Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill

Yes, there is a need for a long term strategy on the future direction of waste and resource management in Scotland, one which offers greater certainty to stimulate much needed investment in the sector in the next generation of waste management services and infrastructure.

We suggest that the overall direction of travel should be clearly established in the first Strategy over a suitably long timeframe, and with the five year review cycles allowing for minor adjustments to the Strategy rather than wholesale change. The industry needs confidence and certainty to invest and major changes or re-writes on a five year cycle is not conducive to planning and delivering the infrastructure and services needed for the circular economy.

There should be much closer co-ordination between Scottish Government policy portfolios (and plans) to realise circular economy objectives, and closer alignment of relevant target dates contained within each.
We strongly recommend that the Scottish Government maintains and emends Extended Producer Responsibility into relevant plans, targets and circular economy thinking, as it is producers that have ultimate control over product design and materials. Those in the waste management sector are processing waste that is inconsistent, sometimes contaminated, not homogenous and hard to measure. However, while this continues to be done safely, sustainably and efficiently the circular economy strategy should nonetheless focus on measures and interventions further upstream to prevent waste being produced in the first place.

We suggest that the following areas in particular would benefit from closer alignment:
• use of green public procurement to support the use of recycled content. This would help stimulate demand for recycled material, and therefore help drive up recycling rates, improve resource productivity, and create a more circular economy.
• closer alignment of waste and energy policy should enable better integration of Energy from Waste (EfW) into district heating schemes. There is a need to consider EfW-CHP at a strategic level to avoid missed opportunities at the planning stage in utilising the heat off-take from EfW.
• the production of secondary materials of consistent quality (current contamination rates risk progress towards higher recycling targets) and development of sustainable markets for recovered secondary materials. These must be well-functioning and promoted in order to realise circular economy objectives and the reported cost savings to business.

We support proposals for statutory circular economy targets.

Scotland has a great opportunity to accelerate the move towards a more circular economy by bringing together people, businesses and ideas. The recently published waste targets route map consultation highlighted, among other things, the importance of collaboration, innovation, business support and access to finance. Harnessing these enablers to turn the theory of the circular economy into practice is essential.

Our industry has evolved from being traditional waste managers into providers of materials and energy for Scotland’s businesses and communities, and so we have a key role to play in the move towards a more circular economy. Our members’ expertise in managing resources efficiently, navigating rules and regulation related to waste and working closely with local authorities, businesses and reuse organisations gives them a unique position to advise and collaborate on many circular economy initiatives. Targets would play a key role in driving this transition to a more circular economy.

The principal purpose of a resource target (6(3)(a)(i)) is to reduce resource pressures on the environment by reducing the need for primary resource extraction. This means that waste prevention must be incentivised through the targets, as must the maximum recovery of recycled materials from waste sources. Recycling targets (6(3)(a)(iii) must therefore be accompanied by strong action on end markets for secondary materials. The plastics packaging tax introduced in 2022 is a good start, but we must go much further, both on plastics (by introducing an escalator on the recycled content threshold to encourage higher levels) and also by extending the principle of the tax to other materials.

Some aspects of the proposed circular economy targets could be more challenging to implement (and measure and enforce) than others. Recycling is a habitual behaviour for consumers, whereas the processes of reuse or waste prevention is not a well-established behaviour. This change of consumer behaviour will be a significant barrier to uptake of reuse systems and new modes of consumption (such as shared ownership; leasing; repair; and maintenance services).

An increase in weight-based recycling targets is relatively straight-forward but introducing, monitoring and enforcing against reuse targets would be more challenging, as there is currently no readily available means to monitor the type, volume and impact of reuse or consumption reduction activities.
The existing kerbside collection system is not always conducive to capturing material for re-use. Alternatives, such as extended separate collection (of key waste streams) or extended bulky uplifts should be considered along with investment and upgrades of Scotland's network of Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC). Properly designed and managed HWRCs have the potential to capture more materials for reuse.

Yes.

SESA agrees that rather than sending unsold, durable goods to landfill or EfW retailers should be required to donate, reuse or recycle these items.

The introduction of charges for single-use items requires careful consideration as such measures might help to reduce the number of target items/products on the market but will not always help solve the recyclability or improve the recycling rate of the item(s).

Taking the example of single use coffee cups, our Members have been involved in various schemes to help promote the recycling of this material stream, but none of which has had a significant impact on recycling. Uptake in office recycling schemes have been low, while attempts to collect cups in public spaces often results in high levels of contamination and requires expensive sorting. Similar experiences appear replicated in the various take-back schemes launched by retail outlets.

In light of our comments above, an outright ban on single use coffee cups would likely be more effective than a charge. However, we understand that this scenario is unlikely, in which case we would support an EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) scheme for this waste stream. An EPR scheme could drive production of cups of a singular material through modulated fees, which would improve recycling streams and increase their recycling rate. A mandatory take-back scheme should also be introduced as the current voluntary schemes have not been effective. This scheme would have to take into consideration that single-use cups are often purchased on-the-go and collection points need to be available at a multitude of locations such as coffee shops of all brands and public and private buildings such as train stations and office buildings.

Any new powers need to be informed by a robust evidence base to firmly demonstrate the impact of any intervention. Taking the example of single use coffee cups, while we understand that single use disposal cups are a highly visible and commonly littered waste stream they nonetheless generate around 4000 tonnes of waste a year, just 0.036% of Scotland’s total waste arisings. We would therefore suggest that there are other, more pressing parts of the waste management system in greater need of the Scottish Government’s resources, involving much larger volumes of material with greater potential for carbon impact savings.

We agree that there is scope to review householder’s obligations under duty of care. Existing household waste collections services are capable of delivering much higher rates of recycling and lower contamination if more households participated and used it properly.

The proposed fixed penalty regime for household duty of care requirements would be a logical extension of existing powers for littering offences and bring Scotland into line with powers already in force across the rest of the UK.

We note, particularly since the pandemic, an increase in companies offering household waste services, many of which appear to (unsuspecting) households to be an entirely legitimate service. However, it should not be assumed that using a registered carrier will necessarily provide any guarantee that waste will be managed correctly/legally, as the current requirements for becoming a registered waste carrier, broker or dealer are, quite simply, too lax. In many instances the collected waste is simply illegally flytipped.

The current system for carriers, brokers, dealers (CBD) is in need of urgent reform to increase the requirements and standards for becoming a CBD. This will enable greater confidence in the credibility of the CBD regime and will reduce opportunities for waste criminals to exploit the current weaknesses in the system. Reforms should require CBDs to demonstrate competence, and that they understand their responsibilities and the role they need to play in securing legal compliance and preventing waste crime. Without reform of this fundamental part of the waste management supply chain, all other attempts to tackle flytipping will likely prove futile.

We agree that local authorities should be required to collect a core set of materials and that greater consistency of collections is necessary to increasing recycling rates while reducing contamination.
However, before placing the Code of Practice on a statutory footing the Scottish Government should firstly seek to understand why two thirds of Scotland’s local authorities have not fully implemented the current (voluntary) Charter for household recycling and address any such barriers before placing the Code (and/or Charter) on a statutory footing.

Furthermore, before making such mandatory we would strongly urge closer consultation with SESA on the collection methods likely to be mandated by the Code of Practice (there was minimal industry engagement in preparing the current Charter and Code). This engagement would help inform decisions on what is commercially viable; the material specification of markets and reprocessors; and help avoid any unintended consequences further down the material supply chain. This is particularly important for any new materials that the Scottish Government is minded to mandate for household collections. The mandated collection of plastic films, for example, is only viable with the presence of reliable end markets and investment in necessary collection and processing infrastructure.

We agree that greater consistency of collection is a necessary shift to help end confusion amongst residents so that no matter whether you are at home or at work you know what can and cannot be recycled. However, the Code of Conduct is only one part of the overall framework and this must be coupled with greater consistency of labelling because if consumers are unsure what materials can and cannot be recycled there is a risk that items will be placed in the wrong bin and either lost to the residual bin if it can be recycled, or contaminate the recycling bin if non-recyclable. Additionally, there needs to be greater consistency in the types of packaging placed on the market.

Yes, we strongly support this measure and agree that Scotland should follow the example in Wales and place statutory minimum recycling targets on local authorities. We believe that this approach has proved instrumental in the impressive recycling gains achieved in Wales, and with its current recycling rate having exceeded its statutory target (64%).

To help achieve local authority targets, these must be accompanied by additional measures which allow for the production of recycled materials of consistent quality. Current contamination rates risk progress towards higher recycling targets and the development of sustainable markets for these recovered secondary materials.

A framework for investment in new recycling and waste treatment capacity (including upgrading of existing capacity) is needed to adapt to new waste streams and a changing waste composition (e.g. following implementation of EPR and Deposit Return). In a similar vein, the Scottish Government should aim to increase domestic waste treatment capacity: the majority of packaging waste collected for recycling is exported due to a lack of domestic recycling capacity, and with associated circular economy benefits realised elsewhere.

Yes, we support the proposed new penalty for littering from vehicles.

Yes, we agree enforcement authorities should be given powers to seize vehicles linked to waste crime.

Becoming a zero-avoidable-waste society by 2045 requires Scotland to move from a linear “take, make, use and throw” society towards an economy that maximises the value of our resources by wasting less, and reusing, recycling, and repairing more. The provisions in the Bill are predominately focused on interventions at the top end of the waste hierarchy (ie prevention, reuse and recycling). This is of course laudable: achieving a circular economy goes hand in hand with a net zero economy, and reducing the amount of waste generated in the first place is the single greatest means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with recycling and waste management.

Producers should design waste out of the system and make things as simple as possible for consumers to do the right thing. Where this is not possible, it is essential that we recycle as much as possible to reduce our burden on the natural environment. Consistent collections therefore hold the potential to deliver a step change in our recycling rate. This will ensure that, no matter where in the country you are, every household and business can put the same materials in their recycling bin. This must be supported by clear binary labelling showing what can and cannot be recycled, which will help drive up recycling rates by tackling confusion and reducing contamination.

Delivery of wider collection and packaging reforms without further delay will make a significant contribution to the Scottish Government’s net zero targets.

However, waste prevention policies forms just one part of the overall package of measures needed for delivery of net zero, and Scotland needs equal attention and resources to the delivery of other parts of the equation, namely decarbonisation of residual waste and transitioning to zero emission fuels.

It is difficult to ascertain the likely impact of a set of broad enabling powers, with the detail only available upon development of relevant secondary legislation

The Scottish Government has listened to the industry’s concerns and has wisely dropped plans for commercial waste zoning from the Bill. Far from improving recycling services and reducing costs zoning would have led to worse service provision, reduced choice and higher costs for most waste producers. Properly implemented, Scotland’s existing policy and regulations, coupled with the Bill's proposals, are more than capable of delivering the intended environmental benefits of mandatory zoning.

The waste policy landscape and the interaction between key component parts (eg DRS, EPR and the carbon agenda) has become increasingly disjointed and opaque (particularly the interface between reserved and devolved matters) and Scotland would therefore urgently benefit from a clear strategy and implementation timetable.