Scotland's Circular Economy and Waste Route Map to 2030 : Analysis of consultation responses

1. Introduction

1.1 The policy context

In 2020’s Climate Change Plan update, the Scottish Government set out a 2045 vision for a circular economy, where Scotland reduces the demand for raw material in products; encourages reuse and repairs; and recycles waste and energy to maximise the value of any waste that is generated. This vision set out that by 2045, Scotland’s cultural, social and business norms will be driven by a focus on Responsible Production, Responsible Consumption, and Maximising Value from Waste and Energy.

To drive progress towards its circular economy goals, Scotland has had a set of waste and recycling targets in place for over the past decade, spanning the waste hierarchy to 2025. Scotland has made good long-term progress towards reaching these ambitions. To accelerate change, in May 2022, the Scottish Government published a first consultation, ‘Delivering Scotland’s Circular Economy: Route Map to 2025 and Beyond’^[1], which laid out a strategic approach to transform how we produce, consume, and manage Scotland’s resources, and maximise progress towards waste, recycling and emission reduction objectives. The consultation set out a range of proposals across the resources and waste system, and sought views on the feasibility and ambition of these proposals.

In line with the 2023-24 Programme for Government, the Scottish Government published an updated draft ‘Circular Economy and Waste Route Map to 2030’ for a second consultation in January 2024. This reflected findings from the first consultation, alongside further complementary research and updated impact assessments. Building on measures already in place or underway - including a ban on problematic single-use plastic items, a ban on disposable vapes, introduction of extended producer responsibility for packaging and a £70 million investment in local authority recycling infrastructure and further expansion of other producer responsibility schemes for key product types such as WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment - the Route Map is designed to drive progress on three key fronts:

1. Setting the strategic direction and laying foundations for how the system-wide vision for Scotland’s circular economy from now to 2030 will be delivered.

2. Setting out priority actions from now to 2030 to accelerate more sustainable use of our resources across the waste hierarchy. In the Route Map the Scottish Government acknowledges the progress that has been made against the existing 2025 waste reduction and recycling targets, the areas where progress has fallen short, and the lessons that can be learnt as the framework for what comes next is set out. The direction and actions set out in the Route Map are complemented by the provisions in the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, and in some places are dependent on enabling powers flowing from the Bill if passed.

3. Reducing emissions associated with resources and waste. The Route Map sets out the opportunities the Scottish Government will seek to take to decarbonise the waste sector.

The updated draft Route Map has been streamlined from seven packages to four strategic aims, each with priority actions and further actions: Reduce and reuse: Modernise recycling; Decarbonise disposal; and Strengthen the circular economy. The Scottish Government has also published updated impact assessments and a Strategic Environmental Assessment report alongside the Route Map consultation document.

1.2 The consultation

A public consultation on the Route Map took place from 18 January 2024 to 15 March 2024. The consultation contained 24 questions about the proposals, comprising eight closed and 16 open questions. Questions asked respondents to share their views on the priority and further actions outlined under each of the four strategic aims in the Route Map, as well as on the impact assessments and Strategic Environmental Assessment that have been published by the Scottish Government. A list of the consultation questions is in Appendix A.

1.3 Respondent profile

In total, 156 consultation responses were received. Most were submitted via the online consultation platform, Citizen Space. Those received in an alternative format, for example an email or PDF document, were reviewed separately by the research team.

Individuals provided 43 responses to the consultation; the remaining 113 were from organisations. To aid analysis, each organisation was assigned a sector or type. The largest share of organisational responses came from retail and packaging organisations, the third sector, and local authorities.

The number and profile of responses is very similar to the previous consultation which received 160 responses from 48 individuals (30%) and 112 organisations (70%).

1.4 Approach to analysis

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The main purpose of consultation analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed, and where possible using closed questions to quantify how many people held particular views. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

1.4.1 Quantitative analysis

The analysis of responses to each question begins with a summary of the closed question data illustrating the range of opinions held by respondents.

As not all respondents answered each closed question, the quantitative analysis in the main report is based on those who answered each question. Each table shows:

• The number of respondents from the total sample of 156 who selected each response, and the corresponding percentage.
• The number and percentage response among those answering each question, broken down by individual and organisation responses and by type of organisation.

Please note that figures in the tables may not add to 100% due to rounding. A full breakdown of the number and percentage of responses to each question can be found in Appendix C.

1.4.2 Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. During the coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged.

Reflecting the large number of people who took part, it is impossible to detail every response in this report. A few organisations shared lengthy submissions reflecting their specific industry or subject matter expertise. These responses are referenced where possible. Full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government’s consultation website.

Where appropriate, quotes from a range of participants are included to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information.

When reviewing the analysis in this report, we would ask the reader to consider:

• Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population.
• In a small number of instances where alternative format responses contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.
• Analysis of the quantitative responses indicates a high level of overall support for the Route Map. While many respondents agreed with the proposals at the closed questions, they caveated their agreement in open comments by highlighting concerns or queries raised about specific proposals or aspects of the Route Map.
• One less common theme among open-text responses throughout the consultation was frustration with the design of the questionnaire; closed questions did not allow respondents to express agreement or disagreement with individual actions, instead asking them to agree or disagree with the proposed group of actions as a whole. A small number of respondents explained that they had to select ‘disagree’ or ‘neither agree nor disagree’ at the closed questions as a result, despite only objecting to one of the proposed actions.
• Throughout the report, priority and further actions are discussed in the same order as they were presented in the consultation paper.
• Some of the proposed actions refer to specific schemes, plans or processes which, due to space constraints, have not been fully defined in this report. Further information on such terms can be found in the consultation paper.

1.4.3 Weight of opinion

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:

• Many respondents; a point raised by more than 20 respondents.
• Several respondents; 11-20, a recurring theme.
• Some respondents; 5-10, another theme.
• A few / a small number of respondents; <5, a less commonly mentioned theme.
• Two/one respondents; a singular comment or a view identified in two responses.

While most of this report is structured around the strategic aims and actions within the Route Map, themes are presented from most to least prevalent where possible and appropriate to do so.

All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered in this report; an insightful view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority. Similarly, all responses have an equal weighting. We recognise this means a response from an individual has the same weight as the response from an organisation which may represent many members, but this approach ensures all views are presented.