Marine litter strategy for Scotland: consultation analysis

4. Strategic Direction 2

Strategic Direction 2: Reduce marine and coastal based sources of litter, with a focus on the most problematic sources, in co-ordination with land sourced litter being reduced by the National Litter and Flytipping Strategy.

Context

4.1 Marine litter stems from two sources, namely land-based and sea-based sources. There needs to be an integrated approach to address marine litter and stop it at source.

4.2 Planned actions within the refreshed Strategy will include, for example:

• A range of policy options to reduce sources of SRD.
• Contributing to the development of an international plastic pellet certification scheme.

Question 3: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the planned actions under each objective will contribute to the achievement of Strategic Direction 2?

4.3 Table B6 to Table B8 (Appendix B) provides the frequency tables to Question 3.

4.4 The vast majority of respondents (individuals and organisations) were in broad agreement (i.e. either agreed or strongly agreed) that the planned actions under each of the following three objectives would contribute to the achievement of Strategic Direction 2:

• Reduce plastic pellet loss into the marine environment (89.1%).
• Improve the ability of the fishing industry to retrieve lost fishing gear from the sea (82.0%).
• Reduce sources of sewage-related debris (SRD) (86.4%).

4.5 Here, there was strong support expressed for the three objectives under Strategic Direction 2 and related actions. They were considered "very important" issues to tackle, and the focus and "leadership" on reducing marine and coastal based sources of litter, with a focus on the most problematic sources was also "welcomed" and considered "laudable". These objectives were reported as being a "huge area of concern".

Question 4: Do you consider there to be any omissions or gaps in the planned actions identified under Strategic Direction 2 in the Consultation Document that could help to contribute towards its achievement?

4.6 Just over half of respondents considered there to be omissions or gaps in the planned actions identified under Strategic Direction 2 (52.6%), Table B9.

4.7 Organisations were more likely to report that there were omissions or gaps compared to individuals, in particular those with a focus on issues such as coastal development and conservation, or environment and conservation.

4.8 The objective to 'reduce sources of SRD' attracted most feedback.

Omissions or Gaps Identified

4.9 The wider qualitative feedback has been grouped under each of the three objectives identified for Strategic Direction 2.

Reduce plastic pellet loss into the marine environment

4.10 Around one-quarter of respondents who considered there to be omissions or gaps in the planned actions identified under Strategic Direction 2 commented further on the objective to 'reduce plastic pellet loss into the marine environment'.

4.11 The main groups of respondents who commented on plastic pellets included individuals and those organisations with a role/interest in coastal development and conservation, or environment and conservation.

4.12 The main points raised have been grouped and can be summarised as follows:

• There was said to be no reference in the planned actions to issuing fines or prosecuting companies responsible for any unplanned loss that allows plastic pellets, flakes and powders to get into the marine environment. It was felt that this could "force change" and improve the design of more environmentally friendly products, improve containment and management of these products, and lead to more effective control across the supply chain.
• There was felt to be a wider need to reduce the overall production and use of plastic, microplastics, and single use plastic items. It was reported that action on this front could ultimately lead to a reduction of plastic pellets being released into the marine environment in the first place.
• Actions that support increased research into more environmentally friendly alternatives and materials to plastic were supported, as were the increased promotion and use of such alternatives.
• The British Standards Institution (BSI) Publicly Available Specification (PAS) standard on plastic pellets was broadly said by respondents to be a "good initiative". There was wider feedback that consideration could be given to the introduction of a legislative framework to support the adoption of the BSI PAS standard as part of a supply chain approach. Related points suggested that the action relating to the BSI PAS standard could be further strengthened with firmer and more specific targets and timescales and the inclusion of a requirement for industry to clean up existing pellet pollution in the short-term as well as reducing future pollution.
• There was support for the inclusion of additional actions that support the monitoring of plastic pellet loss. It was considered that such activity might fit best within Strategic Direction 4 and could ultimately support the actions identified within Strategic Direction 2 to reduce plastic pellet loss into the marine environment.

4.13 The following quotes help to further illustrate the range of views provided:

"Companies involved in plastic production must be fully accountable for the pollution they create and be actively involved in cleaning up the spills."

Individual

"We need…..compliance and investigative monitoring. The former would provide evidence of the effectiveness of implemented measures and would need to include upstream sampling as well as sampling in the marine environment. Investigative monitoring is needed to understand specific point sources e.g. from sewage waste-water discharge or particular factories or industrial sites. This would ensure that measures implemented are monitored for effectiveness, highlighting where measures are insufficient or lacking."

Marine Conservation Society

"We would also welcome the inclusion of actions to ensure pellets are addressed through other regulation and legislation such as UK REACH and Scottish Government's Circular Economy Bill. We support efforts to ensure certification schemes are being developed in line with the OSPAR guidelines, however, it should be noted that the certification schemes currently in development are not global in scope and other measures are likely to be required, such as the development of an ISO. This would help ensure that pellets made in Scotland, traded in Scotland and plastic products sold in Scotland have not contributed to pellet loss."

Fidra

"….our unsustainable consumption of single use items, for example plastic packaging and wet wipes, is driving up the level of marine litter. We are aware of new legislation coming into force in June 2022 to address single use plastics….Measures to incentivise circular economy practices in design would be welcomed…This could include for example, supporting the implementation of innovations in the re-design of existing products and the design of new products, and supporting innovations and start-ups, in particular those related to new, biodegradable and compostable plastics….Innovative facilities to enable more recycling of waste plastics should also be supported".

Crown Estate Scotland

Improve the ability of the fishing industry to retrieve lost fishing gear from the sea

4.14 Similarly, around one-quarter of respondents who considered there to be omissions or gaps in the planned actions identified under Strategic Direction 2 provided commentary on the objective to 'improve the ability of the fishing industry to retrieve lost fishing gear from the sea'.

4.15 The main groups of respondents who commented on actions relating to retrieving lost fishing gear included individuals, organisations with an interest in the environment and conservation, and the fishing industry.

4.16 The main points raised can be summarised as follows:

• The term "lost" fishing gear was referenced at times, with feedback that there is a much wider problem relating to the "deliberate" or "intentional" discard of litter at sea, including ("substandard") fishing gear. Here, it was considered important that a range of preventative measures were put in place to tackle this issue.
• Another viewpoint expressed was that consideration could be given to imposing penalties for gear discarded/a legal impetus on these boats to oblige them to at least attempt retrieval of lost fishing gear. Further, it was noted that identification of the discarder would need to be easier both from an accountability and enforcement perspective.
• Related points included that achievement of the objective to help 'improve the ability of the fishing industry to retrieve lost fishing gear from the sea' would be heavily reliant on the ability and willingness of the fishing community to spend time and resources on retrieval. Here, there was wide feedback across responses on the range of challenges and external factors at play:
  • Challenges – for example, lost fishing gear that is: difficult to recover; costly to recover; difficult to dispose of safely onshore; difficult to reuse even if it is recovered; or considered to be of low or no value.
  • External factors – fishing gear that is lost because of weather and environmental issues (e.g. storms) and therefore difficult to find and reuse; or it is also noted retrieval of lost gear, or gear lost at sea/to the sea is less common in the aquaculture industry and can occur in the event of a failure of site infrastructure.
• A variety of suggestions were proposed within the responses to the objective to help 'improve the ability of the fishing industry to retrieve lost fishing gear from the sea'. This included, for example, introducing: a deposit return scheme; a payment for fishing gear returned for recycling; a scrappage incentive; a licensing scheme for fishing nets; requiring fishing vessels to have a satellite tag on nets/fishing gear that contain plastic (plastic inventory and registered to those vessels); and providing recycling facilities at harbours that are free and easy to access.
• There was wider reference within the consultation responses to the wording of the planned action to 'give support to the development or trials of new tools or technologies that could be of use to the Scottish fishing industry, in order to achieve successful retrieval of lost fishing gear'. It was reported that this action could be extended to include industries other than the Scottish fishing industry. Common feedback was that "the aquaculture and shipping industries are significant sources of plastic pollution and must not be overlooked". In a similar vein, there was reference to the importance of reducing marine litter arising from any military activity happening in the marine environment.
• It was proposed that Strategic Direction 2 could include actions that support education and awareness raising on the issue of lost fishing gear and the hazards/dangers it causes to the marine environment.

4.17 The following quotes help to further illustrate the range of views provided:

"Measures to prevent the intentional discard of litter (including fishing gear) at sea…..could take the form either of enforced land-based monitoring of gear (i.e. a check of what went out to sea vs what came back, or measures to determine the amount of waste expected to be generated per person at sea, which then needs to be accounted for on return), or of better monitoring of activity at sea, to tie in with monitoring focused on preventing over-fishing and discard, fishing of inappropriate species, and other activities currently taking place at sea with no ability to monitor or enforce."

Individual

"Government-backed trials of new technology to help fishing crews recover lost fishing gear would be welcome. However, this action seems to have been limited to Scottish vessels only".

Shetland Fishermen's Association

"The difficulty is understanding 'circular design'. Increasingly fishing gear has become more resilient to marine environment to last longer, etc hence it is difficult to reuse. Also weather and environmental issues such as recent storms where masses of gear are lost to weather and difficulty in finding let alone reuse".

Individual

4.18 Wider points raised in relation to the objective to 'improve the ability of the fishing industry to retrieve lost fishing gear from the sea', albeit not to any great extent include, for example:

• Consideration could be given by Marine Scotland to the inclusion of actions that encourage and incentivise the use of alternative materials in fishing gear and/or actively discourage or prohibit the use of non-biodegradable plastic materials (e.g. material that photodegrades into small fibres and micro plastic) as part of a wider ban on non-biodegradable plastic materials.
• It is important to seek advice from relevant charities with knowledge, experience and expertise in this area to finalise the actions. For example, Greenpeace, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, and marine conservation groups, are all mentioned as examples.

Reduce sources of sewage-related debris (SRD)

4.19 The objective to 'reduce sources of sewage related debris (SRD)' attracted most feedback from respondents. Over 40% of respondents who considered there to be omissions or gaps in the planned actions identified under Strategic Direction 2 provided commentary on this objective.

4.20 The main groups of respondents who commented on actions relating to SRD included individuals, and organisations with a focus on the issue of environment and conservation. Industry also commented on the planned actions.

4.21 The planned action to 'investigate the potential for legislation to ban the manufacture and sale of wet wipes containing plastic, with a requirement that any alternatives meet the 'Fine to Flush' standard' attracted much feedback.

4.22 The main themes that emerged relating to this action can be summarised as follows:

• There was support for actions that promote long-lasting behaviour change and/or support for improved and clear product labelling to promote correct disposal. It was considered vital that the refreshed Marine Litter Strategy for Scotland continues to: raise awareness, educate and support consumers and others about the environmental damage caused by SRD; encourage consumers to dispose of used wet wipes correctly/appropriately; and/or support consumers "to move to reusable products" as part of the ambition to move to a circular economy.
• Sitting alongside behaviour change actions, there was also said to be a need for actions that encourage better control of pollution incidents and sewage overflow discharges from sewage treatment plants to prevent wet wipes that are not designed or marketed as flushable ending up in the environment in the first place. It was noted that planned actions could go further to significantly reduce the number of wet wipes entering the sewage system.
• There was reference to other products that end up in the marine environment due to incorrect disposal via the toilet (e.g. sanitary products, toilet fresheners, plastic tooth floss sticks, condoms) that also need addressed by the Strategy. Aligned to this was a suggestion that applying EPR to all sanitary products (not just those that contain plastic) to cover clean-up costs could also be considered.

4.23 Further, there were a mix of views expressed across the consultation responses relating to a suggestion for a mandatory standard and a blanket ban regarding the manufacture and sale of wet wipes containing plastic.

4.24 There was commentary provided, primarily from individuals and most sub-categories of organisation respondents (i.e. all except industry), regarding both the language and timescale of this planned action.

4.25 A summary of points raised have been summarised below:

• The phrasing of the action was considered by these respondents to be "too tentative" or "too weak" and that it could benefit from being more "strongly worded" or that there is scope to "tighten the language".
• The proposed timeframe for the action (i.e. medium to long-term) was considered not urgent or quick enough. There was also some feedback that the ban should have immediate effect.
• Supporting points raised included that: there was sufficient and "clear evidence" to ban the manufacture and sale of wet wipes containing plastic (and to ban all avoidable single-use plastic in other sanitary items, such as tampon applicators, where alternatives exist); a ban on such products was felt to be "long overdue"; and/or that "alternative materials should become the norm".
• Regarding implementing a ban on the manufacture and sale of wet wipes containing plastic, there was feedback that this should not simply be substituted with "another single-use material" and that manufacturers could be "mandated to move to environmentally friendly alternatives" within a reasonable timescale.

"We welcome Marine Conservation Society's proposal to tighten the language of the 'Reduce Sources of SRD Action 1' with regard to 'Fine to Flush', but would reiterate that, whilst the 'fine to flush' standard was developed to address accessibility and quality of life, the concept of wipes that are fine to flush are not compatible with the circular economy, and that there exists potential for additional chemicals to enter the wastewater system which may end up in unintended settings. Therefore, we back Scottish Water's campaign (mentioned within Strategic Direction 1) that calls for all wipes to be binned, and that those containing plastic to be banned".

Keep Scotland Beautiful

4.26 Industry respondents (e.g. companies involved in the manufacture of wet wipes and related industries), while supportive of "minimising or even avoiding pollution from wet wipes that are inappropriately disposed off", or supportive of having "an ambition to ultimately become plastic-free", emphasised wider complexities relating to the implementation of this action.

4.27 A variety of points were raised by these respondents, including the following:

• That it was important to note the diversity of wet wipes on the market and that there should be a "distinction made between wet wipes for domestic or personal care, and 'professional wet wipes' used in business, industry, education and healthcare settings".
• That professional wet wipes should be exempt from any potential future ban on plastic in wet wipes given the "vital role they play in effective prevention and control strategies". Further, it was noted that a blanket ban could result in "less effective products being used in these professional environments, where waste disposal is already well managed, increasing the potential for viruses and pathogens to spread". Additionally, a ban on plastic in professional wipes could significantly increase product cost for end users.
• That there was a distinction between wet wipes (i.e. domestic and professional) is already made in the European Union (EU) Single Use Plastics Directive (2019/904) – it was proposed that any future legislation in Scotland should similarly distinguish between personal care and professional products.
• It was noted that non-flushable wet wipes, which represent most wet wipes in the marketplace, were not designed to be flushable and disposing of them down the toilet would not be appropriate for a variety of reasons and should be disposed in an appropriate bin. For example, where the strength of the wet wipe is needed for tough cleaning, where a larger wet wipe size is required for its intended purpose, or where the ingredients used on the wet wipes may be unsuitable for disposal via the aquatic environment. These can include: consumer products such as baby wipes, personal care and household wipes; professional wipes such as wipes used in hospitals and the community for medical or cleaning/disinfecting purposes; and industrial wipes.
• Not all wet wipes are composed of plastic materials or synthetic polymers. Some wet wipes contain natural polymers such as cotton, viscose, lyocell and wood pulp. Some wipes are blends of synthetic and natural polymers. "While the industry is using more natural polymers, plastic materials cannot be phased out completely, this depends on the type of wipe and the purpose for which it is used". Further work (and time) would be needed to "develop satisfactory alternatives that are effective and not prohibitively expensive" e.g. for products used for infection prevention.
• One example of "a possible path forward is the action taken by the EU with its Single Use Plastics Directive (SUP) (2019/904). The legislation imposes clear marking requirements on plastic-containing wet wipes, inspired by the existing voluntary industry code of practice". Beyond the voluntary code of practice, it was noted that many EDANA member companies have launched wipes packaging in the UK with these new markings. To preserve the free movement of goods, EDANA and Absorbent Hygiene Product Manufacturers Association (AHPMA) suggested allowing this marking system to be recognised in the UK as well.

4.28 Where mentioned (e.g. by industry), support was expressed for the action 'taking an evidence-based approach, consider a range of policy options to reduce sources of sewage related debris'. This was considered by these respondents as a sensible and appropriate approach.

4.29 Further, SEPA noted that their approach to improving urban waters has been set out in Scottish Water's Urban Waters Routemap Supports National Action Plan (2021). This highlights the need for "a step change in our efforts to tackle the most significant environmental impacts, including litter, as soon as possible and to take a One Planet Prosperity approach to improving our water environment for the long term". SEPA acknowledged that "actions and resources are required not only by Scottish Water but by many other stakeholders, including SEPA, Scottish Government, local authorities and customers, if we are to deliver a circular economy approach for urban water management in Scotland". SEPA highlighted that "there are a number of issues relevant to sewage discharges which have emerged in recent years, such as microplastics, antimicrobial resistance, and an increase in wild swimming".

4.30 These are not considered in the current legislation nor in SEPA's current regulatory policy, however, SEPA "intend to engage with relevant stakeholders, including Scottish Water and NGOs, to discuss these issues and the long-term plan to progressively eliminate litter and substantially reduce spills".

4.31 The Routemap was published when the content for the Marine Litter Strategy consultation had been finalised prior to going live. SEPA suggested that it would be helpful if the Marine Litter Strategy and Action Plan could refer to the Routemap which includes actions for Scottish Water to reduce spills as follows (as well as setting out several shorter-term aims to 2024):

• Reduce Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO) spill volumes in the medium and long-term by maximising surface water management opportunities and minimising infiltration.
• Work on a plan to develop and deliver solutions to achieve zero uncontrolled discharges in the longer term.
• CSO spill reduction will help to address an important pathway for the transmission of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) – for example microbes, genes, and chemicals in the environment.
• Support research to understand the impacts of sewer spills on microplastics and AMR in our urban waters.

4.32 Linked to the above point, Scottish Water noted that it would work with Marine Scotland to update Strategic Direction 2.

4.33 There were wider comments on the various planned actions relating to CSOs within the Marine Litter Strategy and Action Plan, with the main points including:

• That more work would be needed to improve the sewer network to reduce the number of sewage spills through CSOs. Some respondents (e.g. individuals, and organisations with an interest in the environment and conservation) noted that "the number of these events has increased…in recent years", and that "numerous reports to Scottish Water and SEPA" have been made over the years to "highlight the type and volume of sewage debris uplifted".
• As noted above – it was highlighted that many wet wipes are incorrectly disposed of which can end up in the environment due to storm sewage overflow discharges from sewage plants.
• Understanding/evidencing the impact of SRD and spills on water quality and on wildlife was also considered important.
• There could be greater scope to include actions that aim to involve and engage communities (e.g. studies in relation to SRD monitoring, community science projects, community based Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) projects, and informing and educating the public on how to reduce sewage overflows).
• There was an element of disappointment expressed within some consultation responses regarding the scale of ambition of deliverables referenced in the Action Plan, or a lack of targets was also mentioned.
• SEPA reiterated the importance of this section of the Marine Litter Strategy and Action Plan making reference to relevant actions in Scottish Water's Routemap for Improving Urban Waters (2021). It referenced the following Routemap actions as being of particular relevance:
  • Install monitoring on network and treatment works CSOs discharging to the highest priority waters (including all designated shellfish and bathing waters), representing approximately 1,000 CSOs.
  • Increase reporting of spill data from monitored CSOs.
  • Continue the prioritisation all CSOs causing SRD problems (currently 630) by reviewing available performance information and undertaking surveys at all CSOs modelled to spill more than once in five years and/or, for monitored CSOs, those exceeding spill frequency triggers.
  • Develop solutions for those CSOs that are already confirmed as being high priority having significant SRD impacts on rivers (85 locations).
  • Agree delivery timetables for the high priority CSOs (currently estimated to cost around £100m - £130m).
  • Identify the next tranche of priority (medium impact) CSOs and agree timescale for solution development.
  • Continue to provide a rapid clean-up service to mitigate the visible impact on the environment when CSOs spill and cause SRD problems.

4.34 The following quotes further illustrates some of the points outlined above.

"….there are still a lot of old CSOs along the Tay.…This is only going to get worse unless there is an investment into separating off surface from foul water. Would the screening enable the sewage to be manually removed from the CSOs and brought back to land? Due to the increase in stormy weather it is apparent that SRD can be problematic on our beach for at least nine months of the year".

East Haven Together (EHT) and Angus Clean Environments (ACE)

"The proposed number of new CSOs recommended for monitoring, along with the proposed new screens for CSOs is extremely low with regard to the number currently known to be causing Sewage Related Debris issues".

Keep Scotland Beautiful

4.35 Regarding the action to 'carry out focused aesthetic and feasibility studies to better understand the impact of SRD, and to confirm whether an intermittent discharge is causing aesthetic impacts from SRD pollution and provide indicative solutions to resolve these issues' a few points were raised in the consultation responses:

• Keep Scotland Beautiful note that it would be important to make the "reports publicly available within a timely manner".
• SEPA suggest that "This action is covered in the other actions stated above under the Improving Urban Waters Routemap…..Under the Routemap, studies and solution delivery will now be prioritised nationally".
• East Haven Together (EHT) and Angus Clean Environments (ACE) pose a question around what the studies aim to achieve – and go on to express that the aesthetic impacts from SRD are already known and significant. The voluntary sector groups refer to the Marine Conservation Society which has "extensive and comprehensive data from beaches all over Scotland to highlight the type and amount of SRD. Community volunteers would not pick it up if we thought it did not affect the marine environment either visually or environmentally".

Wider Points

4.36 There were a variety of comments made regarding the need to tackle land-based sources of litter more generally (e.g. tobacco filters/waste, vaping litter, dog fouling, fly-tipping, public bin shortages and overflowing public/roadside bins, etc) as well as land-based litter which ends up in the marine environment from land/wind/non-sewer stream flow (e.g. plastic bottles and other plastic items/packaging; tobacco filters/waste; poor farming practice and lack of buffer strips and the chemical pollutant run off from this that ends up in rivers and seas; and waste that results from agriculture, haulage and construction sectors - sheet plastics/feed bags/bale warp/pallet wrap, etc).

4.37 There were various comments that emphasise that fines or penalties could be considered as a means of holding people and organisations to account, and that effective enforcement was considered a crucial component of this.

4.38 Increasing education and awareness of the sources of marine litter was also considered important, as well as how everyone can play their part in preventing/reducing it.