In this study, CPRE looks at how littering has changed during the pandemic and its impact on the environment. We make recommendations about how the government can help to reduce future littering and fly tipping, including through the timely introduction of both a Deposit Return Scheme and an Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme.
Essex case study Although our research spanned the country, we looked in greatest depth at Essex, with 10 of the county’s 14 local authorities providing information about their experience of littering in 2020. Lockdown saw a big increase in demand on Essex’s waste and recycling services, with 90% of those councils that responded reporting changes in where rubbish bins were most heavily used and all rural councils observing increased usage. Four in five councils redeployed staff away from town centres to parks and open spaces. A litter survey of over 140 sites across Essex in September and October 2020 showed the most common types of litter were smoking materials (99% of all sites), packaging of all kinds (90%), drinks containers (67%) and PPE (38%). This composition was broadly the same as in previous surveys with the notable addition of PPE. It also demonstrated that people were more likely to drop litter in those areas that were less cared for and already had significant amounts of litter. In other words, ‘litter breeds litter’.
A simple solution to drinks container litter Litter left in our countryside, streets, parks and rivers isn’t just an eyesore – it can be extremely harmful to wildlife and nature, and it costs taxpayers millions of pounds in clean-up costs every year. Broken glass bottles and shredded cans are a huge threat to vehicle tyres, people and animals, while plastic bottles generally take hundreds of years to decompose – if at all – and we still don’t really understand the effects of microplastics. That is why CPRE feels so strongly about preventing and reducing litter – and it is something we have been campaigning on for a well over a decade. A key solution CPRE is campaigning for is a Deposit Return Scheme (DRS). A DRS is a simple way of incentivising the recycling of drinks containers in order to stop them from ending up as litter. We had a big win in 2018 when the government announced it would look into introducing such a scheme. It looks like the scheme will be going ahead in some form, although timings are slipping, as legislation for the scheme is going into the Environment Bill. A DRS works by a small deposit – something like 20p – being added on to the price of all drinks containers, from your wine bottle to fizzy drinks can. This is then paid back upon returning the container to a designated machine or shop. Deposit systems are in place all over the world and are a key way to prevent waste, littering and increase the use of recycled content in packaging. However, as always, the devil is in the detail. We are still awaiting the scope of the system and with producers of drinks containers (those that make and profit from the sale of single-use drinks containers) continuing to lobby government for a limited system that leaves out certain types of materials or sizes, there’s a risk private profits will be put before people and our planet. We are calling for an all-in DRS which includes all sizes and materials of drinks containers. This system would not only see the biggest reductions in litter and CO2 but also create over £2 billion for the economy. An all-in scheme is clearly vital – let’s hope the government remains committed to introducing it in a timely fashion by 2023.
Following the polluter pays principle The way that waste is disposed of, and how that is funded, needs a major review. CPRE welcomed the government’s efforts in this area with the announcement in 2018 that they plan to apply a principle of ‘Extended Producer Responsibility’ (EPR) to how resources are used and in waste disposal. At present, cash- strapped councils foot the bill for around 90% of the costs of dealing with waste and recycling – that includes the costs of bin and recycling collection, litter picking and the processing of materials. Meanwhile, excessive use of materials, and single-use plastics in particular, has soared with no consequences for the producers of these items and all the impact being felt by councils and the environment. It is time the polluting producers pays the full costs associated with the products they place on the market. EPR should be designed encourage more sustainable, lower-impact design of packaging while raising money to cover the costs associated with dealing with packaging waste. We, along with other environmental organisations, want to see a future proof EPR system that can tackle the dual crises of plastic pollution and the climate emergency. At minimum, the EPR system must: Address the root cause of the problem: the EPR scheme must be designed to encourage a wholescale move away from non-essential packaging, with a shift into reusable and refillable alternatives. Make sure ‘full costs’ mean full costs: packaging doesn’t just become a problem at the point of disposal. From sourcing through to consumption, there are social and environmental costs all along its life cycle. Producers must be made to consider these under EPR requirements to properly satisfy the ‘polluter pays principle’. Set producer fees to ensure sustainable design: non-recyclable, excessive and toxic packaging must be phased out through the ‘approved list’ for packaging design, with a fee system designed to encourage reusable and sustainable design choices. An EPR that follows these principles will enable a drastic reduction in waste and a lasting reduction in litter.
Recommendations In particular, we recommend that the government:
Commits to a comprehensive Deposit Return Scheme, involving glass, plastics and metal drinks containers of all sizes, by the end of 2023, to reduce littering of these items.
Introduces a full Extended Producer Responsibility scheme by the end of 2023, to ensure producers bear the cost of cleaning up when their items are littered. Uses a combination of taxes and charges to incentivise a reduction in single use items and packaging right across the supply chain.
Promotes the benefits of re-usable masks wherever possible, emphasising their safety, and encourages people to dispose of any single-use masks responsibly when these are used.
Supports the promotion of the Countryside Code, with its clear anti-littering guidance, through online advertising and engagement with schools.
Provides renewed commitment to the aims of the government’s 2017 Litter Strategy for different local groups, local authorities, Highways England and businesses to reduce litter through cooperation and collaboration.
Full reports:
Comments