The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign · responsibility for the natural environment. Numerous...

The ForthCoastal Litter Campaign

Working Towards a Litter Free Forth

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

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

Established in 1993, the Forth Estuary Forum is a voluntary partnership, comprising membersfrom 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 ‘IntegratedManagement Strategy’ identified marine and coastal litter as being a high profile andimportant issue which the Forth’s communities, users, planners and managers wished to seetackled in a co-ordinated manner.

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

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

Foreword and AcknowledgementsFrom it’s launch on 8 June 2001 at the Scottish Seabird Centre, theCoastal Litter Campaign has gone from strength to strength, gainingrecognition as an example of best practice in tackling coastal and marinelitter through clean ups, litter surveys and education and awareness.

The campaign was identified as a flagship project in the Forth EstuaryForum’s Integrated Management Strategy when launched in 1999. Overthe 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 theForth, 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 ofcoastal 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 followingorganisations who contributed their time and expertise to the Coastal Litter Campaign: TheBOC Foundation; City of Edinburgh Council; Clean Coast Scotland; Culross CommunityCouncil; East Lothian Council; Fife Council; Keep Scotland Beautiful; Marine ConservationSociety; Napier University; Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Water, aswell as the many volunteers, coastal communities and schools who have taken part in cleanups 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 particularKaren the Campaign Project Officer, in bringing about success.

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

Robin HamiltonChairman, Forth Estuary ForumApril 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 SummaryMarine litter can be categorised according to material type and originates from four mainsources – recreation, sewage, fishing and shipping. The impacts of marine litter are recognisedworldwide, causing aesthetic degradation, threatening human health and local economiesand having negative impacts on wildlife and ecosystems.

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

Sea-born sources of litter (from fishing vessels, shipping) appear to be relatively insignificantin the Firth of Forth – perhaps due to the provision of adequate Port Reception Facilities inthe 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 continuedpromotion of UKCEED’s Bag It and Bin It campaign, as well as the labelling of all sanitaryproducts with the correct disposal information. Beach visitors are responsible for themajority of beach litter in the Firth of Forth, reflecting a low appreciation of individualresponsibility for the natural environment. Numerous anti-littering campaigns have beeninitiated in recent years but it would appear that these messages need to be continuallyreinforced 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 andsubsequent extremely positive evaluation comments demonstrate the success of the CoastalLitter Campaign. Substantial progress has been made in working towards “a litter-freeForth” and achieving a marked difference in attitude to litter in the Firth of Forth’s catchmentarea.

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 CoastalLitter Campaign forward:

• The Forth Estuary Forum should continue to manage and further develop the CoastalLitter Campaign;

• Strategic Waste Fund and/or Aggregate Tax funding should be used to employcontractors to clear material from heavily littered areas;

• Local Authorities and coastal partnerships should continue to support voluntary beachlitter 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 networkof co-ordinators to provide regional support throughout the UK;

• Raising public awareness is an essential part of anti-littering campaigns since changingattitudes and behaviour is the only guaranteed method of reducing litter at source. To thisend, educational material regarding the types, sources and impacts of marine littershould be incorporated into the national curriculum;

• To prevent littering from beach visitors, waste minimisation incentives should be furtherpromoted, e.g. ‘reduce – reuse – recycle’, to educate beach visitors to take their litterhome and recycle as much as possible;

• SRD is still a problem despite massive investment from Scottish Water. UKCEED’s Bag Itand Bin It campaign should be further promoted to reduce sanitary waste inputs into thesewerage system, with labelling of sanitary products with the Bag It and Bin It logo;

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign6

• Community Councils should continue to work with Local Authorities in order to achievebeach awards. Such status is an effective tool for raising awareness about the issuessurrounding marine litter and can help to bring about a change in attitude and ultimatelya reduction in litter at source;

• Beaches are a natural asset to Local Authorities and should be viewed as such. Thisshould be reflected in visitor interpretation material and tourist brochures. Beaches mustbe seen to be viewed as a precious natural resource in order for individuals andorganisations to develop a sense of environmental responsibility and treat themaccordingly;

• Litter monitoring should be incorporated into Local Authority beach management plansto assess the effectiveness of anti-littering campaigns. The technique employed by theCoastal Litter Campaign quickly identifies problem areas and is recommended in the firstinstance. 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 bathingwater quality results. Any approach needs to be holistic, working closely with other LocalAuthorities in the region, taking note of sediment cells which provide geographicalboundaries in which marine litter is likely to circulate (DEFRA, 2001);

• Beach litter modelling studies should be carried out to determine the location of likelylitter sinks and act as a tool for Local Authority beach management plans;

• Beach litter monitoring should be co-ordinated with river bank litter monitoring asriverine inputs of litter can be highly significant in localised areas. Any subsequent effortsto initiate a clean-up of affected areas should also be co-ordinated;

• Existing anti-littering legislation must be enforced and penalties must be issued topersistent offenders. Reference should be made to Fly-tipping Stakeholders Forum (1999)which documents guidance notes for owners and managers of land and property andmembers of the public to help combat fly-tipping;

• A national coastal litter campaign should be developed based on the success of the ForthEstuary Forum’s Coastal Litter Campaign.

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign 7

Contents

Foreword and Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

Contents

oneintroduction page 11

twoco-ordinated clean-ups page 17

threeeducation and awareness page 23

fourlitter monitoring page 29

fiveconclusions and recommendations page 37

sixreferences page 41

appendices page 44


introduction

on

e

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 aresult of man’s activity (Marine Conservation Society, 2003). Coastal litter can be categorisedaccording to material type (e.g. plastic, glass, sanitary, metal) and comes from four mainsources, 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 transportedaccording to wind, tide and current patterns, accumulating temporarily or permanently onbeaches and on the sea bed – at locations known as litter sinks (Plate 1).

The impacts of marine litter on wildlife are recognised around the world and well documentedin the literature. Robards et al. (1995) and Walker et al. (1997) document the dangers to marinemammals 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 avoidpredators, potentially resulting in serious injury or death by starvation, drowning or suffocation(Jones, 1995; Laist, 1997; Marine Conservation Society, 2003). Ingested materials (either directlyas mistaken prey items or indirectly by regurgitation or through the food chain) tend todamage and block the digestive tract and reduce feeding activity due to a false sensation ofsatiation, 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 areasof the benthos along the European coast that act as sinks for litter, according to thebathymetry and local geo-physical conditions. Accumulations of litter on the sea floor candamage the substratum by abrasion and/or smothering, preventing light and nutrients fromreaching 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 themeans for colonisation, potentially resulting in a detrimental effect on native communities(Laist, 1987; Minchin, 1996). The stability of beach ecosystems is threatened by mechanicalbeach cleaning operations, carried out by numerous Local Authorities during peak season atamenity beaches, which tends to remove organic material (seaweed and driftwood) as wellas litter items, reducing strandline biodiversity and disrupting the food chain (Llewellyn andShackley, 1996).


Plate 1 – Example of a littered beach (Rubbish FreeZone, Fife Council)

Plate 2 – Impact of litter on wildlife: Sealentanglement (Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Floating and submerged marine litter also impacts on coastal economic activity. The aestheticdegradation 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 fromtourism and Local Authorities are faced with clean-up costs in order to attract tourists (Roehland Ditton, 1993; Ballance et al., 2000; Silva-Iniguez and Fischer, 2003) (Plate 3). The foulingof ships by marine litter results in repair costs and lost time (Jones, 1995) (Plate 4). Thefishing industry suffers lost revenue as a result of damage to fishing vessels and equipmentand lost fishing time (Nash, 1992; Hall, 2000). Ghost fishing affects commercial fisherieswhen lost or abandoned nets and traps continue to capture target and non-target species(Jones, 1995).


Plate 3 – Impact of litter on humanhealth: Broken glass (Keep ScotlandBeautiful)

Plate 4 – Impact of litter on economies: Fouledpropeller (Environment Canada)

1.2 Overview of Legislation to Prevent Marine Litter

Growing concern over the pollution of the marine environment by litter led to the establishmentof 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 worktogether to control litter from shipping (Derraik, 2002).

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 (MARPOL73/78) 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 byGarbage) Regulations 1998 (applies to all UK vessels wherever they may be and to allforeign vessels in UK waters and prohibits the disposal of plastics and oily wastes anywherein UK waters and the disposal of other pollutants within specific distances from the nearestland) and the Merchant Shipping (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 1998(requires all ports, terminals, harbours and marinas to provide adequate reception facilitiesfor waste and prepare a waste management plan). A new European Union (EU) Directive onPort Reception Facilities for Ship-generated Waste and Cargo Residues (EC2000/59) wasimplemented throughout the EU at the end of 2002, eliminating the illegal dumping of wasteto sea. According to Gregory (1999), recreational boaters are relatively unaware of MARPOLand should be educated as to the need for the provision of adequate onshore disposalfacilities.

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 ScottishEnvironment Protection Agency (SEPA) has also designated recreational waters that requireto meet mandatory minimum standards for the quality of sea water. The Bathing WaterDirective is currently being revised with a focus towards management and a change inbacterial indicators and target levels. The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive(97/27/EEC) implemented by the UWWT (Scotland) Regulations 1994 require levels of

treatment of sewage to prevent pollution. The regulations require a duty to provide andmaintain appropriate collection systems and treatment plants. This requires all sewagedischarges serving populations over 10000 in coastal areas and 2000 in estuarine areas toreceive secondary treatment prior to discharge. Communition of discharges will cease bythe 31 December 2005. The Regulations require appropriate screening levels for overflowsand treatment plant outfalls that will control sewage related debris. All discharges to themarine environment are controlled by SEPA under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. TheWater Framework Directive implemented by the Water Environment and Water Services Actestablishes a new, integrated approach to the protection, improvement and sustainable useof Europe’s rivers, lochs, estuaries, coastal waters and groundwater. Finally, theEnvironment 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 membersfrom 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 ‘IntegratedManagement Strategy’ identified marine and coastal litter as being a high profile andimportant issue which the Forth’s communities, users, planners and managers wished to seetackled in a co-ordinated manner. The Forth Estuary Forum’s Coastal Litter Campaign, fundedby Fife Environment Trust, The BOC Foundation and Edinburgh Environment PartnershipGrants Scheme Ltd, was launched in the summer of 2001 and aimed to develop andimplement a community involvement and public awareness-raising programme intended totackle and monitor the issue of marine and coastal litter in the Firth of Forth. The project ranfor 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 andhighlights recommendations aimed at reducing marine litter at source.


co-ordinated clean-ups

two

part two

co-ordinated clean-ups

2.1 Introduction

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

Various clean-up campaigns are carried out in the UK, including ENCAMS clean-ups and morespecifically the Marine Conservation Society’s Beachwatch and Adopt-a-Beach campaigns.Numerous Local Authorities support the Marine Conservation Society’s Adopt-a-BeachCampaign by providing gloves and bags and arranging for rubbish uplifts following beachcleans (Marine Conservation Society, 2003). Furthermore, some Local Authorities have initiatedtheir own beach litter survey and clean-up programmes as demonstrated by Fife Council’sCoastwatch 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 andon the shore.

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


Plate 5 – Spring Clean at South Queensferry(D. Smith, City of Edinburgh Council)

Plate 6 – Adopt-a-Beach litter survey and clean-upat 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 weekendin September. Promoting the Adopt-a-Beach campaign was deemed to be the most feasiblemethod of co-ordinating beach cleans in the Firth of Forth since it is a well establishedcampaign which provides an easy-to-use ‘organiser pack’ to all registered volunteers (Plate6). An added benefit was that any data generated would also be of use at the national scale,

particularly in the Online Aesthetic Survey Information System (OASIS) database developedby the Environment Agency and the National Aquatic Litter Group. It should be noted thatthis 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 eventof the termination of the Coastal Litter Campaign.

To promote the ‘hands-on’ aspect of the Coastal Litter Campaign, Adopt-a-Beach workshopswere organised in conjunction with the Marine Conservation Society at various locationsaround the Forth. Existing Adopt-a-Beach organisers in the Firth of Forth were encouragedto join the Coastal Litter Campaign and as far as possible, new volunteers were encouragedto survey beach litter, following the Marine Conservation Society’s protocol for Adopt-a-Beach (Marine Conservation Society, 2003), although care was taken not to dissuadepotential volunteers from joining the Coastal Litter Campaign if they were solely interestedin clearing litter from beaches. In addition, some clean-ups were promotional, such asAdopt-a-Beach workshops, or educational, as a follow up to a school visit, and therefore anydata 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 andlitter pickers to the volunteers and removing, for correct disposal, the litter that wascollected. Beach clean organisers were encouraged to advertise their events in the localpress to recruit extra volunteers and to provide feedback for the campaign web site as anincentive 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 variousbeach cleans are given in Appendix 1. Eight beaches were ‘adopted’ prior to the launch ofthe Coastal Litter Campaign. Close liaison with the Marine Conservation Society resulted infifteen additional beaches being ‘adopted’ in the Firth of Forth during the Coastal LitterCampaign, many of which were as a direct result of the Adopt-a-Beach workshops. Beachcleans also took place at an additional twenty-eight locations. As mentioned above, theseclean-up events were promotional Adopt-a-Beach workshops, educational beach cleans andbeach cleans that were independent of the Marine Conservation Society’s Adopt-a-Beachcampaign.


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

2.4 Discussion

The relative and absolute importance of cleanliness to beach users provides a strong incentivefor the control of litter pollution (Ballance et al., 2000). Although some Local Authorities haveincreased the number of beaches cleaned, many do not have the resources to do so and/orare concerned about the negative impacts of mechanical beach cleaning on the beachecosystem. Some Local Authorities consider that beach cleaning is only economically viable onamenity/award beaches which attract revenue from tourism (Marine Conservation Society,2003). In 2000, the Environmental Protection Act 1990: Code of Practice on Litter and Refusewas extended, requiring Local Authorities to clean all beaches under their ownership asopposed to amenity beaches only. However, it is the Local Authorities’ decision as to thelevel of cleanliness that can be provided to non-amenity beaches. In the Firth of Forth, thecost 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 thequantity of litter discarded by beach users when carried out in conjunction with penalties fordropping litter (Marine Conservation Society, 2003). Fanshawe and Everard (2002) suggestthat beach cleaning operations may be ineffective in the long term since beach litter can bereplenished from offshore sinks. Garrity and Levings (1993) demonstrated that a litter-freebeach can become heavily littered within three months, reinforcing the fact that beach cleaningoperations are only short term solutions. Williams and Tudor (2001) further compound thetemporary success of beach cleaning operations and emphasise that litter must be preventedat source.

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

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


education and awareness thre

e

part three

education and awareness

3.1 Introduction

In order to raise awareness as to the types, sources and impacts of marine litter and thevarious solutions available to minimise the impact of marine litter, the Coastal LitterCampaign organised a series of workshops to train volunteers in clean up and monitoringtechniques. A travelling exhibition and series of talks was circulated around organisations,businesses and schools around the Forth and project seminars, exhibitions, publicity eventsand media campaigns were organised. Raising public awareness is a vital component ofanti-pollution campaigns and initiating a change in attitude is the only guaranteed way ofreducing the amount of marine litter on beaches (Rees and Pond, 1995). Young people caneasily 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) onbeaches. Uneputty et al. (1998) have reported that beach clean events are successful inchanging the short-term behaviour of members of the community. Long term success wouldinvolve aco-ordinated effort involving all coastal communities as well as an improvement to wastemanagement systems.

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

3.2 Methodology

As part of the education and awareness programme, several methods were employed toinform people of the types, sources and impacts of marine litter, as well as what can be doneto prevent marine litter at source. A travelling exhibition, displaying the Coastal LitterCampaign’s main poster and leaflets (Figure 2a, b, c) as well as numerous anti-litteringposters, 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 theFirth of Forth catchment area (Figure 3). Where possible, the Coastal Litter Campaignattended events in association with members of the Steering Group, such as the ScottishWildlife and Countryside Fair and community gala days.


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

The main educational messages promoted by the Coastal Litter Campaign were UKCEED’sBag It and Bin It campaign, the Blue Flag Campaign, administered in the UK by ENCAMS andthe 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 ofpersonal products, administered by UKCEED. This campaign is now promoted in Scotlandwith funding from the Scottish Executive and Scottish Water. Sanitary waste flushed downtoilets cause blockages and damage screens throughout the sewerage infrastructure andmany items ultimately escape into the environment (Souter et al., 1998). The campaign aimsto reduce sanitary waste inputs into the wastewater system via a series of awareness raisingexcercises to inform and educate the general public, such as television adverts, posters,leaflets and stickers.


Figure 2c – Marine litter leaflet Figure 3 – Coastal LitterCampaign school poster

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

Plate 8 – Blue Flagleaflet (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 forwater quality, and environmental management (Plate 8). The Blue Flag campaign isadministered 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 thatall criteria are fulfilled and that the high standards are maintained.

3.2.3 Adopt-a-Beach

Adopt-a-Beach evolved from Beachwatch, Britain’s biggestbeach litter survey, involving thousands of volunteerssurveying litter on hundreds of beaches throughout the UK(Plate 9). Adopt-a-Beach is a national environmentalinitiative involving local communities in caring for theirlocal coastal environment by carrying out surveys and cleanups each season. The results from the surveys and beachcleans are analysed by the Marine Conservation Society andused to identify the major sources of litter pollution aroundthe UK coast. The autumn Adopt-a-Beach surveycontributes to the Marine Conservation Society’s annualBeachwatch data set, if held on the third weekend inSeptember.

3.3 Results

Figure 4 shows the Forth-wide distribution of education and awareness activities. Thetravelling exhibition was well received and visited seventy-seven locations around the Firthof 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 (Appendix4). The talks, desk-based activities and field visits were well received and incorporated into aneducation pack which can easily be used by teachers or other persons to raise awarenessabout marine litter (Storrier, 2004) (Plate 11). Twenty-two events were attended, increasingthe profile of the Coastal Litter Campaign at the local and national level (Appendix 5, Plate 12).


Plate 9 – Adopt-a-Beach organiserpack (Marine Conservation Society)

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 reducingmarine litter at source, namely the education of the public (Ballance et al., 2000). This has beendemonstrated around the world. Simmons and Williams (1994) stated that the only solutionto prevent SRD appearing on beaches is to prevent the disposal of solids to the sewagesystem, noting that SRD is not a common problem in the rest of Europe as the principal routeof disposal is with the household refuse. This emphasises the need to re-educate the Britishpublic by promoting the Bag It and Bin It campaign.

Information leaflets and posters produced by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) werewell received and should be extended to all user groups (commercial shipping, fishermenand recreational boat users) (Marine Conservation Society, 2003). In addition, the MarineConservation Society (2002) recommends that all seafarers should receive training in wastemanagement practices and the impacts of incorrect disposal. In Australia, the main strategyto reduce marine litter has been education programmes, targeting marine users via brochures,leaflets, stickers, posters and magazine articles. Commercial fishers were issued with a freeeducational video. Other approaches include the development of plastic-free gear, improvedport disposal facilities and clean-up programmes (Jones, 1995). The Commission of theConvention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) publicisedthe correct procedure for disposal of marine litter at sea (MARPOL 73/78) by means of placardsand publicity leaflets, resulting in a reduction in the incidence of seal entanglement (Arnouldand Croxall, 1995; Walker et al., 1997). Save the North Sea is a 3 year project funded by theEU Interreg IIIB North Sea programme and chaired by The Keep Sweden Tidy Foundation inpartnership with organisations in six countries including Keep Scotland Beautiful. The projectaims to combat marine litter by raising awareness and highlighting the cost of marine litterto humans and the environment. The project will focus on changing attitudes and behaviouramong fishermen, seamen, leisure craft owners, oil platform workers and the general publictowards marine debris, with a focus on plastic materials. PR, market research and informationactivities are therefore key project activities. The campaign will comprise educational coursesfor seamen, fishing for litter activities among fishermen in the region, Eco School courses forteachers and students, individual Blue Flag Awards for leisure craft owners, a pilot project forrecycling 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 bagtax, plastic bottle caps to be made universally non-detachable, for sanitary productmanufacturers to display the ‘Bag It and Bin It’ logo on packaging, for cotton buds to bemade of paper rather than plastic, and for the better enforcement of the EnvironmentProtection Act (1990) to encourage individuals to be more environmentally responsible.


Plate 10 – Coastal Litter Campaigntravelling exhibition (Fife Council)

Plate 11 – Scottish Seabird Centre AfterSchool Club (Forth Estuary Forum)

Plate 12 – Mock beachcleaning at the ScottishWildlife and Country-side Fair (MarineConservation Society)

litter monitoring

fou

r

part four

litter monitoring

4.1 Introduction

An important aspect of the Coastal Litter Campaign was the ability to monitor and evaluatethe changing trends for marine litter in the Forth and allow for the development of individualprogrammes of action to tackle the litter at its source. Beach surveys are the most widelyused method for monitoring marine litter, the amount and type of litter in a specified area ata certain time and/or how types and amounts of litter change with time (Ribic, 1998). Beachsurveys allow the collection of a large sample of accurate data by trained volunteers to beachieved at low cost (Rees and Pond, 1995). During regional beach surveys, site selection issubjective, and biased towards beaches with easy access. However, site selection is notbiased towards bathing areas or areas known to be heavily littered and therefore include arepresentative sample of the coastline, although only general conclusions can be supported(Rees and Pond, 1995). The use of volunteers in beach surveys is commonplace, capitalisingon the local knowledge of the beach. Additionally, volunteers have no political, economic orpersonal motives for influencing the data collected which is therefore impartial (Rees andPond, 1995). By training volunteers and issuing identification guides, potential errors associatedwith 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 toconduct litter surveys is a reliable method, with no statistical difference between the results ofdata gathered by inexperienced and experienced surveyors.

There are numerous methods used to survey beach litter, depending on the type of litterbeing sampled, making the comparison of studies difficult. Surveying small areas of beachfrom vegetation to shoreline can bias results, particularly on beaches where litter tends toaccumulate in a specific area (Velander and Mocogni, 1999). Surveying litter in strandlinesgives a high figure for the amount of fresh and accumulated litter present, which is to beexpected 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’smonitoring programme and highlights possible campaigns that could be aimed at specificsources of litter in localised areas within the Firth of Forth.

4.2 Site Information and Survey Methodology4.2.1 Site Information

The Firth of Forth is situated on the east coast of Scotland, separating Edinburgh and theLothians to the south from the Kingdom of Fife to the north (Figure 5). The Firth of Forth is96km in length, from the tidal water limit at Stirling to its North Sea entrance (Forth EstuaryForum, 1999). Its maximum width is 27km and the maximum depth is 68m. The Firth of Forthhas 146km of coastline and is home to over a quarter of Scotland’s population and a diverserange 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, shippingmillions of tons of cargo per annum (Atkins, 1997). Information on bathing water quality andsewerage structures around the Forth can be found in SEPA (2003). The Firth of Forth has amoderate 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 theFirth (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 Forthis sluggish and varies from season to season and year to year (Dyke, 1987).


4.2.2 Survey Methodology

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

4.2.3 Data Analysis

The data was found to be normally distributed and analysed using Multiple Analysis ofVariance (MANOVA), to determine significant differences in the amounts of litter amongstthe beaches and over time. General Linear Model (GLM) analysis was used to determinesignificant differences amongst beaches with regard to various discrete variables, such asbeach cleaning operations and proximity to sewage outflows. Using techniques devised bythe Marine Conservation Society, the recorded beach litter was categorised according to itslikely 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, 2501drinks containers (plastic), 2270 polystyrene pieces (<50cm) and 2201 sharp glass pieces(<2.5cm), amongst others (Appendix 7). Numerous unusual items were also recorded duringthe 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, facemasks, pH test strips, carbon battery rods, gas camping stove, computer, ceramic bathroomfittings, child car seat and a freezer door.


Figure 5 – Litter monitoring in the Firth of Forth

Appendices 6 and 8 show the amount and proportion of litter types per m2 found on thesurveyed beaches in the Firth of Forth. It is clear from these bar charts that litter is mostabundant at Binning Strip and West Sands. Litter is a less abundant yet consistent at BathingHouse, Capernaum, Cramond, East Bay, Fisherrow Sands, Long Craig, Port Laing, Portobello(East), Portobello (West), Promenade, Seton Sands, Silverburn and South Beach. Litterappears 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 oflitter on beaches appears to be relatively constant over time, with increased abundance ofcertain litter types at irregular intervals. At Binning Strip, there were a relatively high numberof litter items recorded in February 2002, with a relatively high proportion of SRD. At EastBay, there were a relatively high number of litter items recorded in December 2001 andAugust 2002, with a relatively high proportion of SRD and polystyrene respectively. At PortLaing, there were a relatively high number of litter items recorded in August 2002, with arelatively high proportion of polystyrene. At West Sands, there were a relatively highnumber 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 inFebruary 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 overtime and amongst beaches (P< 0.05).

Of the beaches demonstrating consistent litter accumulations, plastic is the most common littertype 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 sewageoutflows and the presence/absence of takeawayfacilities have a significant effect on the amount oflitter items per m2, whilst the presence/absence ofa harbour or marina does not (General LinearModel (GLM) analysis, P<0.05). Daily/weeklyLocal Authority beach cleaning operations resultin significantly less litter items per m2. Annualcommunity beach cleans significantly reduces thenumber of litter items per m2. In general therewas more litter m2 on beaches with a surfacewater overflow (SWO) or combined seweroverflow (CSO). The presence of takeaways in thevicinity of a beach results in significantly morelitter per m2.

Appendix 9 shows the likely source of litter at beaches in the Firth of Forth. Figure 7 ranksbeaches 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 exceptionof Gullane where most of the litter was attributed to SRD and Brucehaven, KinghornHarbour, Port Edgar, Portobello (West), Red Row, Shore Street and West Links where mostof 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 theexception of Carrick Villa, Cramond, Gullane and Silverburn where SRD accounted for mostof 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 arelatively large amount of litter was sourced to shipping or fishing. At all beaches, litter fromfishing and shipping was relatively low compared to litter from recreation and SRD. Litterfrom 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).


PLASTICS POLYSTYRENE RUBBER GLASS

METAL MEDICAL SANITARY PAPER

WOOD CLOTH CERAMIC OTHER

Figure 6 – Proportion of litter types at beachesin the Firth of Forth, July 2001 – December 2003


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

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

SH

OR

E S

TR

EE

T

PO

RT

OB

ELL

O (

WE

ST

)

SE

AF

IELD

PO

RT

ED

GA

R

WE

ST

LIN

KS

RE

D R

OW

KIN

GH

OR

N H

AR

BO

UR

FIS

HE

RR

OW

SA

ND

S

NE

WA

RK

SE

TO

N S

AN

DS

SO

CIE

TY

BE

AC

H

WE

ST

SA

ND

S

BR

UC

EH

AV

EN

CA

PE

RN

AU

M

EA

ST

BA

Y

EA

ST

BE

AC

H

AB

ER

LAD

Y B

AY

SO

UT

H B

EA

CH

BU

CK

HA

VE

N

BLA

CK

SA

ND

S

PO

RT

OB

ELL

O (

EA

ST

)

LON

GN

IDD

RY

BE

NT

S

BIN

NIN

G S

TR

IP

BA

TH

AN

'S S

AN

DS

PR

OM

EN

AD

E

LON

G C

RA

IG

WE

ST

SH

OR

E

DU

MB

AR

NIE

LIN

KS

PO

RT

LA

ING

SIL

VE

RB

UR

N

GU

LLA

NE

BA

TH

ING

HO

US

E

BE

LHA

VE

N B

AY

SIL

VE

RS

AN

DS

CA

RR

ICK

VIL

LA

CR

AM

ON

D

MIL

SE

Y B

AY

(EA

ST

)

BEACH

PE

RC

EN

TA

GE

OF

LIT

TE

R IN

SO

UR

CIN

G C

AT

EG

OR

Y

RECREATIONAL

FISHING

SHIPPING

MEDICAL

FLY-TIPPING

SRD

4.4 Discussion4.4.1 Differences Amongst Beaches

Differences in the amounts and types of marine litter found at different beaches can be due toseveral factors, such as topography, beach profile, substrate type, wind direction and strength,current patterns, storm events, proximity to inputs of litter (urban conurbations, shippinglanes, fishing zones, river mouth, sewage outfalls) and frequency and timing of beach cleans,(Marine Conservation Society, 2003). In addition, beaches are dynamic environments, thereforethe 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 shelteredbeaches as compared with exposed ocean-front beaches and suggest that this is becausesheltered beaches are more popular with tourists. Silva-Iniguez and Fischer (2003) documentthat beach litter is heterogeneously distributed, with easily accessed areas of beach showinga higher abundance of litter. Velander and Mocogni (1998) reported that most litter recordedat Cramond in the Firth of Forth showed signs of exposure to the sea, suggesting that it wasnot from a local source. Due to the sluggish circulation in the Firth of Forth which varies fromseason to season and year to year, marine litter could remain in the Firth for a considerabletime.

It is likely that climatic conditions and tidal patterns are the greatest influence on the abundanceof marine litter on Firth of Forth beaches. Detailed climatic data would assist in explainingthe occurrence of marine litter on beaches and provide information regarding likelylocations of litter sinks. It is suggested that the beaches at Binning Strip and West Sands actas litter sinks due to the high abundance of litter, although it is difficult to accurately detecttrends with only 2.5 years of data. Storm conditions combined with tidal patterns are themost likely explanation for periodic increases in the abundance of litter on particularbeaches, with litter from offshore sinks being transported to beaches. Storm conditions canresult in CSOs discharging to the environment, possibly explaining why there are periodicincreases in SRD at beaches in the vicinity of CSOs (GLM, P<0.05). Storm conditions couldalso explain why there is more general litter per m2 at beaches in the vicinity of CSOs andSWOs.

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

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

marine litter in Australia by Frost and Cullen (1997) found that the role of beach usageinfluenced the type of litter found. The beach with the highest usage did not have the greatestamount of litter, possibly as a result of the extensive system of litter bins. The beach with thelowest usage exhibited the lowest amount of litter, probably due to the lack of access to thisbeach. In the Firth of Forth, litter is a constant occurrence at numerous beaches, several ofwhich are termed amenity beaches. However, litter was found infrequently at several amenityand 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 theabundance of litter on beaches. GLM analysis has shown that daily/weekly Local Authoritybeach cleaning operations significantly reduces the amount of litter per m2 (P<0.05). A studyby Somerville et al. (2003) demonstrated similar results, showing that effective beach littermanagement yields higher standards in terms of beach aesthetics. Annual communitybeach cleans also significantly reduce the amount of litter per m2. This can be best explainedby the fact that annual community beach cleans tend to take place at beaches which are notcleaned by the Local Authority (Chi-square Analysis, P>0.05), therefore a high abundance oflitter will be removed in a short space of time.

Proximity to takeaway facilities affects the amount of litter per m2 on beaches, withcloseness to a takeaway resulting in significantly more litter per m2 on beaches, reflecting alack of environmental responsibility amongst beach users. Proximity to harbours/marinasdoes not significantly affect the amount of litter per m2 on beaches, perhaps as a result ofadequate Port Reception Facilities in the Firth of Forth.

Plastic items were the most consistent litter items found at Firth of Forth beaches – this isconsistent with numerous other studies. Plastics are lightweight and durable and easilytransported in currents. Coupled with the widespread use of plastics and their slow degradationrate, plastic litter items are a constant and consistent problem. It should be noticed thatplastic pellets were a frequent occurrence on Firth of Forth beaches as documented in Milleret al. (2003). Periodic increases in the proportions of specific types of litter are not easilyexplained in this study. SRD can become deposited on beaches following storm conditionswhich either transport items from offshore sinks or result in CSOs discharging to theenvironment. Studies have shown that polystyrene is abundant in areas associated withfishing 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 carelessdisposal 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 sourcingtechniques, the majority of litter recorded during surveys cannot be attributed to a specificsource since pieces of plastic, rubber and cloth are practically unidentifiable (MarineConservation Society, 2003). In this study, the majority of the litter at the majority of thesurveyed beaches were assigned to the non-sourced category.

Ribic (1998) surveyed marine litter in the USA over a five year period and found that almost60% of the litter originated from land-based sources, 9% from ocean-based surveys with theremainder categorised as non-sourced (unable to determine if the litter originated from landor sea), suggesting that littering by tourists and recreational beach users, fly tipping, SRDand river litter must be targeted as a priority. Madzena and Lasiak (1997) studied litter on anundeveloped coastline in South Africa and demonstrated that plastic items were of localorigin, most probably from rubbish dumps located upstream. Additionally, in general, morelitter 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 andsuggested that local household waste, shipping and near shore activities are the mainsources of marine litter. Additionally, they found that marine litter decreased with populationdensity 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 andthe amount of marine litter found at Bird Island. Jones (1995) reviews the available data on


fishing debris in the Australian marine environment and its associated impacts on theenvironment and marine wildlife.

Tourist and recreational litter has consistently represented the most common source ofmarine litter in the UK (Marine Conservation Society, 2003). In this study, the majority of thesourceable litter could be assigned to the recreational category. However, SRD was the mainsource of litter at several beaches in the Firth of Forth. It should be noted that the majorityof SRD consisted of cotton bud sticks (64%). This is in agreement with the MarineConservation Society’s Beachwatch report (Marine Conservation Society, 2003) where 70%of SRD were cotton bud sticks which are difficult to remove during the sewage treatmentprocess. Litter from shipping and fishing appear to be infrequently recorded on beaches inthe Firth of Forth, perhaps as a result of adequate Port Reception Facilities in the Firth ofForth. However, Marine Conservation Society (2003) have suggested that some itemscategorised as non-sourced should be attributed to shipping, which could alter the findingsin this study. Medical litter and fly-tipping also appear to be infrequent sources of litter onbeaches 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 thevarious sources. Sea-born sources of litter (fishing vessels, shipping) appear to be relativelyinsignificant in the Firth of Forth. International and national legislation which is enforced bythe Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) may be effective in the Firth of Forth, but itshould be noted that MCA are undermanned making enforcement very difficult. This is incontrast to other regions in the UK and indeed throughout the world, where litter fromfishing and shipping continues to pollute coastlines (Marine Conservation Society, 2003).Nevertheless, the Blue Flag campaign for marinas and individual boat owners (administeredby ENCAMS) should be promoted. It should be noted that Keep Wales Tidy have initiated aTidy Tackle campaign in an attempt to reduce fishing industry litter. Similarly, the CumbriaMarine Litter Project (CMLP) have produced a marine litter questionnaire for fishermen inorder to identify the marine litter problems encountered by fishermen and to develop andpromote 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 theamount of litter entering the marine environment from storm drains were recently introducedin Los Angeles, USA. SRD is a relatively regular occurrence on Firth of Forth beaches despiteScottish Water’s improvements to sewage treatment facilities and improved screening ofSRD. As the screens can fail and due to the public using the toilet to dispose of sanitaryitems, intermittent discharges of SRD are likely to continue to occur. This emphasises theneed for the continued promotion of UKCEED’s Bag It and Bin It Campaign and also labellingof 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 directresult of the massive investment by Scottish Water, both in terms of improvements tosewerage structures and in funding the Bag It and Bin It campaign. Fly tipping is a majorproblem in localised areas – it would appear that a littered beach attracts more litter. KeepScotland Beautiful chairs the newly created Scottish Fly tipping Forum which aims to bringabout a standardised and coordinated approach to tackling the fly tipping menace, workingclosely with Local Authorities and private landowners. Perhaps Strategic Waste Fund and/orAggregate Tax funding could be used to employ contractors to clear material from heavilylittered areas.

Beach visitors are responsible for the majority of beach litter in the Firth of Forth, reflecting alow appreciation of individual responsibility for the natural environment. Current legislationmakes 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 suchas ENCAMS and the Marine Conservation Society, but it would appear that these messagesneed to be continually reinforced. A combination of education, provision of adequate wastefacilities and enforcement of legislation is needed to tackle beach visitor litter.


conclusions and recommendations

five

part five

conclusions and recommendations

Sea-born sources of litter (from fishing vessels, shipping) appear to be relatively insignificantin the Firth of Forth – perhaps due to the provision of adequate Port Reception Facilities inthe 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 continuedpromotion of UKCEED’s Bag It and Bin It campaign, as well as the labelling of all sanitaryproducts with the correct disposal information. Beach visitors are responsible for themajority of beach litter in the Firth of Forth, reflecting a low appreciation of individualresponsibility for the natural environment. Numerous anti-littering campaigns have beeninitiated in recent years but it would appear that these messages need to be continuallyreinforced 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 subsequentextremely positive evaluation comments (Appendix 2) demonstrate the success of the CoastalLitter Campaign. Substantial progress has been made in working towards “a litter-freeForth” and achieving a marked difference in attitude to litter in the Firth of Forth’s catchmentarea.

The key to controlling marine litter is to tackle it at source – an economically sustainablemanagement option that complies with the precautionary principle (Fanshawe and Everard,2002). With this in mind the Forth Estuary Forum’s Coastal Litter Campaign highlights thefollowing recommendations – it is hoped that they will act as a catalyst to stimulatediscussion in order to take the Coastal Litter Campaign forward:

• The Forth Estuary Forum should continue to manage and further develop the Coastal LitterCampaign;

• Strategic Waste Fund and/or Aggregate Tax funding should be used to employcontractors to clear material from heavily littered areas;

• Local Authorities and coastal partnerships should continue to support voluntary beachlitter 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 networkof co-ordinators to provide regional support throughout the UK;

• Raising public awareness is an essential part of anti-littering campaigns since changingattitudes and behaviour is the only guaranteed method of reducing litter at source. To thisend, educational material regarding the types, sources and impacts of marine littershould be incorporated into the national curriculum;

• To prevent littering from beach visitors, waste minimisation incentives should be furtherpromoted, e. g. ‘reduce – reuse – recycle’, to educate beach visitors to take their litter homeand recycle as much as possible;

• SRD is still a problem despite massive investment from Scottish Water. UKCEED’s Bag Itand Bin It campaign should be further promoted to reduce sanitary waste inputs into thesewerage 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 achievebeach awards. Such status is an effective tool for raising awareness about the issuessurrounding marine litter and can help to bring about a change in attitude and ultimatelya reduction in litter at source;

• Beaches are a natural asset to Local Authorities and should be viewed as such. Thisshould be reflected in visitor interpretation material and tourist brochures. Beaches mustbe seen to be viewed as a precious natural resource in order for individuals and


organisations to develop a sense of environmental responsibility and treat themaccordingly;

• Litter monitoring should be incorporated into Local Authority beach management plansto assess the effectiveness of anti-littering campaigns. The technique employed by theCoastal Litter Campaign quickly identifies problem areas and is recommended in the firstinstance. 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 bathingwater quality results. Any approach needs to be holistic, working closely with other LocalAuthorities in the region, taking note of sediment cells which provide geographicalboundaries in which marine litter is likely to circulate (DEFRA, 2001);

• Beach litter modelling studies should be carried out to determine the location of likelylitter 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 riverineinputs of litter can be highly significant in localised areas. Any subsequent efforts to initiatea clean-up of affected areas should also be co-ordinated;

• Existing anti littering legislation must be enforced and penalties must be issued topersistent offenders. Reference should be made to Fly-tipping Stakeholders Forum (1999)which documents guidance notes for owners and managers of land and property andmembers of the public to help combat fly-tipping;

• A national coastal litter campaign should be developed based on the success of the ForthEstuary Forum’s Coastal Litter Campaign.


references six

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? Theimpact of litter on beach users in the Cape Peninsula, South Africa. South African Journal ofScience, 96, 210-213.

Bjorndal, K. A., Bolten, A. B. and Laguex, C. J. (1994) Ingestion of marine debris by juvenilesea 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 RoyalSociety of Edinburgh, 93B, 273-284.

Fanshawe, T. and Everard, M. (2002) The Impacts of Marine Litter. Report of the Marine litterTask 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 EstuaryForum, 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 CoastalCommunities. KIMO, Shetland, 97pp.

Huin, N. and Croxall, J. P. (1996) Fishing gear, oil and marine debris associated with seabirdsat Bird Island, South Georgia, during 1993/1994. Marine Ornithology, 24, 19-22.

Jones, M. M. (1995) Fishing Debris in the Australian marine environment. Marine PollutionBulletin, 30(1), 25-33.

Laist, D. W. (1997) Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debrisincluding 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 onEnvironmental Management.

Laist, D. W. (1987) Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris inthe marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 18(6B), 319-326.


Llewellyn, P. J. and Shackley, S. E. (1996) The effects of mechanical beach-cleaning oninvertebrate populations. British Wildlife, 7(3), 147-155.

Madzena, A. and Lasiak, T. (1997) Spatial and temporal variations in beach litter on theTranskei coast of South Africa. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 34(11), 900-907.

Marine Conservation Society (2003) Beachwatch 2002 – The Annual UK Beach litter SurveyReport. Marine Conservation Society, Ross-on-Wye, UK, 92pp.

Miller, K. L., Homer, B., Barbarito, B., Duncan, C. and Pearce, A. (2003) Actions to Combat thePlastic 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 theNorth 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 comparisonof 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 PollutionBulletin, 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 methodswith 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 beachfrom 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 particlesingested 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 coastaltourism: 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 themunicipal 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.) Marineenvironmental 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 aselection 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 aMethodology 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 educationprogramme in reducing litter pollution on shores of Ambon Bay (eastern Indonesia). Journalof Biological Education, 32(2), 143-147.

Velander, K. A. and Mocogni, M. (1998) Maritime litter and sewage contamination at CramondBeach 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 BirdIsland, 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 temporaldistribution on a cobble pocket beach. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(11), 1031-1039.


app

end

ices

SUMMER AUTUMN WINTER SPRING SUMMER AUTUMN WINTER SPRING SUMMER AUTUMN WINTER SPRINGBEACH 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004

ADOPTED BEACHESAberlady 20-Sep 17-JanBathan’s Sands,Tyninghame 16-Jun 22-Sep 12-Jan 13-Apr sep 10-JanBelhaven Bay, DunbarBillowness, Anstruther 29-Nov 5-Jun 20-Sep 28-Mar 22-Jun 19-SepBlackness 3-Oct 13-Jun 24-SepBlacksands, Aberdour 12-Jan 29-Mar 6-DecBuckhaven 21-SepBurntisland 13-Apr 30-Jun 22-Sep 11-Jan 12-Apr 13-Jun 19-Sep 18-JanCanty/Cowrie Bay,North Berwick ? 20-Apr 14-Sep 28-Dec 11-Apr 21-Jun 6-Sep 28-DecCramond 30-Jun 15-Sep 12-Jan 13-Apr 15-Jun 21-Sep 11-Jan 12-Apr 21-Jun 20-Sep 10-JanEarlsferry 20-Sep 9-Jan 4-Apr 13-Jun 19-Sep 9-Jan 2-AprEast Beach, Dunbar 16-Apr 11-JanEast WemyssFisherrow Sands, Musselburgh 14-JunGullane 13-Jan 14-Apr 16-Jun 22-Sep 19-Jan 13-Apr 15-Jun 20-Sep 11-JanHarbour Beach, DunbarKinghorn Harbour 13-Apr 15-Jun 22-Sep 12-Jan 13-Apr 15-Jun 11-Jan 11-JanLeven 13-Jun 26-SepPort Laing,North Queensferry 13-Jan 14-Apr 9-Jun 22-Sep 13-Apr 15-Jun 21-SepPrestonpansRuby Bay, Elie 18-Sep 15-Jan 9-Apr 25-Jun 10-Sep 14-JanSilverburn, Largo 8-Oct 7-Jun 6-Sep 10-Jan 4-Apr 6-Jun 9-JanSilverknowes 9-Apr 8-Apr 1-JulTemple Bay, Largo ? ? 25-Jun 17-Sep 7-Jan 29-Apr 22-Jul 23-Sep 6-JanWest Beach,North Berwick 15-Jun 21-Sep 8-Feb 26-Apr 14-Jun 21-Sep 18-JanWest Shore, Pittenweem 12-Jan 13-Apr 15-Jun 22-Sep 18-Jan 10-Jan

COASTAL LITTER CAMPAIGN BEACH CLEANSBo’nessCarrick VillaCellardyke 10-OctColdingham 28-MayCulross 8-Oct 8-Jun 22-Sep 1-Jun mid sepDalgety Bay 12-Jan 13/14-Apr 16-Jun 21/22-Sep 11-Jan 13-Apr 14-Jun 20-Sep 10-JanGosford 5-AprGrantonLimekilns 20-Apr 29-MarLongniddry 20-Apr 21-JunMilsey Bay, North Berwick 9-Oct 8-Mar 26-AprNewark Beach, St Monans 14-Apr 13-AprPortobello 9-Oct 14-Apr 21-SepRavensheugh Sands,Tyninghame 12-JanSeton Sands 13-Apr 21-Sep 12-Apr 20-SepShell Bay, LargoShore Street Beach, Anstruther 15-Jun 21-SepSouth Beach,North Queensferry 13-Apr 16-Jun 21-Sep 11-Jan 12-Apr 14-Jun 20-Sep 10-JanSouth Queensferry 13-Apr 26-AprTentsmuir 27-JunWest Links 19-Sep 11-JanWest Wemyss

RUBBISH FREE ZONE BEACH CLEANSCellardyke 14-Jun 26-AprDrumeldrie, Largo Bay 23-May 26-JunEarlsferry 8-MayEast Wemyss Caves 2-MarLargo Bay 23-MarRoome Bay, Crail 12-AprRuby Bay, Elie 14-Apr 6-Nov 13-AprShell Bay 26-OctSt Monans 15-May 3-Apr


ADOPTED BEACHES

COASTAL LITTER CAMPAIGN BEACH CLEANS

RUBBISH FREE ZONE BEACH CLEANS

Appendix 1 – Co-ordinated beach cleans in the Firth of Forth

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 forENCAMS)

• 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 ConservationSociety’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 Campaigncontributed 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


3. How much of your free time was taken up by your involvement in the Coastal LitterCampaign? (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 increasedwith 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 andencourage the public to be aware of the impact of litter

• Survey – 40 min. per month; beach cleans – 10 hours per year (including organising andtaking 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 CoastalLitter 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


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 polystyrenetake to disintegrate. We were surprised to hear how rubber tyres can be left to be buriedby the sand

• Since I started doing the area I cover (about 3 years ago) things have improved in that Ican now get the area totally clean. There is just as much litter coming in – it’s just thatthere is no backlog

• Definitely! I have always been very surprised at the type and amount of rubbish we findeach 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!


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 itemsdeposited on beach

• Shipping and domestic waste, especially what people flush down toilets. Clearly a lot isfrom 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 thegreatest – sanitary towels, cotton buds etc by the thousand. Beach visitors can be aproblem, but it’s only a few days a year. The area I work also has the river at its centre andif 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 thrownaway. 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 localbeach and/or in your community? (please explain)

• Same impact with Adopt-a-Beach but involvement in CLC certainly helped raise profile inlocal media

• Citizens made aware of the state of the coastline by articles published from time to timein 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 surpriseand made suggestions like ban dogs and provide more bins especially on the beach duringsummer at weekends

• Impact of clean-ups is very short term, unfortunately, but still valid – but it is not long beforethe tide brings in plenty more rubbish. Limited impact on community – a small group ofregular volunteers plus youth groups, maybe the greatest impact was awareness-raisingamong the youth groups who participated


• hard to say as we’ve had little feedback from people. Litter from previous tides are oftenwashed 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 displayedposters 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 winterfor coastal walkers – won best kept large village in Fife

• Local community got involved once a year – 40 people out of 1500 inhabitants turned outto help!

• Efforts largely unknown therefore little impact on amount of litter but beach benefits fromregular 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 binwas 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? (pleasecircle 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 thereis still a lot to do

• Reduction in litter depends on wind and tides


• Efforts largely unknown therefore little impact on amount of litter but beach benefits fromregular 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 ourgroup 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 thesurveys will show otherwise

• With the provision that there is much more to do. The campaign is obviously working butthe message has to reach more and more people. An ongoing education of the public isneeded

• 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 thefuture? (please circle)

Yes x 23 No x 1


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 datacollected

• 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 positivefeedback from other people and be kept up to date!

• It is good to have the support of an organisation. The PO has been invaluable withpractical help and advice. The campaign gives authority to the effort and persuades theCouncil 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 whichthe 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 hardto 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 wastefrom shipping

• We’ve enjoyed doing the beach clean-ups. We’ve learned so much, from the impact litterhas on the environment, to seeing how big a problem plastics are, to what not to flushdown the toilet. We’ve learned a bit about tides and beaches. Our group consists of adultswith 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 ifwe had the time. We also have a craft group in the day centre who make good use of theinteresting 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 whatgets washed up on the beach – does it matter whether it’s 10% or 20%; we have to stopeverything being dumped in the sea. Major education is needed. It would be nice to thinkthat 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 uswho walk the beaches regularly, mostly dog walkers like myself


• We have been cleaning our beach for over 3-4 years now and the group still very muchenjoy 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 appearedfrom – 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 nothave to worry about insurance and the like. The campaign legitimises our efforts and ensuresthat the information can be collated and analysed. This is more important than cleaningthe beach. I am very sorry the monthly surveys will be finishing. It seems like a waste nowthat 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 curiosityover environmental and ecological matters seems endless. Thanks to the CLC, the beachcan hold its head up. It would be nice to see things growing better year by year in theForth. I was once shamed by comments from a family of Germans about the lack of litterawareness in Scotland. As long as I am able to pick up discarded litter that won’t happenagain

• It would be useful to have access to a tractor or 4-wheel drive quad bike as it’s difficult tomove heavy items up steep paths to skips. Input from the Council on a more practicallevel would be very useful as the volunteers are providing a lot of unpaid man power tokeep the beaches clean

• Greater awareness of the more dangerous aspects (e.g. drinkers throwing bottles at rockswhere children climb). I give this aspect priority during clean-ups and attempt to keeppopular areas free of broken glass at all times

• As long as young people are not made aware of the injuries that can occur from beachlitter I think we are fighting a losing battle

• I hope the CLC – with PO in post – can continue. Anything to benefit the cleanliness of theenvironment 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.


DATE VENUE 1 VENUE 2Jul-01

16/7 – 23/7 Beacon Leisure Centre –23/7 – 30/7 Aberdour Beach Restaurant Port Seton Library30/7 – 6/8 Deep Sea World Port Seton Library

Aug-016/8 – 13/8 Longannet Power Station Port Seton Library13/8 – 20/8 Buckhaven Community Centre North Berwick Library20/8 – 27/8 – North Berwick Library27/8 – 3/9 – North Berwick Library

Sep-0110/9 – 17/9 Templehall Library –17/9 – 24/9 Templehall Library Musselburgh Library24/9 – 1/10 Templehall Library/Leven Library Musselburgh Library

Oct-011/10 – 8/10 Leven Library Dunbar Library8/10 – 15/10 Leven Library Dunbar Library15/10 – 22/10 Leven Library/Buckhaven Library Dunbar Library22/10 – 29/10 Buckhaven Library Scottish Executive29/10 – 5/11 Buckhaven Library Portobello Community Centre

Nov-015/11 – 12/11 Buckhaven Library/Burntisland Library Scottish Sea Bird Centre12/11 – 19/11 Burntisland Library Scottish Sea Bird Centre19/11 – 26/11 Burntisland Library Scottish Sea Bird Centre26/11 – 3/12 Burntisland Library/Kinghorn Library Scottish Sea Bird Centre

Dec-013/12 – 10/12 Kinghorn Library Linlithgow Library10/12 – 17/12 Kinghorn Library Linlithgow Library17/12 – 24/12 Kinghorn Library/Kirkaldy Central Library Linlithgow Library24/12 – 31/12 Kirkaldy Central Library Linlithgow Library/Armadale Library31/12 – 7/1 Kirkaldy Central Library Armadale Library

Jan-027/1 – 14/1 Kirkaldy Central Library Armadale Library14/1 – 21/1 Kirkaldy Central Library/Rothes Hall Library Armadale Library/Blackridge Library21/1 – 28/1 Rothes Hall Library Blackridge Library28/1 – 4/2 Rothes Hall Library Blackridge Library

Feb-024/2 – 11/2 Rothes Hall Library/Glenwood Library Blackridge Library/Whitburn Library

11/2 – 187/2 Glenwood Library Whitburn Library18/2 – 25/2 Glenwood Library Whitburn Library25/2 – 4/3 Glenwood Library/Cupar Library Whitburn Library/Fauldhouse Library

Mar-024/3 – 11/3 Cupar Library Fauldhouse Library11/3 – 18/3 Cupar Library Fauldhouse Library18/3 – 25/3 Cupar Library Fauldhouse Library/West Calder Library25/3 – 1/4 St Andrews Library West Calder Library

Apr-021/4 – 8/4 St Andrews Library West Calder Library8/4 – 15/4 St Andrews Library West Calder Library/Blackburn Library15/4 – 22/4 Ladybank Library Blackburn Library22/4 – 29/4 Ladybank Library Blackburn Library29/4 – 6/5 Ladybank Library Blackburn Library/Lanthorn Library

May-026/5 – 13/5 Ladybank Library Lanthorn Library13/5 – 20/5 Lundin Links Library Lanthorn Library20/5 – 27/5 Lundin Links Library Lanthorn Library/East Calder Library27/5 – 3/6 Lundin Links Library East Calder Library

Jun-023/6 – 10/6 Lundin Links Library East Calder Library10/6 – 17/6 Dalgety Bay Library East Calder Library/Almondbank Library17/6 – 24/6 Dalgety Bay Library Almondbank Library24/6 – 1/7 Inverkeithing Library Almondbank Library


Appendix 3 – Coastal Litter Campaign travelling exhibition rota

July 2001

August 2001

September 2001

October 2001

November 2001

December 2001

January 2002

February 2002

March 2002

April 2002

May 2002

June 2002

(continued)


1/7 – 8/7 Inverkeithing Library Almondbank Library/Broxburn Library8/7 – 15/7 Rosyth Library Broxburn Library15/7 – 22/7 Rosyth Library Broxburn Library22/7 – 29/7 Dunfermline Carnegie Library Broxburn Library/Carmondean Library29/7 – 5/8 Dunfermline Carnegie Library Carmondean Library

Aug-025/8 – 12/8 – Carmondean Library12/8 – 19/8 Falkirk Library Carmondean Library/Bathgate Library19/8 – 26/8 Falkirk Library Bathgate Library26/8 – 2/9 Grangemouth Library Bathgate Library

Sep-022/9 – 9/9 Grangemouth Library Bathgate Library9/9 – 16/9 Bo’ness Library Standard Life16/9 – 23/9 Bo’ness Library Standard Life23/9 – 30/9 Larbert Library Standard Life30/9 – 7/10 Larbert Library Broomhouse Community Centre

Oct-027/10 – 14/10 Denny Library Brunton Hall14/10 – 21/10 Denny Library Brunton Hall21/10 – 28/10 Bonnybridge Library Fife House28/10 – 4/11 Bonnybridge Library Royal Commonwealth Pool

Nov-024/11 – 11/11 Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther Royal Commonwealth Pool11/11 – 18/11 Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther Meadowbank Stadium18/11 – 25/11 Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther Meadowbank Stadium25/11 – 2/12 Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther Portobello Library

Dec-022/12 – 9/12 – Portobello Library9/12 – 16/12 – Portobello Library16/12 – 23/12 Craigencalt Farm Ecology Centre Portobello Library23/12 – 30/12 Craigencalt Farm Ecology Centre Portobello Library30/12 – 6/1 Craigencalt Farm Ecology Centre Portobello Library

Jan-036/1 – 13/1 Craigencalt Farm Ecology Centre Almond Valley Heritage Centre13/1 – 20/1 Hermitage of Braid Almond Valley Heritage Centre20/1 – 28/1 Hermitage of Braid Almond Valley Heritage Centre27/1 – 3/2 Hermitage of Braid Almond Valley Heritage Centre

Feb-033/2 – 10/2 Hermitage of Braid Deep Sea World10/2 – 17/2 Piershill Library Deep Sea World17/2 – 24/2 Piershill Library Meadowbank Stadium24/2 – 3/3 Piershill Library Meadowbank Stadium

Mar-033/3 – 10/3 South Queensferry Library Scottish Seabird Centre10/3 – 17/3 South Queensferry Library Scottish Seabird Centre17/3 – 24/3 South Queensferry Library Scottish Seabird Centre24/3 – 31/3 Kirkliston Library Scottish Seabird Centre31/3 – 7/4 Kirkliston Library Scottish Seabird Centre

Apr-037/4 – 14/4 Kirkliston Library –14/4 – 21/4 Wester Hailes Library Lochore Meadows Country Park21/4 – 28/4 Wester Hailes Library Lochore Meadows Country Park28/4 – 5/5 Wester Hailes Library Hopetoun House Ranger Centre

May-035/5 – 12/5 Morningside Library Hopetoun House Ranger Centre12/5 – 19/5 Morningside Library Hopetoun House Ranger Centre19/5 – 26/5 Morningside Library Hopetoun House Ranger Centre26/5 – 2/6 Colinton Library Hopetoun House Ranger Centre

Jun-032/6 – 9/6 Colinton Library Hopetoun House Ranger Centre9/6 – 16/6 Colinton Library Hopetoun House Ranger Centre16/6 – 23/6 Muirhouse Library Rosyth Ferry Terminal Building23/6 – 30/6 Muirhouse Library Rosyth Ferry Terminal Building30/6 – 7/7 Muirhouse Library Rosyth Ferry Terminal Building


July 2002

August 2002

September 2002

October 2002

November 2002

December 2002

January 2003

February 2003

March 2003

April 2003

May 2003

June 2003

Appendix 3 – (continued)



7/7 – 14/7 Craigmillar Library Rosyth Ferry Terminal Building14/7 – 21/7 Craigmillar Library Rosyth Ferry Terminal Building21/7 – 28/7 Craigmillar Library Rosyth Ferry Terminal Building28/7 – 4/8 – Rosyth Ferry Terminal BuildingAug-03

4/8 – 11/8 Hall Hill Healthy Living Centre Fisherrow Community Centre11/8 – 18/8 Hall Hill Healthy Living Centre Fisherrow Community Centre18/8 – 25/8 Hall Hill Healthy Living Centre Fisherrow Community Centre25/8 – 1/9 Hall Hill Healthy Living Centre Fisherrow Community Centre

Sep-031/9 – 8/9 Hall Hill Healthy Living Centre Loch Centre, Tranent8/9 – 15/9 Hall Hill Healthy Living Centre Loch Centre, Tranent15/9 – 22/9 Wallyford Community Centre Prestongrange Industrial Heritage Museum22/9 – 29/9 Wallyford Community Centre Prestongrange Industrial Heritage Museum29/9 – 6/10 – Prestongrange Industrial Heritage Museum

Oct-036/10 – 13/10 North Berwick Community Centre Prestongrange Industrial Heritage Museum13/10 – 20/10 North Berwick Community Centre Prestongrange Industrial Heritage Museum20/10 – 27/10 – Prestongrange Industrial Heritage Museum27/10 – 3/11 – –

Nov-033/11 – 10/11 – BOC Group, Edinburgh10/11 – 17/11 – BOC Group, Edinburgh17/11 – 24/11 Chesser House, City of Edinburgh Council BOC Group, Edinburgh24/11 – 1/12 – BOC Group, Edinburgh

Dec-031/12 – 8/12 – –8/12 – 15/12 – –15/12 – 22/12 – –22/12 – 29/12 – –29/12 – 5/1 – –

Jan-045/1 – 12/1 Deep Sea World Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther12/1 – 19/1 Deep Sea World Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther19/1 – 26/1 Deep Sea World Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther26/1 – 2/2 Deep Sea World Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther

Feb-042/2 – 9/2 Deep Sea World Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther9/2 – 16/2 Deep Sea World Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther16/2 – 23/2 Scottish Sea Bird Centre Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther23/2 – 1/3 Scottish Sea Bird Centre Scottish Fisheries Museum, Anstruther

Mar-041/3 – 8/3 Scottish Sea Bird Centre Scottish Environment Protection Agency8/3 – 15/3 Scottish Sea Bird Centre Scottish Environment Protection Agency15/3 – 22/3 Scottish Sea Bird Centre Scottish Environment Protection Agency22/3 – 29/3 Scottish Sea Bird Centre Water of Leith Conservation Trust29/3 – 5/4 TBC TBC

Apr-045/4 – 12/4 TBC TBC12/4 – 19/4 TBC TBC19/4 – 26/4 TBC TBC26/4 – 3/5 TBC TBC

July 2003

August 2003

September 2003

October 2003

November 2003

December 2003

January 2004

February 2004

March 2004

April 2004



VENUE DATE OF VISIT BEACH CLEANSCHOOLGateside Primary School, Fife 1/10/01 TBCDunino Primary School, Fife 30/10/01 29/11/01Blackness Primary School, West Lothian 9/11/01 TBCThornton Primary School, Fife 26/11/01 –Torbain Primary School, Fife 15/3/02 TBCAberhill Primary School, Fife 25/4/02 14/5/02Crombie Primary School, Fife 27/5/02 TBCColdingham Primary School 28/5/02 28/5/02Rathillet Primary School, Fife 29/5/02 27/6/02Leuchars Primary School, Fife 31/5/02 TBCBorestone Primary School, Stirling 5/6/02 TBCGullane Primary School, East Lothian 25/6/02 25/6/02Doune Primary School 6/9/02 TBCLawhead Primary School 11/9/02 TBCStrathmiglo PrimarySchool 12/9/02 TBCBellyeoman Primary School, Fife 18/9/02 TBCEast Linton Primary School 5/11/02 TBCSlamannan Primary School 11/2/03 TBCSt Joseph's RC Primary School 18/2/03 TBCAlva Academy 25/2/03 TBCLaw Primary School (as visit to Scottish Seabird Centre) 10/3/03 10/3/03Grange Primary School 11/3/03 TBCRatho Primary School (as visit to Scottish Seabird Centre) 25/3/03 25/3/03Pittenweem Primary School 1/5/03 TBCSt Andrew's RC High School 8/5/03 TBCWilliamston Primary School 13/5/03 19/6/03Lundinmill Primary School 21/5/03 21/5/03Letham Primary School 29/5/03 TBCKinghorn Primary School 18/9/03 25/9/03Grange Primary School 9/10/03 TBCAlva Academy 19/11/03 TBCAlva Academy 6/2/04 TBCBorestone Primary School 30/3/04 TBCGullane Primary School 31/3/04 31/3/04AFTER SCHOOL CLUBScottish Seabird Centre, East Lothian (after school club) 8/2/02 8/3/02COMMUNITY GROUPCleanferry 2000 meeting 29/10/01 TBCApex Scotland TBC TBCVenture Scotland TBC Adopt-a-Beach registered1st and 2nd North Berwick Brownies 19/9/02 Adopt-a-Beach registeredSave the North Sea meeting 23/1/03 NONational Health Service Retirement Fellowship 12/2/03 NONational Aquatic Litter Group meeting 24/2/03 NOMusselburgh Community Council 25/3/03 TBCRemploy 12/5/03 Adopt-a-Beach registeredDeep Blue Scuba 27/3/03 TBC

Appendix 4 – List of education and awareness raising activities

SCHOOL

AFTER SCHOOL CLUB

COMMUNITY GROUP


EVENT ACTIVITY

Cammo Open Day 2001 (Edinburgh) Forth Estuary Forum display boards

Scottish Wildlfe and Countryside Fair 2001 (Perth) Mock beach cleaning in association withMarine Conservation Society

Green Scene 2002 (Clackmannanshire) Mock Beach cleaning/Think Before YouFlush in association with Clean CoastScotland

Fife Agricultural Show 2002 (Fife) Mock beach cleaning in association withMarine Conservation Society

Marine Scene 2002 (Fife) Mock Beach cleaning/Think Before YouFlush in association with Clean CoastScotland

Dalgety Bay Open Day 2002 (Fife) Forth Estuary Forum display boards

North Berwick Learning Festival 2002 (East Lothian) Litter display in association with EastLothian Council

Anstruther Lifeboat Gala Day 2002 (Fife) Forth Estuary Forum display boards

North Berwick Harbour Festival 2002 (East Lothian) Mock Beach cleaning/Think Before YouFlush in association with Clean CoastScotland

Eco Schools Inservice Day 2003 (Fife) Forth Estuary Forum display boards

Greenscene 2003 (Clackmannanshire) Mock Beach cleaning/Bag It and Bin It inassociation with Scottish Water

International Festival of the Sea 2003 (Edinburgh) Mock beach cleaning in association withSave the North Sea/Marine ConservationSociety

Fringe Sunday 2003 (Edinburgh) Mock Beach cleaning/Bag It and Bin It inassociation with Scottish Water

West Lothian Environment Fair 2003 (West Lothian) Mock Beach cleaning/Bag It and Bin It inassociation 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

Appendix 5 – List of publicity events


Bea

chN

umbe

rTy

pe o

f Litt

erAV

ERA

GE

NU

MB

ERLe

ngth

ofSu

rvey

sPl

astic

sPo

lyst

yren

eRu

bber

Gla

ssM

etal

Med

ical

Sani

tary

Pape

rW

ood

Clot

hCe

ram

icO

ther

OF

LITT

ER IT

EMS

Bea

ch N

ame

Bea

ch L

ocat

ion

(m)

TOTA

L%

TOTA

L%

TOTA

L%

TOTA

L%

TOTA

L%

TOTA

L%

TOTA

L%

TOTA

L%

TOTA

L%

TOTA

L%

TOTA

L%

TOTA

L%

TOTA

LPE

R M

2PE

R M

ON

TH

Aber

lady

East

Lot

hian

100

490

54.8

84

2.44

10.

6124

14.6

35

3.05

00.

0031

18.9

02

1.22

31.

834

2.44

00.

000

0.00

164

0.41

Bath

an’s

Sand

sTy

ning

ham

e, E

ast L

othi

an10

02

4349

.43

89.

203

3.45

11.

151

1.15

00.

009

10.3

49

10.3

48

9.20

55.

750

0.00

00.

0087

0.44

Bath

ing

Hous

eDa

lget

y Ba

y, F

ife65

3018

3361

.80

893.

0067

2.26

682.

2995

3.20

00.

0026

89.

0415

25.

1241

1.38

331

11.1

618

0.61

40.

1329

661.

52

Belh

aven

Bay

Dunb

ar, E

ast L

othi

an10

01

1414

.29

00.

000

0.00

1616

.33

77.

140

0.00

4242

.86

11.

0218

18.3

70

0.00

00.

000

0.00

980.

98

Binn

ing

Strip

Dalg

ety

Bay,

Fife

5530

2241

44.3

737

07.

3321

04.

1660

111

.90

243

4.81

70.

1454

610

.81

392

7.76

340.

6730

25.

9883

1.64

40.

0850

513.

06

Blac

ksan

dsAb

erdo

ur, F

ife10

08

245

48.3

225

4.93

50.

9976

14.9

912

2.37

00.

0065

12.8

222

4.34

142.

7614

2.76

275.

332

0.39

507

0.63

Bruc

ehav

enLi

mek

ilns,

Fife

100

2517

444

.85

71.

8013

3.35

3910

.05

256.

443

0.77

7719

.85

184.

6413

3.35

174.

381

0.26

10.

2638

80.

16

Buck

have

nFi

fe10

08

251

42.2

610

617

.85

315.

2215

2.53

113

19.0

21

0.17

00.

0010

1.68

30.

5151

8.59

40.

679

1.52

594

0.74

Cape

rnau

mLi

mek

ilns,

Fife

100

742

350

.66

586.

9514

1.68

313.

7191

10.9

01

0.12

149

17.8

433

3.95

202.

4015

1.80

00.

000

0.00

835

1.19

Carr

ick

Villa

Larg

o Ba

y, F

ife10

011

192

51.3

421

5.61

102.

672

0.53

256.

680

0.00

9625

.67

20.

5315

4.01

92.

411

0.27

10.

2737

40.

34

Cram

ond

Edin

burg

h10

09

829

59.6

022

1.58

372.

6628

2.01

483.

452

0.14

299

21.5

014

1.01

90.

6596

6.90

40.

293

0.22

1391

1.55

Dum

barn

ie L

inks

Low

er L

argo

, Fife

100

2662

970

.20

829.

1511

1.23

111.

2336

4.02

00.

0097

10.8

313

1.45

70.

787

0.78

20.

221

0.11

896

0.34

East

Bay

Nor

th Q

ueen

sfer

ry, F

ife40

2311

3263

.38

123

6.89

231.

2911

56.

4442

2.35

20.

1127

315

.29

110.

6224

1.34

362.

021

0.06

40.

2217

861.

94

East

Bea

chDu

nbar

, Eas

t Lot

hian

100

253

31.3

65

2.96

21.

1834

20.1

26

3.55

00.

009

5.33

169.

4722

13.0

222

13.0

20

0.00

00.

0016

90.

85

Fish

erro

w S

ands

Mus

selb

urgh

, Eas

t Lot

hian

100

1679

053

.27

60.

4021

1.42

160

10.7

924

616

.59

00.

0024

1.62

332.

2310

0.67

136

9.17

563.

781

0.07

1483

0.93

Gulla

neEa

st L

othi

an10

026

322

34.8

167

7.24

80.

8610

1.08

60.

650

0.00

328

35.4

669

7.46

333.

5779

8.54

00.

003

0.32

925

0.36

King

horn

Har

bour

King

horn

, Fife

100

2054

727

.05

364

18.0

038

1.88

466

23.0

578

3.86

20.

1042

2.08

253

12.5

179

3.91

301.

4811

55.

698

0.40

2022

1.01

Long

Cra

igN

orth

Que

ensf

erry

, Fife

109

123

59.7

118

8.74

31.

463

1.46

00.

000

0.00

199.

2218

8.74

209.

712

0.97

00.

000

0.00

206

2.29

Long

nidd

ry B

ents

East

Lot

hian

100

1542

346

.84

727.

9727

2.99

667.

3133

3.65

30.

3316

318

.05

222.

4426

2.88

515.

6517

1.88

00.

0090

30.

60

Mils

ey B

ay (E

ast)

Nor

th B

erw

ick,

Eas

t Lot

hian

100

1452

140

.05

432

33.2

133

2.54

181.

3824

1.84

00.

0017

213

.22

372.

8445

3.46

161.

232

0.15

10.

0813

010.

93

New

ark

St M

onan

s, F

ife10

017

428

53.7

774

9.30

455.

6519

2.39

8710

.93

20.

2519

2.39

425.

2817

2.14

607.

540

0.00

30.

3879

60.

47

Port

Edga

rEd

inbu

rgh

100

3027

047

.12

549.

4212

2.09

417.

1612

621

.99

00.

008

1.40

305.

245

0.87

234.

013

0.52

10.

1757

30.

19

Port

Lain

gN

orth

Que

ensf

erry

, Fife

100

2814

9650

.64

371

12.5

656

1.90

146

4.94

762.

576

0.20

564

19.0

979

2.67

893.

0138

1.29

270.

916

0.20

2954

1.06

Porto

bello

(eas

t)Ed

inbu

rgh

100

1897

051

.49

713.

773

0.16

110.

5811

15.

894

0.21

423

22.4

518

89.

9827

1.43

703.

724

0.21

20.

1118

841.

05

Porto

bello

(wes

t)Ed

inbu

rgh

100

2115

0149

.13

822.

6817

0.56

200.

6518

96.

193

0.10

235

7.69

917

30.0

233

1.08

571.

871

0.03

00.

0030

551.

45

Prom

enad

eLi

mek

ilns,

Fife

100

2812

4743

.28

702.

4328

0.97

122

4.23

116

4.03

00.

0024

18.

3716

0.56

984

34.1

553

1.84

30.

101

0.03

2881

1.03

Red

Row

Lim

ekiln

s, F

ife10

019

300

51.9

926

4.51

30.

5256

9.71

549.

360

0.00

478.

1546

7.97

193.

2913

2.25

111.

912

0.35

577

0.30

Seafi

eld

Inve

rkei

thin

g, F

ife10

04

2319

.33

00.

004

3.36

5546

.22

54.

200

0.00

32.

523

2.52

00.

003

2.52

2319

.33

00.

0011

90.

30

Seto

n Sa

nds

East

Lot

hian

100

2995

335

.59

993.

7016

36.

0921

37.

9548

718

.19

30.

1119

0.71

329

12.2

985

3.17

243

9.07

652.

4319

0.71

2678

0.92

Shor

e St

reet

Anst

ruth

er, F

ife10

012

237

31.1

063

8.27

40.

5217

923

.49

9111

.94

00.

0022

2.89

144

18.9

016

2.10

60.

790

0.00

00.

0076

20.

64

Silv

erbu

rnLa

rgo

Bay,

Fife

100

2110

5648

.22

344

15.7

143

1.96

100.

4611

25.

113

0.14

410

18.7

239

1.78

111

5.07

482.

1910

0.46

40.

1821

901.

04

Silv

ersa

nds

Aber

dour

, Fife

100

1958

858

.62

118

11.7

613

1.30

60.

6034

3.39

20.

2011

211

.17

838.

2822

2.19

212.

094

0.40

00.

0010

030.

53

Soci

ety

Beac

hSo

uth

Quee

nsfe

rry,

Edin

burg

h75

17

41.1

80

0.00

00.

002

11.7

63

17.6

50

0.00

15.

880

0.00

00.

002

11.7

61

5.88

15.

8817

0.23

Sout

h Be

ach

Nor

th Q

ueen

sfer

ry, F

ife40

2610

6249

.01

753.

4661

2.81

302

13.9

475

3.46

20.

0916

27.

4896

4.43

713.

2850

2.31

204

9.41

70.

3221

672.

08

Wes

t Lin

ksN

orth

Ber

wic

k, E

ast L

othi

an10

013

292

44.3

845

6.84

71.

0677

11.7

053

8.05

00.

001

0.15

105

15.9

625

3.80

507.

602

0.30

10.

1565

80.

51

Wes

t San

dsN

orth

Que

ensf

erry

, Fife

5030

1416

32.8

098

2.27

731.

6911

9627

.70

118

2.73

30.

0727

96.

4654

1.25

932.

1510

52.

4387

920

.36

30.

0743

172.

88

Wes

t Sho

rePi

ttenw

eem

, Fife

100

632

733

.13

124

12.5

621

2.13

424.

2657

5.78

00.

0014

114

.29

575.

7868

6.89

133

13.4

816

1.62

10.

1098

71.

65

Ap

pen

dix

6 –

Lit

ter

mo

nit

ori

ng

in t

he

Firt

h o

f Fo

rth

, sh

ow

ing

th

e to

tal a

mo

un

ts o

f lit

ter

typ

es d

uri

ng

th

e su

rvey

per

iod

TOTAL % OF TOTALPLASTICS 22689 49.694/6 pack yokes 38 0.08bags/sheets 1194 2.62brackets 29 0.06containers (drinks) 2501 5.48containers (cleaner) 137 0.30containers (DIY) 93 0.20containers (food) 497 1.09containers (oil <50cm) 25 0.05containers (oil >50cm 38 0.08containers (toiletries) 61 0.13containers (other) 142 0.31caps/lids 1651 3.62cellophane 744 1.63cigarette lighters 94 0.21combs/hair brushes 18 0.04confectionary wrappers 2903 6.36cups 336 0.74cutlery/trays/straws 572 1.25electrical wire 140 0.31electrical fittings 41 0.09fishing line 124 0.27fishing nets 60 0.13floats 23 0.05hosing/tubing 183 0.40industrial packaging 222 0.49medicine/pill bottles 31 0.07mesh bags 38 0.08party poppers 55 0.12pens 86 0.19razors 7 0.02razor blade covers 6 0.01rope/cord/net <50cm 959 2.10rope/cord/net >50cm 296 0.65sacking 91 0.20scrubbing brush 6 0.01shoes/sandals 38 0.08shotgun cartridges 123 0.27strapping bands 215 0.47tape (binding) 487 1.07toothbrush 12 0.03toys 145 0.32traffic cones 23 0.05plastic pieces <5cm 4235 9.28plastic pieces 5-50cm 2954 6.47plastic pieces >50cm 503 1.10other (specify) 513 1.12POLYSTYRENE 3558 7.79buoys 5 0.01cups 189 0.41fast food containers 252 0.55fibreglass 5 0.01foam/sponge 665 1.46packaging (household, toiletries) 108 0.24polystyrene pieces <50cm 2270 4.97other (specify) 64 0.14RUBBER 1081 2.37balloons 134 0.29boots 14 0.03gloves (household) 44 0.10gloves (heavy duty) 99 0.22gloves (surgical) 43 0.09hosing/tubing 150 0.33tyres 127 0.28rubber pieces <50cm 369 0.81other (specify) 101 0.22GLASS 4196 9.19bottles 408 0.89bottle tops/lids 184 0.40containers (household, toiletries) 15 0.03light bulbs/tubes 6 0.01glass – sharp pieces <2.5cm 2201 4.82glass – sharp pieces >2.5 cm 1382 3.03


Appendix 7 – Coastal Litter Campaign data sheet showing totalnumber, percentage and number of litter items m2

Beach name:Beach address:OS grid reference:Beach Type:

TOTAL % OF TOTALMETAL 2861 6.27aerosol cans 117 0.26appliances 6 0.01container caps/lids 209 0.46car parts 44 0.10drink cans 1506 3.30fishing weights 10 0.02foil wrappers 465 1.02food cans 39 0.09industrial scrap 51 0.11oil drums 20 0.04paint tins 18 0.04wire/wire mesh 88 0.19metal pieces 188 0.41other <50cm (specify) 49 0.11other >50 cm (specify) 51 0.11MEDICAL 48 0.11Clinistix’ 6 0.01syringes 5 0.01other (specify) 37 0.08SANITARY 5348 11.71colostomy bags 15 0.03condoms 61 0.13cotton bud sticks 3404 7.46nappies 70 0.15plastic backing strips 281 0.62tampon applicators 59 0.13tampons 123 0.27tampon wrappers 21 0.05toilet fresheners 13 0.03towels/panty liners 1179 2.58towels/panty liners wrappers 93 0.20other (specify) 29 0.06PAPER 3306 7.24bags 112 0.25Bitumen paper’ 18 0.04cardboard 150 0.33cartons (household, toiletries) 75 0.16cigarette packets 156 0.34cigarette stubs 1287 2.82cups 58 0.13fireworks 101 0.22hardboard 20 0.04medicine/pill boxes 3 0.01newspapers/magazines 30 0.07paper pieces 1034 2.26other (specify) 262 0.57WOOD (not driftwood) 2095 4.59corks 35 0.08crab pots 27 0.06crates/pallets 30 0.07ice lolly sticks 81 0.18paint brushes 4 0.01pencils 14 0.03wood pieces <50cm 1297 2.84other (specify) 607 1.33CLOTH/NATURAL FIBRES 2175 4.76cloth pieces 694 1.52clothing 144 0.32furnishings 107 0.23leather 72 0.16rope/cord/net <50cm 323 0.71rope/cord/net >50cm 233 0.51sacking 95 0.21shoes/sandals 114 0.25string 264 0.58wool 77 0.17other <50cm (specify) 25 0.05other >50cm (specify) 27 0.06POTTERY/CERAMIC 1557 3.41

1557 3.41OTHER (SPECIFY) 86 0.19

86 0.19

Surveyor:Date and time of survey:Length of beach surveyed (if less than 100m):Climatic conditions:

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 INCLUDETHEM IN THE TOTAL.


Appendix 8 – Types and amounts of beach litter in the Firth of Forth

ABERLADY BAY

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2

OTHERCERAMICCLOTHWOODPAPERSANITARYMEDICALMETALGLASSRUBBERPOLYSTYRENEPLASTICS

*

* = no data received

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

BATHAN'S SANDS

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2



no further data* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

BATHING HOUSE

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2


BELHAVEN BAY

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2



no further data*

BINNING STRIP

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2




BLACKSANDS

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00Ju

l-01

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2

CERAMIC

CLOTH

WOOD

PAPER

SANITARY

MEDICAL

METAL

GLASS

RUBBER

POLYSTYRENE

PLASTICS


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

BRUCEHAVEN

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug

-01

Sep

-01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr

-02

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug

-02

Sep

-02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr

-03

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug

-03

Sep

-03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2



* * *

BUCKHAVEN

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *


* no further data

CAPERNAUM

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2



* no further data

CARRICK VILLA

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



CRAMOND

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2


* * * * *


no further data

DUMBARNIE LINKS

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2



* * * *

EAST BAY

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2


* * * * *


* *

EAST BEACH

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov-

01

Dec-

01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov-

02

Dec-

02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov-

03

Dec-

03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2



* * * no further data

FISHERROW SANDS

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2


* * * *


* no further data


GULLANE

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00Ju

l-01

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2



* * *

KINGHORN HARBOUR

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2


* * * * * * * * * *


LONG CRAIG

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2



* ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

LONGNIDDRY BENTS

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov-

01

Dec-

01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov-

02

Dec-

02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov-

03

Dec-

03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2

OTHER

CERAMIC

CLOTH

WOOD

PAPER

SANITARY

MEDICAL

METAL

GLASS

RUBBER

POLYSTYRENE

PLASTICS


* * * ********* ***

MILSEY BAY

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2


* * * *


* * * * * * * * no further data




NEWARK

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2



*** * * * * * * * * * *

PORT EDGAR

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2


PORT LAING

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2



**

PORTOBELLO (EAST)

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2



* * ****** ****

PORTOBELLO (WEST)

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2



* * * * * * * *


PROMENADE

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2



**

RED ROW

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2



** * * * * * * * * *

SEAFIELD

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2


no further data

SETON SANDS

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2



*

SHORE STREET

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2



* ** * * * *** * * * * * * * * *




SILVERBURN

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2


* * * * * * * *


*

SILVERSANDS

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2



********* * *

SOCIETY BEACH

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2


no further data

SOUTH BEACH

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2



* * * *

WEST LINKS

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2


*


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


WEST SANDS

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2


WEST SHORE

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

Jul-0

1

Aug-

01

Sep-

01

Oct

-01

Nov

-01

Dec

-01

Jan-

02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-0

3

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Month

Num

ber o

f litt

er it

ems/

m2



no further data* * * * *



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


Copyright © FEF 4/04

All rights reserved. This publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, ortransmitted in any form or by any means provided that the Forth Estuary Forum isacknowledged 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 ForthCoastal Litter Campaign

Working Towards a Litter Free Forth

The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign · responsibility for the natural environment. Numerous...

Documents

Transcript of The Forth Coastal Litter Campaign · responsibility for the natural environment. Numerous...