The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign: Working Towards a Litter-Free Forth

Home , Aberlady Bay, Fisherrow, Forth (Edinburgh ward), Limekilns, Longniddry Bents, Seton Sands

Working Towards The Forth a Litter Free Forth Coastal Litter Campaign Working Towards The Forth a Litter Free Forth Coastal Litter Campaign Established in 1993, the Forth Estuary Forum is a voluntary partnership, comprising members from a diverse range of organisations as well as interested individuals whose aim is to “promote the wise and sustainable use of the Forth”. The Forth Estuary Forum’s ‘Integrated Management Strategy’ identiﬁed marine and coastal litter as being a high proﬁle and important issue which the Forth’s communities, users, planners and managers wished to see tackled in a co-ordinated manner.

The Forth Estuary Forum’s Coastal Litter Campaign, funded by Fife Environment Trust, The BOC Foundation and Edinburgh Environment Partnership Grants Scheme Ltd., was launched in the summer of 2001 and aimed to develop and implement a community involvement and public awareness-raising programme intended to tackle and monitor the issue of marine and coastal litter in the Firth of Forth. The project ran for three years involving three main integrated components: co-ordinated clean-up and community involvement campaign; awareness and education campaign; ongoing monitoring programme.

This report is a product of the Forth Estuary Forum’s Coastal Litter Campaign. The judgements and conclusions made herein do not necessarily reﬂect the views of the organisations working in partnership with the Forth Estuary Forum.

Suggested citation: Storrier, K.L. (2004) The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign: Working Towards a Litter-free Forth. Forth Estuary Forum, Rosyth, Scotland, 72pp. ISBN: 0-9529692- 1-1

Copies available from: Telephone: 01383 420104 Forth Estuary Forum Fax: 01383 418468 Exmouth Building E-mail: [email protected] Port of Rosyth Web site: http://www.forthestuaryforum.co.uk Rosyth Fife, KY11 2XP Registered Charity Number: SC027467 Foreword and Acknowledgements

From it’s launch on 8 June 2001 at the Scottish Seabird Centre, the Coastal Litter Campaign has gone from strength to strength, gaining recognition as an example of best practice in tackling coastal and marine litter through clean ups, litter surveys and education and awareness.

The campaign was identiﬁed as a ﬂagship project in the Forth Estuary Forum’s Integrated Management Strategy when launched in 1999. Over the last three years it has proved to be a successful example of coastal partnership in action, not just involving coastal organisations, but many communities on the Forth, a large number of schools and numerous volunteers who have supported the campaign.

The Forth Estuary Forum presents this report as a summary of the last three years’ work, outlining the many achievements of the campaign and looking at how management of coastal and marine litter can be taken forward in the future.

On behalf of the Forth Estuary Forum I would like to thank persons from the following organisations who contributed their time and expertise to the Coastal Litter Campaign: The BOC Foundation; City of Edinburgh Council; Clean Coast Scotland; Culross Community Council; East Lothian Council; Fife Council; Keep Scotland Beautiful; Marine Conservation Society; Napier University; Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Water, as well as the many volunteers, coastal communities and schools who have taken part in clean ups and surveys and learnt about the types, sources and impacts of coastal and marine litter. I would also highlight the dedication, drive and commitment of Forum Staff, in particular Karen the Campaign Project Officer, in bringing about success.

Finally, this project would not have happened without our funding partners, Fife Environment Trust, The BOC Foundation and Edinburgh Environment Partnerships Grants Scheme Ltd., who had faith to commit ﬁnance to the campaign over the last three years.

Robin Hamilton Chairman, Forth Estuary Forum April 2004

Cover photo: North Queensferry beach clean, Spring 2003 (Forth Estuary Forum) Circle photos © KSB; Skea; FEF; MCA; Smith; Fife Council; MCS

“Make, nae break this golden ﬁrth Caress its shores with pride Seek its wildness; guard its trade Together: tide on tide” Executive Summary

Marine litter can be categorised according to material type and originates from four main sources – recreation, sewage, ﬁshing and shipping. The impacts of marine litter are recognised worldwide, causing aesthetic degradation, threatening human health and local economies and having negative impacts on wildlife and ecosystems.

Communities and organisations were encouraged to initiate and carry out co-ordinated and consolidated clean-up events in association with the Marine Conservation Society’s Adopt- a-Beach campaign. Numerous methods were employed to raise awareness regarding the types, sources and impacts of marine litter. The main educational messages that were promoted were UKCEED’s Bag It and Bin It campaign, the Blue Flag campaign, administered in the UK by ENCAMS, and the Marine Conservation Society’s Adopt-a-Beach campaign. An important aspect of the Coastal Litter Campaign was the ability to monitor and evaluate the changing trends for marine litter in the Forth and allow for the development of individual programmes of action to tackle the litter at source. A team of dedicated volunteers used a scientiﬁcally standardised technique to assess trends in the deposition of fresh marine litter each month.

Sea-born sources of litter (from fishing vessels, shipping) appear to be relatively insignificant in the Firth of Forth – perhaps due to the provision of adequate Port Reception Facilities in the Firth of Forth. Localised campaigns should therefore be focused on litter from land- based sources, including fly-tipping and rivers. This emphasises the need for the continued promotion of UKCEED’s Bag It and Bin It campaign, as well as the labelling of all sanitary products with the correct disposal information. Beach visitors are responsible for the majority of beach litter in the Firth of Forth, reflecting a low appreciation of individual responsibility for the natural environment. Numerous anti-littering campaigns have been initiated in recent years but it would appear that these messages need to be continually reinforced as part of beach management plans and within the national curriculum.

The high level of interest in the Forth Estuary Forum’s Coastal Litter Campaign and subsequent extremely positive evaluation comments demonstrate the success of the Coastal Litter Campaign. Substantial progress has been made in working towards “a litter-free Forth” and achieving a marked difference in attitude to litter in the Firth of Forth’s catchment area.

The Forth Estuary Forum’s Coastal Litter Campaign highlights the following recommendations – it is hoped that they will act as a catalyst to stimulate discussion in order to take the Coastal Litter Campaign forward: • The Forth Estuary Forum should continue to manage and further develop the Coastal Litter Campaign; • Strategic Waste Fund and/or Aggregate Tax funding should be used to employ contractors to clear material from heavily littered areas; • Local Authorities and coastal partnerships should continue to support voluntary beach litter survey initiatives such as the Marine Conservation Society’s Adopt-a-Beach project. The success of the Adopt-a-Beach project would be further consolidated with a network of co-ordinators to provide regional support throughout the UK; • Raising public awareness is an essential part of anti-littering campaigns since changing attitudes and behaviour is the only guaranteed method of reducing litter at source. To this end, educational material regarding the types, sources and impacts of marine litter should be incorporated into the national curriculum; • To prevent littering from beach visitors, waste minimisation incentives should be further promoted, e.g. ‘reduce – reuse – recycle’, to educate beach visitors to take their litter home and recycle as much as possible; • SRD is still a problem despite massive investment from Scottish Water. UKCEED’s Bag It and Bin It campaign should be further promoted to reduce sanitary waste inputs into the sewerage system, with labelling of sanitary products with the Bag It and Bin It logo;

6 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign • Community Councils should continue to work with Local Authorities in order to achieve beach awards. Such status is an effective tool for raising awareness about the issues surrounding marine litter and can help to bring about a change in attitude and ultimately a reduction in litter at source; • Beaches are a natural asset to Local Authorities and should be viewed as such. This should be reflected in visitor interpretation material and tourist brochures. Beaches must be seen to be viewed as a precious natural resource in order for individuals and organisations to develop a sense of environmental responsibility and treat them accordingly; • Litter monitoring should be incorporated into Local Authority beach management plans to assess the effectiveness of anti-littering campaigns. The technique employed by the Coastal Litter Campaign quickly identifies problem areas and is recommended in the first instance. Thereafter the use of the Environment Agency/National Aquatic Litter Group (NALG) protocol is recommended as an ongoing litter monitoring tool, producing ‘public- friendly’ results which could be fed into a national database similar to that for bathing water quality results. Any approach needs to be holistic, working closely with other Local Authorities in the region, taking note of sediment cells which provide geographical boundaries in which marine litter is likely to circulate (DEFRA, 2001); • Beach litter modelling studies should be carried out to determine the location of likely litter sinks and act as a tool for Local Authority beach management plans; • Beach litter monitoring should be co-ordinated with river bank litter monitoring as riverine inputs of litter can be highly significant in localised areas. Any subsequent efforts to initiate a clean-up of affected areas should also be co-ordinated; • Existing anti-littering legislation must be enforced and penalties must be issued to persistent offenders. Reference should be made to Fly-tipping Stakeholders Forum (1999) which documents guidance notes for owners and managers of land and property and members of the public to help combat fly-tipping; • A national coastal litter campaign should be developed based on the success of the Forth Estuary Forum’s Coastal Litter Campaign.

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 7 Contents

Foreword and Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

Contents one introduction page 11 two co-ordinated clean-ups page 17 three education and awareness page 23 four litter monitoring page 29

ﬁve conclusions and recommendations page 37 six references page 41

appendices page 44

8 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign introduction one 10 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign part one introduction

1.1 Overview of the Types, Sources and Impacts of Marine Litter

Marine and coastal litter can be deﬁned as any item that appears on beaches, or at sea, as a result of man’s activity (Marine Conservation Society, 2003). Coastal litter can be categorised according to material type (e.g. plastic, glass, sanitary, metal) and comes from four main sources, namely recreational and tourism related litter, ﬁshing debris, sewage related debris (SRD) and shipping waste (Marine Conservation Society, 2003). Velander and Mocogni (1998) highlight that beach litter can be from a local source or washed in from other areas, and that signs of exposure would often suggest the latter. Marine litter is transported according to wind, tide and current patterns, accumulating temporarily or permanently on beaches and on the sea bed – at locations known as litter sinks (Plate 1).

Plate 1 – Example of a littered beach (Rubbish Free Plate 2 – Impact of litter on wildlife: Seal Zone, Fife Council) entanglement (Maritime and Coastguard Agency

The impacts of marine litter on wildlife are recognised around the world and well documented in the literature. Robards et al. (1995) and Walker et al. (1997) document the dangers to marine mammals and birds caused by entanglement in and ingestion of marine litter (Plate 2). Entangled animals and birds tend to exhibit a reduced ability to obtain food, travel and avoid predators, potentially resulting in serious injury or death by starvation, drowning or suffocation (Jones, 1995; Laist, 1997; Marine Conservation Society, 2003). Ingested materials (either directly as mistaken prey items or indirectly by regurgitation or through the food chain) tend to damage and block the digestive tract and reduce feeding activity due to a false sensation of satiation, potentially resulting in starvation and death (Laist, 1987; Bjorndal et al., 1994; Jones, 1995; Huin and Croxall, 1996; Moore et al., 2002; Marine Conservation Society, 2003).

Larger ecosystem effects have also been documented. Galgani et al. (2000) reported areas of the benthos along the European coast that act as sinks for litter, according to the bathymetry and local geo-physical conditions. Accumulations of litter on the sea ﬂoor can damage the substratum by abrasion and/or smothering, preventing light and nutrients from reaching the fauna and potentially affecting the productivity of the benthos (Laist, 1987; Goldberg, 1997). Litter items may provide shelter and food for migrating organisms and/or the means for colonisation, potentially resulting in a detrimental effect on native communities (Laist, 1987; Minchin, 1996). The stability of beach ecosystems is threatened by mechanical beach cleaning operations, carried out by numerous Local Authorities during peak season at amenity beaches, which tends to remove organic material (seaweed and driftwood) as well as litter items, reducing strandline biodiversity and disrupting the food chain (Llewellyn and Shackley, 1996).

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 11 Floating and submerged marine litter also impacts on coastal economic activity. The aesthetic degradation of a beach and the potential associated health risks (from sewage related debris (SRD) and some medical, military and industrial wastes) can result in lost revenue from tourism and Local Authorities are faced with clean-up costs in order to attract tourists (Roehl and Ditton, 1993; Ballance et al., 2000; Silva-Iniguez and Fischer, 2003) (Plate 3). The fouling of ships by marine litter results in repair costs and lost time (Jones, 1995) (Plate 4). The fishing industry suffers lost revenue as a result of damage to fishing vessels and equipment and lost fishing time (Nash, 1992; Hall, 2000). Ghost fishing affects commercial fisheries when lost or abandoned nets and traps continue to capture target and non-target species (Jones, 1995).

Plate 4 – Impact of litter on economies: Fouled propeller (Environment Canada) Plate 3 – Impact of litter on human health: Broken glass (Keep Scotland Beautiful)

1.2 Overview of Legislation to Prevent Marine Litter

Growing concern over the pollution of the marine environment by litter led to the establishment of national and international legislation prohibiting the disposal of litter on land or at sea (Arnould and Croxall, 1995). However, current legislation is notoriously difficult to enforce (Rees and Pond, 1995), and widely ignored, therefore it is essential that countries work together to control litter from shipping (Derraik, 2002).

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 (MARPOL 73/78) restricts dumping at sea and prohibits the disposal of plastics. In the United Kingdom (UK), MARPOL 73/78 is implemented via the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage) Regulations 1998 (applies to all UK vessels wherever they may be and to all foreign vessels in UK waters and prohibits the disposal of plastics and oily wastes anywhere in UK waters and the disposal of other pollutants within speciﬁc distances from the nearest land) and the Merchant Shipping (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 1998 (requires all ports, terminals, harbours and marinas to provide adequate reception facilities for waste and prepare a waste management plan). A new European Union (EU) Directive on Port Reception Facilities for Ship-generated Waste and Cargo Residues (EC2000/59) was implemented throughout the EU at the end of 2002, eliminating the illegal dumping of waste to sea. According to Gregory (1999), recreational boaters are relatively unaware of MARPOL and should be educated as to the need for the provision of adequate onshore disposal facilities.

The EC Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC) sets bacterial standards that must be met – mandatory and the higher guideline standard at designated bathing waters. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) has also designated recreational waters that require to meet mandatory minimum standards for the quality of sea water. The Bathing Water Directive is currently being revised with a focus towards management and a change in bacterial indicators and target levels. The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (97/27/EEC) implemented by the UWWT (Scotland) Regulations 1994 require levels of

12 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign treatment of sewage to prevent pollution. The regulations require a duty to provide and maintain appropriate collection systems and treatment plants. This requires all sewage discharges serving populations over 10000 in coastal areas and 2000 in estuarine areas to receive secondary treatment prior to discharge. Communition of discharges will cease by the 31 December 2005. The Regulations require appropriate screening levels for overﬂows and treatment plant outfalls that will control sewage related debris. All discharges to the marine environment are controlled by SEPA under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. The Water Framework Directive implemented by the Water Environment and Water Services Act establishes a new, integrated approach to the protection, improvement and sustainable use of Europe’s rivers, lochs, estuaries, coastal waters and groundwater. Finally, the Environment Protection Act (1990), part IV, covers the provisions relating to litter from land- based sources as it is illegal to drop litter in any public place.

1.3 The Forth Estuary Forum’s Coastal Litter Campaign

Established in 1993, the Forth Estuary Forum is a voluntary partnership, comprising members from a diverse range of organisations as well as interested individuals whose aim is to “promote the wise and sustainable use of the Forth”. The Forth Estuary Forum’s ‘Integrated Management Strategy’ identiﬁed marine and coastal litter as being a high proﬁle and important issue which the Forth’s communities, users, planners and managers wished to see tackled in a co-ordinated manner. The Forth Estuary Forum’s Coastal Litter Campaign, funded by Fife Environment Trust, The BOC Foundation and Edinburgh Environment Partnership Grants Scheme Ltd, was launched in the summer of 2001 and aimed to develop and implement a community involvement and public awareness-raising programme intended to tackle and monitor the issue of marine and coastal litter in the Firth of Forth. The project ran for three years (2001 – 2004) involving three main integrated components: • co-ordinated clean-up and community involvement campaign; • awareness and education campaign; • ongoing monitoring programme.

This report details the outcomes of the Forth Estuary Forum’s Coastal Litter Campaign and highlights recommendations aimed at reducing marine litter at source.

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 13 14 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign co-ordinated clean-ups two 16 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign part two co-ordinated clean-ups

2.1 Introduction

Communities and organisations were encouraged to initiate and carry out their own co-ordinated and consolidated clean-up events. Involving communities in such projects is an integral part of integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) (Plate 5). At the Fifth North Sea Conference, it was agreed that marine litter can only be tackled by involving all sectors of the community. As a result, marine litter was identiﬁed in a draft EU marine strategy as an issue on which EU member Governments should take action. Beach cleans are an excellent public participation exercise, focusing the public’s attention on the issue of marine litter and creating a sense of environmental responsibility (Rees and Pond, 1995).

Various clean-up campaigns are carried out in the UK, including ENCAMS clean-ups and more speciﬁcally the Marine Conservation Society’s Beachwatch and Adopt-a-Beach campaigns. Numerous Local Authorities support the Marine Conservation Society’s Adopt-a-Beach Campaign by providing gloves and bags and arranging for rubbish uplifts following beach cleans (Marine Conservation Society, 2003). Furthermore, some Local Authorities have initiated their own beach litter survey and clean-up programmes as demonstrated by Fife Council’s Coastwatch which was in operation for several years in the 1990s. Similarly, Fife Council (East) operate a Rubbish Free Zone initiative which organises various clean-ups inland and on the shore.

This chapter details the Forth Estuary Forum Coastal Litter Campaign’s co-ordinated clean-up and community involvement campaign programme, highlighting the promotion of the Marine Conservation Society’s Adopt-a-Beach campaign in the Firth of Forth.

Plate 5 – Spring Clean at South Queensferry Plate 6 – Adopt-a-Beach litter survey and clean-up (D. Smith, City of Edinburgh Council) at Gullane (A. Skea)

2.2 Methodology

As part of the co-ordinated community clean-up programme, four ‘beach clean weekends’ were advertised each year in association with the Marine Conservation Society’s Adopt-a- Beach campaign – the second weekends in January, April and June and the third weekend in September. Promoting the Adopt-a-Beach campaign was deemed to be the most feasible method of co-ordinating beach cleans in the Firth of Forth since it is a well established campaign which provides an easy-to-use ‘organiser pack’ to all registered volunteers (Plate 6). An added beneﬁt was that any data generated would also be of use at the national scale,

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 17 particularly in the Online Aesthetic Survey Information System (OASIS) database developed by the Environment Agency and the National Aquatic Litter Group. It should be noted that this database is currently sitting idle due to lack of funds to host and maintain it. Additionally, the volunteers would continue to be part of an organised campaign in the event of the termination of the Coastal Litter Campaign.

To promote the ‘hands-on’ aspect of the Coastal Litter Campaign, Adopt-a-Beach workshops were organised in conjunction with the Marine Conservation Society at various locations around the Forth. Existing Adopt-a-Beach organisers in the Firth of Forth were encouraged to join the Coastal Litter Campaign and as far as possible, new volunteers were encouraged to survey beach litter, following the Marine Conservation Society’s protocol for Adopt-a- Beach (Marine Conservation Society, 2003), although care was taken not to dissuade potential volunteers from joining the Coastal Litter Campaign if they were solely interested in clearing litter from beaches. In addition, some clean-ups were promotional, such as Adopt-a-Beach workshops, or educational, as a follow up to a school visit, and therefore any data generated was not included as part of the Marine Conservation Society’s Adopt-a- Beach campaign. The Local Authorities were closely involved, providing gloves, bags and litter pickers to the volunteers and removing, for correct disposal, the litter that was collected. Beach clean organisers were encouraged to advertise their events in the local press to recruit extra volunteers and to provide feedback for the campaign web site as an incentive for other groups to join the Coastal Litter Campaign.

2.3 Results

Figure 1 shows the Forth-wide distribution of clean-up events. Exact descriptions of the various beach cleans are given in Appendix 1. Eight beaches were ‘adopted’ prior to the launch of the Coastal Litter Campaign. Close liaison with the Marine Conservation Society resulted in ﬁfteen additional beaches being ‘adopted’ in the Firth of Forth during the Coastal Litter Campaign, many of which were as a direct result of the Adopt-a-Beach workshops. Beach cleans also took place at an additional twenty-eight locations. As mentioned above, these clean-up events were promotional Adopt-a-Beach workshops, educational beach cleans and beach cleans that were independent of the Marine Conservation Society’s Adopt-a-Beach campaign.

Figure 1 – Co-ordinated clean-ups in the Firth of Forth # = existing ‘adopted’ beaches + = beaches ‘adopted’ during Coastal Litter Campaign * = other beach cleans

18 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 2.4 Discussion

The relative and absolute importance of cleanliness to beach users provides a strong incentive for the control of litter pollution (Ballance et al., 2000). Although some Local Authorities have increased the number of beaches cleaned, many do not have the resources to do so and/or are concerned about the negative impacts of mechanical beach cleaning on the beach ecosystem. Some Local Authorities consider that beach cleaning is only economically viable on amenity/award beaches which attract revenue from tourism (Marine Conservation Society, 2003). In 2000, the Environmental Protection Act 1990: Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse was extended, requiring Local Authorities to clean all beaches under their ownership as opposed to amenity beaches only. However, it is the Local Authorities’ decision as to the level of cleanliness that can be provided to non-amenity beaches. In the Firth of Forth, the cost of keeping beaches clean is estimated to be approximately £400,000 per year.

Preventative measures, such as the provision of regularly serviced bins and high proﬁle anti- littering campaigns are less expensive and can have a considerable effect in reducing the quantity of litter discarded by beach users when carried out in conjunction with penalties for dropping litter (Marine Conservation Society, 2003). Fanshawe and Everard (2002) suggest that beach cleaning operations may be ineffective in the long term since beach litter can be replenished from offshore sinks. Garrity and Levings (1993) demonstrated that a litter-free beach can become heavily littered within three months, reinforcing the fact that beach cleaning operations are only short term solutions. Williams and Tudor (2001) further compound the temporary success of beach cleaning operations and emphasise that litter must be prevented at source.

Beach management plans and award schemes, such as the Blue Flag campaign, administered in the UK by ENCAMS, provide an incentive for Local Authorities to realise the value of, and support the occurrence of, volunteer beach cleans (Madzena and Lasiak, 1997; Marine Conservation Society, 2003). Beach management must be viewed holistically, with close liaison amongst all Local Authorities in the respective region. ‘Sediment cells’ provide geographical boundaries in which marine litter is likely to circulate and should be referred to when deﬁning Beach Management Plans (DEFRA, 2001).

The Coastal Litter Campaign has been successful in focusing public attention on the subject of marine litter and in creating a sense of environmental responsibility amongst the Forth’s coastal communities. These communities have reported a sense of achievement, ownership and empowerment as detailed in Appendix 2.

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 19 20 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign education and awareness three 22 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign part three education and awareness

3.1 Introduction

In order to raise awareness as to the types, sources and impacts of marine litter and the various solutions available to minimise the impact of marine litter, the Coastal Litter Campaign organised a series of workshops to train volunteers in clean up and monitoring techniques. A travelling exhibition and series of talks was circulated around organisations, businesses and schools around the Forth and project seminars, exhibitions, publicity events and media campaigns were organised. Raising public awareness is a vital component of anti-pollution campaigns and initiating a change in attitude is the only guaranteed way of reducing the amount of marine litter on beaches (Rees and Pond, 1995). Young people can easily change their habits and can also raise awareness amongst the wider community (Derraik, 2002). Velander and Mocogni (1998) suggest that the combined use of publicity, education and legislation could prevent the accumulation of sewage related debris (SRD) on beaches. Uneputty et al. (1998) have reported that beach clean events are successful in changing the short-term behaviour of members of the community. Long term success would involve a co-ordinated effort involving all coastal communities as well as an improvement to waste management systems.

This chapter details the Forth Estuary Forum Coastal Litter Campaign’s education and awareness programme, highlighting the campaigns that were promoted in an attempt to reduce litter at source in the Firth of Forth.

3.2 Methodology

As part of the education and awareness programme, several methods were employed to inform people of the types, sources and impacts of marine litter, as well as what can be done to prevent marine litter at source. A travelling exhibition, displaying the Coastal Litter Campaign’s main poster and leaﬂets (Figure 2a, b, c) as well as numerous anti-littering posters, was offered to various organisations around the Firth of Forth. In addition, talks, desk-based activities and ﬁeld visits were offered to schools and community groups in the Firth of Forth catchment area (Figure 3). Where possible, the Coastal Litter Campaign attended events in association with members of the Steering Group, such as the Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Fair and community gala days.

Figure 2a – Coastal Litter Campaign poster 1 Figure 2b – Coastal Litter Campaign poster 2

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 23 Figure 2c – Marine litter leaﬂet Figure 3 – Coastal Litter Campaign school poster

The main educational messages promoted by the Coastal Litter Campaign were UKCEED’s Bag It and Bin It campaign, the Blue Flag Campaign, administered in the UK by ENCAMS and the Marine Conservation Society’s Adopt-a-Beach campaign.

3.2.1 Bag It and Bin It

Bag It and Bin It is a national campaign (Plate 7) promoting the responsible disposal of personal products, administered by UKCEED. This campaign is now promoted in Scotland with funding from the Scottish Executive and Scottish Water. Sanitary waste ﬂushed down toilets cause blockages and damage screens throughout the sewerage infrastructure and many items ultimately escape into the environment (Souter et al., 1998). The campaign aims to reduce sanitary waste inputs into the wastewater system via a series of awareness raising excercises to inform and educate the general public, such as television adverts, posters, leaﬂets and stickers.

Plate 7 – Bag It and Bin It logo (UKCEED)

Plate 8 – Blue Flag leaﬂet (FEE)

3.2.2 Blue Flag

The European Blue Flag campaign is an exclusive eco-label awarded annually to beaches, marinas and individual boats across Europe which meet high environmental standards for water quality, and environmental management (Plate 8). The Blue Flag campaign is administered in the UK by ENCAMS on behalf of the Foundation of Environmental Education (FEE). Beaches and marinas are monitored before and during the award year to ensure that all criteria are fulﬁlled and that the high standards are maintained.

24 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 3.2.3 Adopt-a-Beach

Adopt-a-Beach evolved from Beachwatch, Britain’s biggest beach litter survey, involving thousands of volunteers surveying litter on hundreds of beaches throughout the UK (Plate 9). Adopt-a-Beach is a national environmental initiative involving local communities in caring for their local coastal environment by carrying out surveys and clean ups each season. The results from the surveys and beach cleans are analysed by the Marine Conservation Society and used to identify the major sources of litter pollution around the UK coast. The autumn Adopt-a-Beach survey contributes to the Marine Conservation Society’s annual Beachwatch data set, if held on the third weekend in September. Plate 9 – Adopt-a-Beach organiser pack (Marine Conservation Society)

3.3 Results

Figure 4 shows the Forth-wide distribution of education and awareness activities. The travelling exhibition was well received and visited seventy-seven locations around the Firth of Forth, with a potential audience of approximately 500,000 people (Appendix 3, Plate 10). Fifty-four schools/community groups were visited and taught about marine litter (Appendix 4). The talks, desk-based activities and ﬁeld visits were well received and incorporated into an education pack which can easily be used by teachers or other persons to raise awareness about marine litter (Storrier, 2004) (Plate 11). Twenty-two events were attended, increasing the proﬁle of the Coastal Litter Campaign at the local and national level (Appendix 5, Plate 12).

Figure 4 – Education and awareness in the Firth of Forth # = events + = community visits * = travelling exhibition ^ = school visits

3.4 Discussion

As beach cleaning is expensive, it is necessary to consider alternative methods of reducing marine litter at source, namely the education of the public (Ballance et al., 2000). This has been demonstrated around the world. Simmons and Williams (1994) stated that the only solution to prevent SRD appearing on beaches is to prevent the disposal of solids to the sewage system, noting that SRD is not a common problem in the rest of Europe as the principal route of disposal is with the household refuse. This emphasises the need to re-educate the British public by promoting the Bag It and Bin It campaign.

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 25 Plate 10 – Coastal Litter Campaign Plate 11 – Scottish Seabird Centre After Plate 12 – Mock beach travelling exhibition (Fife Council) School Club (Forth Estuary Forum) cleaning at the Scottish Wildlife and Country- side Fair (Marine Conservation Society)

Information leaflets and posters produced by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) were well received and should be extended to all user groups (commercial shipping, fishermen and recreational boat users) (Marine Conservation Society, 2003). In addition, the Marine Conservation Society (2002) recommends that all seafarers should receive training in waste management practices and the impacts of incorrect disposal. In Australia, the main strategy to reduce marine litter has been education programmes, targeting marine users via brochures, leaflets, stickers, posters and magazine articles. Commercial fishers were issued with a free educational video. Other approaches include the development of plastic-free gear, improved port disposal facilities and clean-up programmes (Jones, 1995). The Commission of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) publicised the correct procedure for disposal of marine litter at sea (MARPOL 73/78) by means of placards and publicity leaflets, resulting in a reduction in the incidence of seal entanglement (Arnould and Croxall, 1995; Walker et al., 1997). Save the North Sea is a 3 year project funded by the EU Interreg IIIB North Sea programme and chaired by The Keep Sweden Tidy Foundation in partnership with organisations in six countries including Keep Scotland Beautiful. The project aims to combat marine litter by raising awareness and highlighting the cost of marine litter to humans and the environment. The project will focus on changing attitudes and behaviour among fishermen, seamen, leisure craft owners, oil platform workers and the general public towards marine debris, with a focus on plastic materials. PR, market research and information activities are therefore key project activities. The campaign will comprise educational courses for seamen, fishing for litter activities among fishermen in the region, Eco School courses for teachers and students, individual Blue Flag Awards for leisure craft owners, a pilot project for recycling fishing nets, and research on plastic ingestion by seabirds.

Targeting the most common litter items at source could reduce marine litter. For example, the Marine Conservation Society (2003) are lobbying for the implementation of a plastic bag tax, plastic bottle caps to be made universally non-detachable, for sanitary product manufacturers to display the ‘Bag It and Bin It’ logo on packaging, for cotton buds to be made of paper rather than plastic, and for the better enforcement of the Environment Protection Act (1990) to encourage individuals to be more environmentally responsible.

26 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign litter monitoring four 28 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign part four litter monitoring

4.1 Introduction

An important aspect of the Coastal Litter Campaign was the ability to monitor and evaluate the changing trends for marine litter in the Forth and allow for the development of individual programmes of action to tackle the litter at its source. Beach surveys are the most widely used method for monitoring marine litter, the amount and type of litter in a specified area at a certain time and/or how types and amounts of litter change with time (Ribic, 1998). Beach surveys allow the collection of a large sample of accurate data by trained volunteers to be achieved at low cost (Rees and Pond, 1995). During regional beach surveys, site selection is subjective, and biased towards beaches with easy access. However, site selection is not biased towards bathing areas or areas known to be heavily littered and therefore include a representative sample of the coastline, although only general conclusions can be supported (Rees and Pond, 1995). The use of volunteers in beach surveys is commonplace, capitalising on the local knowledge of the beach. Additionally, volunteers have no political, economic or personal motives for influencing the data collected which is therefore impartial (Rees and Pond, 1995). By training volunteers and issuing identification guides, potential errors associated with searching efficiency and the incorrect recording of litter items can be overcome, although the interpretation of data collected by volunteers must be treated with caution (Rees and Pond, 1995). Tudor and Williams (2001) verified that the use of volunteers to conduct litter surveys is a reliable method, with no statistical difference between the results of data gathered by inexperienced and experienced surveyors.

There are numerous methods used to survey beach litter, depending on the type of litter being sampled, making the comparison of studies difficult. Surveying small areas of beach from vegetation to shoreline can bias results, particularly on beaches where litter tends to accumulate in a speciﬁc area (Velander and Mocogni, 1999). Surveying litter in strandlines gives a high ﬁgure for the amount of fresh and accumulated litter present, which is to be expected since litter tends to accumulate in the strandlines (Velander and Mocogni, 1999).

This chapter details the results of the Forth Estuary Forum Coastal Litter Campaign’s monitoring programme and highlights possible campaigns that could be aimed at speciﬁc sources of litter in localised areas within the Firth of Forth.

4.2 Site Information and Survey Methodology 4.2.1 Site Information

The Firth of Forth is situated on the east coast of Scotland, separating Edinburgh and the Lothians to the south from the Kingdom of Fife to the north (Figure 5). The Firth of Forth is 96km in length, from the tidal water limit at Stirling to its North Sea entrance (Forth Estuary Forum, 1999). Its maximum width is 27km and the maximum depth is 68m. The Firth of Forth has 146km of coastline and is home to over a quarter of Scotland’s population and a diverse range of habitats and wildlife. It is also a major focus for industry, commerce, transport, housing and recreation, with Forth Ports being the second busiest in the UK, shipping millions of tons of cargo per annum (Atkins, 1997). Information on bathing water quality and sewerage structures around the Forth can be found in SEPA (2003). The Firth of Forth has a moderate tidal range and the main current flows westerly along the middle of the Firth, although there are strong easterly currents flowing along the north and south sides of the Firth (Dyke, 1987). The Firth of Forth is also heavily influenced by wind-generated currents, mostly prevailing from the south-west (Dyke, 1987). However, circulation in the Firth of Forth is sluggish and varies from season to season and year to year (Dyke, 1987).

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 29 Figure 5 – Litter monitoring in the Firth of Forth

4.2.2 Survey Methodology

As part of an ongoing monitoring campaign thirty-four beaches were surveyed on the first Friday or Saturday of each month in the Firth of Forth from July 2001 to December 2003 by members of the public, trained in the survey protocol and issued with identification guides for less common litter items (Figure 5, Appendix 6). The beaches were essentially selected at random as and when volunteers became involved in the Coastal Litter Campaign. In order to record the deposit of anthropogenic (unnatural) beach litter after high tide, the methodology of Velander and Mocogni (1999) was followed. A 100m transect (or whole beach if less than 100m) along the top wet strandline was chosen at random, recording the OS grid reference and permanent structures to allow the same stretch of beach to be surveyed over subsequent months. A data sheet was provided (Appendix 7) and litter was recorded over a 1m strip along the length of the 100m transect, recording visible litter to specific item (or, if this was not possible, to the component material) without disturbing the material in the strandline.

4.2.3 Data Analysis

The data was found to be normally distributed and analysed using Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), to determine significant differences in the amounts of litter amongst the beaches and over time. General Linear Model (GLM) analysis was used to determine significant differences amongst beaches with regard to various discrete variables, such as beach cleaning operations and proximity to sewage outflows. Using techniques devised by the Marine Conservation Society, the recorded beach litter was categorised according to its likely source.

4.3 Results

During the Coastal Litter Campaign, volunteers recorded 45,659 items of litter (Appendix 7). Several items were recorded more frequently than others, with 4235 plastic pieces (<5cm), 3404 cotton bud sticks, 2954 plastic pieces (5-50cm), 2903 confectionary wrappers, 2501 drinks containers (plastic), 2270 polystyrene pieces (<50cm) and 2201 sharp glass pieces (<2.5cm), amongst others (Appendix 7). Numerous unusual items were also recorded during the course of the Coastal Litter Campaign. Some of the most memorable include car parts, bike parts, for sale sign, railway sleepers, plastic safety helmets and eye goggles, face masks, pH test strips, carbon battery rods, gas camping stove, computer, ceramic bathroom ﬁttings, child car seat and a freezer door.

30 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign Appendices 6 and 8 show the amount and proportion of litter types per m2 found on the surveyed beaches in the Firth of Forth. It is clear from these bar charts that litter is most abundant at Binning Strip and West Sands. Litter is a less abundant yet consistent at Bathing House, Capernaum, Cramond, East Bay, Fisherrow Sands, Long Craig, Port Laing, Portobello (East), Portobello (West), Promenade, Seton Sands, Silverburn and South Beach. Litter appears to be only a minor problem at Brucehaven, Buckhaven, Carrick Villa, Dunbarnie Links, Gullane, Kinghorn Harbour, Longniddry Bents, Milsey Bay, Newark, Port Edgar, Red Row, Silversands, Shore Street, West Links and West Shore. In general, the amount and types of litter on beaches appears to be relatively constant over time, with increased abundance of certain litter types at irregular intervals. At Binning Strip, there were a relatively high number of litter items recorded in February 2002, with a relatively high proportion of SRD. At East Bay, there were a relatively high number of litter items recorded in December 2001 and August 2002, with a relatively high proportion of SRD and polystyrene respectively. At Port Laing, there were a relatively high number of litter items recorded in August 2002, with a relatively high proportion of polystyrene. At West Sands, there were a relatively high number of litter items recorded in August 2001, with a relatively high proportion of glass. Likewise, there was an increase in the number of litter items recorded at Dumbarnie Links in February 2002, Long Craig in August 2002 and Portobello (East) in December 2001). According to the MANOVA these differences in amounts of litter are signiﬁcant both over time and amongst beaches (P< 0.05).

Of the beaches demonstrating consistent litter accumulations, plastic is the most common litter type recorded (46%). In general, other litter types are recorded less frequently – SRD (11%), glass (9%), polystyrene (7%); metal (6%), paper (6%), cloth (4%), wood (4%), ceramic (3%), rubber (2%), other (2%) and medical (0.1%) (MANOVA, P<0.05; Figure 6, Appendix 7).

Local Authority beach cleaning operations, community beach cleans, location of sewage outflows and the presence/absence of takeaway facilities have a significant effect on the amount of litter items per m2, whilst the presence/absence of a harbour or marina does not (General Linear Model (GLM) analysis, P<0.05). Daily/weekly Local Authority beach cleaning operations result in significantly less litter items per m2. Annual community beach cleans significantly reduces the number of litter items per m2. In general there was more litter m2 on beaches with a surface PLASTICS POLYSTYRENE RUBBER GLASS METAL MEDICAL SANITARY PAPER water overflow (SWO) or combined sewer WOOD CLOTH CERAMIC OTHER overflow (CSO). The presence of takeaways in the vicinity of a beach results in significantly more Figure 6 – Proportion of litter types at beaches litter per m2. in the Firth of Forth, July 2001 – December 2003

Appendix 9 shows the likely source of litter at beaches in the Firth of Forth. Figure 7 ranks beaches in the Firth of Forth according to the percentage of litter attributed to likely sources. It was not possible to source most of the litter at the majority of beaches, with the exception of Gullane where most of the litter was attributed to SRD and Brucehaven, Kinghorn Harbour, Port Edgar, Portobello (West), Red Row, Shore Street and West Links where most of the litter could be sourced to recreational beach users. Of the litter that could be sourced, recreational litter represented the largest category at the majority of the beaches with the exception of Carrick Villa, Cramond, Gullane and Silverburn where SRD accounted for most of the litter recorded. SRD was commonly the second most common source of beach litter, except at Buckhaven, Newark, Port Edgar, Seton Sands, West Links and West Shore where a relatively large amount of litter was sourced to shipping or fishing. At all beaches, litter from fishing and shipping was relatively low compared to litter from recreation and SRD. Litter from fly-tipping and medical sources was recorded infrequently (less than 5% and 1% respectively of total litter recorded) at all beaches, except at Seton Sands (6.12% fly-tipping).

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 31 70.00% PERCENTAGE OF LITTER ATTRIBUTED TO LIKELY SOURCES AT BEACHES IN THE FIRTH OF FORTH (EXCLUDING NON-SOURCED LITTER) - BEACHES RANKED ACCORDING TO PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL LITTER

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

RECREATIONAL FISHING 30.00% SHIPPING MEDICAL FLY-TIPPING

PERCENTAGE OF LITTER IN SOURCING CATEGORY 20.00% SRD

10.00%

0.00% NEWARK GULLANE SEAFIELD RED ROW EAST BAY CRAMOND PORT LAING WEST LINKS BUCKHAVEN LONG CRAIG EAST BEACH CAPERNAUM SILVERBURN PROMENADE WEST SANDS PORT EDGAR BLACKSANDS WEST SHORE BRUCEHAVEN SILVERSANDS SETON SANDS SOUTH BEACH BINNING STRIP CARRICK VILLA ABERLADY BAY BELHAVEN BAY SHORE STREET SOCIETY BEACH BATHING HOUSE BATHAN'S SANDS DUMBARNIE LINKS MILSEY BAY(EAST) FISHERROW SANDS LONGNIDDRY BENTS PORTOBELLO (EAST) PORTOBELLO (WEST) KINGHORN HARBOUR BEACH

Figure 7 – Percentage of litter attributed to likely sources at beaches in the Firth of Forth (excluding non-sourced litter) – beaches ranked according to percentage of recreational litter

4.4 Discussion 4.4.1 Differences Amongst Beaches

Differences in the amounts and types of marine litter found at different beaches can be due to several factors, such as topography, beach proﬁle, substrate type, wind direction and strength, current patterns, storm events, proximity to inputs of litter (urban conurbations, shipping lanes, ﬁshing zones, river mouth, sewage outfalls) and frequency and timing of beach cleans, (Marine Conservation Society, 2003). In addition, beaches are dynamic environments, therefore the types and amounts of marine litter are constantly changing (Williams and Tudor, 2001). Madzena and Lasiak (1997) reported that a greater diversity of litter was found on sheltered beaches as compared with exposed ocean-front beaches and suggest that this is because sheltered beaches are more popular with tourists. Silva-Iniguez and Fischer (2003) document that beach litter is heterogeneously distributed, with easily accessed areas of beach showing a higher abundance of litter. Velander and Mocogni (1998) reported that most litter recorded at Cramond in the Firth of Forth showed signs of exposure to the sea, suggesting that it was not from a local source. Due to the sluggish circulation in the Firth of Forth which varies from season to season and year to year, marine litter could remain in the Firth for a considerable time.

It is likely that climatic conditions and tidal patterns are the greatest inﬂuence on the abundance of marine litter on Firth of Forth beaches. Detailed climatic data would assist in explaining the occurrence of marine litter on beaches and provide information regarding likely locations of litter sinks. It is suggested that the beaches at Binning Strip and West Sands act as litter sinks due to the high abundance of litter, although it is difficult to accurately detect trends with only 2.5 years of data. Storm conditions combined with tidal patterns are the most likely explanation for periodic increases in the abundance of litter on particular beaches, with litter from offshore sinks being transported to beaches. Storm conditions can result in CSOs discharging to the environment, possibly explaining why there are periodic increases in SRD at beaches in the vicinity of CSOs (GLM, P<0.05). Storm conditions could also explain why there is more general litter per m2 at beaches in the vicinity of CSOs and SWOs.

Beach use is another factor contributing to the abundance of litter on beaches. A study of

32 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign marine litter in Australia by Frost and Cullen (1997) found that the role of beach usage inﬂuenced the type of litter found. The beach with the highest usage did not have the greatest amount of litter, possibly as a result of the extensive system of litter bins. The beach with the lowest usage exhibited the lowest amount of litter, probably due to the lack of access to this beach. In the Firth of Forth, litter is a constant occurrence at numerous beaches, several of which are termed amenity beaches. However, litter was found infrequently at several amenity and rural beaches, suggesting that litter on Firth of Forth beaches comes from local and non- local sources.

Beach cleaning operations, both council cleaning and volunteer clean-ups, can influence the abundance of litter on beaches. GLM analysis has shown that daily/weekly Local Authority beach cleaning operations significantly reduces the amount of litter per m2 (P<0.05). A study by Somerville et al. (2003) demonstrated similar results, showing that effective beach litter management yields higher standards in terms of beach aesthetics. Annual community beach cleans also significantly reduce the amount of litter per m2. This can be best explained by the fact that annual community beach cleans tend to take place at beaches which are not cleaned by the Local Authority (Chi-square Analysis, P>0.05), therefore a high abundance of litter will be removed in a short space of time.

Proximity to takeaway facilities affects the amount of litter per m2 on beaches, with closeness to a takeaway resulting in significantly more litter per m2 on beaches, reflecting a lack of environmental responsibility amongst beach users. Proximity to harbours/marinas does not significantly affect the amount of litter per m2 on beaches, perhaps as a result of adequate Port Reception Facilities in the Firth of Forth.

Plastic items were the most consistent litter items found at Firth of Forth beaches – this is consistent with numerous other studies. Plastics are lightweight and durable and easily transported in currents. Coupled with the widespread use of plastics and their slow degradation rate, plastic litter items are a constant and consistent problem. It should be noticed that plastic pellets were a frequent occurrence on Firth of Forth beaches as documented in Miller et al. (2003). Periodic increases in the proportions of specific types of litter are not easily explained in this study. SRD can become deposited on beaches following storm conditions which either transport items from offshore sinks or result in CSOs discharging to the environment. Studies have shown that polystyrene is abundant in areas associated with fishing industries and also in areas with takeaway facilities (Marine Conservation Society, 2003). Similarly, periodic influxes of glass, paper and metal could be attributed to the careless disposal of drink bottles, cigarette stubs and drink cans during periods of high beach usage.

4.4.2 Sourcing Marine Litter

Sourcing marine litter is notoriously difficult and despite improvements in sourcing techniques, the majority of litter recorded during surveys cannot be attributed to a speciﬁc source since pieces of plastic, rubber and cloth are practically unidentiﬁable (Marine Conservation Society, 2003). In this study, the majority of the litter at the majority of the surveyed beaches were assigned to the non-sourced category.

Ribic (1998) surveyed marine litter in the USA over a five year period and found that almost 60% of the litter originated from land-based sources, 9% from ocean-based surveys with the remainder categorised as non-sourced (unable to determine if the litter originated from land or sea), suggesting that littering by tourists and recreational beach users, fly tipping, SRD and river litter must be targeted as a priority. Madzena and Lasiak (1997) studied litter on an undeveloped coastline in South Africa and demonstrated that plastic items were of local origin, most probably from rubbish dumps located upstream. Additionally, in general, more litter was recorded at the principal tourist beaches as opposed to non-recreational areas. Garrity and Levings (1993) studied marine litter along the Carribean coast of Panama and suggested that local household waste, shipping and near shore activities are the main sources of marine litter. Additionally, they found that marine litter decreased with population density and suggested that this factor as well as cultural values, degree of development, nearness to fisheries or estuaries could influence the source of marine litter. Walker et al. (1997) suggest that there is a link between the fishing industry in the South Georgia area and the amount of marine litter found at Bird Island. Jones (1995) reviews the available data on

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 33 ﬁshing debris in the Australian marine environment and its associated impacts on the environment and marine wildlife.

Tourist and recreational litter has consistently represented the most common source of marine litter in the UK (Marine Conservation Society, 2003). In this study, the majority of the sourceable litter could be assigned to the recreational category. However, SRD was the main source of litter at several beaches in the Firth of Forth. It should be noted that the majority of SRD consisted of cotton bud sticks (64%). This is in agreement with the Marine Conservation Society’s Beachwatch report (Marine Conservation Society, 2003) where 70% of SRD were cotton bud sticks which are difficult to remove during the sewage treatment process. Litter from shipping and fishing appear to be infrequently recorded on beaches in the Firth of Forth, perhaps as a result of adequate Port Reception Facilities in the Firth of Forth. However, Marine Conservation Society (2003) have suggested that some items categorised as non-sourced should be attributed to shipping, which could alter the findings in this study. Medical litter and fly-tipping also appear to be infrequent sources of litter on beaches in the Firth of Forth.

4.4.3 Anti-littering Campaigns for the Firth of Forth

Different management actions are required to effect a reduction in marine litter from the various sources. Sea-born sources of litter (fishing vessels, shipping) appear to be relatively insignificant in the Firth of Forth. International and national legislation which is enforced by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) may be effective in the Firth of Forth, but it should be noted that MCA are undermanned making enforcement very difficult. This is in contrast to other regions in the UK and indeed throughout the world, where litter from fishing and shipping continues to pollute coastlines (Marine Conservation Society, 2003). Nevertheless, the Blue Flag campaign for marinas and individual boat owners (administered by ENCAMS) should be promoted. It should be noted that Keep Wales Tidy have initiated a Tidy Tackle campaign in an attempt to reduce fishing industry litter. Similarly, the Cumbria Marine Litter Project (CMLP) have produced a marine litter questionnaire for fishermen in order to identify the marine litter problems encountered by fishermen and to develop and promote practical policies that can reduce marine litter.

In the Firth of Forth, localised campaigns should be focused on litter from land-based sources, including ﬂy-tipping and rivers. Moore et al. (2001) documented that legal limitations on the amount of litter entering the marine environment from storm drains were recently introduced in Los Angeles, USA. SRD is a relatively regular occurrence on Firth of Forth beaches despite Scottish Water’s improvements to sewage treatment facilities and improved screening of SRD. As the screens can fail and due to the public using the toilet to dispose of sanitary items, intermittent discharges of SRD are likely to continue to occur. This emphasises the need for the continued promotion of UKCEED’s Bag It and Bin It Campaign and also labelling of all sanitary products with the correct disposal information. It is anticipated that in time, SRD will become a much less frequent occurrence on beaches in the Firth of Forth as a direct result of the massive investment by Scottish Water, both in terms of improvements to sewerage structures and in funding the Bag It and Bin It campaign. Fly tipping is a major problem in localised areas – it would appear that a littered beach attracts more litter. Keep Scotland Beautiful chairs the newly created Scottish Fly tipping Forum which aims to bring about a standardised and coordinated approach to tackling the ﬂy tipping menace, working closely with Local Authorities and private landowners. Perhaps Strategic Waste Fund and/or Aggregate Tax funding could be used to employ contractors to clear material from heavily littered areas.

Beach visitors are responsible for the majority of beach litter in the Firth of Forth, reﬂecting a low appreciation of individual responsibility for the natural environment. Current legislation makes it an offence to drop litter in a public place, but this law is difficult to enforce. Numerous anti-littering campaigns have been initiated in recent years by organisations such as ENCAMS and the Marine Conservation Society, but it would appear that these messages need to be continually reinforced. A combination of education, provision of adequate waste facilities and enforcement of legislation is needed to tackle beach visitor litter.

34 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign conclusions and recommendations ve ﬁ 36 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign part ﬁve conclusions and recommendations

The high level of interest in the Forth Estuary Forum’s Coastal Litter Campaign and subsequent extremely positive evaluation comments (Appendix 2) demonstrate the success of the Coastal Litter Campaign. Substantial progress has been made in working towards “a litter-free Forth” and achieving a marked difference in attitude to litter in the Firth of Forth’s catchment area.

The key to controlling marine litter is to tackle it at source – an economically sustainable management option that complies with the precautionary principle (Fanshawe and Everard, 2002). With this in mind the Forth Estuary Forum’s Coastal Litter Campaign highlights the following recommendations – it is hoped that they will act as a catalyst to stimulate discussion in order to take the Coastal Litter Campaign forward: • The Forth Estuary Forum should continue to manage and further develop the Coastal Litter Campaign; • Strategic Waste Fund and/or Aggregate Tax funding should be used to employ contractors to clear material from heavily littered areas; • Local Authorities and coastal partnerships should continue to support voluntary beach litter survey initiatives such as the Marine Conservation Society’s Adopt-a-Beach project. The success of the Adopt-a-Beach project would be further consolidated with a network of co-ordinators to provide regional support throughout the UK; • Raising public awareness is an essential part of anti-littering campaigns since changing attitudes and behaviour is the only guaranteed method of reducing litter at source. To this end, educational material regarding the types, sources and impacts of marine litter should be incorporated into the national curriculum; • To prevent littering from beach visitors, waste minimisation incentives should be further promoted, e. g. ‘reduce – reuse – recycle’, to educate beach visitors to take their litter home and recycle as much as possible; • SRD is still a problem despite massive investment from Scottish Water. UKCEED’s Bag It and Bin It campaign should be further promoted to reduce sanitary waste inputs into the sewerage system, with labelling of sanitary products with the Bag It and Bin It logo; • Community Councils should continue to work with Local Authorities in order to achieve beach awards. Such status is an effective tool for raising awareness about the issues surrounding marine litter and can help to bring about a change in attitude and ultimately a reduction in litter at source; • Beaches are a natural asset to Local Authorities and should be viewed as such. This should be reﬂected in visitor interpretation material and tourist brochures. Beaches must be seen to be viewed as a precious natural resource in order for individuals and

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 37 organisations to develop a sense of environmental responsibility and treat them accordingly; • Litter monitoring should be incorporated into Local Authority beach management plans to assess the effectiveness of anti-littering campaigns. The technique employed by the Coastal Litter Campaign quickly identifies problem areas and is recommended in the first instance. Thereafter the use of the Environment Agency/National Aquatic Litter Group (NALG) protocol is recommended as an ongoing litter monitoring tool, producing ‘public- friendly’ results which could be fed into a national database similar to that for bathing water quality results. Any approach needs to be holistic, working closely with other Local Authorities in the region, taking note of sediment cells which provide geographical boundaries in which marine litter is likely to circulate (DEFRA, 2001); • Beach litter modelling studies should be carried out to determine the location of likely litter sinks and act as a tool for Local Authority beach management plans; • Beach litter monitoring should be co-ordinated with river bank litter monitoring as riverine inputs of litter can be highly significant in localised areas. Any subsequent efforts to initiate a clean-up of affected areas should also be co-ordinated; • Existing anti littering legislation must be enforced and penalties must be issued to persistent offenders. Reference should be made to Fly-tipping Stakeholders Forum (1999) which documents guidance notes for owners and managers of land and property and members of the public to help combat fly-tipping; • A national coastal litter campaign should be developed based on the success of the Forth Estuary Forum’s Coastal Litter Campaign.

38 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign references six 40 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign part six references

Arnould, J. P. Y. and Croxall, J. P. (1995) Trends in entanglement of Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella) in man-made debris at South Georgia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 30(11), 707-712. Atkins, S. (1997) Firths: Scotland’s Living Landscapes. Scottish Natural Heritage Publications, Perth, 36pp. Ballance, A., Ryan, P. G. and Turpie, J. K. (2000) How much is a clean beach worth? The impact of litter on beach users in the Cape Peninsula, South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 96, 210-213. Bjorndal, K. A., Bolten, A. B. and Laguex, C. J. (1994) Ingestion of marine debris by juvenile sea turtles in coastal Florida habitats. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 28(3), 154-158. DEFRA (2001) Shoreline Management Plans: A Guide for Coastal Defence Authorities. Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Rural Affairs, Report PB 5519, 71pp. Derraik, J. G. B. (2002) The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44, 842-852. Dyke, P. P. G. (1987) Water circulation in the Firth of Forth, Scotland. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 93B, 273-284. Fanshawe, T. and Everard, M. (2002) The Impacts of Marine Litter. Report of the Marine litter Task Team (MaLiTT), Marine Pollution Monitoring Management Group, 40pp. Fly-tipping Stakeholders Forum (1999) Fly-tipping Guidance. Environment Agency, England, 26pp. Forth Estuary Forum (1999) The Forth Integrated Management Strategy. Forth Estuary Forum, Edinburgh, Scotland, 72pp. Frost, A. and Cullen, M. (1997) Marine debris on northern New South Wales beaches (Australia): sources and the role of beach usage. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 34(5), 348-352. Galgani, F., Leaute, J. P., Moguedet, P., Souplet, A., Verin, Y., Carpentier, A., Goraguer, H., Latrouite, D., Andral, B., Cadiou, Y., Mahe, J. C., Poulard, J. C. and Nerisson, P. (2000) Litter on the sea floor along European coasts. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40(6), 516-527. Garrity, S. D. and Levings, S. C. (1993) Marine debris along the Caribbean coast of Panama. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 26(6), 317-324. Goldberg, E. D. (1999) Plasticizing the sea floor: an overview. Environmental Technology, 18, 195-202. Gregory, M. R. (1999) Plastics and South Pacific island shores: environmental implications. Ocean and Coastal Management, 42, 603-615. Hall, K. (2000) Impacts of Marine Debris and Oil: Economic and Social Costs to Coastal Communities. KIMO, Shetland, 97pp. Huin, N. and Croxall, J. P. (1996) Fishing gear, oil and marine debris associated with seabirds at Bird Island, South Georgia, during 1993/1994. Marine Ornithology, 24, 19-22. Jones, M. M. (1995) Fishing Debris in the Australian marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 30(1), 25-33. Laist, D. W. (1997) Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In: Coe, J. and Rogers, D. B. (eds) Marine Debris: Sources, Impacts and Solutions. Springer Series on Environmental Management. Laist, D. W. (1987) Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 18(6B), 319-326.

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 41 Llewellyn, P. J. and Shackley, S. E. (1996) The effects of mechanical beach-cleaning on invertebrate populations. British Wildlife, 7(3), 147-155. Madzena, A. and Lasiak, T. (1997) Spatial and temporal variations in beach litter on the Transkei coast of South Africa. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 34(11), 900-907. Marine Conservation Society (2003) Beachwatch 2002 – The Annual UK Beach litter Survey Report. Marine Conservation Society, Ross-on-Wye, UK, 92pp. Miller, K. L., Homer, B., Barbarito, B., Duncan, C. and Pearce, A. (2003) Actions to Combat the Plastic Pellets Nuisance on Beaches in the Firth of Forth, Scotland. Forth Estuary Forum, Rosyth, Scotland, 4pp (unpublished report). Minchin, D. (1996) Tar pellets and plastics as attachment surface for Lepadid cirripedes in the North Atlantic ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 32(12), 855-859. Moore, C. J., Moore, S. L., Weisberg, S. B. Lattin, G. L. and Zellers, A. F. (2002) A comparison of neustonic plastic and zooplankton abundance in southern California’s coastal waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44, 1035-1038. Moore, S. L., Gregario, D., Carreon, M., Weisberg, S. B. and Leecaster, M. C. (2001) Composition and Distribution of beach debris in Orange County, California. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(3), 241-245. Nash, A. D. (1992) Impacts of marine debris on subsistence fishermen: an exploratory study. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 24, 150-156. Rees, G. and Pond, K. (1995) Marine litter monitoring programmes – a review of methods with special reference to national surveys. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 30(2), 103-108. Ribic, C. A. (1998) Use of indicator items to monitor marine debris on a New Jersey beach from 1991 to 1996. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 36(11), 887-891. Robards, M. D., Piatt, J. F. and Wohl, K. D. (1995) Increasing frequency of plastic particles ingested by seabirds in the subarctic north Pacific. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 30(2), 151-157. Roehl, W. S. and Ditton, R. B. (1993) Impacts of the offshore marine industry on coastal tourism: the case of Padre Island National Seashore. Coastal Management, 21, 75-89. SEPA (2003) http://www.sepa.org.uk/publications/bathingwaters/2003/bathing_waters_2003.pdf Silva-Iniguez, L. and Fischer, D. W. (2003) Quantification and classification of marine litter on the municipal beach of Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46, 132-138. Simmons, S. and Williams, A. (1994) Sewage related debris. In: Earll, R. (ed.) Marine environmental Management: Review of vents in 1993 and Future Trends. Candle Cottage, England, 45-48. Somerville, S. E., Miller, K. L. and Mair, J. M. (2003) Assessment of the aesthetic quality of a selection of beaches in the Firth of Forth, Scotland. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46(9), 1184- 1190. Souter, N., Swain, A. and Ashley, R. (1998) Think Before You Flush. People’s attitudes and a Methodology for Change. University of Abertay and Wastewater Technology Centre, Dundee, Report No. WW 5008R/3, 38pp. Storrier, K. L. (2004) Beach Litter. Forth Estuary Forum, Rosyth, Scotland, 40pp. ISBN: 0-9529692-2-X. Tudor, D. T. and Williams, A. T. (2001) Investigation of Litter Problems in the Severn Estuary/ Bristol Channel Area. R&D Technical Summary, E1-082/TS. Environment Agency, Bristol, UK. Uneputty, P., Evans, S. M. and Suyoso, E. (1998) The effectiveness of a community education programme in reducing litter pollution on shores of Ambon Bay (eastern Indonesia). Journal of Biological Education, 32(2), 143-147. Velander, K. A. and Mocogni, M. (1998) Maritime litter and sewage contamination at Cramond Beach Edinburgh – a comparative study. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 36(5), 385-389. Velander, K. and Mocogni, M. (1999) Beach litter sampling strategies: is there a ‘best’ method? Marine Pollution Bulletin 12, 1134-1140. Walker, T. R., Reid, K., Arnould, J. P. Y. and Croxall, J. P. (1997) Marine debris surveys at Bird Island, South Georgia 1990-1995. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 34(1), 61-65. Williams, A. T. and Tudor, D. T. (2001) Litter burial and exhumation: Spatial and temporal distribution on a cobble pocket beach. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(11), 1031-1039.

42 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign appendices Appendix 1 – Co-ordinated beach cleans in the Firth of Forth

SUMMER AUTUMN WINTER SPRING SUMMER AUTUMN WINTER SPRING SUMMER AUTUMN WINTER SPRING BEACH 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 ADOPTEDADOPTED BEACHESBEACHES Aberlady 20-Sep 17-Jan Bathan’s Sands, Tyninghame 16-Jun 22-Sep 12-Jan 13-Apr sep 10-Jan Belhaven Bay, Dunbar Billowness, Anstruther 29-Nov 5-Jun 20-Sep 28-Mar 22-Jun 19-Sep Blackness 3-Oct 13-Jun 24-Sep Blacksands, Aberdour 12-Jan 29-Mar 6-Dec Buckhaven 21-Sep Burntisland 13-Apr 30-Jun 22-Sep 11-Jan 12-Apr 13-Jun 19-Sep 18-Jan Canty/Cowrie Bay, North Berwick ? 20-Apr 14-Sep 28-Dec 11-Apr 21-Jun 6-Sep 28-Dec Cramond 30-Jun 15-Sep 12-Jan 13-Apr 15-Jun 21-Sep 11-Jan 12-Apr 21-Jun 20-Sep 10-Jan Earlsferry 20-Sep 9-Jan 4-Apr 13-Jun 19-Sep 9-Jan 2-Apr East Beach, Dunbar 16-Apr 11-Jan East Wemyss Fisherrow Sands, Musselburgh 14-Jun Gullane 13-Jan 14-Apr 16-Jun 22-Sep 19-Jan 13-Apr 15-Jun 20-Sep 11-Jan Harbour Beach, Dunbar Kinghorn Harbour 13-Apr 15-Jun 22-Sep 12-Jan 13-Apr 15-Jun 11-Jan 11-Jan Leven 13-Jun 26-Sep Port Laing, North Queensferry 13-Jan 14-Apr 9-Jun 22-Sep 13-Apr 15-Jun 21-Sep Prestonpans Ruby Bay, Elie 18-Sep 15-Jan 9-Apr 25-Jun 10-Sep 14-Jan Silverburn, Largo 8-Oct 7-Jun 6-Sep 10-Jan 4-Apr 6-Jun 9-Jan Silverknowes 9-Apr 8-Apr 1-Jul Temple Bay, Largo ? ? 25-Jun 17-Sep 7-Jan 29-Apr 22-Jul 23-Sep 6-Jan West Beach, North Berwick 15-Jun 21-Sep 8-Feb 26-Apr 14-Jun 21-Sep 18-Jan West Shore, Pittenweem 12-Jan 13-Apr 15-Jun 22-Sep 18-Jan 10-Jan COASTAL LITTER CAMPAIGN BEACH CLEANS Bo’ness Carrick Villa Cellardyke 10-Oct Coldingham 28-May Culross 8-Oct 8-Jun 22-Sep 1-Jun mid sep Dalgety Bay 12-Jan 13/14-Apr 16-Jun 21/22-Sep 11-Jan 13-Apr 14-Jun 20-Sep 10-Jan Gosford 5-Apr Granton Limekilns 20-Apr 29-Mar Longniddry 20-Apr 21-Jun Milsey Bay, North Berwick 9-Oct 8-Mar 26-Apr Newark Beach, St Monans 14-Apr 13-Apr Portobello 9-Oct 14-Apr 21-Sep Ravensheugh Sands, Tyninghame 12-Jan Seton Sands 13-Apr 21-Sep 12-Apr 20-Sep Shell Bay, Largo Shore Street Beach, Anstruther 15-Jun 21-Sep South Beach, North Queensferry 13-Apr 16-Jun 21-Sep 11-Jan 12-Apr 14-Jun 20-Sep 10-Jan South Queensferry 13-Apr 26-Apr Tentsmuir 27-Jun West Links 19-Sep 11-Jan West Wemyss RUBBISH FREE ZONE BEACH CLEANS Cellardyke 14-Jun 26-Apr Drumeldrie, Largo Bay 23-May 26-Jun Earlsferry 8-May East Wemyss Caves 2-Mar Largo Bay 23-Mar Roome Bay, Crail 12-Apr Ruby Bay, Elie 14-Apr 6-Nov 13-Apr Shell Bay 26-Oct St Monans 15-May 3-Apr

44 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign Appendix 2 – Coastal Litter Campaign evaluation comments

NUMBER OF EVALUATION FORMS SENT OUT: 56

NUMBER OF EVALUATION FORMS RETURNED: 24

1. How did you ﬁnd out about the Coastal Litter Campaign? (please explain) • Word of mouth (Julie McKinney (KSB); Robert Davidson (City of Edinburgh Council); Alistair Hyde; Deirdre Munro (Fife Council Ranger Service); family member who works for ENCAMS) • Press article (‘Scotrail’ magazine; ‘East Lothian Courier’) • FEF web site • MCS web site • Contacted MCS/FEF • Contacted by FEF • Advertising • Scottish Canoe Association • Community Council (Kinghorn; St Monans; Limekilns; Port Seton and Cockenzie) • Scottish Wildlife Trust • From predecessor at work • Adopt-a-Beach workshop at Culross

2a. How were you involved in the Coastal Litter Campaign? (please circle) Monthly beach litter surveys x 5 Seasonal beach cleans x 5 Both x 14

2b. If you organised beach cleans, were your clean-ups part of the Marine Conservation Society’s Adopt-a-Beach campaign? (please circle) Yes x 12 No x 8

2c. Was it obvious to you how the Adopt-a-Beach element of the Coastal Litter Campaign contributed to the Marine Conservation Society’s national Adopt-a-Beach project? (please circle and explain) Yes x 15 No x 7 • By having a concerted effort on the same day/weekend throughout the estuary area, a true picture of the problem could be more easily evaluated • Shows which parts of coast/estuary are more prone to litter and whether it is sea-borne or from beach leisure activities or ﬂy tipping • No mention of Adopt-a-Beach in our local clean-ups • I know FEF and MCS share information. The information for both organisations came separately so I never compared them • There is very little evidence of anybody doing anything in the area I operate in • It’s a really good idea to have various groups involved, all doing the same thing to achieve these results • Pupils felt they had an important role to play in litter campaign • Explained by PO and it is clear from the MCS material and newsletter • There is plenty of literature sent out and information on the web is always there to catch up on • Adopt-a-Beach scheme gave the residents an opportunity to show their pride in their beach and has made them more aware of the environmental impact of litter • Initial literature and updates from the PO • Making people more aware of the problems of beach litter • Adopt-a-beach just added two extra cleans to our spring clean and Beachwatch which we have been doing for about 10 years • Via paperwork received

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 45 3. How much of your free time was taken up by your involvement in the Coastal Litter Campaign? (please explain) • Approx. 10 days a year that would have been taken up with Adopt-a-Beach anyway • Survey – 1 hour per month; beach cleans – 4 hours per season (including organisation) • Survey – 1 afternoon per month • Survey – 1.5 – 2 hours per month • Survey – approx 2 hours per month; beach cleans – 4 mornings per year • None – all organising and beach clean-ups and surveys were done during my working day. As a staff member of a day centre, I was supporting a group of disable volunteers • Beach clean – 5 – 10 hours per season • Beach clean – 1 day per season • none – all done during school hours, except for admin tasks • a certain amount of time each month for the survey which was not onerous. However, organising the beach cleans is a big task, especially as the bureaucracy has increased with requirements of Council and MCS • Survey – 2 hours per month; beach cleans – 4 hours per season • It takes me weeks to scrounge ‘thank you goodies’ for the children, advertise and organise the event. The day is easy. I never stop thinking of ways to improve and encourage the public to be aware of the impact of litter • Survey – 40 min. per month; beach cleans – 10 hours per year (including organising and taking part) • Survey – 4 hours per month • Survey – 10 min. per month; beach clean annually • Survey – 30 min per month; beach cleans – 1/2 day twice a year • Survey – 30 min per month • Survey – 2 hours per month (including travelling) • Survey – approx 1 hour per month • Beach clean – approx 3-4 hours per season • Beach clean – 4 hours per year • Survey – approx. 1 hour per month; beach clean – 4+ hours twice per year • Survey – approx. 45 min; beach clean – approx. 6 hours per season (including organisation, publicity and taking part) • None – done via school as part of curriculum

4. Was the initial information provided sufficient for your involvement in the Coastal Litter Campaign? (please circle and comment) Yes x 23 No x 0 • Common sense really. Simple written instructions • Clarification was needed on some points initially and I benefited from speaking personally to the PO • If I had to fill in all the articles collated on that ridiculous data sheet I would never have got anything done • We met with the organisers who gave us all the relevant information • There is plenty of literature sent out and information on the web is always there to catch up on • It was a little frightening at first but the PO nursed me through! • Regular calls from the PO kept me informed and up to date • Was shown how to carry out a survey by another volunteer and the PO explained in detail the purpose of the exercise • Information I was given appeared to be adequate • Previous experience with Beachwatch

46 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 5. Were you kept informed of progress throughout the Coastal Litter Campaign? (please circle and comment) Yes x 24 No x 6 • Excellent updates • By letter, ‘Forthsight’, ‘Strandline’, seminars and keeping in touch with FEF • Contact every month with PO. A little newsletter might have been useful • PO was very good at maintaining contact and keeping us informed. Again, this personal touch made it easy (by phone) to ask questions • Very good contact from PO • Receive regular update Bulletins from MCS. Also, PO in regular contact re dates of clean- ups etc. • On the web •‘Forthsight’, ‘Strandline’ and the MCS magazine are of particular beneﬁt. Some of the updates are too scientiﬁc for me • PO kept me informed of progress • Kept informed of when to carry out surveys, end of project • Interim reports and ‘Strandline’ were very informative

6. Have your perceptions of beach litter changed during the Coastal Litter Campaign? (please circle and explain) Yes x 14 No x 9 • More aware in parallel with doing Adopt-a-Beach anyway • It’s an ongoing problem. We’re not going to beat it, just keep it in check. A trait of 20th/21st century man • Dog litter not such a problem as it used to be but sweetie papers, dog ends and drink containers seem to be more prevalent • We have been amazed how clean our beach often is. We can’t believe the cotton bud problem. We never realised how, or appreciated how long sweet wrappers and polystyrene take to disintegrate. We were surprised to hear how rubber tyres can be left to be buried by the sand • Since I started doing the area I cover (about 3 years ago) things have improved in that I can now get the area totally clean. There is just as much litter coming in – it’s just that there is no backlog • Definitely! I have always been very surprised at the type and amount of rubbish we find each time • Much more detailed knowledge of type of litter and its causes e.g. cotton bud sticks • It has made me more aware of where it comes from and how to start encouraging friends and family to do their bit! • I have become more aware of the dangers of the various types of litter and what harms marine life. I never drop my cigarette ends now! • Only surprised at unwillingness of people to get involved! • Ongoing problem at same level • Surprised at the variation month to month. Amazed at how much plastic (namely bottles) appeared • Was always of concern that litter was found on the beach, especially broken glass • Did not realise there would be so much household rubbish (cotton buds, broken glass etc.). Still more education needed • A lot of beach litter is not directly dropped by people and comes from ships and from being flushed down the toilet • More aware of beach litter and feel this also applies to the local community who have either been involved in beach cleans or watched it being done • Previous experience with Beachwatch • Some beaches are much worse than I expected. On looking closely you see the small items – cotton buds are a menace!

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 47 7. In your opinion, where does the majority of beach litter come from? (please explain) • Dropped on the beach and unsourced scraps washing in • The $64K question. Probably mindless people frequenting the coast and seafarers casting articles onto the beach or into the sea • Wish I knew • Careless beach and promenade users although too much overspill through pumping station meshes is a big problem at certain times with an abundance of sanitary items deposited on beach • Shipping and domestic waste, especially what people flush down toilets. Clearly a lot is from fishing vessels/ships • Discarded litter, fishermen, items flushed down toilets • Fishing and shipping probably provide the largest weight – a regular supply of ropes, net cuttings, fish boxes, lobster pots. In quantity of items the sewage outflow is probably the greatest – sanitary towels, cotton buds etc by the thousand. Beach visitors can be a problem, but it’s only a few days a year. The area I work also has the river at its centre and if there’s a spate you get lots of bottles and plastics down the river • Sanitary products being flushed down the toilet and food/sweet wrappers being thrown away. Also a lot of fishing products etc. • Members of the public – careless disposal of litter • People flushing it down the toilet and dropping it on the beach • Boats, ships and sewage works • Visitors in the summer months – more people = more litter • Boats – things on beach are not dropped by people on beaches (loo cleaners, fish boxes, rubber gloves etc) • Waste disposal from boats at sea; left by consumers of fast food and drink • Obviously some faulty sewage works. Also careless people just dumping whatever they are using • Most conspicuous elements (e.g. plastic bottles) are clearly of domestic origin (e.g. throwing rubbish into burns and rivers • Washed in on the tide • Did not realise there would be so much household rubbish (cotton buds, broken glass etc.) – unless this rubbish comes off ships? • Visitors to the beach and waste flushed down the toilet • Glass from local pub! • Not from our village!! • Mainly from boats either in the Forth or the local harbour, litter louts and illegal rubbish dumping • Mostly food and drink packaging, but also industrial and shipping packaging, brought in by tide and blown to above tide line, as well as local picnic litter in summer • Carelessness and thoughtlessness of man! Litter thrown away on beaches, around the coast, from ships etc.

8. Did your involvement in the Coastal Litter Campaign have an impact on your local beach and/or in your community? (please explain) • Same impact with Adopt-a-Beach but involvement in CLC certainly helped raise proﬁle in local media • Citizens made aware of the state of the coastline by articles published from time to time in community council newspaper. People volunteered for beach cleans as a result • No, but quite a few people asked what I was doing during surveys and expressed surprise and made suggestions like ban dogs and provide more bins especially on the beach during summer at weekends • Impact of clean-ups is very short term, unfortunately, but still valid – but it is not long before the tide brings in plenty more rubbish. Limited impact on community – a small group of regular volunteers plus youth groups, maybe the greatest impact was awareness-raising among the youth groups who participated

48 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign • hard to say as we’ve had little feedback from people. Litter from previous tides are often washed away by new tides. Only one member of the public joined us on one occasion, and only a handful of people approached us to ask what we were doing. We displayed posters in our day centre and wrote reports for our regular article in the ‘East Fife Mail’ • Yes – the area is the cleanest until the next east wind or heavy rainfall! • We would like to think so, however, there is always just as much rubbish washed in from the sea the next day so it doesn’t stay clean for long • Yes – community involvement (only one parent objected to her child taking part) • Raised awareness. Sea Kayak Club seen to be helpful to local people • In my local village 12 miles away from the beach – it was easy involve my friends who also walk their dogs at the beach – but the locals were not helpful • Started with monthly beach surveys, then Adopt-a-Beach, then formed Residents and Environment Group, then ﬂoral displays along prom, then environmental notice board, then neighbourhood watch, then managing the public toilets to keep them open in winter for coastal walkers – won best kept large village in Fife • Local community got involved once a year – 40 people out of 1500 inhabitants turned out to help! • Efforts largely unknown therefore little impact on amount of litter but beach beneﬁts from regular clean-up • Only in that it raised awareness and the community started annual beach cleans again • The periodic beach cleans were valuable in keeping the adjacent SWT reserve clean • I have involved other people in my concerns, especially “dog walkers” • Only if clean-ups undertaken and education continued • The removal of broken glass made the beach a safer place and improved local relationships between residents and businesses • Yes – I guess so • Yes – beach appears cleaner which has been commented on by visitors • People were interested to know that surveys were done and many were keen to help, although the dates were not convenient for some. Our request to the Council for a litter bin was successful in December 2003 • Community is appreciative of what we do

9. In your opinion, has there been a reduction in beach litter in the Firth of Forth? (please circle and explain) Yes x 14 No x 7 • A community-based campaign could not realistically achieve this within 2 years for the whole Forth – it has been hugely successful at local level • The survey may show otherwise. Every tide brings new litter which if not collected is carried away to another beach by the tide or invariably left at the vegetation line at high tide • Less litter at my beach • At times my beach has problems with coal dust?, large trees/branches and weed of some sort which we are not asked to report • Surveys show no real evidence for this • The beach we clean doesn’t seem to get huge amounts of litter, apart from after stormy weather. I have, however, noticed lots of litter on other beaches when out walking • The only reduction is the amount of litter above high water mark which has been removed. There’s just as much getting washed up • We used to easily ﬁll over a dozen black bags plus tyres etc – over the last couple of years I think it has almost halved • We do graphs and have noticed a decline in litter collected • Not in the time I have been doing the survey, but I would say yes if I were looking back say ﬁve years • In my patch there has – not sure about other beaches • There is an improvement in tidal litter. Visitors are being educated through the notice board and by word of mouth. They are slowly but surely taking messages on board, but there is still a lot to do • Reduction in litter depends on wind and tides

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 49 • Efforts largely unknown therefore little impact on amount of litter but beach benefits from regular clean-up • Less sanitary material; more plastics • Marginal reduction • I think so • Only involved in last few months, so unsure • Due to a greater awareness of litter problem • There appears to be less litter – there was very little at our last beach clean • Generally yes, except following easterly gales and high spring tides. River floods brought a profusion of glass and plastic bottles and other litter • Unsure – we find more litter at some times than others

10. In your opinion, do you think the Coastal Litter Campaign has been a success? (please circle and explain) Yes x 22 No x 0 • Measure of success has been the level of involvement and increased profile locally, both among public and Local Authority, as well as local reductions in beach litter • Instilled public awareness. The estuary must be cleaner with all the litter collected over the last two years or so • Only so far as FEF are now aware of the size of the problem but the public still need to be educated about ‘flushing’ and discarding their rubbish (bin it or take it home) • It needs to continue long-term for this success to be sustained. Only a sustained effort will have any impact on litter reduction • I’ve read about beach clean-ups being successful in other areas in newspapers. The posters with the toilet on a beach are educational and thought-provoking. It’s given our group a better understanding of what we can do to help and we pass this on to others • I don’t know – I can’t say I see any improvement • Definitely, however, I think it has to be an ongoing project otherwise the litter amounts will begin to rise again • It has raised awareness locally to some extent. However, the council still seems to think that beach cleans are not needed in the summer when they clean the beach. I suggest the surveys will show otherwise • With the provision that there is much more to do. The campaign is obviously working but the message has to reach more and more people. An ongoing education of the public is needed • Volunteers worked hard at reporting and clearing rubbish • Organisational structure in place but more emphasis on prevention/education required – easier said than done • Success in raising awareness of problem. Final success will depend upon what action can be taken at source • The CLC report will confirm or otherwise • Only involved in last few months, so unsure – hopefully the results will show that it has • For continued success there needs to be a high profile with local communities • It must be an ongoing campaign • Anything that makes more people think and do something is a success however small

11a. Do you plan to continue surveying beach litter and/or organising beach cleans in the future? (please circle) Yes x 23 No x 1

50 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 11b. Would you prefer to do this as part of an ongoing Coastal Litter Campaign? (please explain) • Yes – contributing to Adopt-a-Beach at the UK level and CLC locally adds value to the data collected • It would be organised as at present – a combined effort, therefore easier to draw conclusions • Will still be working on burn and park clean ups run by Community Council and Resident Groups • It is better for the proﬁle of the clean-ups for them to be under the auspices of a campaign like this • Doing it for an organisation gives our group motivation and a sense of responsibility • I am quite happy doing it on my own, but occasional help would be useful particularly with larger items. The Council took 8 years to remove a full oil drum • We will continue whether we are part of the CLC or not, but do feel it’s best to be working in conjunction with other agencies for best results. Also, it’s nice to have positive feedback from other people and be kept up to date! • It is good to have the support of an organisation. The PO has been invaluable with practical help and advice. The campaign gives authority to the effort and persuades the Council to do their bit • Anything to help the environment • I need to have the support and encouragement that the PO has provided. I like the structure that the CLC provides. Neither I or the people who join me can claim the knowledge which the campaign provides • Publicity and provision of gloves/bags/skips is vital if this work is to be done by volunteers • Higher proﬁle and back-up support is the role of the CLC • Regular reminders keep you on your toes • I do it every day routinely • Likely to have more lasting impact and positive results • Results combined from many areas are a good idea • Turnout is better when part of a larger campaign • Yes, although the dates are not always locally convenient

12. Any other comments? (please continue overleaf or on a separate sheet if necessary) • FEF’s CLC has been a big success, generating a network of volunteers and unique datasets. The key to community buy-in has been the PO’s excellent communication • The beach cleans should be every month to stop the movement of litter up and down the estuary • The only way to reduce coastal litter is by tackling its source, hence I hope the data gathered will allow something to be done to target those responsible. Realistically, however, it is hard to see how littering by shipping can be effectively controlled and policed. Awareness- raising is the only tactic which could contribute to a reduction in domestic waste and waste from shipping • We’ve enjoyed doing the beach clean-ups. We’ve learned so much, from the impact litter has on the environment, to seeing how big a problem plastics are, to what not to flush down the toilet. We’ve learned a bit about tides and beaches. Our group consists of adults with a learning disability. They benefit from the fresh air and exercise, the sense of pride, achievements and from helping their community. They would clean the whole beach if we had the time. We also have a craft group in the day centre who make good use of the interesting pebbles, driftwood and pottery we collect on the beach • The survey sheet is surely a joke! Quite often I have bags of litter containing over 1000 items – how are meant to fill the sheet in when it’s blowing a gale and raining. We all know what gets washed up on the beach – does it matter whether it’s 10% or 20%; we have to stop everything being dumped in the sea. Major education is needed. It would be nice to think that the sources of pollution might be controlled although I’ll believe it when it happens. In the meantime, the only answer to me seems to be about daily clean-ups by those of us who walk the beaches regularly, mostly dog walkers like myself

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 51 • We have been cleaning our beach for over 3-4 years now and the group still very much enjoy it. They are very hard working and take great pleasure in seeing ‘their’ beach clean. Although the litter has definitely reduced, I don’t know where all this seaweed has appeared from – it’s increased ten-fold! • We are happy doing beach cleans twice yearly on school days during term time • If the CLC stopped I would have serious concerns about continuing beach cleans. The campaign ensures the support of the Council for the cleans and means organisers do not have to worry about insurance and the like. The campaign legitimises our efforts and ensures that the information can be collated and analysed. This is more important than cleaning the beach. I am very sorry the monthly surveys will be finishing. It seems like a waste now that it is all set up – the hard work is in establishing the survey at the start • Need to improve sewage works to prevent cotton buds – what about a big sieve? • Fife Coastal Path is becoming more and more popular. The Superfast ferry is bringing more tourists. Cleanliness is something which visitors discuss with me. Their curiosity over environmental and ecological matters seems endless. Thanks to the CLC, the beach can hold its head up. It would be nice to see things growing better year by year in the Forth. I was once shamed by comments from a family of Germans about the lack of litter awareness in Scotland. As long as I am able to pick up discarded litter that won’t happen again • It would be useful to have access to a tractor or 4-wheel drive quad bike as it’s difficult to move heavy items up steep paths to skips. Input from the Council on a more practical level would be very useful as the volunteers are providing a lot of unpaid man power to keep the beaches clean • Greater awareness of the more dangerous aspects (e.g. drinkers throwing bottles at rocks where children climb). I give this aspect priority during clean-ups and attempt to keep popular areas free of broken glass at all times • As long as young people are not made aware of the injuries that can occur from beach litter I think we are fighting a losing battle • I hope the CLC – with PO in post – can continue. Anything to benefit the cleanliness of the environment in its natural state is of use to us all • Keep up the good work!! • Times of clean-ups should be on web site as well as the date.

52 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign Appendix 3 – Coastal Litter Campaign travelling exhibition rota

DATE VENUE 1 VENUE 2 JulyJul-01 2001 16/7 – 23/7 Beacon Leisure Centre – 23/7 – 30/7 Aberdour Beach Restaurant Port Seton Library 30/7 – 6/8 Deep Sea World Port Seton Library Aug-01 August 2001 6/8 – 13/8 Longannet Power Station Port Seton Library 13/8 – 20/8 Buckhaven Community Centre North Berwick Library 20/8 – 27/8 – North Berwick Library 27/8 – 3/9 – North Berwick Library Sep-01 September 2001 10/9 – 17/9 Templehall Library – 17/9 – 24/9 Templehall Library Musselburgh Library 24/9 – 1/10 Templehall Library/Leven Library Musselburgh Library Oct-01 October 2001 1/10 – 8/10 Leven Library Dunbar Library 8/10 – 15/10 Leven Library Dunbar Library 15/10 – 22/10 Leven Library/Buckhaven Library Dunbar Library 22/10 – 29/10 Buckhaven Library Scottish Executive 29/10 – 5/11 Buckhaven Library Portobello Community Centre Nov-01 November 2001 5/11 – 12/11 Buckhaven Library/Burntisland Library Scottish Sea Bird Centre 12/11 – 19/11 Burntisland Library Scottish Sea Bird Centre 19/11 – 26/11 Burntisland Library Scottish Sea Bird Centre 26/11 – 3/12 Burntisland Library/Kinghorn Library Scottish Sea Bird Centre Dec-01 December 2001 3/12 – 10/12 Kinghorn Library Linlithgow Library 10/12 – 17/12 Kinghorn Library Linlithgow Library 17/12 – 24/12 Kinghorn Library/Kirkaldy Central Library Linlithgow Library 24/12 – 31/12 Kirkaldy Central Library Linlithgow Library/Armadale Library 31/12 – 7/1 Kirkaldy Central Library Armadale Library Jan-02 January 2002 7/1 – 14/1 Kirkaldy Central Library Armadale Library 14/1 – 21/1 Kirkaldy Central Library/Rothes Hall Library Armadale Library/Blackridge Library 21/1 – 28/1 Rothes Hall Library Blackridge Library 28/1 – 4/2 Rothes Hall Library Blackridge Library Feb-02 February 2002 4/2 – 11/2 Rothes Hall Library/Glenwood Library Blackridge Library/Whitburn Library 11/2 – 187/2 Glenwood Library Whitburn Library 18/2 – 25/2 Glenwood Library Whitburn Library 25/2 – 4/3 Glenwood Library/Cupar Library Whitburn Library/Fauldhouse Library Mar-02 March 2002 4/3 – 11/3 Cupar Library Fauldhouse Library 11/3 – 18/3 Cupar Library Fauldhouse Library 18/3 – 25/3 Cupar Library Fauldhouse Library/West Calder Library 25/3 – 1/4 St Andrews Library West Calder Library Apr-02 April 2002 1/4 – 8/4 St Andrews Library West Calder Library 8/4 – 15/4 St Andrews Library West Calder Library/Blackburn Library 15/4 – 22/4 Ladybank Library Blackburn Library 22/4 – 29/4 Ladybank Library Blackburn Library 29/4 – 6/5 Ladybank Library Blackburn Library/Lanthorn Library May-02 May 2002 6/5 – 13/5 Ladybank Library Lanthorn Library 13/5 – 20/5 Lundin Links Library Lanthorn Library 20/5 – 27/5 Lundin Links Library Lanthorn Library/East Calder Library 27/5 – 3/6 Lundin Links Library East Calder Library Jun-02 June 2002 3/6 – 10/6 Lundin Links Library East Calder Library 10/6 – 17/6 Dalgety Bay Library East Calder Library/Almondbank Library 17/6 – 24/6 Dalgety Bay Library Almondbank Library 24/6 – 1/7 Inverkeithing Library Almondbank Library

(continued)

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 53 Appendix 3 – (continued)

DATE VENUE 1 VENUE 2 JulyJul-02 2002 1/7 – 8/7 Inverkeithing Library Almondbank Library/Broxburn Library 8/7 – 15/7 Rosyth Library Broxburn Library 15/7 – 22/7 Rosyth Library Broxburn Library 22/7 – 29/7 Dunfermline Carnegie Library Broxburn Library/Carmondean Library 29/7 – 5/8 Dunfermline Carnegie Library Carmondean Library Aug-02 August 2002 5/8 – 12/8 – Carmondean Library 12/8 – 19/8 Falkirk Library Carmondean Library/Bathgate Library 19/8 – 26/8 Falkirk Library Bathgate Library 26/8 – 2/9 Grangemouth Library Bathgate Library Sep-02 September 2002 2/9 – 9/9 Grangemouth Library Bathgate Library 9/9 – 16/9 Bo’ness Library Standard Life 16/9 – 23/9 Bo’ness Library Standard Life 23/9 – 30/9 Larbert Library Standard Life 30/9 – 7/10 Larbert Library Broomhouse Community Centre Oct-02 October 2002 7/10 – 14/10 Denny Library Brunton Hall 14/10 – 21/10 Denny Library Brunton Hall 21/10 – 28/10 Bonnybridge Library Fife House 28/10 – 4/11 Bonnybridge Library Royal Commonwealth Pool Nov-02 November 2002 4/11 – 11/11 Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther Royal Commonwealth Pool 11/11 – 18/11 Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther Meadowbank Stadium 18/11 – 25/11 Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther Meadowbank Stadium 25/11 – 2/12 Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther Portobello Library Dec-02 December 2002 2/12 – 9/12 – Portobello Library 9/12 – 16/12 – Portobello Library 16/12 – 23/12 Craigencalt Farm Ecology Centre Portobello Library 23/12 – 30/12 Craigencalt Farm Ecology Centre Portobello Library 30/12 – 6/1 Craigencalt Farm Ecology Centre Portobello Library Jan-03 January 2003 6/1 – 13/1 Craigencalt Farm Ecology Centre Almond Valley Heritage Centre 13/1 – 20/1 Hermitage of Braid Almond Valley Heritage Centre 20/1 – 28/1 Hermitage of Braid Almond Valley Heritage Centre 27/1 – 3/2 Hermitage of Braid Almond Valley Heritage Centre Feb-03 February 2003 3/2 – 10/2 Hermitage of Braid Deep Sea World 10/2 – 17/2 Piershill Library Deep Sea World 17/2 – 24/2 Piershill Library Meadowbank Stadium 24/2 – 3/3 Piershill Library Meadowbank Stadium Mar-03 March 2003 3/3 – 10/3 South Queensferry Library Scottish Seabird Centre 10/3 – 17/3 South Queensferry Library Scottish Seabird Centre 17/3 – 24/3 South Queensferry Library Scottish Seabird Centre 24/3 – 31/3 Kirkliston Library Scottish Seabird Centre 31/3 – 7/4 Kirkliston Library Scottish Seabird Centre Apr-03 April 2003 7/4 – 14/4 Kirkliston Library – 14/4 – 21/4 Wester Hailes Library Lochore Meadows Country Park 21/4 – 28/4 Wester Hailes Library Lochore Meadows Country Park 28/4 – 5/5 Wester Hailes Library Hopetoun House Ranger Centre May-03 May 2003 5/5 – 12/5 Morningside Library Hopetoun House Ranger Centre 12/5 – 19/5 Morningside Library Hopetoun House Ranger Centre 19/5 – 26/5 Morningside Library Hopetoun House Ranger Centre 26/5 – 2/6 Colinton Library Hopetoun House Ranger Centre Jun-03 June 2003 2/6 – 9/6 Colinton Library Hopetoun House Ranger Centre 9/6 – 16/6 Colinton Library Hopetoun House Ranger Centre 16/6 – 23/6 Muirhouse Library Rosyth Ferry Terminal Building 23/6 – 30/6 Muirhouse Library Rosyth Ferry Terminal Building 30/6 – 7/7 Muirhouse Library Rosyth Ferry Terminal Building

54 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign Appendix 3 – (continued)

DATE VENUE 1 VENUE 2 JulyJul-03 2003 7/7 – 14/7 Craigmillar Library Rosyth Ferry Terminal Building 14/7 – 21/7 Craigmillar Library Rosyth Ferry Terminal Building 21/7 – 28/7 Craigmillar Library Rosyth Ferry Terminal Building 28/7 – 4/8 – Rosyth Ferry Terminal Building Aug-03 August 2003 4/8 – 11/8 Hall Hill Healthy Living Centre Fisherrow Community Centre 11/8 – 18/8 Hall Hill Healthy Living Centre Fisherrow Community Centre 18/8 – 25/8 Hall Hill Healthy Living Centre Fisherrow Community Centre 25/8 – 1/9 Hall Hill Healthy Living Centre Fisherrow Community Centre Sep-03 September 2003 1/9 – 8/9 Hall Hill Healthy Living Centre Loch Centre, Tranent 8/9 – 15/9 Hall Hill Healthy Living Centre Loch Centre, Tranent 15/9 – 22/9 Wallyford Community Centre Prestongrange Industrial Heritage Museum 22/9 – 29/9 Wallyford Community Centre Prestongrange Industrial Heritage Museum 29/9 – 6/10 – Prestongrange Industrial Heritage Museum Oct-03 October 2003 6/10 – 13/10 North Berwick Community Centre Prestongrange Industrial Heritage Museum 13/10 – 20/10 North Berwick Community Centre Prestongrange Industrial Heritage Museum 20/10 – 27/10 – Prestongrange Industrial Heritage Museum 27/10 – 3/11 –– Nov-03 November 2003 3/11 – 10/11 – BOC Group, Edinburgh 10/11 – 17/11 – BOC Group, Edinburgh 17/11 – 24/11 Chesser House, City of Edinburgh Council BOC Group, Edinburgh 24/11 – 1/12 – BOC Group, Edinburgh Dec-03 December 2003 1/12 – 8/12 –– 8/12 – 15/12 –– 15/12 – 22/12 –– 22/12 – 29/12 –– 29/12 – 5/1 –– Jan-04 January 2004 5/1 – 12/1 Deep Sea World Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther 12/1 – 19/1 Deep Sea World Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther 19/1 – 26/1 Deep Sea World Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther 26/1 – 2/2 Deep Sea World Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther Feb-04 February 2004 2/2 – 9/2 Deep Sea World Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther 9/2 – 16/2 Deep Sea World Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther 16/2 – 23/2 Scottish Sea Bird Centre Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther 23/2 – 1/3 Scottish Sea Bird Centre Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther Mar-04 March 2004 1/3 – 8/3 Scottish Sea Bird Centre Scottish Environment Protection Agency 8/3 – 15/3 Scottish Sea Bird Centre Scottish Environment Protection Agency 15/3 – 22/3 Scottish Sea Bird Centre Scottish Environment Protection Agency 22/3 – 29/3 Scottish Sea Bird Centre Water of Leith Conservation Trust 29/3 – 5/4 TBC TBC Apr-04 April 2004 5/4 – 12/4 TBC TBC 12/4 – 19/4 TBC TBC 19/4 – 26/4 TBC TBC 26/4 – 3/5 TBC TBC

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 55 Appendix 4 – List of education and awareness raising activities

VENUE DATE OF VISIT BEACH CLEAN SCHOOL SCHOOL Gateside Primary School, Fife 1/10/01 TBC Dunino Primary School, Fife 30/10/01 29/11/01 Blackness Primary School, West Lothian 9/11/01 TBC Thornton Primary School, Fife 26/11/01 – Torbain Primary School, Fife 15/3/02 TBC Aberhill Primary School, Fife 25/4/02 14/5/02 Crombie Primary School, Fife 27/5/02 TBC Coldingham Primary School 28/5/02 28/5/02 Rathillet Primary School, Fife 29/5/02 27/6/02 Leuchars Primary School, Fife 31/5/02 TBC Borestone Primary School, Stirling 5/6/02 TBC Gullane Primary School, East Lothian 25/6/02 25/6/02 Doune Primary School 6/9/02 TBC Lawhead Primary School 11/9/02 TBC Strathmiglo PrimarySchool 12/9/02 TBC Bellyeoman Primary School, Fife 18/9/02 TBC East Linton Primary School 5/11/02 TBC Slamannan Primary School 11/2/03 TBC St Joseph's RC Primary School 18/2/03 TBC Alva Academy 25/2/03 TBC Law Primary School (as visit to Scottish Seabird Centre) 10/3/03 10/3/03 Grange Primary School 11/3/03 TBC Ratho Primary School (as visit to Scottish Seabird Centre) 25/3/03 25/3/03 Pittenweem Primary School 1/5/03 TBC St Andrew's RC High School 8/5/03 TBC Williamston Primary School 13/5/03 19/6/03 Lundinmill Primary School 21/5/03 21/5/03 Letham Primary School 29/5/03 TBC Kinghorn Primary School 18/9/03 25/9/03 Grange Primary School 9/10/03 TBC Alva Academy 19/11/03 TBC Alva Academy 6/2/04 TBC Borestone Primary School 30/3/04 TBC Gullane Primary School 31/3/04 31/3/04 AFTER SCHOOL CLUB AFTER SCHOOL CLUB Scottish Seabird Centre, East Lothian (after school club) 8/2/02 8/3/02 COMMUNITY GROUP COMMUNITY GROUP Cleanferry 2000 meeting 29/10/01 TBC Apex Scotland TBC TBC Venture Scotland TBC Adopt-a-Beach registered 1st and 2nd North Berwick Brownies 19/9/02 Adopt-a-Beach registered Save the North Sea meeting 23/1/03 NO National Health Service Retirement Fellowship 12/2/03 NO National Aquatic Litter Group meeting 24/2/03 NO Musselburgh Community Council 25/3/03 TBC Remploy 12/5/03 Adopt-a-Beach registered Deep Blue Scuba 27/3/03 TBC

56 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign Appendix 5 – List of publicity events

EVENT ACTIVITY Cammo Open Day 2001 (Edinburgh) Forth Estuary Forum display boards Scottish Wildlfe and Countryside Fair 2001 (Perth) Mock beach cleaning in association with Marine Conservation Society Green Scene 2002 (Clackmannanshire) Mock Beach cleaning/Think Before You Flush in association with Clean Coast Scotland Fife Agricultural Show 2002 (Fife) Mock beach cleaning in association with Marine Conservation Society Marine Scene 2002 (Fife) Mock Beach cleaning/Think Before You Flush in association with Clean Coast Scotland Dalgety Bay Open Day 2002 (Fife) Forth Estuary Forum display boards North Berwick Learning Festival 2002 (East Lothian) Litter display in association with East Lothian Council Anstruther Lifeboat Gala Day 2002 (Fife) Forth Estuary Forum display boards North Berwick Harbour Festival 2002 (East Lothian) Mock Beach cleaning/Think Before You Flush in association with Clean Coast Scotland Eco Schools Inservice Day 2003 (Fife) Forth Estuary Forum display boards Greenscene 2003 (Clackmannanshire) Mock Beach cleaning/Bag It and Bin It in association with Scottish Water International Festival of the Sea 2003 (Edinburgh) Mock beach cleaning in association with Save the North Sea/Marine Conservation Society Fringe Sunday 2003 (Edinburgh) Mock Beach cleaning/Bag It and Bin It in association with Scottish Water West Lothian Environment Fair 2003 (West Lothian) Mock Beach cleaning/Bag It and Bin It in association with Scottish Water Highlife Events Environment Fair, Edinburgh Mock beach cleaning National Trust (Scotland) Environment Fair 2004 (East Lothian) TBC Fife Agricultural Show 2004 (Fife) TBC Anstruther Lifeboat Gala Day 2004 (Fife) Mock beach cleaning West Lothian Environment Fair 2004 (West Lothian) TBC

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 57 .93 0.63 0.30 0 1.01 2.08 3.06 1.06 0.92 1.52 2.88 0.60 1.04 1.65 1.19 1.05 0.53 0.51 0.16 1.45 1.03 0.34 0.85 2.29 1.94 0.64 0.36 0.47 0.34 0.98 0.74 0.19 1.55 0.44 0.30 0.41 0.23 0.93 PER MONTH 2 VERAGE NUMBER OF LITTER ITEMS A PER M AL 01 98 87 17 507 577 903 987 835 658 388 896 169 206 762 925 796 374 594 573 119 164 OT 13 1483 2022 2167 5051 2954 2678 2966 4317 2190 1884 1003 3055 2881 1786 1391 T % 0.39 0.35 0.08 0.07 0.40 0.32 0.08 0.20 0.71 0.13 0.07 0.00 0.18 0.10 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.15 0.26 0.00 0.03 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.32 0.38 0.27 0.00 1.52 0.17 5.88 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 vey period AL Other 2 2 1 1 8 7 4 6 4 3 0 4 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 4 0 3 3 1 0 9 1 1 3 0 0 0 19 TOT % 5.33 1.91 0.15 3.78 5.69 9.41 1.64 0.91 0.61 1.88 0.46 2.43 1.62 0.00 0.21 0.40 0.30 0.26 0.03 0.10 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.67 0.52 5.88 0.29 0.00 0.00 20.36 19.33 AL 2 0 4 4 2 1 1 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 3 1 4 0 0 27 11 56 83 27 18 17 10 65 16 23 Ceramic 115 204 879 OT T % 2.76 1.23 2.25 9.17 1.48 2.31 5.98 1.29 2.43 1.80 3.72 2.09 5.65 2.19 9.07 7.60 4.38 1.87 1.84 0.78 0.97 2.02 0.79 8.54 7.54 2.41 0.00 8.59 4.01 6.90 5.75 2.44 2.52 11.16 13.48 13.02 11.76 AL Cloth 7 2 6 9 0 2 5 4 3 16 14 13 30 50 38 15 70 21 51 48 50 17 57 53 22 36 79 60 51 23 96 136 302 331 105 243 133 OT T % 3.46 2.76 0.67 3.29 3.91 3.28 0.67 3.01 1.38 2.15 2.40 0.78 9.71 1.43 2.19 2.88 5.07 3.17 2.10 3.80 3.35 1.08 6.89 4.01 1.34 0.00 3.57 2.14 9.20 0.51 0.87 0.65 1.83 0.00 34.15 13.02 18.37 ood AL 7 0 8 3 5 9 3 0 W 45 14 10 79 71 34 89 19 41 93 20 20 27 22 26 85 16 25 13 33 68 15 22 18 24 33 17 111 984 OT T % 2.84 2.23 4.34 4.43 7.76 1.45 2.67 5.12 7.97 1.25 3.95 8.74 9.98 8.28 2.44 1.78 0.00 4.64 0.56 5.78 0.53 9.47 1.02 0.62 1.68 5.24 1.01 7.46 5.28 1.22 2.52 12.51 12.29 18.90 15.96 30.02 10.34 AL Paper 0 9 2 1 2 3 37 33 22 96 13 79 54 33 18 83 22 46 39 18 16 57 16 11 10 30 14 69 42 253 392 152 188 329 144 105 917 OT T 90 50 % 5.46 ry 1.62 0.00 2.08 7.48 5.88 9.04 6.46 9.22 0.71 2.89 0.15 7.69 8.37 8.15 5.33 1.40 2.39 2.52 13.22 10.81 10.83 19.09 12.82 10.34 17.84 25.67 22.45 11.17 42.86 18.05 18.72 19.85 14.29 21. 15.29 3 18. AL 9 0 1 9 1 9 8 3 unts of litter types during the sur 24 42 97 65 96 19 19 22 42 77 1 47 31 172 162 546 564 268 279 149 423 112 163 235 410 241 141 299 273 328 Sanita TOT ype of Litter 5 0 T 00 .12 . % 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.2 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.14 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.11 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.33 0.10 0.00 0.14 0.77 0.00 0.00 0 0.14 0.11 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 AL 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 2 7 6 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 3 0 2 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 Medical TOT 9 8 3 8 00 14 65 19 .11 . . % 1.94 1.84 3.86 5 1.15 3.46 4.81 2.57 4.02 8.05 6.6 3.39 3.20 2.73 9.36 4.0 2.37 3.45 5.7 2.35 6.44 3. 6. 0.65 5.89 3.05 0 4.20 3.55 7 19.02 16.59 10.93 1 17.65 21.99 18.1 10.90 AL 2 3 1 6 5 0 5 6 7 Metal 24 87 78 91 75 76 36 53 25 34 4 54 12 95 48 57 25 91 33 113 246 112 243 126 118 116 487 189 111 OT T 5 4 05 90 % 3.94 7.70 1.1 1.38 2.53 2.39 0.46 4.94 0.53 7.16 0.60 6.4 9.71 4.23 7.95 2.29 2.01 1.23 1.08 4.26 3.71 7.31 0.65 0.58 1.46 11.76 10.79 23.49 11.70 11. 14.99 2 10.05 23. 1 14.63 46.22 20.12 16.33 AL 6 Glass 1 2 2 6 3 18 15 19 10 41 56 76 68 28 11 10 42 39 31 66 20 11 24 77 55 34 16 160 179 115 601 122 213 14 466 302 1196 TOT 2 % 3.45 0.00 2.54 5.22 5.65 2.67 0.52 1.30 1.96 2.09 1.29 0.52 4.16 0.97 6.09 0.99 2.26 2.66 1.23 0.86 1.90 1.69 2.13 3.35 1.68 2.99 0.56 1.88 1.46 0.16 2.81 0.61 1.06 3.36 1.18 1.4 0.00 L A 3 0 4 3 5 8 3 3 1 7 4 2 0 Rubber 33 31 45 10 13 43 12 23 28 67 37 11 56 73 21 13 14 27 17 38 61 21 th, showing the total amo 210 163 TOT 21 % 9.20 0.00 8.27 9.30 5.61 4.51 9.42 4.93 6.89 7.24 7.33 2.43 3.70 3.00 1.58 9.15 2.27 1.80 6.95 7.97 2.68 8.74 3.77 2.44 3.46 6.84 0.00 2.96 0.00 0.40 17.85 11.76 15.71 12.56 12.56 18.00 33. L A 8 0 7 4 0 5 0 6 63 74 21 26 54 25 67 70 99 89 22 82 98 58 72 82 18 71 75 45 106 118 344 123 370 371 124 364 432 Polystyrene TOT th of For % 49.43 41.18 42.26 31.10 53.77 51.34 58.62 48.22 51.99 47.12 48.32 63.38 34.81 44.37 44.85 43.28 35.59 61.80 59.60 70.20 50.64 32.80 33.13 54.88 50.66 46.84 49.13 59.71 51.49 27.05 49.01 44.38 19.33 31.36 14.29 40.05 53.27 L A 3 0 3 3 4 Plastics 7 4 9 2 5 1 251 237 428 192 588 300 270 245 322 174 953 829 629 327 423 423 123 970 547 292 521 790 1056 1132 2241 1247 1416 1833 1496 1501 1062 TOT 2 1 8 8 4 9 6 7 9 4 2 1 12 17 11 21 19 19 30 23 26 30 25 28 29 30 30 26 28 15 21 18 20 26 13 14 16 Surveys Number of 5 7 40 55 50 65 10 40 (m) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Beach Length , Fife , Fife , Fife , Fife , Fife , Edinburgh , Fife , Fife , Fife , Fife , Fife , Fife , Fife , East Lothian , East Lothian Litter monitoring in the Fir – yninghame, East Lothian T South Queensferry North Berwick, East Lothian North Queensferry St Monans, Fife East Lothian Largo Bay Edinburgh Largo Bay Pittenweem, Fife North Queensferry Edinburgh North Berwick, East Lothian North Queensferry Limekilns, Fife Anstruther Aberdour Aberdour Fife Dunbar East Lothian North Queensferry Dunbar Musselburgh, East Lothian Inverkeithing, Fife East Lothian Beach Location Dalgety Bay Limekilns, Fife Limekilns, Fife Lower Largo, Fife Edinburgh Limekilns, Fife Dalgety Bay East Lothian Edinburgh North Queensferry Kinghorn, Fife illa s Sands est Links est Sands est Shore Beach Name Aberlady Bathan’ Bathing House Belhaven Bay Binning Strip Blacksands Brucehaven Buckhaven Capernaum Carrick V Cramond Dumbarnie Links East Bay East Beach Fisherrow Sands Gullane Kinghorn Harbour Long Craig Longniddry Bents Milsey Bay (East) Newark Port Edgar Port Laing Portobello (east) Portobello (west) Promenade Red Row Seaﬁeld Seton Sands Shore Street Silverburn Silversands Society Beach South Beach W W W Appendix 6

58 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign Appendix 7 – Coastal Litter Campaign data sheet showing total number, percentage and number of litter items m2

Beach name: Surveyor: Beach address: Date and time of survey: OS grid reference: Length of beach surveyed (if less than 100m): Beach Type: Climatic conditions: TOTAL % OF TOTAL TOTAL % OF TOTAL PLASTICS 22689 49.69 METAL 2861 6.27 4/6 pack yokes 38 0.08 aerosol cans 117 0.26 bags/sheets 1194 2.62 appliances 6 0.01 brackets 29 0.06 container caps/lids 209 0.46 containers (drinks) 2501 5.48 car parts 44 0.10 containers (cleaner) 137 0.30 drink cans 1506 3.30 containers (DIY) 93 0.20 fishing weights 10 0.02 containers (food) 497 1.09 foil wrappers 465 1.02 containers (oil <50cm) 25 0.05 food cans 39 0.09 containers (oil >50cm 38 0.08 industrial scrap 51 0.11 containers (toiletries) 61 0.13 oil drums 20 0.04 containers (other) 142 0.31 paint tins 18 0.04 caps/lids 1651 3.62 wire/wire mesh 88 0.19 cellophane 744 1.63 metal pieces 188 0.41 cigarette lighters 94 0.21 other <50cm (specify) 49 0.11 combs/hair brushes 18 0.04 other >50 cm (specify) 51 0.11 confectionary wrappers 2903 6.36 MEDICAL 48 0.11 cups 336 0.74 Clinistix’ 6 0.01 cutlery/trays/straws 572 1.25 syringes 5 0.01 electrical wire 140 0.31 other (specify) 37 0.08 electrical fittings 41 0.09 SANITARY 5348 11.71 fishing line 124 0.27 colostomy bags 15 0.03 fishing nets 60 0.13 condoms 61 0.13 floats 23 0.05 cotton bud sticks 3404 7.46 hosing/tubing 183 0.40 nappies 70 0.15 industrial packaging 222 0.49 plastic backing strips 281 0.62 medicine/pill bottles 31 0.07 tampon applicators 59 0.13 mesh bags 38 0.08 tampons 123 0.27 party poppers 55 0.12 tampon wrappers 21 0.05 pens 86 0.19 toilet fresheners 13 0.03 razors 7 0.02 towels/panty liners 1179 2.58 razor blade covers 6 0.01 towels/panty liners wrappers 93 0.20 rope/cord/net <50cm 959 2.10 other (specify) 29 0.06 rope/cord/net >50cm 296 0.65 PAPER 3306 7.24 sacking 91 0.20 bags 112 0.25 scrubbing brush 6 0.01 Bitumen paper’ 18 0.04 shoes/sandals 38 0.08 cardboard 150 0.33 shotgun cartridges 123 0.27 cartons (household, toiletries) 75 0.16 strapping bands 215 0.47 cigarette packets 156 0.34 tape (binding) 487 1.07 cigarette stubs 1287 2.82 toothbrush 12 0.03 cups 58 0.13 toys 145 0.32 fireworks 101 0.22 traffic cones 23 0.05 hardboard 20 0.04 plastic pieces <5cm 4235 9.28 medicine/pill boxes 3 0.01 plastic pieces 5-50cm 2954 6.47 newspapers/magazines 30 0.07 plastic pieces >50cm 503 1.10 paper pieces 1034 2.26 other (specify) 513 1.12 other (specify) 262 0.57 POLYSTYRENE 3558 7.79 WOOD (not driftwood) 2095 4.59 buoys 5 0.01 corks 35 0.08 cups 189 0.41 crab pots 27 0.06 fast food containers 252 0.55 crates/pallets 30 0.07 fibreglass 5 0.01 ice lolly sticks 81 0.18 foam/sponge 665 1.46 paint brushes 4 0.01 packaging (household, toiletries) 108 0.24 pencils 14 0.03 polystyrene pieces <50cm 2270 4.97 wood pieces <50cm 1297 2.84 other (specify) 64 0.14 other (specify) 607 1.33 RUBBER 1081 2.37 CLOTH/NATURAL FIBRES 2175 4.76 balloons 134 0.29 cloth pieces 694 1.52 boots 14 0.03 clothing 144 0.32 gloves (household) 44 0.10 furnishings 107 0.23 gloves (heavy duty) 99 0.22 leather 72 0.16 gloves (surgical) 43 0.09 rope/cord/net <50cm 323 0.71 hosing/tubing 150 0.33 rope/cord/net >50cm 233 0.51 tyres 127 0.28 sacking 95 0.21 rubber pieces <50cm 369 0.81 shoes/sandals 114 0.25 other (specify) 101 0.22 string 264 0.58 GLASS 4196 9.19 wool 77 0.17 bottles 408 0.89 other <50cm (specify) 25 0.05 bottle tops/lids 184 0.40 other >50cm (specify) 27 0.06 containers (household, toiletries) 15 0.03 POTTERY/CERAMIC 1557 3.41 light bulbs/tubes 6 0.01 1557 3.41 glass – sharp pieces <2.5cm 2201 4.82 glass – sharp pieces >2.5 cm 1382 3.03 OTHER (SPECIFY) 86 0.19 86 0.19 OTHER ITEMS CAN BE DESCRIBED OVERLEAF IF NECESSARY, BUT REMEMBER TO INCLUDE THEM IN THE TOTAL. IF YOU NEED MORE SPACE FOR A PARTICULAR ITEM, PLEASE CONTINUE OVERLEAF, BUT REMEMBER TO INCLUDE THEM IN THE TOTAL.

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 59 Appendix 8 – Types and amounts of beach litter in the Firth of Forth

11.00 ABERLADY BAY OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH 9.00 WOOD

2 PAPER 8.00 SANITARY MEDICAL 7.00 METAL GLASS 6.00 RUBBER POLYSTYRENE 5.00 PLASTICS 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 0.00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Jul-03 Jul-02 Jul-01 Apr-03 Apr-02 Oct-03 Oct-02 Oct-01 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jan-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 May-03 May-02 Month * = no data received

11.00 BATHAN'S SANDS OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER 2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE PLASTICS 5.00 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 no further data 0.00 *** ** * ** *** ** * ** ** * * Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-02 Oct-03 Oct-01 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

11.00 BATHING HOUSE OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER POLYSTYRENE 6.00 PLASTICS 5.00 4.00 3.00 Number of litter items/m2 2.00 1.00 0.00 Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Month Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-01 Dec-01 Nov-02 Dec-02 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03

11.00 BELHAVEN BAY OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER 2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE PLASTICS 5.00 4.00 3.00 Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 * no further data 0.00 Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

11.00 OTHER BINNING STRIP CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER SANITARY MEDICAL 8.00 METAL GLASS 7.00 RUBBER POLYSTYRENE 6.00 PLASTICS 5.00 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m2 2.00 1.00 0.00 Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Month Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-02 Oct-03 Oct-01 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03

60 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign Appendix 8 – (continued)

11.00 BLACKSANDS CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER

2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE 5.00 PLASTICS 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 0.00 ** ** *** ** ** ** *** ** ** * * Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

11.00 BRUCEHAVEN OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER 2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE 5.00 PLASTICS 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 ** * 0.00 Jul-03 Jul-02 Jul-01 Apr-03 Apr-02 Oct-03 Oct-02 Oct-01 Jan-03 Jun-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 May-03 May-02 Month * = no data received

11.00 BUCKHAVEN OTHER 10.00 CERAMIC CLOTH 9.00 WOOD 2 PAPER 8.00 SANITARY MEDICAL 7.00 METAL GLASS 6.00 RUBBER POLYSTYRENE 5.00 PLASTICS 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * no further data 0.00 Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

11.00 CAPERNAUM OTHER 10.00 CERAMIC CLOTH 9.00 WOOD 2 PAPER SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE 5.00 PLASTICS 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 no further data 0.00 * Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

11.00 CARRICK VILLA OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER 2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE PLASTICS 5.00 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.00 Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 61 Appendix 8 – (continued)

11.00 CRAMOND OTHER 10.00 CERAMIC CLOTH 9.00 WOOD PAPER 2 8.00 SANITARY MEDICAL 7.00 METAL GLASS 6.00 RUBBER POLYSTYRENE 5.00 PLASTICS 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 no further data 0.00 * * * * * Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-02 Oct-03 Oct-01 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

11.00 DUMBARNIE LINKS OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH 9.00 WOOD 2 PAPER SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE 5.00 PLASTICS 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 0.00 **** Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

11.00 EAST BAY OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER 2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE PLASTICS 5.00 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 * * * * * ** 0.00 Jul-03 Jul-01 Jul-02 Apr-02 Oct-02 Apr-03 Oct-03 Oct-01 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Mar-02 Mar-03 Feb-02 Feb-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

11.00 EAST BEACH OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER

2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE PLASTICS 5.00 4.00 3.00 Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 * ** no further data 0.00 Jul-02 Jul-03 Jul-01 Apr-03 Apr-02 Oct-02 Oct-03 Oct-01 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Jan-02 Mar-03 Mar-02 Feb-03 Feb-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 May-03 May-02 Month * = no data received

11.00 FISHERROW SANDS OTHER 10.00 CERAMIC CLOTH 9.00 WOOD PAPER 2 8.00 SANITARY MEDICAL 7.00 METAL GLASS 6.00 RUBBER POLYSTYRENE 5.00 PLASTICS 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 no further data 0.00 * * * * * Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-02 Feb-03 Mar-02 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

62 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign Appendix 8 – (continued)

11.00 GULLANE OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER 2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE PLASTICS 5.00 4.00 3.00 Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 ** * 0.00 Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-02 Oct-03 Oct-01 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Aug-01 Sep-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-01 Dec-01 Nov-02 Dec-02 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

11.00 KINGHORN HARBOUR OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER 2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE 5.00 PLASTICS 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 * * * * * * * * * * 0.00 Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

11.00 LONG CRAIG OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER 2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE 5.00 PLASTICS 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 ******** ************* 0.00 Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 May-03 May-02 Month * = no data received

11.00 LONGNIDDRY BENTS OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH 9.00 WOOD PAPER 2 8.00 SANITARY MEDICAL 7.00 METAL GLASS 6.00 RUBBER POLYSTYRENE 5.00 PLASTICS 4.00 3.00 Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 * ********* * * ** * 0.00 Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-03 Oct-03 Oct-01 Apr-02 Oct-02 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Mar-02 Mar-03 Feb-02 Feb-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

11.00 MILSEY BAY OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH 9.00 WOOD

2 PAPER SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE 5.00 PLASTICS 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 * * * no further data 0.00 * * * * * * * * * Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 63 Appendix 8 – (continued)

11.00 NEWARK OTHER 10.00 CERAMIC CLOTH 9.00 WOOD PAPER 2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE 5.00 PLASTICS 4.00 3.00 Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 0.00 ********** * * * Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-02 Feb-03 Mar-02 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03

Month * = no data received

11.00 PORT EDGAR OTHER 10.00 CERAMIC CLOTH WOOD

2 9.00 PAPER 8.00 SANITARY MEDICAL 7.00 METAL GLASS 6.00 RUBBER POLYSTYRENE 5.00 PLASTICS 4.00 3.00 Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 0.00 Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Mar-02 Mar-03 Feb-03 Feb-02 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month

11.00 PORT LAING OTHER 10.00 CERAMIC CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER 2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE 5.00 PLASTICS 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 ** 0.00 Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

11.00 PORTOBELLO (EAST) OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER

2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE PLASTICS 5.00 4.00 3.00 Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 0.00 ******** * *** Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-01 Dec-01 Nov-02 Dec-02 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month *=no data received

11.00 PORTOBELLO (WEST) OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER 2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER POLYSTYRENE 6.00 PLASTICS 5.00 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 0.00 ****** * * Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

64 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign Appendix 8 – (continued)

11.00 PROMENADE OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER SANITARY 2 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER POLYSTYRENE 6.00 PLASTICS 5.00 4.00 3.00 Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 0.00 * * Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-01 Dec-01 Nov-02 Dec-02 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

11.00 RED ROW OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER

2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE PLASTICS 5.00 4.00 3.00 Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 *********** 0.00 Jul-02 Jul-03 Jul-01 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-01 Dec-01 Nov-02 Dec-02 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

11.00 SEAFIELD OTHER 10.00 CERAMIC CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER 2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE PLASTICS 5.00 4.00 3.00 Number of litter items/m 2.00

1.00 no further data 0.00 Jul-03 Jul-02 Jul-01 Apr-03 Apr-02 Oct-03 Oct-02 Oct-01 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jan-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Aug-02 Sep-02 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-03 Dec-03 Nov-02 Dec-02 Nov-01 Dec-01 May-03 May-02 Month

11.00 SETON SANDS OTHER 10.00 CERAMIC CLOTH 9.00 WOOD PAPER 2 8.00 SANITARY MEDICAL 7.00 METAL GLASS 6.00 RUBBER POLYSTYRENE 5.00 PLASTICS 4.00 3.00 Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 0.00 * Jul-02 Jul-03 Jul-01 Apr-03 Apr-02 Oct-02 Oct-03 Oct-01 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Jan-02 Feb-03 Feb-02 Mar-03 Mar-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

11.00 SHORE STREET OTHER 10.00 CERAMIC CLOTH 9.00 WOOD PAPER 2 8.00 SANITARY MEDICAL 7.00 METAL GLASS 6.00 RUBBER POLYSTYRENE 5.00 PLASTICS 4.00 3.00 Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 0.00 ** * * ** *** * *** * * * * * Jul-03 Jul-01 Jul-02 Apr-03 Apr-02 Oct-03 Oct-02 Oct-01 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jan-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Aug-02 Sep-02 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-03 Dec-03 Nov-02 Dec-02 Nov-01 Dec-01 May-03 May-02 Month * = no data received

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 65 Appendix 8 – (continued)

11.00 SILVERBURN OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER 2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE PLASTICS 5.00 4.00 3.00 Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 * * * * * * * * * 0.00 Jul-03 Jul-02 Jul-01 Apr-03 Oct-03 Apr-02 Oct-02 Oct-01 Jan-03 Jun-03 Jun-02 Jan-02 Mar-03 Mar-02 Feb-03 Feb-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 May-03 May-02 Month * = no data received

11.00 SILVERSANDS OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER 2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE PLASTICS 5.00 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 0.00 ********** * Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-02 Oct-03 Oct-01 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

11.00 SOCIETY BEACH OTHER 10.00 CERAMIC CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER

2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE PLASTICS 5.00 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 no further data 0.00 Jul-03 Jul-02 Jul-01 Oct-03 Apr-03 Oct-02 Oct-01 Apr-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Mar-03 Mar-02 Feb-03 Feb-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 May-03 May-02 Month

11.00 SOUTH BEACH OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER 2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE PLASTICS 5.00 4.00 3.00 Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 **** 0.00 Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

11.00 WEST LINKS OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER 2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE PLASTICS 5.00 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 0.00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

66 The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign Appendix 8 – (continued)

11.00 WEST SANDS OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER

2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE PLASTICS 5.00 4.00 3.00

Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 0.00 Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 May-02 May-03 Month

11.00 WEST SHORE OTHER CERAMIC 10.00 CLOTH WOOD 9.00 PAPER 2 SANITARY 8.00 MEDICAL METAL 7.00 GLASS RUBBER 6.00 POLYSTYRENE PLASTICS 5.00 4.00 3.00 Number of litter items/m 2.00 1.00 **** * no further data 0.00 Jul-02 Jul-03 Jul-01 Apr-02 Apr-03 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Jan-02 Jun-02 Jan-03 Jun-03 Feb-02 Mar-02 Feb-03 Mar-03 Aug-01 Sep-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Aug-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 May-02 May-03 Month * = no data received

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 67 Appendix 9 – Sources of litter at beaches in the Firth of Forth

Source of Litter (%) Beach name Beach location RECREATIONAL FISHING SHIPPING MEDICAL FLY-TIPPING SRD NON-SOURCED Aberlady East Lothian 29.94 12.74 1.91 0.00 0.00 19.75 35.67 Bathan’s Sands Tyninghame, East Lothian 25.30 7.23 2.41 0.00 1.20 10.84 53.01 Bathing House Dalgety Bay, Fife 17.57 3.27 0.88 0.03 0.24 9.04 68.98 Belhaven Bay Dunbar, East Lothian 16.84 3.16 0.00 0.00 3.16 44.21 32.63 Binning Strip Dalgety Bay, Fife 25.73 2.23 2.29 0.25 0.93 11.64 56.94 Blacksands Aberdour, Fife 27.29 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.21 13.86 55.65 Brucehaven Limekilns, Fife 35.21 1.48 2.96 0.89 3.85 22.78 32.84 Buckhaven Fife 29.08 1.14 5.56 0.16 2.45 0.00 61.60 Capernaum Limekilns, Fife 34.47 2.55 1.99 0.14 0.85 21.13 38.87 Carrick Villa Largo Bay, Fife 16.34 8.31 2.22 0.28 0.28 26.59 45.98 Cramond Edinburgh 15.48 6.80 1.56 0.23 0.63 23.30 51.99 Dumbarnie Links Lower Largo, Fife 22.69 6.20 1.40 0.00 0.00 11.35 58.36 East Bay North Queensferry, Fife 30.90 8.85 10.80 0.33 0.39 17.76 30.97 East Beach Dunbar, East Lothian 30.49 26.22 9.76 0.00 0.00 5.49 28.05 Fisherrow Sands Musselburgh, East Lothian 45.42 1.32 0.28 0.00 1.18 1.67 50.14 Gullane East Lothian 19.04 6.12 1.67 0.00 0.00 36.53 36.64 Kinghorn Harbour Kinghorn, Fife 49.35 2.02 1.24 0.10 0.41 2.17 44.70 Long Craig North Queensferry, Fife 24.19 3.23 2.69 0.00 0.54 10.22 59.14 Longniddry Bents East Lothian 25.99 7.22 1.81 0.36 0.48 19.61 44.52 Milsey Bay (East) North Berwick, East Lothian 14.37 8.82 1.22 0.08 0.16 14.04 61.31 Newark St Monans, Fife 44.24 7.50 5.69 0.26 1.03 2.46 38.81 Port Edgar Edinburgh 54.29 2.65 3.67 0.00 1.63 1.63 36.12 Port Laing North Queensferry, Fife 22.13 7.36 2.06 0.37 0.26 21.08 46.73 Portobello (east) Edinburgh 26.97 3.57 0.29 0.29 0.12 24.38 44.38 Portobello (west) Edinburgh 60.69 1.27 1.04 0.12 0.19 9.07 27.62 Promenade Limekilns, Fife 24.54 1.65 2.66 0.11 0.75 9.02 61.28 Red Row Limekilns, Fife 51.50 0.35 3.53 0.00 0.71 8.29 35.63 Seaﬁeld Inverkeithing, Fife 56.03 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.59 40.52 Seton Sands East Lothian 43.94 7.16 3.16 0.12 6.12 0.76 38.74 Shore Street Anstruther, Fife 65.58 0.59 0.89 0.00 0.00 5.34 44.40 Silverburn Largo Bay, Fife 20.80 6.07 0.90 0.21 0.69 21.65 49.68 Silversands Aberdour, Fife 16.74 9.81 0.85 0.32 0.11 11.94 60.23 Society Beach South Queensferry, Edinburgh 37.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 6.25 43.75 South Beach North Queensferry, Fife 29.65 3.71 1.86 0.41 0.62 8.35 55.39 West Links North Berwick, East Lothian 51.89 10.38 4.72 0.00 0.31 0.16 32.55 West Sands North Queensferry, Fife 36.12 4.87 1.06 0.32 0.67 6.90 50.05 West Shore Pittenweem, Fife 23.13 15.15 1.76 0.52 0.41 14.63 44.40

All rights reserved. This publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means provided that the Forth Estuary Forum is acknowledged and that no proﬁt accrues at any stage.

Printed by Woods of Perth Printers. Based on an original design by City of Edinburgh Council (Corporate Services).

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 69 Working Towards The Forth a Litter Free Forth Coastal Litter Campaign