Future of the Scottish Landfill Communities Fund: consultation analysis

4. Analysis Part B - Future Considerations Within the Circular Economy and Waste Policy Context

Question 7: In your view, how should communities be supported to help deliver the Scottish Government’s Circular Economy and Waste objectives?

Number of responses :17

Responses to this question emphasised the importance of education and behaviour change, with calls for renewed public awareness campaigns to support circular economy goals. Sustained funding for community-led initiatives was widely supported, alongside investment in reuse and repair infrastructure. Respondents also highlighted the need for inclusive decision-making, simplified recycling systems, and tailored support for remote and island communities. Several responses stressed that empowering communities is essential to achieving national waste and climate objectives.

Investment in Education, Awareness, and Behaviour Change

A dominant theme, mentioned in seven responses, was the need for renewed public education and awareness campaigns to re-establish understanding of the waste hierarchy and promote responsible consumer behaviour. Respondents emphasised that without a well-informed public, community-led circular economy efforts would struggle to gain traction.

Support for Community-Led Projects

Six respondents stressed the importance of sustained and accessible funding for grassroots and third-sector organisations. This includes both financial support and physical infrastructure to enable reuse, repair, and recycling at the local level.

“It is vital that funding support exists to enable communities to continue this work, in particular to support the infrastructure needed to scale-up, as well as to support the direct delivery of services within communities.”

Circular Communities Scotland

There was also support for prioritising reuse and repair over recycling or disposal. Some respondents called for national and local targets, investment in reuse infrastructure, and incentive schemes such as repair vouchers and reuse credits.

Community Empowerment and Inclusion in Decision-Making

Three responses highlighted the need for the Scottish Government to better engage with communities, listen to their concerns, and embed their voices in policy development. This was seen as essential for building trust and ensuring that circular economy strategies reflect local needs.

“Only by directly involving communities can the Scottish Government create a plan for a circular economy which truly meets people’s needs.”

Friends of the Earth Scotland

Simplification and Standardisation of Recycling Systems

Respondents noted that inconsistent recycling systems across local authorities hinder public participation. A more uniform approach was recommended to enable clearer communication and more effective national campaigns.

“There needs to be simplification introduced to the household-recycling process. At present there is no homogeneity with each council having their own system.”

Sustainability Connects

Targeted Support for Remote and Island Communities

One response highlighted the unique challenges faced by remote and island communities, particularly in managing marine litter and accessing recycling infrastructure. Tailored funding and logistical support were recommended.

“Island and remote communities face significant logistical and financial challenges in participating fully in waste management and circular economy activities.”

Scottish Islands Federation – Marine Litter Working Group

Other Themes

A few responses did not align with the main themes but offered additional insights. These included suggestions for bottle return schemes, concerns about the cost of using recycled materials in community projects and calls to maintain or evolve the SLCF rather than replace it.

Question 8: Do you have suggestions as to how communities living near to residual waste treatment (landfill sites etc.) should be supported?

Number of responses: 16

Responses to this question emphasised the need for continued funding and recognition for communities near residual waste treatment sites. Many respondents stressed that ending mechanisms like the SLCF could deepen environmental inequality, particularly in rural and disadvantaged areas. There were strong calls for compensation for loss of amenity, expanded support to include incinerators and EfW plants, and the development of a national framework for community benefits. Improved community engagement and education were also highlighted as essential for empowering local participation in circular economy initiatives.

Continued and Evolved Funding Support for Affected Communities

Half of respondents (8) noted the importance of maintaining or adapting funding mechanisms such as the SLCF. Respondents expressed concern that discontinuing such support would increase environmental inequality and reduce the ability of communities to contribute meaningfully to circular economy goals.

“The SLCF was partly established in recognition of the dis-amenity experienced in the vicinity of landfill sites… Losing the SLCF poses a risk of environmental inequality for remote and disadvantaged communities.”

Scottish Islands Federation – Marine Litter Working Group

Recognition and Compensation for Loss of Amenity

Seven responses called for communities living near waste treatment sites to be recognised and compensated for the environmental and social impacts they experience. This includes direct financial support, investment in local infrastructure, and environmental restoration.

Some responses supported maintaining or refining proximity-based criteria for funding eligibility, ensuring that those most directly affected by waste infrastructure receive appropriate support.

“Communities living near residual waste treatment sites, including landfills and incinerators, should be fully supported and compensated for their loss of amenity.”

Friends of the Earth Scotland

Expansion of Support to include other Waste Facilities

Four responses advocated for broadening the scope of community support to include those affected by incinerators and EfW plants. Three suggestions included a national framework for community benefit and funding models based on facility capacity rather than proximity alone. There were also proposals for stricter regulation of land development near waste facilities.

Improved Community Engagement and Co-Production of Guidance

Three responses emphasised the need for meaningful engagement with communities, particularly during the planning stages of waste infrastructure projects. Building trust and transparency was seen as essential to securing community support and participation.

Education and Capacity Building for Circular Economy Participation

Two respondents highlighted the importance of education, skills development, and empowering local groups to engage in circular economy initiatives and environmental stewardship.