1 World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey and Company (2016) The new plastics economy – Rethinking the future of plastics. Available from: www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications.
2 Scottish Government (2017) A Nation with Ambition (https://beta.gov.scot/publications/nation-ambition-governments-programme-scotland-2017-18/
3 UK Government press release, March 2018. www.gov.uk/government/news/deposit-return-scheme-in-fight-against-plastic
4 A Deposit Return Scheme for Scotland, https://consult.gov.scot/environment-forestry/deposit-return-scheme/user_uploads/00537484.pdf
5 There were minor differences between the online questionnaire, the questions included in the consultation paper, and the questions included in the downloadable consultation response form. For the purpose of this analysis we have adhered to the numbering and formatting of the online questionnaire.
6 This question was asked in ‘multicode’ format (i.e. respondents were allowed to select as many options as they wished from a list of options) and the options offered were overlapping. A new derived variable allocated each respondent to one of six mutually exclusive possibilities as set out in Table 4.1.
7 The analysis of responses to Question 2b is not presented since many respondents who selected ALL materials (see Table 4.4 above) then went on to also select some materials for later inclusion. In addition, respondents often selected complex combinations of materials for later inclusion, and as respondents were not asked to explain their choices, it is not possible to draw any conclusions about the selections made.
8 Respondents also discussed reasons for excluding certain materials in their responses to Question 1. These comments have been integrated into the analysis here.
9 The table for this question is too extensive to be included. The main points have been extracted for the narrative.
10 Indeed, it was not always clear in the comments whether respondents were using these terms in precisely the same way.
11 ‘Gate fees’ are paid when waste is submitted (e.g. at a waste processing centre). The fee payable is dependent on the quality of the waste submitted. Poorer quality waste attracts a higher gate fee (per tonne).
12 Respondents cited EU Directive 94/62/EC, Article 7, and paragraph 3.3.2(c) of the European Commission’s guidance (2009/C107/01).
13 Note that it was relatively common among those who had expressed opposition to an on the go drinks scheme to answer ‘yes’ to this second question, thus indicating that they agreed with the definition in the consultation paper.
14 However, note that some respondents indicated in their comments that it would be difficult to take an item back to the exact place / retail outlet where it was purchased. This was a misunderstanding of the arrangements for the DRS.
16 This is consistent with the finding reported in relation to Question 7 where respondents were fairly evenly divided in whether they thought the container or the product should be the key consideration in determining the scope of the DRS.
22 The prepared postcards included a space for respondents to suggest a specific deposit amount, allowing people to make a personalised response to Question 25.
23 Further explanation of the NPV modelling carried out is included in the outline business case published alongside the consultation. See https://consult.gov.scot/environment-forestry/deposit-return-scheme/supporting_documents/DRS%20%20Outline%20Business%20Case.pdf.
24 ‘Reward4Waste’ is a new approach which is developing blockchain technology to deliver a DRS for England and Wales. https://www.cryptocyle.co.uk
25 Deposit return scheme in fight against plastic. See https://www.gov.uk/government/news/deposit-return-scheme-in-fight-against-plastic, published 28 March 2018 by UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Email: Tim Chant DRSinScotland@gov.scot