Most Scots want 'polluter pays' levies for companies to clean streets

The finding, in an independent survey for environmental charity Keep Scotland Beautiful (KSB), comes amid growing concern about trash both blighting the nation’s urban spaces and finding its way in to nature.

Before the general election was called Conservatives at Westminster were set to introduce a scheme called Extended Producer Responsibility or EPR for packaging.

Read More: 

• What Sweden can teach Scotland about recyling our waste

• Highland loch's sandy shore 'only fresh water site' to scoop beach award

• The windy North Sea is Scotland’s greatest asset in the race to reach net zero

That, starting next year, would have forced the companies using packaging to pay for the collection and recycling of household waste. 

Businesses - especially big brands facing similar regulations on the continent - look ready to accept their responsibility for their own plastics.

Some 40 environmental charities and groups, including KSB, lobbied for EPR to go even further. 

They want to make firms help cover the cost of picking up crisp packets, sweetie wrappers, take-away and drinks bottles and cans that find their way in to the environment. 

Scottish and Welsh authorities have been mulling an EPR scheme for litter, of a kind currently being rolled out in Sweden. 

Business lobbies, however, are less keen to pay for picking trash in the street: they do not feel responsible for what their customers chuck. And they whisper that separate EPR regimes in different parts of the UK - rather like Scotland’s Deposit Return Scheme or DRS- could be blocked under the Internal Market Act.

The issue has been thrown in the air by the general election - and uncertainty over what a likely Labour government will do. 

Campaigners hope this will not be a re-run of the showdown over DRS. 

Scotland’s often cash-strapped councils are spending £1m a week clearing up litter. 

KSB inspects thousands of sites across Scotland as it monitors our public spaces for local authorities. 

Confectionary wrappers alone account for more than one in 20 items of litter. Drinks cans and bottles make up 4.2% and 3.5% of all items. 

Forty-two per cent of all these spots had at least one item of plastic packaging covered by proposed EPR regulations. This rose to nearly two thirds Scotland’s most deprived areas.

Paul Wallace, the charity’s head of operations, said: “It’s time to get serious about tackling Scotland’s litter emergency.  

“The National Litter and Fly-tipping Strategy launched last year is a step in the right direction, but we all should, and can, do more to ensure that no stone is left unturned and all the resources and options at our disposal are utilised to tackle the problem.

“However, we shouldn’t underestimate the levels of frustration being felt across Scotland by individuals, communities, local authorities and third sector organisations. 

“Surely if 90% of people think that litter is a problem, and 75% of streets we survey are blighted by litter, it is time for a new approach, supported by legislative and regulatory action.

“There is significant disappointment at crucial pieces of legislation and regulation, which could make a measurable contribution to removing packaging litter from our streets and open spaces, being delayed again and again.   

“People can’t understand why measures such as a DRS or a EPR for packaging system, which work successfully in other countries across the world, with producers accepting their responsibility and share of the costs, cannot be rolled out across Scotland and the UK.

“The principal that packaging producers should bear some of the financial responsibility for managing their packaging which becomes litter is supported by 71% of people asked in Scotland. 

“With one item of food and drink on-the-go packaging being found on 42.7 of sites surveyed nationally, rising to 65% in our most deprived communities, it is imperative that these items as ground and binned litter are included in forthcoming packaging EPR regulations. 

"We can't just expect councils to continue to pick up all the litter that is dropped – at a cost of more than £1million a week.”

The principle of EPR is not new. The UK already has schemes under which, for example, the producers of batteries pay for their disposal. Some countries have had programmes under which firms selling packaging pay for household collections and recycling.

The Food and Drink Federation, which represents big and small and producers, is content with this kind of EPR. 

Its Scottish head of policy and public affairs, Cat Hay, said: “Industry is very happy to play its part through extended producer responsibility to ensure we get our materials back in to circulation. But there still remains that element of responsibility on people to make sure people dispose of packaging responsibly.”

Ewan MacDonald-Russell, deputy head of the Scottish Retail Consortium, said:  “Recycling rates have stagnated for a decade. If they are to rise, there must be better coordination of waste reform so there is consistency in how we recycle across Scotland. The lack of a harmonised local authority household recycling collection scheme and consistently coloured wheelie bins across Scotland’s 32 councils prevents national advertising campaigns which could drive up recycling.

“It’s vital the £2bn EPR is expected to raise across the UK is targeted towards improving infrastructure to boost the supply of recycled material for reuse. We are concerned the mooted proposals to extend EPR further to include charging for the cost of collecting litter will dilute the effectiveness of the scheme.  There is a risk this would divert the focus away from the improving recycling infrastructure to a much broader tax on businesses.  If the Scottish Government want to tackle littler they would be better off taking targeted action, not least at those actually littering, than trying to increase the complexity of the already very complex EPR model." 

Tory MSP Maurice Golden has both practical and academic knowledge of the waste industry and recycling. He hopes a political row on EPR for litter can be avoided.

The former head of the circular economy programme for Zero Waste Scotland said: “I think expanding the scope of EPR to include letter is incredibly important. But producers have to be incentivised, and have the ability to reduce the costs associated with disposal and litter.”

Golden wants to make sure that a litter EPR is not just a tax to cover the costs of the current system for cleaning up Scotland. It has to reduce the amount of packaging rubbish that finds it way in to the environment. 

Manufacturers under litter EPR systems already being rolled out elsewhere - such as in Sweden - pay a levy based on how much of their packaging ends up being picked up as litter. 

Golden is suggesting that a litter EPR will encourage businesses to change their packaging - and pay a lower levy.

He said: “For example, we see how on Coke bottles the caps are now tethered to the top.

“That's a really positive design aspect. 

“Obviously, it's been delivered without extended producer responsibility. 

“But that's the sort of improvements that producers have to be seen to do.”

The Conservative - rather like environmentalist groups - reckons money from a litter EPR levy from producers could go to pay for anti-littering campaigns. This, he added, should be done “with or without government funding - but certainly with government coordination - to ensure we are achieving behaviour change over what is acceptable.”

Scotland rivers are full of plastics, including the Tay near Perth. “ I just paddle-boarded under the Friarton Bridge and the amount of tossed off that in to the river is astonishing. Some people think it is acceptable to throw litter out of the car,” said Golden.

“I think it is important that we don’t get caught saying this is all the producers' fault. Lots of producers I speak to - particularly the bigger brands - are very keen for their products not to be littered, not to be associated with the plastics in our seas.”

Public polls show strong support for action on littering. 

The new survey for KSB was carried out by Diffley Partnership. It found support for packaging manufacturers paying for cleaning up litter ran at 71% with  69% of Scots reporting that they see single-use plastic litter.

Wallace of KSB added: “We know what needs to be done. We’ve consistently said that dealing with litter is a shared responsibility. Consumers need to confront and take responsibility for their actions. Local authorities must grapple with cleaning up and preventing litter.   The UK and Scottish Governments must step up to ensure producers are part of the solution. 

“We need packaging producers to play their part - designing out problematic packaging and contributing financially to dealing with the waste and litter it creates.

“Scotland needs urgent regulation to tackle litter. We believe that packaging EPR regulations, if bold enough, will push producers to create packaging that is less harmful to our environment and deliver a polluter pays principle, generating significant funds to help tackle our litter emergency once and for all.”