Litter and flytipping offences - enforcement review: final report

Appendix 5 – Detailed overview of enforcement in other countries

Sweden

Litter surveys carried out by Keep Sweden Tidy found that 35 million items of rubbish are thrown on the ground during one week in Sweden (2020 data), corresponding to 60 tonnes of litter^[198]. 8 out of 10 Swedes feel littering is a big problem, with 94% feeling it is important to reduce littering^[199].

Littering is prohibited by the Swedish Environmental Protection Law^[200]. Fines are 800 Swedish Kronor (SEK) (approximately £63) and can be issued on the spot by the police. Any person who, whether deliberately or through negligence, leaves litter outdoors in a place to which the public has access or is within view shall be liable to a fine or a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year for the offence of littering.

In September 2011 the Swedish Parliament passed a resolution to make “minor littering offences” including cigarette butts, Swedish snus (tobacco product) and chewing gum in public places such as streets or shopping malls subject to the 800 SEK fine. Prior to 2011 the fine only applied to items including glass bottles, disposable lunch boxes, disposable barbeque grills and furniture. According to a news article, in 2022 Sweden issued 87 fines for littering^[201].

Where a crime that has been committed as part of a business activities, a so-called corporate fine may also be imposed that affects the relevant business. A corporate fine can amount to a minimum of SEK 5,000 (approx. £400) and a maximum of SEK 10 million (approx. £800,000)^[202].

The Swedish Environmental Code (1998:808)^[203] also outlines that “no one may litter outdoors in a place that the public has access to or can see”. While flytipping is not specifically mentioned, penalty provisions exist for those who deliberately “pollute land, water or air in a manner which involves or is liable to involve risks for human health or detriment to flora and fauna that are not inconsiderable or other significant detriment to the environment”. If the offence is serious the penalty shall be a term of imprisonment of not less than six months nor more than six years, but this depends on the level of damage and harm caused.

Analysis has found that environmental and wildlife crimes (of which littering is included) have specific geographical “hot spots”^[204]. Minor crimes (including littering) tend to have a greater prevalence in more heavily urbanised areas. For minor crimes including littering, the prevalence in heavily urbanised areas has persisted over time, possibly because a 2006 legal reform allowed for increased prosecution of minor offences, with the number of littering charges between 2011 and 2017 being 65% higher than the annual average from 2000 to 2006^[205]. This can possibly be attributed to minor crimes being more commonly detected in densely populated areas, more enforcement officers and/or more resources.

New Zealand

Litter and flytipping are enforced under The Litter Prevention Amendment Act 2006^[206], which amended The Litter Act 1979^[207]. The Act is administered by the Ministry for the Environment. In 2018 the Ministry for the Environment, co-funded with Keep New Zealand Beautiful, conducted a National Litter Behaviour Study. The survey^[208] found 16% of people littered, while 84% of people disposed of items correctly. Of the people who were observed littering and were subsequently interviewed, 53% admitted to having littered.

Like Scotland, the recording of flytipping or illegal dumping incidents is sporadic, with councils using different methods including several apps and websites. Stakeholder engagement also suggested that the feeling is that litter is a growing problem. While the New Zealand Government is looking at ways to streamline reporting, one of the biggest issues is ownership and leadership and the lack of a national strategy and approach. Stakeholder engagement suggested that there is also a lack of funding in educational campaigns. Further investment is likely needed to ensure positive action is taken and to change behaviours – enforcement on its own is not enough. Engagement suggested that, as is the general view in Scotland, education is required throughout citizen’s lifespans and while most effective in those of a young age should not stop when children leave school. Localised campaigns are key to ensuring messaging resonates.

Enforcement is challenging if there is not adequate evidence. Stakeholder engagement (with a leading New Zealand environmental charity) also indicated that councils may feel disempowered, with similarities with Scotland in terms of the level of the fine often not fitting the severity of the crime, and therefore not acting as a deterrent. The role of empowerment was raised in terms of other regions (e.g., South Australia) where it was suggested that citizens are more empowered to report flytipping crimes. Aside from monetary penalties, community services type models are very limited and not in existence. The most popular initiatives/strategies used by councils to reduce illegal dumping is signage, education on which waste goes where, fines/enforcements, supporting litter groups and campaigns, media releases and lastly surveillance/monitoring^[209].

The Litter Act 1979^[210] sets out several provisions for the control and enforcement of litter. These provisions include:

• Litter Control Officers – public authorities have powers to appoint Litter Control Officers. These Officers are in addition to those who automatically become Litter Control Officers due to their role in particular public officers (e.g., constables, traffic officers and National Park rangers). Litter Control Officers are authorised to enforce the provisions within the Act and can intervene in the deposition or attempted deposition of litter on private or public land. They can require persons disposing of litter to remove the litter from that place or land and to dispose of it correctly. They have powers to take the offender’s name and place of residence.
• Litter Wardens – public authorities can appoint temporary Litter Wardens who are authorised to exercise the same duties as Litter Control Officers with the exception of being able to legally intervene if an offence is being committed.
• Public bins – the Act states that the provision of litter receptacles is a mandatory means of enforcing litter control. If a noticeable amount of litter in public areas originates from a particular land or premise, public authorities are able to intervene and can require the occupier of the land or premise to provide and maintain the number of bins necessary for the correct disposal of litter. If the occupier fails to comply, the public authority has the right to install bins and recover costs from the occupier.
• Bylaws – public authorities (individually or in collaboration with another public authority) are able to occasionally make bylaws as long as they are in accordance with the Act and for the purpose of litter control and prevention.

Any person or individual committing littering or illegally dumping waste is liable to an instant fine of $400 (approximately £204). The Litter Amendment Act 2006^[211] made changes to the principal Act, including significant increases to maximum fines. Fines in New Zealand can be issued for:

• The deposition of litter in public or private land^[212]:
  • Individuals: fine not exceeding $5,000.
  • Corporate body: fine not exceeding $20,000.
    • Prior to the 2006 Amendment Act the maximum fine was $750.
    • Prior to the 2006 Amendment Act the maximum fine was $5,000.
• The deposition of litter in public or private land where the litter deposited is of such a nature that it is likely to endanger any persons or cause physical injury or disease or infection to any person coming into contact with it. This includes glass bottles, whether broken or not, articles containing glass, sharp or jagged materials or substances of a toxic or poisonous nature):
  • Individuals: imprisonment for term not exceeding 1 month, or a fine not exceeding $7,500 or both.
    • Prior to the 2006 Amendment Act the maximum fine was $750.
  • Corporate body: fine not exceeding $30,000.
    • Prior to the 2006 Amendment Act the maximum fine was $5,000.

The illegal dumping of rubbish is also an offence under the Litter Act 1979. Offenders caught illegally dumping rubbish will be ordered to remove the rubbish and may be issued with an instant fine of up to $400. Serious offenders may also be prosecuted under the Litter Act 1979 with a maximum penalty of $30,000.

The Amendment Act also removed the defence of “reasonable excuse” and introduced strict liability meaning that the prosecution does not need to prove that the defendant intentionally committed an offence under the Act. The convicting court also has special powers which it is able to utilise. These include ordering (instead of or in addition to imposing a penalty) the offender, to clear up and remove the deposited litter (if the offender fails to comply with the order, they are liable, in addition to any penalty imposed, to a fine not exceeding $500)^[213]. If an offender fails to comply with any such order, the court can issue a summons requiring the offender to show cause why the fine imposed by the order should not be enforced^[214]. In addition to imposing a penalty, where a court feels it is appropriate, they can order the offender to pay compensation that reasonably covers the cost of the removal of the litter to the public authority or occupier of the private land^[215].

Spain

Flytipping is enforced under Law 7/2022, of April 8, on waste and contaminated soil for a circular economy^[216]. The penalty system is outlined in Chapter II “sanctions regime” and is an update to the previous law. Specific measures have been included to the offence for abandoning scattered garbage or littering. The value of sanctions has also been updated and the sanctioning procedure defined in accordance with Law 39/2015 of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (Table 11 Sanctions by severity level for littering and flytipping violations under Spanish law (Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado, 2022).

Sanctions by severity level for littering and flytipping violations under Spanish law (Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado, 2022)

Severity: Very serious infraction

Violation: Abandonment (including littering, dumping and uncontrolled management) of hazardous waste and other types of waste where the health of people has been seriously endangered or there has been damage or serious damage to the environment or when it has occurred in protected spaces.

Sanction: Fine from 100,001 euros to 3,500,000 euros, except in the case of hazardous waste or contaminated soil, in which case the fine will be from 600,001 euros to 3,500,000 euros.

Severity: Serious infraction

Violation: Abandonment (including littering, dumping and uncontrolled management) of any type of non-hazardous waste without seriously endangering the health of people or causing damage or serious damage to the environment.

Sanction: Fine from 2,001 euros to 100,000 euros except in the case of hazardous waste or contaminated soil, in which case the fine will be from 20,001 euros to 600,000 euros.

Severity: Minor offence

Violation: Commission of any of the infractions indicated above when, due to their small amount or entity, they do not deserve the classification of very serious or serious.

Sanction: A fine of up to 2,000 euros. If it is hazardous waste or contaminated soil, this will be up to 20,000 euros.

Note: When the amount of the fine is less than the benefit obtained by committing the offence, the sanction will be increased, at most, to double the amount of the benefit obtained by the offender, even if this means exceeding the maximum sanctions outlined.

The maximum fines for minor offences have been reported as being used. In Madrid it was reported that an individual leaving a box next to a bin meant for the disposal of cardboard was fined the maximum of 2,000 euros by the Madrid City Hall^[217]. There is little to no evidence of maximum fines for minor offences being used across the rest of Spain, but municipalities are now at liberty to do so when such offences occur. Municipalities can also implement their own laws and fines relating to incorrect waste disposal.

There are also a range of prevention measures outlined under Spanish law including identifying items that constitute the main sources of litter using agreed methodology and adopting agreed measures to prevent littering of such products. The development and support for information campaigns to raise awareness on waste prevention and the abandonment of scattered garbage is also included.