National litter and flytipping strategy: baseline report

Recommendations

Flytipping data is not a well-established official national statistic reported on each year in Scotland, so it is challenging to gather a full picture of flytipping trends and whether incidences are becoming more prevalent. Making changes to the way in which data is collected, recorded, and reported will help to demonstrate the scale of the problem and allow for better targeting of enforcement action.

Flytipping Incidents

Making it a mandatory requirement for all enforcement bodies to report on incidents and enforcement actions will improve consistency, coverage and transparency. However, there first needs to be collaborative progression towards a common goal within agreed parameters, with mandatory reporting following on naturally. It is vital that engagement with key stakeholders is integrated into this process (Figure 11).

Recommendation 1: Agree standardised methodology and reporting categories amongst stakeholders.

• Action 1: in the short term carry out additional engagement with Police Scotland to see what data, if any, they hold on flytipping incidents (and in what format) and what can be fed into the baseline. It is recognised that Police Scotland FOI data releases indicate limited information is held, however, there may still be some. It would be useful to understand what information is held so that if it is significant in terms of the total number of incidents it is considered as part of the discussions around data standardisation and integration.
• Action 2: work collaboratively to develop an agreed methodology for national reporting of flytipping incidents. There needs to be a clear understanding of what is being reported and to whom. Currently local authorities have differing collection systems and there is a general lack of engagement in providing data (as demonstrated by this project where only 14 local authorities provided primary data).
• Action 3: as part of methodology discussion there needs to be agreement on the best reporting windows to ensure that the timeframes are suitable and, for example, avoid times of the year that are likely to be busier (e.g., end of financial year).
• Action 4: as part of the wider data strategy work, consider who is best placed to host the database, what platform it is best suited to, and which organisation is responsible for collation and publication.
• Action 5: work to develop standardised reporting categories. This will help to ensure consistency across Scotland and mean that all local authority data can be easily fed into a national database. Currently local authorities use different categories for similar things, with some using more than others. In addition, some do not categorise reports at all. To ensure a robust baseline, defined and standardised categories are needed. This project found that size of flytipping incident was the most consistent category, with only minor work needed to ensure coherence. Land type and type of waste were broader. Anthesis carried out rationalisation to harmonise these categories, and this could be built on in the future, with waste type likely benefiting from further refinement to reduce the total number of categories.
• Action 6: once agreed, all reporting systems should be updated to reflect these standardised categories to ensure reports across the country can be classified in the same way. This would also support a more streamlined and effective mechanism for citizens to report flytipping incidents. It would be of benefit to add in review periods to assess whether the categories are still fit for purpose and representative in the coming years, or whether any updates are needed (e.g., to catch all categories such as “other” which may benefit over time from further granularity depending on the prevalence of certain waste types).
• Action 7: Following development of the methodology and reporting categories look to publish the national database of flytipping incidents. This should be updated and published annually. This flytipping baseline has begun the process of compiling a national database, however, to really measure progress and the impact of policy interventions this data should be compiled and updated annually and reported on to ensure transparency. Publishing a national baseline will hold enforcement bodies and policy makers to account and allow for an open and transparent conversion of whether interventions are working or not.

Recommendation 2: Once there is agreement on where the reporting duty sits, consider introducing a mandatory requirement for enforcement bodies to collect and report on the number of flytipping incident reports they receive.

• An agreed methodology and standardised reporting categories, developed collaboratively with key stakeholders, may result in voluntary reporting which covers the whole of Scotland. As such this recommendation should only be considered if deemed necessary to ensure total coverage and consistency.
• Making it a mandatory requirement for all enforcement bodies to report on incidents will improve consistency, coverage and transparency, should coverage not be sufficient. Anthesis would suggest reporting every 6-months to ensure the reporting burden on enforcement bodies is not significant, while at the same time ensuring there is not a lag of 1 year in receiving data. However, this will be agreed as part of Recommendation 1.

Recommendation 3: Continue to engage with private landowners to encourage reporting of incidents on their land into official systems and to understand the barriers to reporting.

• As highlighted earlier in the report, a significant number of flytipping incidents take place on private land and are unlikely to be reported into official systems. This means that the total number of flytipping incidents is likely to be an underestimate. To ensure the number of incidents reported is as representative and accurate as possible, reporting of incidents on private land needs to be significantly improved. It is therefore important that engagement with private landowners is a priority, and that this stakeholder group is included in standardisation discussions.

Recommendation 4: Engage further with those local authorities who do not accept reports of flytipping from private landowners.

• Based on the survey findings, most local authority systems can receive reports of flytipping on private land, but not all. There should be further engagement with local authorities to understand if any others do not accept reports of flytipping on private land (given only 11 responded to the survey). Following this there should be a focus on ensuring this information can be captured in the future by working with those authorities who do not capture this data to understand why and if they are able to accept reports on private land and if they would be willing to.

Recommendation 5: Improved sharing of information and best practice.

• As with all interventions, there is benefit to first improving the level of information sharing and best practice amongst stakeholders to understand different approaches and what is working well and what is not.

Enforcement Actions

Data on enforcement actions requires less standardisation than data on flytipping incidents and tends to be more commonly requested (e.g., via FOIs). Despite this there are still improvement to be made to increase consistency and transparency.

Recommendation 6: Improved sharing of information and best practice.

• Before introducing a mandatory requirement to report on enforcement actions, look to improve the level of information sharing and best practice amongst stakeholders to understand different approaches and what is working well and what is not. From primary data gathered as part of this project and from the Liberal Democrat FOI, the use of FPNs for flytipping incidents varies between local authorities.
• In some cases, enforcement data does not sit with waste and cleansings teams, so further engagement is needed with enforcement bodies to determine the departments that hold different data sets.

Recommendation 7: Consider introducing a mandatory requirement for enforcement bodies to report the number of FPNs they issue.

• Making it a mandatory requirement for all enforcement bodies to report on enforcement actions will improve consistency, coverage and transparency. Anthesis would suggest annual reporting of this data. There needs to be a discussion between all enforcement bodies to decide on the best reporting windows to ensure that the timeframes work for all and, for example, avoid times of the year that are likely to be busier (e.g., end of financial year). There will also need to be agreement on which central body receives all data submissions.

Recommendation 8: Annually publish the total number of enforcement actions in Scotland for flytipping incidents, broken down by local authority area.

• This flytipping baseline has begun the process of compiling a database of enforcement actions, however, this is not complete. To really measure progress and the impact of policy interventions this data should be compiled and updated annually and reported on to ensure transparency. Recommendation 7 will ensure that all data is compiled and held centrally and is representative in coverage (i.e., it covers the whole of Scotland). Publishing a national baseline of enforcement undertakings will hold policy makers to account and allow for an open and transparent conversion of whether interventions are working or not.
• Prior to this recommendation being implemented there will need to be agreement on which body is responsible for publishing this data.