National litter and flytipping strategy: baseline report

Executive Summary

Every year 26,000 tonnes of material is flytipped in Scotland^[1]. Along with being a visual disamenity, impacting the local environment and carrying a significant clean-up cost, flytipping (along with litter) represents a significant leak from the circular economy whereby the materials are incorrectly discarded or disposed of, sending a poor message about their value and limiting opportunities for recycling. They are a wasted resource and do not reflect Scotland’s ambitions to become a circular nation.

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. It is vital that a baseline is determined so that progress can be measured. SEPA is leading the development of a national baseline for flytipping across Scotland as part of the Year 1 Action Plan^[2] for Scotland’s National Litter and Flytipping Strategy^[3].

The aim of this project was to establish a flytipping baseline for Scotland, allowing for an assessment of data gaps and evaluation of what changes may be needed in the future.

In order to establish a flytipping baseline for Scotland, the following data was sought:

• The number of flytipping incidents reported, by local authority area, size, waste type, time period; and
• Enforcement actions including Fixed Penalty Notice (FPNs), Fixed Monetary Penalty (FMPs), Variable Monetary Penalty (VMPs), prosecutions and convictions and other enforcement actions.

Scotland has 32 local authorities, all of which use their own internal systems for recording flytipping incidents and enforcement actions. Given citizens are advised to contact the local authority in the area where the flytipping has occurred, local authorities hold the most robust data on flytipping incidents. One of the main barriers to developing a national baseline was local authority input and engagement. While we were able to gather primary data from just under 50% of local authorities, a large proportion did not share data as part of the project. This means that a full data set that is representative of the whole of Scotland has not been developed. There are a number of reasons why local authorities did not share data on flytipping incidents, and this challenge should be recognised when looking to collate this information in the future.

Key Findings

Flytipping incidents

In 2022/23 there were 63,378 to 64,486 flytipping incident reports made directly to local authority systems, depending on data source^[4]. The difference is due to some data covering calendar year rather than financial, and other variables such as the removal of duplicates or data classifications. Figure 1 shows the primary data collected as part of the project alongside the secondary Freedom of Information (FOI) data – this should be interpretated with caution due to the caveats outlined throughout the report.

Enforcement data

Local authorities, Police Scotland and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority can issue FPNs for flytipping offences, whilst SEPA can issue FMPs and VMPs. SEPA cannot issue FPNs. FOI releases from Police Scotland state that “Police Scotland are not involved in issuing fixed penalty notices in regards to littering or flytipping”^[5].

Currently the use of penalties for litter and flytipping offences is fairly low compared to the number of recorded and perceived instances. Under a release of data under the Freedom of Information Act, Scottish Councils were notified of 284,762 incidents of flytipping from 2019 to 2023, yet only 3,317 (1.16%) FPNs were issued, and 51 cases passed to the Crown Office for further prosecution^[6]. The disparity between the number of flytipping incidents reported and the number of enforcement actions could be due to a number of reasons including identifying the offender, collecting robust and appropriate evidence, resources and consistency of approach. In 2022/23 there were approximately 850 FPNs issued by local authorities for flytipping offences in Scotland^[7]. In addition, SEPA issued 8 FMPs for offences/breaches related to flytipping and associated duty of care in 2022/23.

In 2021/22, five people were prosecuted for flytipping offices, with five being convicted. For the 2021/22 period, the 5 convictions resulted in four monetary penalties and one community sentence. In addition, in 2021/22, 21 people were given a direct measure (non-court disposal route).

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.

• Recommendation 1: Agree standardised methodology and reporting categories amongst stakeholders.
• 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.
• 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.
• Recommendation 4: Engage further with those local authorities who do not accept reports of flytipping from private landowners.
• Recommendation 5: Improved sharing of information and best practice.

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.
• Recommendation 7: Consider introducing a mandatory requirement for enforcement bodies to report the number of FPNs they issue.
• Recommendation 8: Annually publish the total number of enforcement actions in Scotland for flytipping incidents, broken down by local authority area.