The widespread use of plastics in agriculture, known as “plastic agriculture”, includes materials like mulching films and protective covers for crops. These lightweight, low-cost materials help retain heat and moisture, reduce pesticide use, and even promote off-season crop growth. However, the non-degradability of plastics has transformed agriculture from a “low-waste” industry into a “waste management challenge”. Globally, agricultural activities generate approximately 1.56 million tons of plastic waste annually, much of which is burned or buried due to recycling difficulties, leading to soil and air pollution and the formation of microplastics that enter the food chain through rainwater infiltration or wind dispersion. In Egypt, where agriculture plays a significant economic role, plastic agriculture is also prevalent. How do local farmers manage this plastic waste, and what factors influence their willingness to recycle?

To address these questions, a research team from Mansoura University, the Agricultural Research Center, and the University of Reading conducted a study in the agricultural provinces of Dakahlia, Giza, and Minya. The study involved 300 farmers using four types of plastic agriculture systems: open-field films, low tunnels, high tunnels, and net houses. Through stratified random sampling and face-to-face interviews, the team analyzed plastic usage characteristics, disposal methods, recycling barriers, and key motivations. The article was recently published in Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering (DOI: 10.15302/J-FASE-2025621).

The results indicated significant differences in how farmers handle various types of plastics. Mulching films used for winter vegetable cultivation are often directly buried or burned in the open, whereas 95.8% of the covering films used for tunnel construction are collected and sent for recycling. This discrepancy arises because mulching films are thin and easily broken, making collection costly and inefficient, while covering films are more intact and easier to process. Further analysis revealed that economic pressure is the biggest barrier to recycling—high recycling costs and labor collection expenses are seen as the “most troublesome issues” by farmers. Additionally, the lack of fixed recycling points and insufficient recycling facilities exacerbate the management challenges. However, farmers do express a willingness to recycle, with financial incentives (such as subsidies) and improved plastic quality identified as the most effective motivators. Notably, larger farms, households with family members involved in agriculture, and those with long-term experience in plastic agriculture are more likely to actively recycle mulching films—larger farms generate enough waste to meet recycling thresholds, family involvement reduces labor costs, and experienced farmers recognize the long-term importance of soil health.

This study presents a realistic picture of plastic waste management among Egyptian farmers and offers concrete directions for policy formulation. For instance, to address high recycling costs, more convenient recycling points and subsidies could be established to alleviate farmers’ burdens. To tackle the fragility of mulching films, improvements in plastic production to enhance durability could be promoted. For smallholder farmers, a “centralized collection + flexible subsidy” scheme could address the “low volume recycling” dilemma. If these measures are implemented, they could not only reduce the threat of microplastics to soil and ecosystems but also facilitate the transition of agriculture from “single-use plastic dependence” to “circular use”, helping Egypt meet its environmental management goals outlined in the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.
DOI: 10.15302/J-FASE-2025621