Litter and flytipping: scale and cost

6 Summary and Conclusions

Scottish Government is devising a new National Litter and Flytipping Strategy. The current strategy was published in 2014 and includes data from 2011. The purpose of this study was to update these figures with 2019 data (the most recent year unaffected by COVID-19) and expand the scope of the research to include both direct and indirect costs of litter and flytipping to LAs, other public bodies, and private organisations.

For 2019/2020, the cost of addressing instances of litter and flytipping in Scotland was calculated to be at least £280.8m. This includes direct costs (£81.2m), indirect costs (£196.7.8m), the value of materials lost (£416k at current recycling rates), and the value of volunteering (£2.5m). It is very important to note that due to lack of data, this calculation was based on adjusting the 2012/2013 figures upwards for inflation and population growth, and therefore there is a large amount of uncertainty with these figures, until further data becomes available. Table 6‑1 provides an overview of these costs.

When considering the costs incurred by LAs, special consideration was given to Highland and Island Authorities and the differences they experienced when compared with other Authorities. Research revealed that the scale and costs associated with addressing litter in these regions varied significantly when compared with other locales in Scotland. Whilst the available data was limited, some quantitative input as well as anecdotal evidence suggests that litter and flytipping are less of an issue, but that clearing them up comparatively costs more.

In addition to costs incurred, the study also compiled evidence regarding the most commonly littered and flytipping items. Amongst the most commonly littered items were food and drinks packaging, cigarette butts, and dog fouling. Frequently flytipped items included bulky household waste, electrical items, and construction and demolition waste.

Finally, the study considered the likely impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The intention of this research was not to ascertain quantitative differences. Moreover, the objective was to provide qualitative commentary on the effects experience by LAs, other public and private bodies, and volunteers. Perhaps the key conclusion here was that the types of waste have changed. Numerous stakeholders reported that PPE had increased drastically in proliferation (particularly disposable face masks). It was also noted that closures of HWRCs and staffing issues within waste collection operations had a significant impact on the scale and distribution of littered and flytipped waste.

6.1 Recommendations to Improve Data Collection

The research relied upon receiving data from both LAs, and other public and private organisations. The area where Scottish Government is likely to be able to have the greatest impact in influencing reporting practices is within LAs and therefore these recommendations focus primarily on the improvement of the quality and volume of data received from LAs. It is unlikely that the government could implement a widespread mechanism to improve the quality of data received from private organisations without long-term policy change and/or financial incentives.

In light of the above identification of limitations on current reporting practices, it is recommended that a standardised Local Authority reporting mechanism should be developed and implemented. This would guarantee that data on LA expenditure and operations is collected and available for future research, thereby creating a more robust evidence base for upcoming policy decisions. The data included should encompass expenditure across services in addition to operational data such as litter tonnages collected. Local Environmental Audit and Management System (LEAMS), Litter Management System (LMS) and Flymapper are examples of Scotland-wide datasets that have successfully collated comparable and comprehensive datasets on litter and flytipping for several years. It is evident that an equivalent tracker of disaggregated data, including on expenditure, would be of significant benefit.

For LAs, the benefits of a standardised reporting mechanism are numerous. The provision of consistent data would leave Scottish Government with a more accurate understanding of the significant costs associated with managing litter and flytipping. This could, in turn, feed into policy development in related areas (e.g., the implementation of EPR in Scotland) that could subsequently result in improvements to the resources available to support LAs to address litter and flytipping. It could also form an evidence base for organisations that do not have a defined route for influencing policy development (for example, farms and rural estates that suffer from flytipping) to track the adverse impacts that they experience.

For Scottish Government, a standardised reporting mechanism would enable a more strategic (and efficient) method of using data to inform policy. Any proposed mechanism should address the lack of formalised structure in current LA reporting. There appears to be limited tracking and apportionment of spend into different services, which restricts an LA’s ability to identify trends in expenditure through time and across regions. Moreover, most LAs did not appear to have a responsible individual or body that could provide data on expenditure, and instead on-the-ground officials were collating spend. A more efficient approach might track spend on a macro-level by service, which could then be provided and analysed per service as required. This process may also be improved by having an individual in each LA who is ultimately responsible for gathering, cleansing, and distributing data in the standardised format when required.

The development of this platform or mechanism should be iterative, and collaboration between LAs and the Scottish Government is essential. Taking such an approach will ensure that the system’s efficacy is optimised and that it fulfils the needs of both parties. Additionally, identifying the correct level of data to request is essential. Asking for too much or too detailed data leads to confusion and a lack of engagement in providing what is required. Moreover, in recognition that many LAs are stretched for resource whilst providing a multitude of important services, the platform used to track data must be intuitive and improve upon existing data reporting practices, rather than creating additional work by introducing an entirely new system.

By implementing a standardised approach for tracking LA financial and operational data, Scottish Government could create a multi-year, multi-department, and multi-LA dataset. Though there would be an initial upfront cost and time implication, deploying such a system would payback, both in terms of reporting efficiencies (for research) and by enabling the identification of opportunities for spend and services to be apportioned more effectively. This would improve future research into LA expenditure and enable the development of tailored and evidence-based policy, which would improve future apportionment of resources to tackling problems such as litter and flytipping.