8 Proposal 7: Other measures to encourage waste prevention, including action on carrier bags
8.1 This section presents the findings of the consultation on other measures to encourage waste prevention, including action on carrier bags set out in proposal 7.
"The Scottish Government would also welcome other ideas on legislation which could help to prevent waste."
Specifically the consultation states that:
"the Scottish Climate Change Bill gives an opportunity for the Scottish Ministers to take enabling powers so that regulations could be made to reduce the use of single-use carrier bags, if voluntary measures should not succeed."
8.2 It can be assumed that the views presented below have been expressed by an individual respondent, unless clearly stated otherwise.
Q7.1 Do you consider that legislation should be made in this area?
8.3 This question was addressed directly or indirectly by 58 respondents. Responses were from across all the stakeholder groups represented with all retailers and the majority of Business Associations answering.
8.4 The analysis of the responses to this question is compatible with the preceding proposals. Therefore, only those responses clear that legislation should be made were categorised as being in agreement with the question. Respondents suggesting that legislation should only be introduced if voluntary measures do not succeed were considered to be in disagreement with the question. However, the proportion of this type of response is discussed below.
8.5 The majority who answered the question were against making legislation, at this time, in relation to single-use carrier bags; this included all of the retail, Waste Management and the majority of Local Authority responses. Over half the Business Associations responding were also against making legislation. All of the Individual Responses, Business: Individual and Third Sector responses were in favour of legislation, although this amounted to only seven responses. The majority of Other Interested Bodies responding were also in favour. Mixed views were expressed within the other stakeholder groups.
8.6 The most common reason given against regulation was that voluntary measures appear to be working well. Two respondents suggested that the current voluntary action should be supported by funding, infrastructure and best practice advice. A small but significant proportion of the respondents felt that it may be necessary to introduce legislation at a later date if voluntary measures are not successful.
8.7 It was suggested by a few that legislation in this area would be disproportionate compared to the amount of waste generated and environmental impact. Two felt that behaviour change in respect to carrier bags will not result in changes in other product areas and that the environmental impact of single-use carrier bags is tiny within the total environmental context. They felt that action in this area would risk of trivialising the whole environmental/carbon debate. One view was that focusing on other areas would give a better return. This view was echoed by others:
"believe that focusing on carrier bags has been a distraction from more substantial issues regarding business recycling." (Business Association)
"It would lead consumers into the false impression that they are doing something significant to help the environment whereas other measures such as reduced car use or increased home insulation would have a far greater effect" (Waste Management)
8.8 One Business Association felt legislation would result in an increase in waste generated and an increase in emissions. This view was based on the impact of the bag ban in Ireland.
8.9 A few respondents felt that the work of the Zero Waste Retailers Group should be taken into account.
8.10 Two respondents believed that the provision of adequate recycling facilities was important.
8.11 A small number of the respondents who did not state a clear view, for or against regulation, suggested monitoring the progress of voluntary measures, with two also referring to the work of the Zero Waste Retailers Group. The remainder had no particular views on the proposal with one commenting that it was a small proportion of the waste stream.
"Whilst efforts to establish a voluntary agreements (sic) with retailers in Scotland to cut single-use plastic bag use are welcome we believe that the most effective way of cutting carrier bag usage would be through a plastic bag levy or ban." (Other Interested Body)
8.12 Other individual arguments put forward in support of legislation were:
- Achieves environmental gains and discourages "throw-away society".
- Positive step in moving towards "zero waste" society.
- Help reduce litter.
- Paper bags should be exempt.
- Charging for bags may be more popular if the proceeds go towards anti climate change charity/activity.
- Hold regulation in reserve, pending progress with voluntary measures.
Q7.2 If so, which areas should these powers cover?
8.13 This question was addressed directly or indirectly by 20 respondents. Over half the responses were from those in favour of making legislation in this area.
8.14 In terms of coverage a few respondents stated that the legislation should cover all single use carrier bags and a few that it should be plastic bags only. The remainder did not specify.
8.15 Two respondents suggested a complete ban on single-use bags. A greater number suggested the use of a charge, tax or levy. Two respondents suggested revenue could be used to support environmental, community or waste projects (one suggesting this should be in areas where plastic bags have caused environmental problems). One Individual Response, although in favour of charging for bags, felt that a complete ban would be easier for small shop-keepers, who might find charging for bags an administrative burden. Related to this issue a Business Association felt that businesses smaller than a certain size should be exempt from charging for carrier bags due to the administrative burden on them and the Local Authorities charged with monitoring and enforcement.
8.16 One Business: Individual felt that compostable bags should be exempted from any legislation and that this would also incentivise the introduction and participation in food waste collections. Related to this a respondent stated that legislation should encourage compostable packaging. A Business Association felt that consumers should still have access to free bags and that paper bags should be exempted from legislation.
8.17 Other individual comments made by those in favour of legislation:
- Legislation should target unnecessary bag use rather than plastic bag use.
- Current definition of single use carrier bags is unclear.
- Legislation should cover all short term use packaging.
- There should be standardised recycling symbols for packaging.
Additional comments - single use bags
8.18 Additional comments were made in relation to single use bags outside of the set questions. Similar issues were raised as those already highlighted above. A summary of the material provided is presented the paragraphs below. Unless otherwise stated the comments represent the views of one respondent only.
8.19 Comments from those who expressed support for measures to ban single-use carrier bags:
- Single use carrier bags a visible symbol of "throw-away society".
- Single use carrier bags an unnecessary use of resource.
- Single use carrier bags a source of litter.
- Legislation will provide an incentive for long life reusable bags.
- Local businesses would like to stop giving bags away but fear impact on business.
- Main barrier is public attitude and taking away choice is the best way to change behaviour.
- Two respondents discussed the implications, both environmental and health and safety, of potential alternative replacements.
- One respondent presented considerable discussion on the merits of compostable bags.
8.20 One respondent welcomed voluntary agreements but felt a ban would be more effective and highlighted that there is significant community support for reduction in use of single-use plastic bags.
8.21 One respondent asked for clarification on aspects of the proposal e.g. how would the Government define success?
8.22 Several of the additional comments from respondents against legislation felt resources would be better placed elsewhere within the waste management arena e.g. infrastructure, education, recycling due to the low contribution single use bags make to total waste arisings. One Public Body felt that resource should be used to revise and complete the National Waste Strategy to assist business planning and investment. Most therefore felt it would be better to continue to support the voluntary approach, two acknowledging action in this area valuable due to the impact on litter and the value of promoting a waste prevention message. One felt that the focusing on a
"small 'green' measure" can also engender a sense of 'I've done my bit' and so can act as a brake on good practice" (Local Authority).
8.23 Two respondents presented information on the relative impact of different products. One response presented data on the impact of plastic bags compared to paper bags. Another noted that most paper bags issued in Scotland are manufactured in Scotland, whereas most plastic bags are imported.
8.24 Work on voluntary measures in relation to single-use carrier bags was highlighted by a few respondents. The Valpak scheme negotiated through the BRC which funds the development of WEEE collection facilities was also mentioned. Three respondents made reference to production and promotion of voluntary measures supported by a Code of Practice. One of these did feel that voluntary action is unlikely to get as big a reduction as levy, whilst another that the use of incentives was more effective than bans or levies. One Local Authority who felt legislation may be necessary at a later date commented that while voluntary initiatives are spreading there is only so much that is likely to be achieved by voluntary means.
8.25 Additional comments from those who were not in favour of legislation with regard to single use carrier bags:
- The view that some single-use carrier bags are already re-used was raised by two respondents, one adding that the bags are practicable and cost effective for consumer shopping.
- Key driver will be educating consumer.
- Mandatory charging likely to break European Law and at same time increase inflation for those that can least afford it.
- Plastic bags by-product at petrol refineries that would otherwise go to waste.
- May effect consumer behaviour but this may be to increase re-use of plastic bags or lead to displacement.
- Financial burden will probably be disproportionate to benefits.
8.26 Other individual comments made in relation to single use carrier bags were:
- One Business Association stated the need for behaviour change to achieve waste reduction and welcomed the use of education rather than penalties to reduce single use carrier bags. They would welcome a similar approach to the other proposals and stated that proposals targeted at business were unlikely to encourage the public to recycle.
- Suggestion for a dedicated fund introduced for those who wish to produce their own reusable bags.
Q7.3 Are there any other areas, not covered by this consultation, where legislation could be made to increase recycling and promote waste prevention?
8.27 This question was addressed by 30 respondents.
8.28 There were a broad range of suggestions put forward by respondents in answer to this question. A summary of these suggestions is given below, it should be noted that within the suggestions highlighted more than one suggestion was made by some respondents. The comments are not presented in any order of priority. It can be assumed that the views presented below have been expressed by an individual respondent, unless clearly stated otherwise.
8.29 Suggestions in relation to minimisation, re-use and repair were:
- Three respondents highlighted a need for more measures to promote minimisation and re-use of waste.
- Three respondents referred to using tax or levy on other disposable products e.g. nappies.
- Incentives for businesses that do not rely on disposable packaging and related to this legislation to encourage the use of refillable containers.
- Funding directed to designing out packaging and supporting the re-use of materials rather than the reliance on recycling.
- Encourage more reusable and returnable packaging for routine bulk deliveries of office supplies like paper and stationery.
- Reinforce packaging waste 'take-back' requirements on suppliers.
- Repair services VAT free.
- Strengthen the re-use and refurbish elements of the waste hierarchy within public sector contracts and within communities.
8.30 Suggestions in relation to recycling were:
- Five respondents considered that bans on certain recyclable materials to landfill should be considered.
- Ability to issue fixed penalties to those that do not recycle.
- Incentives to the public to only put bins out when full (saving council money).
- Make link between waste generation and the costs of waste disposal clear e.g. bin charging.
- Provide recycling facilities within stores for packaging materials.
- Phase-out of 'general waste' or 'litter' bins, so that every material is identified as being recyclable.
- Legislation to ensure Local Authorities use segregated collection systems or performance based quality management systems for single stream (co-mingled) collections. The respondent who made this suggestion felt it would rejection at reprocessing sites and increase recycling.
- Greater bicycle recycling.
8.31 Suggestions relating to potential amendment of regulations were:
- Remove exemption that allows wood to be burnt on construction sites.
- Amend planning regulations to ensure that business and retail developments contain shared recycling facilities such as collection containers, bulk storage and access for uplifts.
- Amend the definition of controlled waste regulations to reclassify waste from charities and caravans as commercial waste with exemptions limited to those who only employ volunteers. The respondent who made this suggestion felt this would facilitate waste prevention in these areas and allow Local Authorities to recover disposal/treatment costs.
- Review of waste definitions.
8.32 Suggestions relating to education were:
- More communication, guidance, engagement.
- Educational campaigns.
- Ensure recycling affordable for education establishments taking into account educational benefit.
8.33 Suggestions relating to facilities and technology were:
- Three respondents referred to the need for facilities and issues relating to regulation and that licensing permitting, planning and deliverability could be considered
- Legislative powers to enable more energy from waste.
- Support and increase the number of anaerobic plants.
- Legislation and funding to support technologies that convert waste into resources used in Scotland.
8.34 Suggestions in relation to packaging were:
- Measures to increase the use of biodegradable packaging (if shown to be better environmental option).
- Make businesses more responsible for disposal of branded packaging.
8.35 Suggestions in relation to environmental impact were:
- Two respondents highlighted the potential use of product labelling e.g. for resource use or durability. Three respondents suggested reduced VAT on products that have a high content of recyclate/ encourage products to have a built in 5 year warranty to encourage repair rather than planned obsolescence.
- Powers developed that could be used to require specified materials to be managed in ways that represent the BPEO (including carbon management benefits).
- Tax on high impact products.
- Development of legislation to require retailers to demonstrate that the safety and environmental benefits of the use of disposable goods outweigh the use of non-disposables.
8.36 Suggestions in relation to cost and penalties were:
- Greater use of penalties on business.
- Legally require Local Authorities to fully recover the costs associated with commercial waste and recyclate collections.
8.37 Other suggestions were:
- Food prevention and diversion measures.
- Greater role for non-departmental Public Bodies.
- Public sector to address their own construction and demolition waste taking lead from examples in Retail Sector.
Additional comments
8.38 Additional comments were made outside of the specific questions. Most of these related to the single-use bag issues as detailed above. However, a number of organisations made more general comments detailed below.
- Waste exchanges developed where community can access and re-use unwanted items (Third Sector).
- Recycling targets for business and the Retail Sector, consider compliance scheme similar to that set up for WEEE.
- Introduce statutory targets on reduction of packaging to make biggest step change.
- Base sustainable waste management systems on LCA and recognised standards.
- Give prominence to figures for re-use and incineration of waste and resources should be seen as unacceptable.
8.39 One Public Body highlighted what they see as the barriers to a low carbon, zero waste society summarised as planning permission, recycling infrastructure, limited markets, lack of confidence in recycled products, lack of policy, targets and data on non-municipal waste, and links to energy policy. They acknowledged that some of these areas were addressed by the consultation but that all should be addressed to realise Zero Waste ambitions. An Other Interested Body stated a belief that many other measures introduced should be considered at a UK level for consistency and ease and that the experience gained from the market based system operated in packaging and WEEE should be built upon.
8.40 Additional documentation and information was provided in support of responses as indicated below:
Summary of issues
8.41 The majority were against making legislation in relation to single use carrier bags. This included all of the Retail, Waste Management, most of the Local Authority and over half the Business Association responses to this question. The most common reason given was the view that voluntary measures appear to be working well. Other reasons given were that action would be disproportional to impact and that resources should be focused elsewhere. A small but significant proportion felt that legislation may be necessary at a later date if voluntary measures do not work. Those in favour felt legislation would be more effective than voluntary measures. All of the Individual Responses, Business: Individual and Third Sector responses and the majority of Other Interested Bodies responding were in favour.
8.42 Views were mixed as to whether the legislation should cover all single use carrier bags or only plastic bags. Although two respondents suggested a complete ban, more were in favour of a charge, tax or levy. Other common areas of discussion around the issues of single use carrier bags were illustrating how well current voluntary measures are working, highlighting that resources should be spent elsewhere and worries about unforeseen impacts such as displacement to other products.
8.43 There was a broad range of suggestions for other areas where legislation could be made. Suggestions by more than one respondent included bans on certain recyclable materials from landfill, tax or levy on other disposable products, measures to promote re-use and minimisation, reduced VAT on certain products and product labelling. Other individual suggestions largely related to: re-use and repair, recycling, amendment to regulations, education, facilities and technology, packaging, environmental impact and costs and penalties.