A Clean SweepRethinking the way we tackle litter

March 2015

A CLEAN SWEEP i

Contents

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Levy on Cigarettes .......................................................................................... 2

3.0 Levy on Chewing Gum .................................................................................... 6

4.0 Charge on Single-use Cups .............................................................................. 8

5.0 Deposit Refund Schemes ................................................................................ 9

6.0 Making Better Use of Councils’ Powers .......................................................... 12

7.0 Water Fountains ............................................................................................ 14

8.0 Charge on All Single-use Carrier Bags ............................................................. 16

Cover photo: Ross (CC BY-SA 2.0), via Wikimedia Commons

A CLEAN SWEEP 1

1.0 Introduction

Litter is one of the most significant factors affecting residents’ perceptions of local environmental quality.1

Economists often use the concept of “willingness to pay” as a measure of how much people value a service, but in the case of litter we know that, willingly or otherwise, English local authorities spend somewhere in the region of £800m per annum on street cleansing, including emptying bins and picking up littered items.2

However, with their budgets under exceptional pressure, some councils may well find that street cleansing is an area where the axe has to fall. Spending less on dealing with litter would be a bad thing if it meant that our litter problems got worse, but the way we are currently paying for clean streets is neither cost-effective nor fair. It places a burden on authorities – and therefore on Council Tax payers – to tackle the problem, and leaves councils carrying the can if standards slip.

In many aspects of life, prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure, and a reliable way to bring about prevention is to shift the burden of financial responsibility towards those responsible for creating the problem, as they are the ones best placed to prevent it. The idea that more could be done to prevent litter has been put forward before. In 2010, for example, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Select Committee recommended that the Government should:3

Evaluate the practicalities of applying a small “clean up” levy to products, including smoking materials, drinks and confectionary including chewing gum which, together with their packaging, contribute the largest volumes of litter. Revenues could be distributed to local authorities to help clean up their neighbourhoods.

However, the idea didn’t make headway. The Government responded that it had no plans to introduce such a levy, arguing that:4

1 Mark Wardman, Abigail Bristow, Jeremy Shires, Phani Chintakayala and John Nellthorp (2013) Estimating

the Value of a Range of Local Environmental Impacts, Report for Dept. for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 1 April 2011 2 House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee (2015) Litter and fly-tipping in

England, Seventh Report of Session 2014-15, available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmcomloc/607/60702.html (accessed 14th March 2015) 3 House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (2010) Waste Strategy for England

2007, Third Report of Session 2009-10, 6 January 2010. 4 House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (2010) Waste Strategy for England

2007, Government Response to the Committee’s Third Report of Session 2009-10, 24 March 2010.

2 17/03/2015

Placing a “clean up” levy on products would tax equally those that dispose of their waste responsibly and those that litter.

The recent Communities and Local Government (CLG) Committee inquiry into litter and fly-tipping in England also considered measures to redistribute the costs of litter, but while it called for producers and retailers to do more, it stopped short of recommending any new fiscal measures.

The issue for the Government appears to be that a clean-up levy would be unfair. However, it would seem considerably fairer than the current situation in which everyone has to contribute to the clean-up costs. For example, there are now only around 10 million cigarette smokers in the UK – roughly one fifth of the total adult population. 5 So, 80% of Council Tax payers are funding the clean-up of smoking-related litter to which they couldn’t possibly have contributed.

Of course, there are a lot of costs that we rightly socialise – people who don’t have children help pay for schools, and those with private health insurance still support the NHS. However, littering is different. Street cleaning isn’t about providing a public good, but about tackling an entirely preventable public nuisance that some of us create, but all of us are forced to endure.

This short document takes a fresh look at litter, and outlines a number of steps towards bringing about prevention in a way that is cost-effective and fair. In contrast with the recent CLG Committee report, its aim is a shift towards a situation where the polluter actually pays, and is thus motivated to take a lead in reducing the problem at source, and on measures that both prevent waste and prevent litter.

Each step is intended to change how we think about litter, primarily by way of financial incentives, bringing about improved environmental outcomes at a lower overall cost. Some could be implemented by local councils under current powers, but the majority would require new national legislation. While the immediate financial beneficiaries would in many cases be local authorities, the wider benefits of a reduction in littering would be shared across society, by all those who would rather see our town centres and open spaces free from the bags, butts, burger boxes and bottles that blight them.

2.0 Levy on Cigarettes

Researchers investigating the quantity and composition of litter have found that the most prevalent type in terms of the number of items counted is cigarette litter.6 The majority of those who smoke are thought to litter their cigarette butts: a review of the available literature shows that littering rates are higher for cigarette butts and other

5 ASH (2014) Smoking Statistics, Action on Smoking and Health, April 2014

6 INCPEN (2014) Litter Composition Survey of England

A CLEAN SWEEP 3

smoking-related litter than for other commonly littered items.7 The removal of cigarette butts also presents a number of difficulties, making them very expensive to clear up.

In theory, the most attractive way to prevent cigarette litter would be to implement a deposit-refund system. A deposit, perhaps 5p, would be paid on each cigarette purchased, and a refund given for every cigarette butt returned to a collection facility. This would give a financial incentive to smokers to retain rather than discard each butt. However, there are a number of immediately apparent problems with this approach, not least of which is how to measure returned butts, and hence provide the refund, in a cost-effective way.

Photo: 4028mdk09 (CC-BY-SA-3.0), via Wikimedia Commons

The idea of a litter levy on cigarettes was proposed by the EFRA Select Committee and to some degree revived in the recent CLG Committee report, which states that:

Tobacco attracts significant levies because of its lethal effects on health. Given the amount of cigarette-related litter, we strongly support the premise that a

7 Brook Lyndhurst (2013) Rapid Evidence Review of Littering Behaviour and Anti-Litter Policies, Report for

Zero Waste Scotland

4 17/03/2015

portion of these levies should be hypothecated and provided to local councils to pay for the cost of clearing cigarette-related litter.

However, this is not a call for an additional levy, simply the ‘ring-fencing’ of a proportion of existing tobacco duties to be directed towards litter clean-up. Such a reallocation of Government expenditure will necessitate a corresponding reduction in funding for other areas and will do nothing to rebalance incentives. As the headline-grabbing measure from the enquiry, this is a little disappointing.

Box 2.1: Cigarette Levy

A levy along the lines proposed by the EFRA Select Committee could be implemented quite readily. The rate of the levy could be set at somewhere between the cost of clear-up and the wider costs associated with cigarette litter, such as the visual disamenity and the impacts of the filters – made from cellulose acetate plastic – on the terrestrial and

In terms of simple cost recovery, smoking-related litter accounts for 35% of all litter (by number of items).(i) Given a total street cleansing bill of approximately £0.8bn per annum in England, of which it is likely that about half relates directly to littered items, a crude analysis might suggest an annual cost of £140 million relating to cigarettes – equivalent to circa 0.5p per cigarette sold (based on sales of 35.4 billion cigarettes in the UK as a whole in 2013/14).(ii) In terms of wider disamenity impacts, a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) published by Defra in 2007 applied what the authors felt to be a number of very conservative assumptions, including: (iii)

• The disamenity cost imposed per viewing is 2p; and

• The site is viewed 30 times per day.

The authors state that:

A valuation of 2p is unlikely to be an overestimate as research shows that clean streets are regarded as being in the top 5 most important issues to people’s quality of life. There is also a growing body of evidence that well-maintained environments free from litter and refuse can increase inward investment and attract workers and new residents to an area.

Notes

(i) INCPEN (2014) Litter Composition Survey of England

(ii) HM Revenue and Customs Tobacco Bulletin June 2014

(iii) DEFRA (2007) Final Regulatory Impact Assessment on Extension of Street Litter Control Notices, 1 June 2007

A CLEAN SWEEP 5

marine environments.8 Based on a ‘back of the fag packet’ calculation, the levy should be somewhere between 0.5p and 2p per cigarette, and possibly higher.

A levy of 1p per cigarette would raise close to £300 million per annum in England, which could then be distributed to local authorities to support litter removal. There may be some merit in allocating some of the money raised – perhaps 10% – to fund research into the effectiveness of community level interventions to tackle other forms of litter, such as the establishment of networks of public drinking water fountains discussed in Section 7.0.

However, while a levy would shift the financial burden towards those responsible for generating the litter, its only preventative effect might be to reduce sales. Unlike the deposit refund scheme, once smokers had paid the levy there would be no additional incentive for them not to litter.

This could be addressed by providing something of a long-term ‘community’ incentive. The rate at which the levy is set could be reduced (or perhaps planned increases in the levy, beyond adjustments for inflation, deferred) in future years if there were a resulting decline in the prevalence of cigarette-related litter. This would require enhanced monitoring to establish the littering rate as a proportion of sales, funded by tobacco companies but independently verified.9 Tobacco companies would thus have a motivation to use their marketing skills to develop innovative ways to reduce littering of their products, rather than the burden of such efforts falling, as they currently do, upon publicly funded and charitable bodies.

A possible beneficial side effect of the levy would be that adding to the cost of the habit might further reduce smoking. Aside from its obvious health and social benefits, this could also be significant in helping reduce litter still further.10 Evidence suggests that smokers also litter non smoking-related items at a higher rate than the rest of the population, and have more relaxed attitudes towards littering behaviour in general. For example, research in Belfast found some of the highest levels of general littering (60%) among smokers.11 Similarly, US research among young people found that smokers also have a higher likelihood than non-smokers of littering items other than cigarette butts.12

8 Marine Conservation Society Statement (Undated) Cigarette Litter on Beaches – Marine Conservation

Society Statement, available at: http://www.mcsuk.org/downloads/pollution/no%20butts%20on%20the%20beach.pdf 9 While this may raise concerns about commercial confidence in respect of sales data, there would be no

need for the public, or indeed other firms, to know the rate at which the levy has been applied to individual firms. 10

Action on Smoking and Health has estimated that the total cost to smoking in England is £12.9 billion per annum – see Action on Smoking and Health (2014) The Economics of Tobacco, November 2014, www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_121.pdf 11

Belfast City Council (2008) Analysis of People’s Stated Littering Behaviour – Stage 5. Prepared by Ipsos MORI 12

Keep Los Angeles Beautiful (2009) Littering and the iGeneration: City-Wide Intercept Study of Youth Litter Behavior in Los Angeles. Prepared by S. Groner Associates in collaboration with Action Research

6 17/03/2015

Recommendation 1: To reduce the proportion of the cost of cleaning up cigarette butts borne by those who couldn’t possibly be responsible (i.e. the 80% of adults who don’t smoke), a levy (initially of 1p per cigarette, but changing in response to changes in littering behaviour) should be introduced, with the proceeds distributed to local authorities.

3.0 Levy on Chewing Gum

The clean-up costs associated with chewing gum litter are thought to be somewhere between £56 and £60 million per annum.13, 14 Annual sales are understood to be approximately £300 million, and with a typical pack of chewing gum costing about 40p, that means somewhere in the region of 750 million packets sold per year.15 This equates to a clean-up cost of approximately 8p per packet sold.

A similar approach to that suggested for cigarette litter could be taken to address the challenge of dealing with littered chewing gum, with a levy set at the level needed to recover the costs of clearing up the mess. Again, the money raised from a levy should be distributed to the local authorities that bear the clean-up costs, with the potential for some to be allocated to testing innovative community-level approaches to litter prevention.

However, a more cost-effective approach would be to incentivise prevention, and the levy could therefore be set, in the same way as proposed for cigarettes, so as to fall if the incidence or impact of littering is reduced.

The levy could be set annually, according to the rate of littering of chewing gum (relative to sales) from the previous year, again providing an incentive to litterers and manufacturers. The widely used butadiene-based synthetic chewing gum is also notoriously difficult to remove and slow to degrade once stuck to a paving stone, and the levy could be used to incentivise manufacturers to switch to less problematic alternative gums.

13

Local Government Association (2014) Chewing Gum Manufacturers Urged by Councils to Pay for Clear-up of Gum-Spattered Streets, Date Published: 22

nd November 2014, Date Accessed: 10

th December 2014,

available at: http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/media-releases/-/journal_content/56/10180/6745145/NEWS and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4286363.stm 14

House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee (2015) Litter and fly-tipping in England, Seventh Report of Session 2014-15, available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmcomloc/607/60702.html (accessed 14th March 2015) 15

Sweet Retailing (2012) UK Confectionery Market Update, Date Published: 3rd

July 2012, Date Accessed: 10

th December 2014, available at:

http://www.sweetretailing.co.uk/index.php/confectionery_advice/view/uk_confectionery_market_update_mintel_2012

A CLEAN SWEEP 7

Photo courtesy of City of Edinburgh Council

A levy could therefore give manufacturers a clear financial incentive to undertake actions either to prevent littering or reduce its impact, in return for either a general or a product-specific reduction in its level (after adjustments for inflation) in subsequent years.

Recommendation 2: To reduce the proportion of the very high cost of cleaning up chewing gum borne by those who couldn’t possibly be responsible (i.e. people who don’t chew gum), a levy (initially of 8p per packet, but changing in response to changes in product composition and littering behaviour) should be introduced, with the proceeds distributed to local authorities.

8 17/03/2015

4.0 Charge on Single-use Cups

It is estimated that 2.5 billion takeaway cups are used and discarded each year in the UK, along with single-use plastic lids and drinking straws.16 Being relatively large and lightweight items, they are more readily dispersed (by wind or rain, for example) than cigarettes or chewing gum. They are also much more visible, and are likely, therefore to contribute disproportionately (relative to their prevalence in terms of the number of littered items) to the visual disamenity associated with litter. Whilst single-use cups are predominantly composed of cardboard, they also have a plastic lining, meaning that along with the plastic caps and straws, they can ultimately contribute to the less visible problem of plastics in the marine environment.17

Photo: Chris Sherrington.

16

CIWM (2014) “World’s First” Fully Recyclable Paper Cup Developed, Date Published: 27th

June 2014, Date Accessed: 10

th December 2014, available at http://www.ciwm-journal.co.uk/archives/8442

17 United Nations Environment Programme (2009) Marine Litter: A Global Challenge, 2009

A CLEAN SWEEP 9

Even when correctly discarded, takeaway cups pose problems. For their weight, they take up a lot of space in a bin; as bins fill up, this can lead indirectly to other items being littered. Where bins are full or overflowing, further items will often be placed on top of or adjacent to the bin, where they are far more likely to be scattered by the elements.

A financial incentive for consumers to opt for reusable over single use cups would encourage both litter prevention and waste prevention, thereby targeting the top rung of the waste hierarchy – which all waste producers are already legally required to take into account.18 Reusable alternatives are now widely available, and some outlets already offer discounts for those who bring a reusable mug – 25p in the case of Starbucks.19 Whilst this is an encouraging trend, such voluntary action doesn’t appear to be leading to a notable shift in habits.20 The most effective way to incentivise a switch to reusable mugs, thereby bringing about significant prevention of waste and litter, would be an obligatory charge on single-use cups.

Such a charge would differ from a levy on chewing gum or cigarettes in that it would aim to dramatically reduce the use of the items, rather than simply support the funding of their clean up and incentivise their correct disposal. It would not, therefore, be set at a level that reflects the costs of cleaning up such litter; instead, the focus would be on encouraging behaviour change. The charge would, in order to achieve this, need to be relatively high, perhaps in excess of 25p per item.

We already have experience of well-functioning incentives of a similar nature. It would have a good deal in common with the single-use carrier bag charges that have been implemented in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, with England due to follow suit in October. As with the bag charge, the money collected could either be retained by the (typically smaller) retailers, or in the case of larger companies, donated to charity.

Recommendation 3: To reduce the number of single-use cups we consume each year, a charge of 25p or more should be placed on these items, encouraging people to bring their own reusable mugs instead.

5.0 Deposit Refund Schemes

Beverage containers, such as bottles and cans, are another high volume and highly visible form of litter. As a result, like single use cups they potentially contribute disproportionately (relative to the number of items littered) to visual disamenity. In

18

HM Government (2011) The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, S.I. 2011/988 19

The Guardian (2013) Starbucks Introduces Reusable Cups, Date Published: 19th

April 2013, Date Accessed: 10

th December 2014. Available at:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/19/starbucks-coffee-resuable-cups 20

Starbucks (2014) Goals & Progress: Reusable Cups, Date Accessed: 10th

December 2014. Available at: http://www.starbucks.com/responsibility/global-report/environmental-stewardship/reusable-cups

10 17/03/2015

common with single-use cups, their high volume means that even if correctly discarded, their use could lead, indirectly, to littering of other items through causing litter bins to fill more rapidly than would otherwise be the case. In addition, beverage containers often find their way into the marine environment.21

Photo: Thomas Vergunst

21

In 2013 the European Commission published three studies looking into the composition and sources of marine litter in European seas. In a chapter integrating the results it was noted that ‘Plastics are the most abundant debris found in the marine environment and comprise more than half of marine litter in European Regional Seas. More than half of the plastic fraction is composed of plastic packaging waste with plastic bottles and bags being predominant types of plastic packaging [...]Therefore, measures within a strategy to close the largest loopholes in the plastic packaging cycle should target plastic bottles and plastic bags.’ Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/pdf/Integration%20of%20results%20from%20three%20Marine%20Litter%20Studies.pdf (accessed February 2015)

A CLEAN SWEEP 11

Although it is widely understood that cans can easily be recycled, only 57% of aluminium and 61% of steel cans made it back into the reprocessing system in 2013.22 The share of plastic bottles recycled has risen in the last few years, and recently stood at 58%,23 whilst glass bottle recycling stands at around 60%.24 It’s clear that there’s plenty of room for recycling rates to increase.

Research indicates that implementing deposit-refund schemes on bottles (whether plastic or glass) and cans (whether aluminium or steel) will increase recycling and a significantly reduce littering.25 The potential for deposit systems to be effective in reducing littering has an intuitively plausible rationale – if the deposit is sufficiently large, consumers will be more likely to keep hold of their bottles or cans if they have a value; and if they do decide to litter, someone else may pick up the container to redeem the deposit.

Research indicates that implementing deposit-refund schemes on bottles (whether plastic or glass) and cans (whether aluminium or steel) will increase recycling and a significantly reduce littering.26 The potential for deposit systems to be effective in reducing littering has an intuitively plausible rationale – if the deposit is sufficiently large, consumers will be more likely to keep hold of their bottles or cans if they have a value; and if they do decide to litter, someone else may pick up the container to redeem the deposit.

The expected reduction in disamenity impacts alone has been shown to heavily outweigh the costs, including administrative costs, of a deposit-refund scheme. That’s even before you take account of the downstream benefit of reduced impact on the marine environment, meaning that a deposit scheme would deliver a clear net benefit to society.

A deposit scheme would increase recycling over all, but might divert a certain amount of high value recycling out of the local authority collection system. This could have an impact on the economics of kerbside collections. However, what authorities lost on material incomes, they might well recover if they were also able to claim the deposits on

22

Can Facts Beverage Cans, accessed 15 January 2015, http://www.canfacts.org.uk/pages/pv.asp?p=canfacts8 23

Recoup Ltd (2013) 2013 UK Household Plastics Collection Survey, accessed 15 January 2015, http://www.recoup.org/news/7192/2013-uk-household-plastics-collection-survey 24

letsrecycle.com (2012) UK glass recycling rate remains below EU average, accessed 15 January 2015, http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/uk-glass-recycling-rate-remains-below-eu-average/ 25

Eunomia Research & Consulting (2010) Have We Got the Bottle? Implementing a Deposit Refund System in the UK, Report for Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), September 2010, http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/energy-and-waste/litter-and-fly-tipping/item/1918-have-we-got-the-bottle 26

Eunomia Research & Consulting (2010) Have We Got the Bottle? Implementing a Deposit Refund System in the UK, Report for Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), September 2010, http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/energy-and-waste/litter-and-fly-tipping/item/1918-have-we-got-the-bottle

12 17/03/2015

beverage containers they collected. They would also save money on dealing with littered beverage containers. Overall, a deposit scheme would be financially more efficient and fairer than the current system.

Recommendation 4: To reduce the number of bottles and cans that are littered, and to further encourage recycling, a deposit refund scheme should be introduced on beverage containers.

6.0 Making Better Use of Councils’ Powers

There are numerous powers already on the statute book that local government could use to help reduce litter. Naturally, councils will be hesitant about introducing measures that could be seen as draconian, but there are good examples of action that can be taken to cut down on litter without placing serious restrictions on people.

Local authorities license a number of activities that can give rise to litter, such as organised entertainment, the sale of alcohol, and the sale of late night food and drink (between 11.00pm and 5.00am).27 Guidance issued by Defra in October 2014 clearly stipulates that councils should consider how licensable activities may contribute to public nuisance, including litter. If there is good evidence that such activities could individually or cumulatively have a negative impact, councils can take measures to tackle it through their statement of licensing policy.

The full scope of these powers in respect of litter prevention has not yet been explored. Licensed premises could be required to provide reusable, rather than disposable, glasses, and to charge a deposit for their return, potentially significantly reducing litter in the surrounding area.

Local authorities also have powers to control how street traders operate.28 If a council designates a street as a ‘consent street’, or a ‘license street’, it can place specific conditions within the consents or licenses that street traders must obtain in order to operate. Oxford City Council made headlines when it announced plans to require all street traders selling takeaway food to make use of biodegradable, or recyclable, packaging, which was expected to rule out the use of expanded polystyrene trays.29, 30 Although the proposal was modified when the council accepted that polystyrene was in

27

Licensing Act 2003, Date Accessed: December 2014, Available at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/17/contents 28

HM Government (1982) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 29

Letsrecycle.com (2014) Oxford Plans Recyclable Take-away Packaging Rule, Date Published: 13th

June 2014, Date Accessed: 10

th December 2014, Available at: www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/oxford-

plans-recyclable-take-away-packaging-rule/ 30

Oxford City Council (2014) Agenda and Draft Minutes: General Purpose Licensing Committee, Tuesday 10

th June 2014, Date Accessed: 10

th December 2014, Available at:

http://mycouncil.oxford.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=3268

A CLEAN SWEEP 13

principle (if not often in practice) recyclable,31 Oxford provides an example of councils’ scope for acting; it might even be possible to apply rules similar to those the City envisaged to fast food traders that occupy permanent premises.

Photo: Grey Geezer (CC-BY-SA-3.0), via Wikimedia Commons

The use of recyclable, or reusable, cutlery and crockery at events – also licensed by councils – can greatly help to reduce litter. Glastonbury Festival already requires all food traders to use compostable packaging and crockery, or face eviction from the site.32 Councils could easily stipulate that other festivals and events take the same approach, an idea that has already been explored in Brussels.33

Of course, there may be resistance to widespread use of licence conditions, and simply setting them does not guarantee that they will be followed. It is also important that the conditions should actually add to the council’s powers, as the Local Government Association has pointed out; little purpose is served by issuing a licence that simply requires compliance with the established law.34

Councils also have powers to impose “reasonable requirements” on premises to reduce the amount of litter in their vicinity by issuing street litter control notices, “with a view to the prevention of accumulations of litter or refuse in and around any street or open

31

Holder, M. (2015) Oxford waters down recyclable take-away packaging rule, accessed 4 February 2015, http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/oxford-waters-recyclable-take-away-packaging-rule/ 32

Glastonbury Festival (2014) Our Green Policies, Date Accessed: 10th

December 2014, Available at: www.glastonburyfestivals.co.uk/information/green-glastonbury/our-green-policies/ 33

Eunomia Research & Consulting (2012) A Feasibility Study on a Legal Obligation Aimed at the Systematic Use of Reusable Containers for Drinks and Food Served at Events Held in Public Places in the Brussels-Capital Region, Report for Bruxelles Environnement, October 2012 34

Local Government Association (2014) Open for Business: Rewiring Licensing, January 2014, www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/publications/-/journal_content/56/10180/5884676/PUBLICATION

14 17/03/2015

land”.35 Although these enforcement actions can only be taken as a reaction to problems that have already arisen, there is scope for them to be used more widely.

Recommendation 5: Local authorities should explore the scope of their existing powers to licence and enforce against activities that give rise to litter where there are specific local areas of concern. As a minimum, it is recommended that measures that lead to both waste and litter prevention should be considered, including the use of reusable glasses by licensed premises and the use of reusable beverage containers, cutlery and crockery at public events.

7.0 Water Fountains

Intuitively, there would seem to be potential for a network of public drinking water fountains in urban areas to help reduce litter. When thirsty, people would be able to freely enjoy a drink of tap water, rather than having to buy bottled water or a soft drink. Evidence is currently in short supply, but it would appear that this could reduce the number of beverage containers consumed and, therefore, the number discarded. Water fountains would, as a result, lead to both waste prevention and litter prevention.

The reduction in litter would financially benefit those responsible for managing the local street scene. In order to fully internalise the waste and litter prevention incentives, the installation and maintenance of fountains might therefore best be included within councils’ street scene arrangements, meaning the financial benefits of reduced litter would be captured by the organisation in charge of ensuring adequate maintenance of the fountains. If councils perceived that the litter reduction benefits of increased use of the fountains would lead to a net financial saving, they would thus have an incentive to promote uptake, and even to invest in expanding the network.

35

Environmental Protection Act 1990, Date Accessed: 10th

December 2014, Available at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/93

A CLEAN SWEEP 15

Photo: Darwin Bell (CC-BY-2.0), via Wikimedia Commons

In addition, it seems reasonable to expect that a network of water fountains could reduce the likelihood of impulse purchases of drinks containing sugar, possibly helping to address issues such as tooth decay and diabetes.36 Given that local authorities now have public health responsibilities, such effects might further support the case for provision.

Recommendation 6: Local authorities should introduce networks of water fountains in urban areas to help cut the use of beverage containers, and deliver wider health benefits.

36

See http://www.diabetes.org.uk/About_us/News_Landing_Page/Study-shows-link-between-sugary-soft-drinks-and-risk-of-Type-2-diabetes/

16 17/03/2015

8.0 Charge on All Single-use Carrier Bags

In October 2015, England will fall (broadly) into line with other countries in the United Kingdom in that a charge will be placed on single-use plastic carrier bags. However, the English proposals differ in a number of ways: 37

Paper bags are excluded from the charge;

Businesses with fewer than 250 employees are exempt from charging for single-use plastic carrier bags; and

An exemption may be made for biodegradable bags (depending on the outcome of ongoing research).

Photo: Dominic Hogg

This means that the observed reductions in consumption seen in other parts of the UK are not likely to be replicated in England, and reductions in associated litter will also be smaller. In order to be most successful as a litter prevention (and waste prevention)

37

The Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) Order 2015. Date Accessed: 3rd

February 2015,available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2015/9780111127735/pdfs/ukdsi_9780111127735_en.pdf

A CLEAN SWEEP 17

measure, the scope should be broadened to include paper bags and biodegradable plastic bags.

Furthermore, the proposed exemption for small retailers should be removed. Government has stated that this exemption is included to:38

Reduce the administrative burden on both start-up and growing businesses at a time when we are supporting new growth in our economy.

However, small shops do not want the exemption, and the British Retail Consortium has stated that:

We believe that any charge in England should be clear, straightforward and consistent with the approaches taken in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The proposed charging regime will leave retailers with complex messages to communicate to shoppers as to why some shops and some non-reusable bags are exempt from the charge. 39, 40

This appears to be an open goal. Retailers want the charge to be applied to paper and biodegradable bags, and for SMEs to be included - an outcome that would lead to a reduction in litter and thus reduce the associated clean-up costs to local authorities.

Recommendation 7: The English Carrier Bag Charge, due to be implemented in October 2015, should be applied to all single-use carrier bags, including paper bags and biodegradable plastic bags. Small retailers should also be included in the scheme.

38

Defra (2015) Charging for Single Use Plastic Carrier Bags. Accessed February 3rd

2015, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-and-managing-waste/supporting-pages/charging-for-single-use-plastic-carrier-bags 39

Association of Convenience Stores (2014) Local Shops Welcome Audit Committee Recommendations on Carrier Bags, Press Release. Accessed 3

rd February 2015, available at http://www.acs.org.uk/press-

releases/local-shops-welcome-audit-committee-recommendations-carrier-bags/ 40

MRW (2014) British Retail Consortium Call for Plastics Recovery Note Reform. Accessed 3rd

February 2015, available at http://www.mrw.co.uk/news/retailers-call-for-plastics-prn-reform/8658091.article