Litter and flytipping offences - enforcement review: final report

Appendix 1 – Methodology

Overview of the proposed project methodology and the three complementary phases which followed the initial Scoping Period.

Rapid evidence & literature review

Understand trends over the last 5-years using key metrics, what is and is not effective and the main barriers

Stakeholder engagement

Identify and critically evaluate key challenges for enforcement from the perspective of enforcement agencies and other key stakeholders

Analysis & synthesis

Outline changes that are needed to ensure that Scotland’s enforcement model is effective and deters people from littering & flytipping

Task 1 – Scoping

Following project inception, the first task was a project scoping review which culminated in an Inception Report.

As part of the project Scottish Government convened a Steering Group which consisted of the following organisations:

• Scottish Government
  • Waste Prevention Team
  • Justice Analytical Services (input and support was confined to helping to facilitate research access to relevant justice bodies, and provision of data, rather than the research design and specification)
  • Rural and Environmental Science and Analytical Services
• Zero Waste Scotland
• Keep Scotland Beautiful
• Scottish Environment Protection Agency
• Waste Managers Network

The scoping period lasted one week and helped to further inform the key areas for review and which stakeholders should be approached for targeted engagement. The draft list of stakeholders was discussed with Scottish Government and the Steering Group and refined to a final set of stakeholders for targeted engagement. During the scoping phase the quantitative data sought was also finalised and agreed.

As part of the scoping phase, and in advance of agreeing additional data needs, a deep dive into existing and publicly available data in Scotland was carried out to consider what data exists, which stakeholder holds the data, and its format and quality. This included looking at Waste Data Flow, local authorities own datasets, published data on the number of prosecutions, the Local Environmental Auditing and Monitoring System, Litter Monitoring System and data from other incident reporting systems. The aim of the deep dive was to ensure stakeholders were not asked for data that was already in the public domain.

Priority metrics

As part of the project it was key to critically assess key metrics for understanding the relationship between litter and flytipping incidents and enforcement activity in Scotland. The project looked to gather information (from literature, existing data sources and engagement with stakeholders on):

• Litter and flytipping trends – number of incidences recorded, types and quantities of waste.
• The number of Fixed Penalty Notices and Fixed Monetary Penalties issued and the region they were issued.
• Penalty values.
• % of penalties paid.
• Number of cases referred to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
• Number of prosecutions for offences (total prosecuted and total convicted).
• Factors that influence litter and flytipping and waste crime more broadly including disposal routes and costs (charging at HWRCs), the availability and visibility of infrastructure and the wider economy/financial hardship.
• The cost of enforcement.

While the challenges associated with gathering robust data due to data gaps and the spread of data were recognised, the primary metrics listed above were classed as priority data for the project. The priority data list was discussed with Scottish Government and the Steering Group, before being finalised. Given the support of the Steering Group, in the first instance data their organisation may hold was requested from members.

Contextual Data

It was also key to critically evaluate contextual data around litter and flytipping incidents to help establish the relationship between “cause and effect” and the barriers to effective enforcement. The project looked to critically evaluate data and evidence to establish an understanding of what influences individual’s behaviour and how these influences are related to the deterrent effect and the factors that influence effectiveness.

Contextual insights were gathered on:

• The effectiveness of enforcement – what works and what does not.
• Barriers to enforcement.
• The deterrent effect.
• Regional variations.
• Limitations faced by enforcement bodies.
• Innovative approaches to enforcement.
• Recovering fixed penalty notices (FPNs).
• Regulators’ priorities and resources.
• Evidence needs.
• The role of the individual and behaviour change principles.
• The role of infrastructure.
• Education and awareness.
• Consistent and coordinated approaches across regions.

Task 2 – Rapid evidence review and literature review

Following the scoping period, a rapid evidence review and critical evaluation of existing material and literature were used to better understand the approach to enforcement and key barriers across Scotland, the UK and internationally. This process provided a structured and rigorous search and quality assessment of the evidence.

The evidence review was used as a form of evidence synthesis to provide more timely information for decision making compared with a standard systematic review. It helped to balance time constraints while ensuring the review was still methodical and detailed. It provided a meticulous summary of all the available primary research in response to the project’s aims and objectives, giving a balanced assessment of what is known (and not known) about litter and flytipping enforcement. Prior to carrying out the methodical search for the evidence, first the review was planned. This was followed by an analysis of the results.

In addition to the evidence review a literature review was also used to widen knowledge and understanding of the existing literature on litter and flytipping enforcement. This review allowed for a critical evaluation of existing material by delving into previously published work on litter and flytipping enforcement. Before reviewing the material, key literature, reports and papers were first grouped together into key themes to make the review more focused and methodical. The review critically engaged with the texts to ensure consideration was given to whether the reviewer agreed with what's being said. The review also examined the methodology used and divided the articles into qualitative or quantitative categories, before conclusions made were evaluated based on the method used and evidence presented.

To further help the structure of the rapid evidence review and literature review a key word search was used to ensure that the reviews followed a methodical process. The main focus was evidence, research and literature form the last 5 to 7 years to ensure that findings are relevant and applicable. All evidence and literature sources were recorded and are included in Appendix 8 – Key literature and data sources.

Step 1 – review of current trends

This stage of the project began with a review of the current enforcement model in Scotland, the UK and other countries, and how different models, methods and actions impact litter and flytipping occurrences and enforcement effectiveness trends. This allowed for a comparison between Scotland and other nations (maximum of 5 with a similar socioeconomic demographic to Scotland – Table 9) and an assessment of what works and what does not work in relation to litter and flytipping enforcement across a range of countries and regions. It was recognised that it may prove a challenge to isolate a specific enforcement action and determine the effect. The interlinked nature of various interventions was therefore considered. This part of the project looked to address Research Objective 1

Countries of similar socioeconomic demographic to Scotland that were reviewed as part of the project.

Country: Wales

Justification: Similar geographical considerations in terms of rural areas, population density and number of local authorities. Some alignment in the direction of travel towards a circular economy and the use of resources.

The Welsh Government recently consulted on a Litter and Flytipping Prevention Plan for Wales^[192].

Country: England

Justification: Important to consider the different approach in both nations given the shared border and potential for the cross-border movement of waste items (for flytipping).

Country: Spain

Justification: Fairly low recycling rate compared to other western European countries. Interesting to review the interplay with littering and flytipping and enforcement levels. Anthesis can also draw on local knowledge from our large team in Spain.

Country: Sweden

Justification: Sweden has a high recycling rate and a well-established deposit return scheme – interesting to assess how litter and flytipping fit in and the enforcement measures needed in a country which is already a leader when it comes to recycling and citizen awareness and engagement. Anthesis has local knowledge which can be utilised.

Country: New Zealand

Justification: Comparable population and complex geography. Interesting to consider the approach of a country not in Europe or the European Union but which still has similarities with Scotland (i.e., geography, population size).

In terms of key data, this stage of the project:

• Reviewed the current enforcement model in Scotland and the use of Fixed Penalty Notices and Fixed Monetary Penalties at a national and regional level.
• Assessed the range and variation in enforcement activity across Scotland to identify areas where litter and flytipping offences are approached differently.
• Reviewed the current enforcement model (including financial penalties) in England and Wales to allow for comparison between Scotland and the other UK nations (where possible).
• Reviewed the current enforcement model (including financial penalties) in other countries with similar socioeconomic conditions to Scotland and who have a mature waste management system.

As well as reviewing formal financial penalties this step looked to critically review other enforcement models used for tackling and deterring litter and flytipping. This included a deep dive into initiatives including advice and guidance, litter picks and similar schemes used by local authorities and other enforcement agencies, and deterrence measures including signage indicating penalties and CCTV. Schemes led by agencies including environment agencies, the police and other public bodies such as national parks were reviewed. The review of international best practice in environmental enforcement helped to identify approaches and actions that are not currently used in Scotland but could be suitable in the Scottish context, as well as those that are used but which are not sufficiently resourced and/or enforced so are not effective.

Step 2 – assessment of the effectiveness of different enforcement measures

During this stage of the project, where existing data allowed, current trends in litter and flytipping were assessed to evaluate, where possible, the relationship between instances of litter and flytipping and enforcement. This allowed for an assessment of what works and what does not work in litter and flytipping enforcement, and the effectiveness of different models. Measures that have a deterrent effect and those that promote good behaviour were also reviewed.

While the approach to enforcement has traditionally focused on the use of awareness raising and financial penalties, some enforcement agencies and local organisations use more innovative approaches. This step of the project looked to investigate what innovative initiatives are being used by agencies in Scotland and elsewhere to determine the role such initiatives have in deterring and preventing litter and flytipping. This phase of the project helped to address Research Objective 2.

At project inception it was noted that finding robust evidence on the effectiveness of enforcement will be one of the main challenges of the project. A previous study^[193] commissioned by Zero Waste Scotland looked at studies on waste crime across the UK for comparison and insight to find evidence of what works specifically for anti-flytipping enforcement and interventions. The conclusion of the report was that the existing evidence base is very limited. In order to help address this data gap this project looked at measures, including non-monetary enforcement measures, used outside of the UK in countries with similar socioeconomic conditions to Scotland.

This step also looked to assess the different challenges faced on private and public land and the impact these differences have on enforcement, especially in relation to flytipping. This theme, particularly the challenges in applying enforcement on private land, was reviewed in existing literature and evidence before being further explored through stakeholder engagement.

Step 3 – understanding the key barriers to enforcement

Once the current situation in Scotland was baselined, compared to the comparative countries and the effectiveness of enforcement measures critically assessed, a review of the barriers to enforcing litter and flytipping offences was undertaken. Key research was reviewed to assess barriers to the use of existing enforcement powers including (but not limited to):

• Identifying the offender (including experienced waste criminals).
• Collecting robust and appropriate evidence – what evidence is needed, of what quality and the challenges obtaining it.
• Recovering FPNs.
• Enforcement bodies’ priorities – is the role and responsibilities of each agency clear?
• Resources – are resources sufficient to effectively carry out enforcement and are those involved in enforcement activity fully trained.
• Are different measures clear – is there clear guidance on which penalty is appropriate in which circumstance.
• Prosecutors – what is the attitude of the Court and jurors, how many cases succeed and what level of fines/sanctions are imposed.
• Lack of a consistent and coordinated approach to enforcement across Scotland in deterring behaviour.
• Individual responsibility and behaviours.

This stage of the project looked to address Research Objective 3.

Additional barriers for consideration

In addition to exploring the direct barriers to enforcement the project looked to investigate the behavioural impact of litter and flytipping offences and the options for addressing key challenges in this area. It was important to understand this wider perspective due to anticipated lack of data around enforcement method effectiveness. When reviewing the role of behaviour change, consideration was given to:

• Who litters and flytips and why – in order to prevent litter and flytipping at source a better understanding of who litters and flytips and why is needed, including the individual, social and material factors of why people litter and flytip.
• The role of infrastructure – availability, location and costs.
• Education and awareness – have a clear role to play but messaging needs to be strong and consistent.

Task 3 – Stakeholder engagement and data gathering

The rapid evidence and literature review provided a wealth of information on current enforcement practices in Scotland and elsewhere as well as the main barriers to success. However, it was recognised early on that engagement with key stakeholders would be key to help to build the evidence base and reinforce findings from literature, or challenge findings given the Scottish context and experience on the ground. Stakeholder engagement was also used to provide a more realistic picture of what happens on a day-to-day basis in a ‘real world’ environment and the challenges faced by those tasked with enforcing litter and flytipping offences. Stakeholder engagement was used to add to the evidence base and contribute towards Research Objectives 1 to 3.

Given the challenge around quantifying the value of enforcement in acting as a deterrent to offending in the first place, or in the future, the project sought to explore stakeholder’s views on the deterrent value of enforcement, and the role the size of the penalty and people’s expectations that they will be caught and punished. As part of qualitative discussions, the project explored whether enforcement should be targeted at the community level, allowing local authorities, community groups and other local groups to identify and test the most appropriate solutions for the problems in their area. Problems and inconsistencies within the enforcement system for litter and flytipping across Scotland were also explored with stakeholders, focusing on the differentiation between Highlands and Islands communities and the urban/rural character of the local authorities.

Approach to stakeholder engagement

Stakeholders were tiered by priority to ensure those who actively enforce litter and flytipping were targeted in the first instance. In addition to those who enforce litter and flytipping, there are a range of additional stakeholders who hold key data and insights and who were therefore approached as part of the project.

Tier 1 stakeholders included:

• Police Scotland, SEPA, Local Authorities, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority, and Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
  • Given Scotland has 32 local authorities engagement was sought with:
    • Representatives covering rural, urban, island and mixed urban/rural authorities from the Litter Managers Network and Waste Managers Network – groups set up by local authority litter managers and waste managers with support from Zero Waste Scotland and the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE).

A formal and structured engagement process was used for Tier 1 stakeholders. This involved a 1-2-1 interview or a focus group (all virtual) with stakeholders listed under Tier 1. In advance of each interview stakeholders were asked to share any quantitative data their organisation may hold on to the use of formal enforcement measures. Data collection focused on the priority metrics outlined earlier. A Privacy Notice, authored by Scottish Government was shared with all stakeholders approached as part of the project.

The semi-structured interviews and focus groups were used to explore stakeholder’s experience of, and views on, litter and flytipping enforcement:

• Litter and flytipping occurrences – views on trends, specific geographical areas that attract more incidences.
• The effectiveness of enforcement – what works and what does not.
• Barriers to enforcement.
• The deterrent value of enforcement.
• Regional variations.
• Limitations enforcement bodies face in their ability to exercise their enforcement powers.
• The role of prevention, behaviour change principles and communications and education.
• The success rate of cases referred to the COPFS and the key challenges for prosecutions.
• Roles and responsibilities of enforcing, particularly flytipping offences and the overlap between agencies.
• Views on a future enforcement model.

Given there is likely to be variations in enforcement activity across Scotland the project looked to identify areas where litter and flytipping enforcement is approached differently. While there was direct 1-2-1 engagement with a representative group of local authorities, recognising the likelihood for regional variations resulting from Scotland’s unique and diverse geography the project also engaged with the remaining local authorities using a simple structured questionnaire. A simple online survey format (self-completion questionnaire) was used.

The advantage of using a questionnaire over an interview to gather views from all of Scotland’s local authorities was that the project was able to reach a larger number of organisations more easily, leaving participants to fill in the questionnaire and then submit it themselves. A breakdown of the type and number of local authorities engaged can be found in Appendix 6 – Local authority engagement.

Given the small number of cases that are passed to the courts for both litter and flytipping (2 prosecutions and 2 convictions in 2019/20 for flytipping; zero prosecutions and zero convictions in 2019/20 for litter) and the scale and scope of the project, direct engagement was sought with COPFS and not SCTS. This decision was taken as, due to the low numbers, it would be unlikely that a Sheriff would be able to discuss the reasons why certain decision were made as it is not appropriate for Sheriffs to comment on individual cases. The amount of additional information to be gained from direct engagement was therefore deemed to be low. To ensure that all of those invovled in litter and flytipping enforcement had the opportunity to provide input, the Final Report was shared with SCTS for optional comment, despite there being no direct engagement due to the reasons outlined. It is also recognised that it is not appropriate for either COPFS or SCTS to comment on future policy, so this area was not discussed in direct engagement with COPFS.

Tier 2 stakeholders included:

• Litter and flytipping experts – Zero Waste Scotland and Keep Scotland Beautiful.
• Landowners – focus group with representation from SPARC, National Farmers Union Scotland, Scottish Land and Estates, Network Rail and Forestry and Land Scotland.
• Behaviour change expert from the University of Aston.
• Other UK stakeholders – Welsh Government and National Fly-Tipping Wales.
• International expert – Keep New Zealand Beautiful.

The project included 9 interviews and 3 focus groups covering Tier 1 and Tier 2 stakeholders.

Task 4 – Analysis and synthesis

Following the rapid evidence and literature review and stakeholder engagement tasks the information and data gathered was collated and critically analysed before being synthesised into a series of recommendations, addressing Research Objective 4. The outputs of the stakeholder engagement exercise process (both quantitative and qualitative data) were critically evaluated and challenged, with common themes and differences of opinion between stakeholders and the findings of the literature and evidence collected assessed.

Key findings were drawn out and presented alongside case studies of best practice approaches towards enforcement (both in Scotland and from elsewhere).