F
Sustainability Operations Advisory Group
17th September 2014
Reducing single-use items within the University
Description of paper
1. This paper provides a summary of the requirements of the upcoming Single use
Carrier Bag (Scotland) Regulations 2014, and a summary of the waste and broader
environmental impact of single-use items.
Action requested
2. SOAG is asked to note the paper and support the further investigation and
development of this area.
Recommendations
3. That the University act to limit single use carrier bag provision via the education of
retail customers and partners and the provision of reusable alternatives. Further,
that the University seek to understand the impact of choosing single use items over
reusable alternatives with a view to eliminating unnecessary waste wherever
possible.
Background and context
4. The Waste (Scotland) Regulations 20111 put a duty on the University to move
waste management “up the hierarchy”. This means preventing the production of
waste if at all possible, ensuring items are reused (and therefore reusable) where
prevention is impossible, followed by recycling, recovery and disposal.
5. The “Single Use Carrier Bags Charge (Scotland) Regulations 2014”2 will come
into force in Scotland on 20th October 2014. The legislation requires retailers to apply
a charge for single use carrier bags at the point of sale and to keep records of the
bags provided to customers and charges applied.
Single use bags – issues and legislative requirements
6. According to Zero Waste Scotland (ZWS), 750 million carrier bags are used in
Scotland each year, and we use more bags per person annually than other parts of
the UK. Carrier bags are a visible aspect of litter. Their mobility means they end up
in water courses and the marine environment, where they cause significant damage.
7. The primary aim of the legislation is to get consumers to consider alternatives to
automatically receiving a carrier with their shopping. Where carrier bag charges have
already been implemented in other parts of the UK, bag use has reduced – by 75%
in in Wales and by 80% in Northern Ireland.
8. As with many single-use or disposable items, the environmental impact of carrier
bags is dominated by resource use and production3. Once it has been produced and
received by the consumer, the key to reducing its impact is then to reuse it as much
as possible prior to disposal.
1
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2011/226/contents/made
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/sdsi/2014/9780111023211
3
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291023/scho0711buan-e-e.pdf
2
9. Where single-use bags continue to be provided in the retail setting after the
regulations come in, organisations will be duty bound to charge, track and report on
the numbers of bags supplied and the charges collected. The minimum charge
applicable is 5p per. Organisations are allowed to retain the charges although the
legislation is intended to encourage the support of “good causes”.
10. Organisations can also choose not to supply single use bags at all – for example
through the advertised provision of reusable bags-for-life. There are many options,
some with better environmental credentials than others.
Findings from an internal review
11. A 2012 audit carried out by ZWS within the Educational sector4, estimated that
single-use bags comprise roughly 0.4% of the Mixed Recycling stream (this is
backed up by our own audit findings). This is the equivalent at the University of
Edinburgh to approximately 1.5 tonnes or around 150,0005 single use carrier bags
disposed of every year. Often these bags are disposed of with contents making
them non-recyclable.
12. EUSA outlets currently supply 10,000 light-weight plastic carriers annually.
These are not offered automatically and customers are charged 5p per carrier. This
approach was implemented around 2012 and is estimated6 to have reduced carrier
bag provision by 50-60%. Tracking is already in operation so the extra reporting
requirements are not expected to create a large administrative burden. Initial
discussions with EUSA show a preference for ring-fencing the charge (estimated at
£500 per annum) for environmental causes relevant to their operations.
13. The University Gift Shop currently supplies three sizes of paper gift bags with
handles. Staff members are trained to ask customers if they want a carrier, rather
than simply providing one. An estimated7 one third of customers do not take a
carrier currently. The outlet is set up to implement a charge per single-use carrier
from October 2014 and open to the idea of a student bursary or hardship fund. A
reusable cotton shopper is sold which could be promoted as a “Bag for Life”.
14. Carrier bags provided at events (e.g. Fresher’s, fashion shows) and for
promotions are exempt from the regulations. However, the Centre for Sport and
Exercise (CSE) have this year, requested that stall holders at the Sport’s Fair refrain
from supplying any plastic bags at all. This could be extended to the Trade and
Societies Fair and other University or School organised events in future years.
Wider issue of items designed for single-use
15. As has been discussed previously at this committee8, the increasing demand,
decreasing availability and increasing monopolisation of resources places a burden
on nations, industry and society to rationalise and reduce where possible the use of
(particularly non-renewable) resources like oil (used for plastics), cotton and metals.
16. Disposable items used within retail and catering operations represent a
noticeable proportion of an educational institution’s waste stream. According to
4
http://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/sites/files/zws/The%20compostion%20of%20waste%20from
%20three%20sectors%20in%20Scotland.pdf
5 Based on an average of 10g per lightweight HDPE, single-use carrier bag
6 By EUSA retail managers.
7 By the Gift Shop manager.
8
“Meeting our Waste Legislative Requirements” presented on 30th January 2013
2
ZWS, approximately 8% of a Mixed Recycling collection (30 tonnes annually at the
University of Edinburgh) is comprised of disposable items such as cups and plates.
17. Where a decision is taken to replace reusable items in normal use within the
organisation (e.g. washable glassware) with single-use items, there will be an
automatic and ongoing increase in waste generated. This will affect the University’s
ability to meet its own targets and legislative requirements.
18. Two projects looking at the Life Cycle Analysis9,10 of using disposable items
versus reusable items in specific circumstances were commissioned this year. In
both cases, taking account the wider environmental picture, single-use items are
more impactful than reusable alternatives (over the life span of the reusable items).
19. Further work is required to extend studies to a wider range of reusable vs
disposable choices (e.g. around glassware in the laboratory setting or coffee cups).
Resource implications
19. No additional salary costs are anticipated in the implementation of the legislation.
However, both the Gift Shop and EUSA will experience a cost associated with the
accumulation (as opposed to absorption) of the 5p per carrier charge. A decision to
actively reduce provision of single use carriers would mitigate these costs.
Risk Management
20. In terms of action on carrier bags, non-compliance would be a breach of
legislation and there would be an additional reputational risk. Given the preparation
from both parties, the risk of non-compliance appears to be low.
Equality & Diversity
21. This paper is not thought to have any specific Equality and Diversity implications.
An opportunity exists to support students through funding of good causes.
Next steps/implications
22. The upcoming legislative change will be advertised to ensure that staff and
students are prepared. Opportunities to promote reusable carriers and to reduce
provision of single-use carriers are being discussed and will be progressed.
23. Research opportunities will be discussed with appropriate departments and
projects identified. Findings will be shared in order to enable policy and procurement
decisions and highlight opportunities to change practice.
Consultation
24. This paper has been reviewed by SRS, E&B and EUSA and approved by Gary
Jebb in E&B and by Dave Gorman in SRS.
Further information
25. Author/Presenter: Fleur Ruckley, Estates & Buildings, 2nd Sept 2014
Freedom of Information
26. This paper is open.
9
“The environmental and financial costs of paper towels and hand dryers at the University of Edinburgh” – prepared
by Alexis Heeren, Department of Social Responsibility and Society in April 2014.
10 “The Life Cycle Emissions from Porcelain and Paper Plates: A comparative analysis” – Dissertation for MSc in
Carbon Management by Marialena Papadopoulou-Kipou, August 2014.
3