring as the landowner?
|
- Water companies are not the source of litter-it is the consumers/users, there is only so much we can do with products not designed for the system i.e. sanitary
- Can charges for networks with more issues be increased?
- Dilapidated systems in some parts of Scotland
- But the same could be said for local authorities, harbours etc
- Everyone needs to take responsibility
|
Harbour litter facilities (including KIMO) and shipping legislation |
- KIMO Fishing for Litter
- Only in fished areas
- Not seen as monitoring-trying to bring about a culture change
- Voluntary
- Litter not sorted as this would decrease participation
|
Engagement with marine industries and fisheries |
- Training is needed for young fishers before they go to sea
|
Combined Sewerage Overflows |
- Surfers against sewage
- Return to sender
- Work against sewage overflows
|
Costs and funding issues |
- Local authority budget cuts
- Can community services be used for clean ups?
- Responsibility under the Environmental Protection Act to clean beaches
- Huge budget implications
- Lack of enforcement
|
- Landfill tax
- Polluter pays (or should do)
- Fishing for Litter has to pay via KIMO
- But some exemptions i.e. dredging for navigation
- A devolvement of land fill tax to Scotland may help
|
Litter facilities e.g. type and availability of bins |
- Not just off beaches
- Issues with full bins
- Too few/lack of bins in busy areas
|
- Seaside awards and Blue flags give LA responsibility to write beach litter plans, including the provision of facilities and monitored by KSB
|
Policy coordination, governance and implementation |
- What is the role of Scottish Government in this?
|
- Strategy
- needs to consider monitoring requirements
- funding
- and how to coordinate/use that information
- needs to take GES into account
|
Data availability, quality and use |
- Is there any access to all of the work/data by universities?
- How can we access and capture this information?
|
- MSS ' Scotia' trawls but data not used
|
- Incentives for other fisher data?
|
Monitoring litter |
- Beachwatch
- very good but beach selection issues; rural v's urban
- great for data collection but some people just want to collect rubbish not fill in the forms
- easy and logical to participate
- * 4/yr
|
- OSPAR photo guidelines for different litter types
- EU wide approach will allow for standardised data collection
|
- Da Vor Redd Up
- 40% population participate
- Just clean, little in the way of data collection
- Clean up kits provided
|
- National Spring Clean
- Data on the number of bags only
- Wriggley's provided funding for permanent kits for individual groups
|
- Community beach cleans
- More commercial sponsoring is needed for gloves, bags, publicity
- Lack of information re numbers of cleans, locations, litter collected-very ad hoc
- Clean but no data
|
- Local coastal partnership cleans for team building
- Unsure if data are collected
|
- Island tourist beaches cleaned; community organised
|
- Local authorities clean amenity beaches
- Amenity beaches well cleaned
- Aberdeen City clean c. 60 tons/yr
|
- SEPA monitoring data
- Not currently shared but perhaps more suitable than KIMO's
- SEPA trawls for litter during routine survey work, will be reported to national database
|
- Da Vor Redd Up
- Beach and roadside clean
- High % participation
- Community groups get funding depending on how much litter they collect
- Benefit from clean area as well as funding
- Funding coming to an end due to Disclosure Scotland issues
- This will be the first yr with no funding, interesting to see how it effects uptake
|
- National Spring Clean now over a 2 month period (previously 1)
- General feeling by public that it is LA responsibility
|
- Monitoring not adequate
- Gov will need to set up a programme for GES and MSFD compliance
- And feed in to voluntary OSPAR work
|
- Community cleans in Argyll and Bute using landfill tax funding
- Not aware of Disclosure issues
- Volunteers get checked for free
|
- Ad hoc cleans but no data recorded due to time/money issues
- Encourage monitoring from community cleans
- Will help/could be used to help with source reduction
|
- Beachwatch
- 18 years of data from monitoring
- Contribution to OSPAR guidelines and monitoring
- Only organisation to do this but how can it be expanded?
- Guidelines and project used by other groups ie LCPs and data for MLIIA
- Need more funding and more promotion
- Regional figures exist but only produce documents with Scotland level data
- Some bias towards more accessible beaches-more public litter, more likely to be cleaned
- Lack of data fed back to MCS from LA's
- Data issues if methodology is different
- Misleading terminology as a crisp packet is not necessarily from a beach user
- Wording now changed to 'public'
|
- What is the value of our monitoring?
- MCS data includes source, amounts, types, changes, and how to reduce it
- Data is used by SG and industry to reduce litter
- Strategy development shows this is being used
- Need regional information to effectively tackle/reduce at source as well as Scottish level; but issues with staff, time and funding
- MCS-this could be provided to LA's for their areas
- Do we expand monitoring beyond a snapshot or use what we have?
- We need more monitoring within existing processes but also need to best use what we have
- Need to consider more rural, inaccessible areas in Scotland
- Need to consider litter sinks-where are they and how to reduce inputs to them
- Issues of skewing resources to bathing waters and more urban sites
- Issue made more complex as we have relatively low litter levels everywhere and not confined in a few places
|
Sharing good practice |
- How do/should we ( LA's, agencies, HEI's, user organisations, industry) exchange information on best practice?
- All comes down to funding
|
- St Andrews West Sand Partnership
- Ecosystem approach
- Litter removal by hand to promote strandline biodiversity
- Local issues with erosion-mechanical cleaning will likely increase this
- Mechanical cleaning only during the Open and the Sandcastle competition
- Partnership includes MOD and local people, agencies
- EU demonstration site under LIFE funding befits with WFD geomorphological goals
- Meets all problems with on management scheme
|
Top points: |
- Enforcement is inadequate/difficult
- Geography and regional differences
- More encouragement of community groups, currently ad hoc and not joined up
- Litter is an accepted part of society
|
|
How to reduce future inputs of marine litter by source: coastal sources ( KM) |
Awareness raising campaigns and behaviour change tools |
|
- Accreditation schemes
- Zero Waste Scotland to address this: Courthauld
|
- Improved use of information to contribute to campaigns
|
- Better coordination of Bag it and Bin it
- Link to other initiatives and sectors
|
- Education within communities including:
- Ecoschools - schools can choose to participate (public funded initiative)
|
- Education of specific beach user types and at specific beaches
|
- SEPA
- signs on designated beaches
- increased policing
|
- Beach manager
- Provided by every coastal LA, however Fife possibly only one with on the ground presence.
- Can this be improved?
- Lifeguards are used for this purpose elsewhere (busier beaches)
|
- Communicate evidence to the public e.g. cigarette butt poster at St Abbs Head
|
- Use shocking images such as injuries caused to animals by plastic can connectors
|
- Increase awareness of marine litter issues in broader litter campaigns
|
- Education regarding litter relating to land, sea, coastal environments
- Tie in education, government adverts, litter awareness
- This is seasonal so build up awareness before the beach season, build up awareness when it's needed
- MCS beachwatch statistics in April: can these be used at the local level?
|
- Collect litter and leave in an educational pile indicating 'this is what people left here only yesterday'
|
- Use role models e.g. Keep Britain Tidy
|
|
Chain of responsibility |
- Polluter pays?
- Consumer? Market? Producer?
|
- Producer responsible for certain product types (e.g. cotton buds)?
|
- Need retailers to stock 'good' products
|
- Social responsibility
- ID by barcodes
- But who buys is not always who pollutes?
- How might customer profiles be used?
- Use to target user responsibility?
|
- Businesses on beaches and products used on beaches
- Work with associated businesses
|
- Engage business interest
- If litter is bought there then provide facilities for disposal
|
Combined Sewerage Overflows |
- CSO (combined sewage overflow) spills occur more frequently than storm events
- Capacity of the CSO system is not big enough
|
- CSOs: raise awareness of the fact that "you'll see me again"
- Who would fund this, e.g. the Zero Waste Scotland budget?
|
Engagement with marine industries and fisheries |
- Accreditation for fish farms etc.
- Funding for cleanups (already progress on this)
|
Mechanical tools for litter removal/recovery |
- Physical removal of litter e.g. river grills (need to be WFD compliant)
|
Encouraging re-use (e.g. deposit/return) |
- Improve communication about how to return things for re-use e.g. fish boxes to port/company addresses
|
Enforcement and incentives |
- Cameras on boats
- To much data and who would monitor it?
|
- Fly-tipping
- Report quickly via local community
- Councils liaise with the police
- Increase the likelihood/threat of being caught and get cases to court
- Increase the priority of such cases in court (awareness raising here)
|
- Use community service orders
- Quick process from crime to clean-up
- Could issue these on beaches? (too few staff)
|
- There's an increased need for policing overall
|
- Enforcement possible on high use beaches
- Use targeted fixed penalties
- Use peer pressure: locals are the enforcers
|
Costs and funding issues |
- At the moment the public pays
- Do we know the costs to local government? (reference to KIMO)
- And what are the environmental costs (e.g. microplastics)
|
- Establish the costs and benefits of litter reduction approaches
- Might release LA funds for other services
- Use cost savings and service improvements to appeal to the public
|
Scale, including coordination between local and national scales |
- Different local authority levels of engagement
|
- Management needs to be location specific
|
- Local variation is important (rural beaches, busier beaches etc)
|
Litter facilities e.g. type and availability of bins |
- Employ appropriate bins on beaches (e.g. lids to prevent seagulls)
- Separate waste at these bins (common elsewhere e.g. Australia) and use clear simple signage. ( not effective?)
|
- OR, no litter, take home only
|
- Rural beaches: use 'litter port'
- Not for own litter but that picked up, for local involvement e.g. voluntary response at Forvie NNR in partnership with Local Authorities
- May also have been used on sections of the Fife Coastal path
|
- Recycling facilities on beaches
- Keep it simple e.g. for what's used most on beaches (especially bathing water beaches)
|
- Provision of good facilities
- E.g. large lidded bins (seagulls) because people try to bin litter but facilities poor
|
- Or remove bins e.g. this has resulted in a reduction in beach litter on Aberdeenshire beaches
- Backed up by research by Forestry Commission and National Trust
|
Dog mess and dog owners |
- Dog owners
- By-laws relating to removal of mess
- There's a 'Green dog-walkers scheme' in Fife
|
|
How to reduce future inputs of marine litter by source: Maritime industries ( TP) |
? |
- Role of IMO, Lloyds (in London)
|
? |
- Limits to voluntary approaches when referring to point sources
- Role of management / regulations on pollutants ( SEPA?)
|
? |
- Oil and gas industry / MARPOL are a UK and EU responsibility
- Scotland can educate and train where it does not have regulatory responsibility
|
|
- Resourcing is a problem
- Example of Green Blue to be run by a public agency
- Versus using a regulatory agency which may be seen as imposed
- Underscores role of social change
|
? |
- Innovative options for users - an opportunity?
|
Awareness raising campaigns and behaviour change tools |
- Education
- Notices
- Basic training format in a format that they can digest e.g. financial aspects
- SOLAS regulations, inclusion for training for seafarers
- Exploring regulations and policy context for mariners
|
- Royal Yachting Association: leisure boating
- Green Blue education and awareness programme
|
|
- Mechanisms to drive improved behaviours (e.g. ILL)
|
Chain of responsibility |
- Waste: health and safety e.g. lack of compliance with container design, management, wastes
|
- Plastics industry sees representational interest: they do not 'own' the waste but it affects the industry's reputation
|
- Merchant shipping to small recreational boats, all are problematic
|
Harbour litter facilities (including KIMO) and shipping legislation |
- Ports and harbours
- Quality of waste receptacles and infrastructure
- Training and education
- EU port based recycling Directive ( ? )
- Charges and waste management systems
- Communications between ports
- Vessels need to report on levels of waste (to MCA)
|
- Ports: current reporting only applies to boats over 500t ( ? )
- Discussion to lower this limit
|
- Lack of infrastructure to handle waste (particularly in the south)
|
- Expand 'Fishing for Litter', feeling that enough is covered in Scotland ( ? )
|
- Crews and harbour staff won't resort litter: is there an opportunity here? Otherwise it's not sorted or recycled
|
- Scotland is behind in terms of infrastructure for marinas and ports (e.g. recycling, pump-outs, oil etc)
- Part of the mooring fee, regardless of use i.e. an incentive to use it
- Facilities to match options and messages
|
Engagement with marine industries and fisheries |
- Plastic pellets: Cornish example of high incidence of pellet pollution from shipping freight containers lost overboard
- "Operation Cleansweep"
- Voluntary Code of Practice
- Enforcement?
|
- Responsible Fishing Scheme (SeaFish) should cover interplay between environment and the consumer
|
- Introduce producer responsibility for nets in the fishing industry
- Introduce waste/return schemes for when purchasing gear (e.g. nets) leading to civil / community responsibility
|
|
- Fishing nets
- Huge amounts and varying in size
- What guidance is there over their use?
- Producer / user relationship
|
Enforcement and incentives |
- Environmental Protection Act? Scottish Law requires a high burden of proof
|
- Surveillance and enforcement is still important
|
- Mooring rights (at risk from prosecution ? )
|
- Port and harbour controls
|
Scale, including coordination between local and national scales |
- Regional partnerships / ICZM to tackle litter management
|
Policy coordination, governance and implementation |
- SOLAS / IMO / UK / Merchant Shipping Act and Marine Conservation Act
|
- Recent review Annex 5 of MARPOL
|
- What is the legislation for smaller boats?
|
- Extension of MARPOL to fishing vessels
|
- Marine Act feeding into secondary legislation including OSPAR
|
- Marine Act leading to MSFD Des D ( ?? )
|
- No clear relationship between the Marine Act and litter
|
Geographical distribution of marine litter |
- Maritime litter dependent on geography and source
- Hard to pin down source
- Proportion is increased where there is increased maritime activity
|
- Role of currents versus region (L.A. etc)
|
- UNEP reports identify regional differences
|
Data availability, quality and use |
- MCS is a source of regional data
|
Issues beyond Scotland's direct influence |
- Lost shipping containers is an EU / UK issue
|
- What are other countries doing in marine litter management?
|
- Use and look at other cultural examples
|
Key points from Tavis' groups: |
Organisation's responsibility Business to encourage customers behaviour Behaviour change required Education in schools Psychology Waste as a resource |
|
How to reduce future inputs of marine litter by source: Land based sources ( EH) |
? |
|
? |
- Landfill is/will reduce as waste disposal option over time
|
? |
- Agricultural plastics-silage wrap, polytunnels, ground cover
- Recycling schemes are needed for this, currently burnt in many areas
|
? |
- Landfill design and siteing
- Netting areas
- Planning for landfills in the coastal zone
- Include in schools to raise awareness of the issue
|
? |
- As landfill and packaging costs increase..,…
- Value of recycling will increase
- Discount on council tax or other incentive of you recycle
- Use of a 'stick' may increase dumping
- Need more education and recognition that impacts of marine litter are from the whole of Scotland
|
? |
- Mining land fill for high value products
|
Awareness raising campaigns and behaviour change tools |
- Make waste a resource
- Recycle, reduce, re use
- Give waste a value
- i.e. money for returned plastic bottles
- need to change attitudes and perception
|
- Need ongoing awareness raising of impacts on marine animals
- Emotive
- Currently people see little link from their balloon release to marine litter
|
- Lack of awareness
- Need wider litter awareness
- Holistic approach
- Everyone can make an easy, small (but significant) change-'do a little, change a lot'
|
- Education i.e. Bag it and Bin it to increase awareness
- Can be very short term, during the campaign only
- Get it in schools
|
- Use of Mum's net and similar to increase awareness
|
- Approx 47% of people admit to dropping litter regularly
|
- More advertising and use of shocking images i.e. KIMO ppt
- Cinema
- Impacts on wildlife
- Litter and the local area overlay images
|
- 'Bag for Life' level of investment and impact needed for each issue/source
|
- Use of virals and social networking sites
- Cheap
- High number of users
|
- Lack of current awareness/understanding
- As shown in the BBC blogs on related articles
|
- Zero Waste
- Placing value/cost on single use products
- Voluntary
- Incentives; Tesco points for products returned
- Germany-deposit on bottles via reverse vending machines
- Encourages others to return them as the value is not limited to the user
|
- Plastic bag free towns/villages
- Join up and expand current initiative
|
- Make accommodation providers be more proactive in raising awareness
|
- Use of Facebook to name and shame
|
Chain of responsibility |
- Waste oil barrels
- Containers should be stamped/marked to enable the source to be identified
- May be able to trace currently but who does that and how is it enforced?
|
- Engage business to take responsibility
- Focus on outlets
- More engagement needed i.e. love where you live-Macdonalds, Wriggleys and Pepsi buy in
|
- Who is responsible?
- UK Gov, SG, Scottish Water, packaging and manufacturers
- Scope, but funding needs to be available
|
- Packaging
- Onus on companies to take back packaging
- Some charges, others do not
- Responsible disposal
- Design out excessive packaging especially in toys etc from China and similar countries
- Packaging by weight has decreased but now more smaller parts
- Adds to premium products i.e. whisky (bottle, paper, card tube)
|
Engagement with marine industries and fisheries |
- Fish boxes from processors blown away and break up
|
- Fishing nets mended on quayside, hundreds of fragments left
- Education for fishers/ports
- Clean up before it enters the water
- Provision/facility in place to prevent
|
Alternatives to plastics / product development and reduced packaging |
- Product development
- Degradable
|
- Reduce packaging
- Alternatives to polystyrene-what can you do with it once used?
- E.g. use of fungus in USA for packaging
- Key people involved i.e. retailers
- Get it back for recycling not just landfill
- Electronics retailers i.e. Dixons take away packaging
- But a charge for this in some cases
|
- Minimise single use items
|
Costs and funding issues |
- Make people aware of the true costs
|
Litter facilities e.g. type and availability of bins |
- Plastic bottles/packaging
- Clarification on what can and cannot be recycled (kerbside)
- Not standard across Scotland
- Recycling centres sometimes full
|
- More bins does not necessarily decrease litter
- Behavioural patterns
- In Argyll and Bute bins ask you to pick up litter as you walk and put in the next bin
|
Policy coordination, governance and implementation |
- Ban single use carrier bags
|
- Develop the Strategy at both industry and operational level
|
- Agricultural sources i.e. silage wrap
- Tackle via SRDP and cross compliance?
|
- Marine planning may provide an opportunity to coordinate but there is no direct link to marine litter
- May come at regional level
|
- Ban sanitary products
- Including disposable nappies, move to real nappies
- Find alternatives
- Costs ££££ for Scottish Water
|
- Balloons
- Banned in Canada
- Can we ban across Scotland
- Fine companies who sell 'release kits'
- Balloons are not degradable
- Paper lantern alternatives have wire and tea lights
- Use of trading standards
- Guidelines needed form plastics industry-what is biodegradable, marine env, photochemical
- Confusing, often misleading for public i.e. biodegradable in 400 yrs in North Sea
- Role of SG/ UK Gov; what can be used in what situation re biodegradable
- If they were recognised as a source of litter it would help with enforcement
- MCS to/will ask for a voluntary ban on releases at LA level
- To include fireworks and paper lanterns
- Need to target manufacturing here
|
|
- Litter now part of the Access code-responsible access
|
- One size fits all may not be a solution
|
Monitoring litter |
- Monitoring needed at the regional level to identify sources
|
Recycling |
- Recycling/reprocessing
- Some not available in Scotland
- Requires investment
- Facilities are expensive and have a long pay back time
|
Top points |
- Balloon releases
- A lack of advertising and awareness
- Packaging
- Reduce or find alternatives for
- Give waste a value
|