National litter and flytipping strategy: consultation analysis

Analysis report of responses to our consultation on a new national litter and flytipping strategy.

3. Findings: Litter

3.1 Litter - behaviour change

3.1.1 Understanding litter perceptions and behaviours

The first consultation question asked:

Do you support the proposed action to conduct research to understand the full range of influences on littering behaviours (action 1.1)?

Of the 978 respondents, 969 (99%) responded to this question, as set out below.

Figure 5 Support to conduct research on littering behaviours

Over three quarters (78%) of all respondents agree that research should be conducted. This is supported by almost all organisations (92%) including all local authorities and statutory, public, or government-funded bodies.

Of the 534 respondents who support this proposal and who provide additional comment, most state it is important to comprehend and investigate the key drivers and behaviours that lead to littering. Respondents say such research will help assess impact and management plans, and to inform future action and preventative measures.

A small number state that research will help provide an understanding into the mindsets of individuals who litter. This will help inform future action such as preventative measures and education at an early stage in people’s lives.

Understanding the influences on littering behaviours is a vital first step for the development of future interventions. Better understanding of the barriers and motivations to appropriate waste disposal within relevant Scottish contexts will allow for prioritisation and targeting of work to specific audiences and behaviours that are most relevant, and therefore most likely to influence change. – Statutory, public, or government-funded body

Research to investigate council resourcing (for example, the frequency and flexibility of times for litter collection) would also help increase an understanding of why people litter and thus enable preventative action to be taken.

Some respondents (under 30) note that any research should provide an evidence base as a rationale for introducing heavier penalties for littering to act as a deterrent.

Some respondents also take this opportunity – as the first question in the consultation – to point out that litter (and flytipping) issues require addressing to preserve Scotland’s beautiful landscapes, to protect flora and fauna, and to maintain the mental and physical wellbeing of the general public.

Of the 154 respondents not in support of the proposal and providing additional comment, most argue that this is a poor use of taxpayers’ money. They believe sufficient research has already been undertaken and direct action is now required. A small number say that, based on their past experience, further research would not lead to further change.

It seems unlikely that such research, potentially costly and drawn out over months, or perhaps even years, will return any useful results. – Individual

Some 43 respondents choosing “Do not know”, express uncertainty that further research will be beneficial citing a wealth of prior research. They are also unsure whether research would genuinely reveal individuals’ motivations for littering, or provide new insight.

3.1.2 Shared approach to litter prevention and behaviour change

The consultation then asked:

Do you support the proposed action to develop and adopt a national anti-littering campaign (action 2.1)?

Of the 978 respondents, 971 (99%) responded to this question, as set out below.

Figure 6 Support to develop and adopt a national anti-littering campaign

Almost nine out of ten (88%) of all respondents support the proposed action to develop and adopt a national anti-littering campaign. This is supported by almost all organisations (93%), including all local authorities and statutory, public, or government-funded bodies.

Of the 571 respondents who support this proposal and who provide comment, many say a campaign would directly contribute to government action and strategies that highlight why littering is wrong. They think that a campaign should address the behaviours and attitudes of people who litter and hold them responsible and accountable. This group outline how the actions of litterers should be portrayed as unacceptable and anti-social.

Many other respondents believe that it is important for any proposed campaign to encourage education, and teach the general public, especially young children, about the impacts, risks, and consequences of littering.

[An] anti-littering campaign is vital. We need to change attitudes to littering from a young age. I spent a few days in Amsterdam last year and even areas around train stations and tunnels were free of litter. In Scotland there is litter everywhere. – Individual

A minority of those commenting feel that any campaign should specifically highlight the repercussions of littering, including fines and penalties, to act as a deterrent. Others point to the benefits of a national campaign for ensuring the safety of the local wildlife and the preservation of the Scottish countryside.

Of the 77 respondents who do not support the proposal and who provide additional comment, most argue that a campaign is a poor use of taxpayers’ money. Instead, they suggest that such investment should be used to fund action, for example to hire staff to clean streets, or to enforce penalties.

We don't need an anti-littering campaign. Roll out the old "Keep Britain Tidy" adverts - that would be much cheaper. People who are going to drop litter will continue to do so unless there is a good reason for them to stop. The only behaviour change that might be worth trying is teaching children at school not to drop litter. – Individual

Of the 32 respondents who provide comment and who answered “Do not know”, most are uncertain about seeing positive benefits from a campaign.

3.1.3 Priorities for behaviour change interventions

The consultation went on to ask:

Which topics are a priority for behaviour change interventions? Please indicate, which topics if any, you think we should prioritise for behaviour change interventions.

Of the 978 respondents, 863 (88%) responded to this question.

The majority of those commenting feel that education of school children from an early age is a high priority, to instill an understanding that littering is antisocial and illegal. This group believe a “zero tolerance” approach in school environments and in campaigns would ensure future compliance.

It seems essential that behaviour change must start at an early age. Primary school would not be a moment too soon. If children can be taught not to litter, perhaps they can influence their parents and older siblings. – Individual

A large minority feel that motorways, roads, and laybys are particularly susceptible to littering. Greater focus should be placed on behaviour change intervention for motorists throwing litter out of their car. Such individuals should face more severe penalty.

Several suggest a priority topic is addressing waste produced by the fast food and take-away industry. Large corporations should be targeted and held accountable for the litter they contribute.

I particularly feel the fast food and convenience foods industries need to be made to take responsibility for the waste they produce because a lot of the waste we pick up comprises coffee cups, plastic lids, and fast food take away containers. – Individual

A large number of other respondents also claim cigarette ends, disposable face masks and dog excrement are significant contributors, and should have a stronger focus in future interventions.

Although this question was asked in the context of littering, many respondents perceive flytipping as one of the most critical issues that requires improvement, with several believing the problem to be worsening. Suggestions to reduce or prevent future flytipping include reducing the cost of waste disposal at household waste and recycling centres (HWRCs), increasing the availability of HWRCs, increasing the range of larger items accepted at HWRCs, providing and emptying more public bins, and imposing and enforcing stronger penalties for flytippers.

3.1.4 Developing a standard definition of litter

The consultation next asked:

Is there a need to develop a standard definition of litter that can be used across Scotland?

Of the 978 respondents, 969 (99%) responded to this question, as set out below.

Figure 7 Support to develop a standard definition of litter

Almost half (48%) of all respondents agree that a standard definition should be developed. This is supported by just under three quarters of all organisations (69%).

Of the 338 respondents in support of this proposal and provide additional comment, the majority believe it would provide clarity and prevent confusion, especially in educating the general public about the dangers, content, or biodegradability of certain litter.

Some believe that there should be a clear distinction, by describing the differences, between littering and flytipping. This will help to create standardised anti-littering laws and definitive levels of severity for penalties.

To address litter and flytipping, it is important that consistency in identification is used to understand the cause, challenge and preventative measures that can be introduced. It would be beneficial if this standard definition is aligned not only across Scotland, but more widely across the UK. – Stakeholder (e.g. trade association, federation)

Of the 263 respondents providing comment who are against the proposal, most argue that the general public is already aware of what litter is, and that current definitions from elsewhere are already well understood. Additional efforts would be superfluous and not contribute to reducing littering.

We've had a definition for 'litter' for many decades. Keep Scotland Beautiful have maintained a 'top ten' list of the most frequent items found in litter. Defining it isn't the problem, more addressing it rather than continually talking about it. – Individual

Furthermore, those against the proposal argue that creating a standardised definition would be a distraction or potentially too bureaucratic, and that funds would be better spent taking action, such as clearing waste or enforcing anti-littering laws.

The 104 respondents who provide comment and who answer “Do not know” are unsure whether a standard definition is needed, as they believe the word ‘litter’ is either self-explanatory or already adequately defined by other means.

3.2 Litter – services and infrastructure

3.2.1 Understanding sources, amount, and composition of litter

Respondents were asked:

Do you support the following proposed actions to:

Action 3.1: Review available litter data and reach an agreement between stakeholders on a common approach to data collection?

Action 3.2: Identify commonly littered items and litter hotspots and work with local authorities to develop targeted interventions?

Action 3.3: Increase the use of citizen science to support data levels and composition of litter?

Around 64% of all 978 consultation respondents answered, with 626 responding to Action 3.1, 625 to Action 3.2, and 620 to Action 3.3. This is set out in the three charts below.

Figure 8 Support to review available litter data and reach agreement on common approach to data collection
Figure 9 Support to identify common litter items and hotspots
Figure 10 Support to increase the use of citizen science to support data levels

Slightly under three quarters (73%) of all respondents agree with Action 3.1. This is supported by all stakeholders and statutory, public, or government-funded bodies, and nearly all local authorities. Almost all respondents agree with Action 3.2 (93%), including all local authorities, stakeholders and statutory, public, or government-funded bodies. Just under three quarters (69%) of all respondents agree with Action 3.3, including almost nine out of ten organisations.

A total of 350 respondents agree to all three proposed actions and provided further comment. Most comments focus on Action 3.2, although a large minority also relate to Actions 3.1 and 3.3.

Many believe that a common approach to data collection would help provide a collective understanding of actions needing to be taken, and that collaboration would improve the ease and speed at which data are obtained. A universal approach would thus, it is argued, allow for a more effective, responsive enforcement of anti-littering laws.

Some believe that if litter hotspots are identified, collaborative interventions (such as police patrols and CCTV) would be much quicker to introduce, and therefore actively prosecuting litterers would be easier. By identifying the most commonly discarded litter, it makes it possible to focus resources and target the largest contributors, with fast food chains being commonly noted as an example.

Citizen science is important to some respondents, who believe involving experienced volunteers who are familiar with collecting litter and who hold local knowledge, would lead to a more comprehensive evidence base and understanding of litter hotspots.

Increasing the use of citizen science would allow a large amount of information to be gathered quickly and give an increased sense of ownership for people in their local area. It would be important for the information gathered to be accessible to the public and for people to be able to clearly see how it has made a positive change. – Individual

Of the 39 respondents who do not agree to any of the three proposed actions and who also provided further comment, most perceive no need to implement the proposed actions. This relates particularly to Action 3.2, with those commenting noting how local authorities should already be aware of the composition of waste and the most common littering hotspots from prior research. This group feel funds would therefore be better spent on improving waste management sites and funding litter collection efforts.

Concentrate on litter collection not data collection. Every household should have access to regular waste collection for their premises. – Individual

3.2.2 Increasing Citizen Science participation

The consultation for respondents’ views on:

What would encourage increased participation in citizen science data collection?

Of the 978 respondents, 721 (74%) responded to this question.

Most of those commenting believe that people would engage with citizen science data collection if an incentive was offered. Suggestions include a small financial reward, prizes, public competitions, gift cards, or discounted experiences (restaurants, events etc.).

Incentives such as funding for community groups to make prizes available to participants. For example, a £10 Shop Local voucher or family meal out for the group that collects the most [litter]. – Individual

A large number of other respondents suggest directly involving youth groups (such as scouts and schools) to get young people involved and help educate future generations about the negative environmental impact of littering.

Pupils would have a worthy project for which they could practice principles of thorough, accurate data collection. By this means, not only would they be supporting a socially necessary change, but they would also be practising a skill which they could transfer to any research during their working lives. – Individual

Some respondents argue that publicity is important to encourage participation, and believe that awareness of, and engagement with, citizen science would naturally increase with promotion on social media platforms, dedicated apps and online. A minority point out that participation might simply increase if there was wider publicity around prosecution of litterers.

However, some feel that citizen science data collection is not a valuable use of time or money, and argue it diverts attention and resources from direct action to clear waste from public areas.

3.2.3 Shared approach to service to support litter prevention

Respondents were asked:

Do you support the following proposed actions to:

Action 4.1: Review the Code of Practice for Litter and Refuse (2018) and its implementation by duty holders?

Action 4.2: Explore the use of flexible and innovative interventions to support litter prevention and removal?

Action 4.3: Establish an action focused group to encourage collaboration and share best practice between local authorities, national parks and other duty bodies?

Of the 978 respondents, 602 responded to Action 4.1, 601 to Action 4.2 and 598 to Action 4.3 – approximately 62% of all respondents. This is set out in the three charts below.

Figure 11 Support to review the Code of Practice for Litter and Refuse
Figure 12 Support to explore the use of flexible and innovative interventions
Figure 13 Support to form an action focused group to encourage collaboration

Three quarters (75%) of all respondents support Action 4.1, with support from nearly four in five organisations, including all statutory, public, or government-funded bodies. Almost nine in ten (88%) respondents support Action 4.2, including nearly all organisations (95%). Just over four in five (82%) support Action 4.3.

Of the 371 respondents who agree to all three proposed Actions and who provide comment, a large number focus on Action 4.3. This group believe that a collaborative approach between local authorities would be more effective and result in proactive initiatives to tackle littering while maintaining a high standard across all regions.

Something needs to be done, sharing solutions is important and leads to better efficiencies. I would also suggest researching other countries’ approaches and practices in litter, tipping and street sanitation. – Individual

Specifically in response to Action 4.2, some believe that any preventative interventions would be welcome. They argue that addressing the source of the littering would yield more effective, long-term results.

A small handful comment on Action 4.1. This group feel that policies should always be regularly reviewed, especially with regard to making prosecution of offenders easier.

A total of 35 respondents who do not support any of the three Actions provide additional comments. Most perceive the proposed actions to be a waste of taxpayers’ money that might be preferentially spent on clean-up efforts. This group also argue that such Actions are unnecessary when there are pre-existing resources, such as links between local authorities.

Local authorities are perfectly able to speak to each other and share best practice without the need for another group of highly paid staff. – Individual

Of the 16 respondents who answer “Do not know” to all three Actions, most are unsure if these would make a significant difference. A few were also uncertain of what the actions entailed and perceive the wording to be unclear and bureaucratic.

Respondents were then asked to:

Please provide examples of flexible or innovative interventions that have or have not worked well in the past.

Of the 978 respondents, 628 (64%) provided comment.

Common suggestions of good examples of visual interventions noted by respondents include:

  • graphic advertisements (akin to anti-smoking or drink-driving campaigns) designed to stick with the viewer,
  • deterrent posters in hotspots for littering, and
  • TV campaigns showing the impact that littering has on the environment.

Some also believe that CCTV and warning signs in littering hotspots are also effective in preventing littering.

These interventions are commonly noted to work well only if deployed in conjunction with effective enforcement.

The initiative to gain money back from returning glass bottles for recycling is a good example of a successful intervention as it helps promote recycling and actively encourages young people to collect litter in exchange for pocket money. Some respondents suggest this initiative should be extended to include other litter items such as cans. Following a period of consultation, and a delay due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Deposit Return Scheme will be introduced in Scotland from 16 August 2023.

Community groups that are encouraged to volunteer and collect litter have been effective to reduce waste in the past and some believe this would work well for community service for young offenders.

I am involved in two small litter picking groups. We have obtained rigid litter containers from the local authority and fixed them in strategic places on footpaths; we have also named each container with the name of a volunteer. This appears to have been effective in reducing the amount of small litter items – cans and bottles. – Individual

Meanwhile, a large number of respondents believe that the local councils’ responses to bins and refuse sites has been inadequate. Some councils have increased the size of bins, rather than the frequency of collection, often leading to overflowing bins. HWRC opening times and prices can act as a deterrent for people who want to dispose of larger waste.

Charges for the collection of garden waste I think has had a detrimental effect and should be reviewed. With the general waste collection being reduced, I have seen an increase in waste being dumped in unauthorised areas e.g. local parks etc. – Individual

The consultation then asked respondents:

How can increased collaboration and information sharing across local authorities, national parks and other duty bodies be achieved?

Of the 978 respondents, 653 (67%) responded to this question.

Many of those commenting believe it is the job of the local authorities and other bodies to determine the best methods of communication between themselves. Respondents feel they are not best placed to recommend potential options as members of the public and outwith this remit. Respondents do, however, believe it is vital for organisations to talk to each other, particularly in light of the digital advances brought about by Covid-19, citing a plethora of potential communication channels. Those commenting believe that conversations should include all groups and authorities, including volunteers assisting with clean-up efforts.

Regular meetings between these bodies, including members of the public i.e. Community Councils and Tenants and Residents groups, is required to learn what works best in achieving success. – Individual

Others feel that collaboration may be increased if a standardised national central database is created, where information on littering hotspots, repeat offenders and littering resources are kept. With this in place, a national litter reporting system could be set-up, to create a unified framework guide on how to deal with litterers and offenders, so that punishments may be enforced more regularly, and consistently, across Scotland.

If there was one centralised database recording what items are dropped where, by which age groups, at which times of day and in which locations, then each duty body could target its response appropriately and also learn from interventions made in other areas. – Individual

3.2.4 Empowering communities to take action

The consultation went on to ask respondents:

Do you agree with the proposed actions to:

Action 5.1: Create a national litter hub to provide information to community groups?

Action 5.2: Create a community focused litter education programme?

Of the 978 respondents, 619 responded to Action 5.1, and 623 to Action 5.2 – around 63% of all respondents.

Figure 14 Support to create a national litter hub
Figure 15 Support to a community focused litter education programme

Over two thirds (68%) of respondents agree with Action 5.1. This is supported by over four in five organisations (81%), including all statutory, public, or government-funded bodies. Just over four in five (82%) respondents agree with Action 5.2. This is supported by almost all organisations (93%), including all local authorities.

Of the 383 respondents who agree with both Actions and give their opinion, a large number comment specifically on Action 5.2. This group believe it is vital to start education from a young age to ensure that children within the community respect and understand the repercussions of littering. Respondents believe an external community focused litter education programme would help encourage this.

In relation to Action 5.1, most of those commenting believe the most effective way to make a difference within the community is to actively encourage and support the public to take part. A national litter hub would benefit community-led volunteer litter-picking groups.

Local communities usually are best placed to identify the issues in their area and how best to resolve and prevent them, but they need the resources available nationally to be made available to them. – Individual

A total of 71 respondents who comment disagree with both Actions. The majority of these believe that money dedicated to such projects could be better spent on funding cleaning efforts, hiring public community officers, and developing stricter policies for prosecuting litterers. The most effective form of education is to demonstrate that the severe anti-littering laws in place by issuing of fines to act as a deterrent.

The cost of this could be better used on creating more waste/recycling management sites and abolishing the need to obtain permits to use these sites and removing restrictions on how often they can be visited and used by an individual/vehicle. – Individual

Some feel that there is no guarantee that the funds required to finance these community initiatives would be well spent, or if these Actions would result in any meaningful reduction in litter.

Respondents were then asked:

What advice, information and support should be included in a national litter hub?

Of the 978 respondents, 607 (62%) responded to this question.

A large number of comments outline how more information is needed about how to reuse items, what materials can be recycled in local regions, and how people can effectively recycle waste. Advice should be given to the general public about the locations of bins, HWRCs and collection points for uncommon or large waste items, and how much litter can be tipped at these areas.

Many feel that information should be clearly provided about how serious the consequences are for littering (and flytipping), and associated fines or penalties for different levels of severity clearly outlined and published. This, it is argued, would help reassure the public that there is an effective, strict enforcement system in place to act as a deterrent.

Some others feel that advice on where resources are available for volunteer litter-pickers, such as waste bags, tools, and communal waste disposal sites, should be more freely available. They believe additional support and resources should be given to community-run volunteering events and groups to make these easier to organise.

Several think it important to provide information and education, especially to younger generations, to show the negative outcomes that littering can have for wildlife, the environment, and the health and safety of the public.

[Information is needed on] just how much long-term damage litter does. To the environment, to animals, to the ground, how litter does not break down…the ugliness of litter on the side of the road, how it creates a negative view in relation to tourism, and how it 'reflects' a non-caring atmosphere…how dangerous it is to constantly clear it from the side of the road. – Individual

Other information, support or advice mentioned include: creating a dedicated app or phone number that people can use to report littering (and flytipping), publishing the costs required to clear litter from public areas, and advice specifically for businesses about packaging waste disposal.

However, a minority of respondents feel that a national litter hub is unnecessary, and that money would be better spent undertaking cleaning initiatives, running anti-litter TV and poster campaigns, providing resources to volunteering groups, or funding better tip schedules and local disposal systems.

Respondents were asked for their views on:

What topics should be included in a community focused litter education programme?

Of the 978 respondents, 640 (66%) responded to this question.

Many of those commenting believe it is important to educate the community about the impact that littering has on the environment and local wildlife. This group believe the public should be aware of the damage that littering can cause, as well as the consequences of burning waste and the harm that non-degrading microplastics have on ecosystems and food chains.

Many think that it is necessary to educate the general public, and specifically younger generations, about safe ways to dispose of litter. Suggestions include safety information about the different sources of litter, collecting litter at the sides of busy roads, managing large waste items, broken glass or used needles, what equipment should be used, and the collection of litter in dangerous weather conditions.

Some believe that education programmes ought to include information about a clear, strict enforcement system, in which fines are administered regularly to litterers. This, it is argued, would provide reassurance that offenders would be appropriately penalised, whilst acting as a deterrent to littering.

One thing would be some basic knowledge to help people imagine what happens when they drop something. It's hard for people to connect the bit of plastic that they drop with the thing that turns up strangling a hedgehog or in a dolphin's stomach. Understanding the fate of a crisp packet requires some guidance! – Individual

Other topics mentioned by respondents include information outlining the costs local authorities need to pay for litter disposal, encouraging the purchase of products with less packaging, teaching people to take pride in their local environment, information on who to contact if rubbish needs removing, and advice on how to join, volunteer, or set up local community groups.

3.3 Litter – enforcement

3.3.1 Enforcement model

The consultation asked respondents:

Do you support the proposed actions to:

Action 6.1: Conduct an evidence review of barriers to enforcement?

Action 6.2: Explore raising current fixed penalty notice amounts?

Action 6.3: Explore potential alternative penalties (e.g. litter picks) to monetary fixed penalties?

Around 97% of all 978 respondents answered this question, with 948 responding to Action 6.1, 951 to Action 6.2, and 954 to Action 3, as set out below.

Figure 16 Support to conduct an evidence review of barriers to enforcement
Figure 17 Support to explore raising current fixed penalty notice amounts
Figure 18 Support to explore potential alternative penalties

Four in five (80%) respondents support Action 6.1, including almost all organisations (96%). Just under four in five (79%) support Action 6.2, with around three quarters of organisations supporting this (76%). Five in six (83%) support Action 6.3, including most organisations (94%).

Of the 397 respondents who support all these proposed Actions and who shared their views, the majority comment on Actions 6.2 and 6.3. Most agree with the idea of alternative penalties such as litter picks, claiming they might be more effective and serve as a better deterrent than fines. Some think that fixed penalties should be higher as monetary fines prevent people from breaching the law repeatedly. However, several respondents note that sanctions for littering are often not implemented, and that penalties need to be enforced regularly to have any impact.

There are 28 respondents who do not support any of these proposed Actions and who provided further comment. This group argue that enforcement is perceived to be ineffective, and that instead, better and possibly free, waste removal service should be provided. Additional monetary penalties do not resolve littering, and can deepen some individuals’ poverty.

Stop charging for safe and legal disposal of waste, it just encourages flytipping. It should be covered by local council tax for households and businesses. – Individual

Of the nine respondents who answer “Do not know” and who provide further comment, most do not believe sanctions will resolve littering as they are not enforced properly and are ineffective. This group want to see greater focus on education and prevention to combat flytipping.

Existing fines are not a deterrent. The proposed £500 is pointless. The fine has to be a significant deterrent. It has to be several thousand pounds to be an effective deterrent. – Individual

3.3.2 Consistency

The consultation next asked respondents:

Do you support proposed Action 7.1, to review and further develop guidance on enforcement best practices?

Of the 978 respondents, 944 (97%) responded to this question, as set out below.

Figure 19 Support to review and further develop guidance on enforcement best practices

Over three quarters (77%) support the proposed Action 7.1, including over nine in ten organisations (91%) and all stakeholders and all statutory, public, or government-funded bodies.

Of the 944 respondents to this question, 298 (32%) provide additional comments. The majority believe that the current enforcement in place is insufficiently effective and therefore immediate action is required.

Some note the importance of education about littering and the damage it does. A minority (fewer than 30 respondents) mention that fixed penalties or alternative sanctions, such as litter picking, are good solutions that need better implementation.

Several respondents comment that Scotland could learn from and apply best practices in other areas and countries. Singapore is mentioned as having a rigorous but successful anti-littering policy, while the USA’s practice of prisoners collecting litter is also noted.

Of the 54 respondents who do not support the proposed Action and who provide further comment, most argue that guidance and enforcement best practices are already known, and simply need to be implemented. Many say that further reviews and development would take an unnecessary amount of time and money and better waste disposal solutions should be made available to everyone.

The cost of this can be better used on creating more waste/recycling management sites and abolishing the need to obtain permits to use these sites and removing restrictions on how often they can be visited and used by an individual/vehicle. – Individual

Current enforcement isn't working so needs to be reviewed. It would be really interesting if the views of those who had been subject to any enforcement could be gathered. – Individual

Of the 40 who answer “Do not know” and provide further comments, around half say they do not understand what Action 7.1 entails in practice or where they can find information on this. Others note that action and enforcement are more urgent than review and further development of guidance.



Back to top