Investigating the Agricultural Use and Disposal of Plastics in Malta

Abstract

The use of plastics in agriculture has become so omnipresent that it has acquired its own lexicon, and it is now known as “plasticulture”. However, since compared to other industries, plastic consumption in agriculture is low, little attention has been paid to this material and its eventual disposal. This disregard is evident within both local and international statistics and policies, despite the close connection its disposal bears to soil health, making correct disposal a prerequisite for improving the health and sustainability of food production processes. Using Malta as a case study, this research utilizes quantitative and qualitative tools to identify and quantify the most common types of agricultural plastic waste generated and to determine the attitudes of farmers towards the establishment of a collection and recycling scheme. While the results indicate that for 38% of respondents, the incineration and plowing of plastic waste are regular practices, they also ascertain the willingness of farmers to acquire additional knowledge about more appropriate methods to dispose of this waste stream, thus guiding policy makers towards the need to initiate educational measures for farmers to prevent these harmful practices. The stakeholder interviews highlight that the present lack of data is a major obstacle, preventing policy from taking this waste stream into account.

1. Introduction

Plastic use is widespread. Some of the most prominent characteristics of plastic that contribute to its spiraling success include its durability, light weight, strength, workability and low cost. These factors have facilitated its infiltration into various industries, making its use ubiquitous. In fact, the quantities of plastic produced have increased dramatically—while in 1976, worldwide plastic production amounted to 45.4 million metric tonnes, in 2021, the figure reached 354.4 million metric tonnes [1]. The latter figure includes fossil-based plastics (90.2%), post-consumer recycled plastic (8.3%), and bio-based plastics (1.5%) [2].

Agriculture is one of the industries in which plastic use has registered a notable increase. During 2021, agriculture, farming, and gardening comprised 4% of the 390.7 million tonnes of plastic produced [2]. While in comparison to other industries, the figure might not be impressive, the wide availability of plastic products, together with their low cost, has transformed agriculture from an industry that is traditionally low in waste into one with significant waste-related issues [3]. The usage of plastic within this industry has become so extensive that the term “plasticulture”, that is, the use of plastic materials for agricultural practices, has become mainstream [4].

Plastic has significantly benefitted agricultural production. The material is utilized at various stages of the production process, for example, to cover the soil and reduce weeds, to protect and boost plant growth, to extend the cropping seasons and increase yields, to protect seedlings and saplings from animals, to help provide a growth-enhancing microclimate, and as a tree guard. However, the appropriate collection and disposal of these plastics remains a unclear. This fact is highlighted in the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) report, “Assessment of Agricultural Plastics and Their Sustainability”. To this end, the report points out that out of the 12.5 million tonnes of waste generated annually, the quantity dispersed in the environment is unknown [5]. Informal disposal practices lead to build-up, which in turn results in micro-plastics that are dispersed into various parts of the environment, through for example, surface run-off that eventually migrates into deeper layers, affecting soil health and subsequently, food security [3].

The issue of microplastic contamination has become one of the most widespread and long-lasting anthropogenic changes to the surface of our planet [6]. Furthermore, it has been identified as one of the most pertinent topics for biodiversity conservation on a global scale [7]. Yet, the effects of plastic fragments on dry land are not disseminated [8]. Furthermore, plastics, including those reported as biodegradable, are more prone to disintegration than degradation [9]. Disintegration results in macroscopic plastic pollution, which ultimately generates fragments smaller than 5 mm, i.e., microscopic particles. These particles, while being omnipresent, are also likely to gain new chemical compositions that impact soil fauna and hinder soil fertility and functions [8]. Additionally, chlorinated plastics can release harmful chemicals into the soil, leaching into the groundwater or the surrounding water sources and ecosystems, imparting a range of potentially harmful impacts on species that consume food from the said water bodies [8]. The intake and uptake of microplastic can cause a new long-term stress factor for the environment. Presently, however, there is a lack of standardized methods to identify microplastics in terrestrial ecosystems and produce an accurate assessment of the situation [8].

Despite these adverse and direct impacts, the research and quantification of plastic waste generated by the agricultural industry are limited. Briassoulis et al., 2013 [4], point out that since the market for agricultural plastic is a fragmented one, with many players, the possibility of collecting data is limited. Furthermore, agricultural ministries in Europe do not collate statistics or reports regarding plastics originating from agriculture. This means that officially reported information on agricultural plastic use and its disposal is sporadic, or even worse, unreliable or unavailable.

The lack of data and research on this topic results from the false perception that the quantities generated by the agricultural industry are minimal or rather, not substantial enough to justify additional investigation or to manage through policies. This situation has prevailed throughout Europe for some time. To this end, this paper seeks to examine the current use of plastics in the agricultural industry, along with the industry’s current disposal practices within the Maltese Islands. As can be noticed, this study fills an information gap which has resulted in the sidestepping of this waste stream at the policy level. The results highlight the need to address this stream, particularly since plastic use in agriculture is becoming more widespread. Using the Maltese Islands as a basis for this study assists in the identification of trends which can also be transposed to neighbouring countries, given the similar weather conditions and crops cultivated. Together with a questionnaire disseminated among the farming community to gauge the farmers’ attitudes towards this type of waste, plastic waste audits are carried out to produce detailed quantitative information regarding the type and quantity of plastic waste generated, including how it is disposed of.

2. Literature Review

Agriculture generates different types of waste, both organic and inorganic. Initially, plastic was used as early as 1948, when it replaced glass in greenhouses [2], but it has now been extended to other uses. The various benefits registered from plastic use include increased yields, earlier harvest production, reduced use of herbicides and pesticides, protection of crops, and water conservation. Plastic has also proven to be successful in the management of crops in and out of season and for assisting in the preservation, transport, packaging, and commercialization of agro-food products [3] In arid regions, the use of plastic-based agriculture has proven to be efficient, since piping and drainage systems reduce water consumption and loss, thus cutting costs and safeguarding water consumption patterns [4].

These positive factors, along with its low cost, have escalated the use of plastic in agriculture. While the overall consumption of plastic in agriculture amounts to 4% [2], the Mediterranean region is known to be a hotspot for plastic use, particularly given its intensive production of horticultural crops [4]. Scarascia-Mugnozzo et al., 2011 [10], point to Spain and Italy as the countries with the highest number of greenhouses and large tunnels, while France consumes the highest amount of plastic mulching [3]. Briassoulis et al., 2013 [4], point out that agricultural film for protected cultivation is used mostly in Southern Europe. Northern Europe, on the other hand, uses silage and direct cover films. The same research notes that Malta’s main use of surface films is sourced for greenhouses.

Plastic usage is accompanied by disposal needs—a process which, to date, remains rarely documented and riddled with problems. Briassoulis et al., 2013 [4], note that methods to dispose of APW consist of incineration in an open fire, abandonment—both in fields and along the watercourses, burial in the soil, or disposal in landfills. These types of disposal, in turn, result in both environmental and economic problems, which include the degradation of agro-systems, along with soil and water contamination. The open burning of AP is registered as a frequent activity [5], but incineration tends to be incomplete, resulting in the release of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, and other pollutants. Other by-products include heavy-metals, dioxins, and furans [6].

2.1. Regulating the Disposal of APW in Europe

In the absence of legislation focused on APW, the management of this material falls under general waste legislation [8]. Open burning and/or burial of APW is illegal, since European legislation forbids uncontrolled burning through incineration (Directive 2000/76/EC), the uncontrolled burying of waste (Directive 99/31/EC), and the uncontrolled discarding of waste (revised framework Directive 2008/98/EC and Directive 91/689/EEC). In Malta, the relevant authority handling incineration events is the Civil Protection Department; however, when the incinerated material can be sourced back to waste, the Environment and Resource Authority (ERA) is then involved. This is in view of the potential breaches of the waste regulations (S.L. 549.63), which require the ERA to investigate these events and hold the persons involved accountable. According to Article 34 (2a), any person shall be guilty of an offence if waste is “abandoned, dropped, dumped or otherwise handled not in accordance with the provisions of these regulations” [5].

2.2. Extended Producer Responsibility Schemes (EPR) for Agricultural Plastic in Europe

In 2021, within Europe, national collection schemes for APW were very limited. The schemes are noted to have garnered a certain success whereby, after five years, the collection rate is now above 75% in all countries where they have been introduced. The collection schemes are financed by cost internalization, whereby most material is collected for recycling, while the remainder is landfilled [11]. In Ireland, the only EU country that boasts a mandatory collection scheme [5], lobbying to initiate an EPR-related strategy commenced in 1997. This resulted in detailed regulations under the Irish Waste Management Act of 1996. These regulations set the crucial legal basis for launching the scheme [12]. Italy, on the other hand, despite holding 17% of the EU market, and as noted earlier, boasting one of the highest densities of greenhouses and large tunnels, does not have a national collection scheme [10].

2.3. Case Studies

In Section 2.3.1 and 2.3.2, two case studies are presented. The first one—the LabelAgri Waste Scheme, is focused on the setting of a holistic and environmentally sound waste management scheme that transforms APW into labeled and guaranteed quality commodities which can be traded in an open market. Therefore, the scheme would be able to finance itself and in so doing, could tackle the issue of waste disposal [9]. The second case study is focused on Nova Scotia. Here, the traits and attitudes of farmers in relation to APW disposal projects is the focus. This case study was selected, as it assists the researchers in comprehending the ideal approaches and methodologies towards the farming community and guides the development of the questionnaire. Both studies provided a basis for the methodological approach adopted in this research.

2.3.1. The LabelAgriWaste Scheme

The “Labeling Agricultural Plastic Waste for Reuse or Disposal (LabelAgriWaste)” project was coordinated by the Agricultural University of Athens and was funded through the Cordis EU. It was implemented between January 2006 and July 2009 [13] and consisted of the enactment of a prominent project, given the highly erratic disposal methods of APW within Europe. These practices resulted in material recycling, while the remaining quantities are either abandoned on-site or incinerated, leading to the release of harmful substances in the soil.

This mismanagement often arises due to a lack of awareness of the impacts on both the environment and the farmers’ health. However, the lack of technically efficient and cost-effective APW collection schemes pushes farmers to engage in such actions with little or no control from the relevant authorities. These were the factors that motivated the LabelAgriWaste project to develop the collection, sampling, and labeling procedures, valorizing agricultural plastic waste streams by facilitating their routing to the most environmentally and economically viable disposal alternatives [11]. The tools utilized in this project included standardized procedures and integrated methodologies which label the APW streams through optimum processing to facilitate their routing to the best final disposal alternative.

One of goals of the project was the depiction of the processes involved in the LabelAgriwaste scheme, as noted in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 shows how APW is traced throughout the cycle—from the suppliers of the plastic converter, until it reaches the farmers, to its eventual final disposal. Throughout the depicted cycle, the labeling of waste is a preliminary factor, allowing for the preferred plastics to be disposed of in the most efficient economic and ecological manner. Specific guidelines are imposed for the use, collection, transportation, and treatment of APW. In this management scheme, the starting point is the assignment of responsibility for the management of APW to a national agency that would control the financial schemes, including payments and refunds. The agency would therefore be responsible for the running of the physical aspect of the scheme, including collection centers, along with data gathering and analysis. However, the agency should also be responsible for marketing, together with the handling of APW disposal and the scheme permits. The plastic industry and the converters must ensure the traceability of AP in all forms, thus avoiding issues of free riders. Their involvement is vital, since they are the ones ensuring that the materials are appropriately labeled, particularly in regard to disposal requirements. The farmers’ lobby, on the other hand, must follow simple and practical guidelines concerning the use and installation of plastic and its removal, including the sorting and storing of the material. These guidelines assist farmers in the recording and reporting of plastic uses. The collection should be run by SMEs, with managers who ensure that the best disposal method is utilized. Recycling facilities and energy recovery schemes are considered as the bidders for APW, particularly since they can provide certification for disposal.

The project made use of various pilot stations that were set up in Greece, Spain, France, and Italy mainly to identify issues, collect real data and test alternative procedures. A prevailing issue is that of free riders due to lack of traceability. In relation to the polluter pays principal issues arise from the farmers’ standpoint due to illegal practices in the handling of APW.

The framework presented in the LabelAgriWaste scheme was examined and disseminated in the context of its subject and place of study. The several problems that were highlighted outline ongoing illegalities within the sector. Subsequent to this, the countries where pilot stations were set up all experienced issues related to a lack of infrastructure for APW. This, together similar climatic conditions, provided a valuable connection between the locations involved in this scheme and the Maltese Islands [14,15].

2.3.2. Insights into the Attitudes towards the Recovery and Recycling of Agricultural Plastic Waste in Nova Scotia, Canada

Muise et al., 2016 [16], focused on the attitudes towards the recovery and recycling of APW in Nova Scotia, Canada. While it might be argued that the distance between Nova Scotia and the Maltese Islands reduces the relevance of the study, the analysis and results provided insight into the possible prospective behaviors potentially displayed by farmers and other stakeholders when APW disposal schemes are suggested.

Through a mixed-method approach, the study targeted APW generators, including waste management groups, to explore the attitudes towards the generation and disposal of this waste. The questionnaire first classified farmers according to demographics (gender and age), along with the period in which the farm had been in operation and its revenue percentage, in order to generate knowledge about the target population, together with a timeline trend for the farm and its general profitability. To outline the most popular production trends in the region, respondents were requested to point out the five most important commodities produced on their farms in relation to their financial value. Farmers were also requested to list which crops contributed the most to the generation of APW in order to determine the correlation between particular crops and their respective plastic dependance.

The APW disposal practices were also explored, including the value that farmers gave to recycling or safe disposal. The questions that followed examined current disposal methods, including the quantities produced, using a kilogram estimate, and queried the need for additional information on APW recycling and/or reuse, including whether there were any hindrances to the storage of waste in one location for subsequent collection by recyclers. These questions provided insights into the difficulties that might obstruct the assembling and management of APW and aimed to set a predicative scenario for potential sustainable disposal projects in the industry.

Finally, farmers were queried about their willingness to pay (WTP) for an APW collection scheme, including the entity which would take over its organizational and financial management, with the possibility of ranking a list of pre-determined stakeholders.

The results highlighted that while farmers were not dissatisfied with the landfilling and incineration of APW, they emphasized the need for a recycling program that was easy to engage with and did not impose a heavy financial burden. Furthermore, farmers emphasized that they were not willing to transport APW to the disposal points themselves, making curbside or on-site collection the most viable options. However, most respondents noted that there were no barriers to participating in recycling programs, even though storage might be an issue.

Therefore, the study concluded that the farming community in Nova Scotia is prepared to participate in a recycling program, but strong institutional and peer support are necessary to transition this willingness from intentions to actions. On the other hand, when farmers are met with limited options for APW management, incineration, burying or landfilling become common practices.

2.4. Overview of Agricultural Holdings and Their Management in Malta and Gozo

Agricultural holdings are mostly located in the western part of the island, comprising the western to northwestern regions. Figure 2 shows the two regions that cover 2541 and 3252 ha of utilized agricultural area (UAA), respectively. In the western region, 2220 ha is arable land, while in the northern region, the figure reaches 1825 ha. The presence of these agricultural holdings is lower in other regions, particularly in the areas surrounding the harbor. Gozo’s agricultural holdings, on the other hand, are mostly located in the northwestern region, with the area covering 2449 ha of UAA. These figures are detailed in Figure 2 and

Table 1. Distribution of utilized agricultural area (UAA) by region/district and type in the year 2020. Source: [17] NSO, 2021.

Type of UAA	Malta	Malta	Southern Harbor	Northern Harbor	South Eastern	Western Northern	Northern	Gozo and Comino
Total UAA	10,730	8281	410	243	1834	3252	2541	2449
of which:
Arable land	7782	5891	304	163	1378	2220	1825	1891
Permanent crops	953	791	12	11	58	404	306	162
Kitchen gardens	1995	1599	94	69	398	629	410	396

below.

One concerning trend is the aging of the farming population. Figure 3 shows that 31.8% of farmers are age 65+, with the second highest cohort (24.7%) reaching 55–64 years old. With an already dwindling farming population, workers in this area are expected to further decrease in the near future. Furthermore, female farmers are a rare occurrence, with the management of farms left mainly to males.

3. Materials and Methods

This section describes the methodology adopted for the realization of this research, with an overview provided in Figure 2. Various studies have noted that the use and eventual disposal of APW is geographically concentrated [14,15]. Furthermore, APW tends to be homogenous, adding value for the recycler, although issues of contamination with soil, pesticides, vegetation, organic waste, and inert materials must be kept in check [18].

This study is focused on horticultural farms. The Farm Structure Survey published by the National Statistics Office (NSO) in 2016 [19] lists 1503 full-time and 17,934 part-time farmers operating in Malta and Gozo. This resulted in a representative sample of 64 full- and 66 part-time farmers. This sample is based on stratified random sampling. This technique allowed for the formation of strata in such a way that every stratum acquires homogenous characteristics, thus allowing the researchers to evaluate data from a sub-population perspective, while representing the entire population [20].

The sample size was determined using a 95% confidence level; that is, one can be 95% certain that the respondent answered truthfully. In the case of part-time farmers, the sample was obtained based on the confidence interval adopted in the hypothesis testing. Furthermore, a confidence interval of 12% was adopted. This figure refers to the margin of error; that is, a +/−12% must be adopted to every response in reference to its certainty [21]. The 12% margin of error was based on the total number of participants, which is representative of the total target population, and which was selected in view of the early stages of research into the topic.

The study commenced with a review of the literature, in which the authors zoomed in on the two case studies described in Section 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 above. As noted earlier, the LabelAgriWaste scheme was implemented in countries with climatic conditions similar to those of the Maltese Islands, while the Nova Scotia case study guided the approach towards the farming community, including the development of the questionnaire. Therefore, both studies served as a basis for the methodology adopted in this research.

Following the completion of the collection of primary data, the compiling of secondary data commenced. Waste audits provided an integral part of the research. To produce a statistically significant sample, additional stratification was required, particularly since the audits included a set of in-depth questions that sought to quantify the plastic equipment utilized and disposed of during different time frames. This information was further supplemented with additional data related to the disposal rates, seasons, and crop types. The in-depth information collected from the audits, together with the literature review, served as a basis for the questionnaires. Finally, stakeholders who held a decision-making role were interviewed.

The study, therefore, adopted a mixed-method approach. This is in view of the fact that the research questions could not be answered using a single approach. Applying mixed methodology allowed the researchers to simultaneously answer confirmatory and investigative questions, therefore verifying and generating theory within the same study. It has also been suggested that using a mixed method can offset the disadvantages that certain methodologies exhibit when utilized by themselves [22], ensuring that a holistic approach to the theme is established. Figure 4 provides an overview of the methodology applied.

The waste audits were carried out on-site, with farmers providing purchasing information and trends regarding the usage of plastic materials, including the completion of a provided table (see Appendix B.1). Twenty-three farms participated in the audits. Following the compilation of data from the individual farms, a comprehensive table was tabulated. This provided the researchers with the total and average production of APW in kilograms per annum.

Surveys and questionnaires are typically adopted to collect data from a relatively large population, making it possible to obtain the frequencies, attitudes experienced, processes, behaviors, and predictions within a large sample [23].

Conventional practice requires that the initial questions of a survey focus on acquiring the basic demographics of the respondents. Therefore, the first five questions were used to this end. The ensuing ten questions (Questions 5 to 15) were employed to obtain trends regarding the crops grown and the plastic quantities required, including their methods of disposal. The final four questions (Questions 16 to 20) explored attitudes towards a change in disposal methods, including the farmers’ willingness to pay a surcharge and to comply with a new scheme.

In survey research, counterchecking procedures are vital for mitigating bias in questionnaire results. Bias, stemming from factors such as response or selection prejudice, can yield a misleading outcome. Counterchecking involves strategies such as cross-validation and randomization to identify and address pitfalls and biases, while also ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the collected data. These procedures enhance the robustness of the findings, contributing to the overall credibility of survey research outcomes. In this research, the counterchecking procedure involved the analysis of answers, particularly answers conflicting with those regarding logically related questions. Furthermore, consistency checks were employed to identify and address such inconsistencies to ensure the reliability of the collected data; this involves cross-referencing responses to different, but conceptually related, questions, thus helping to detect any misleading answers which may arise due to bias [24].

Question 11 of the questionnaire, which enquires whether farmers encounter “any difficulties when disposing of plastic waste”, question 15, which enquires “how farmers dispose of APW produced on their farm”, and question 14, which enquires about the farmers’ willingness “to change the way you dispose of waste” were used as a basis for hypothesis testing. Hypothesis testing refers to a form of statistical inference that uses data from a sample to draw conclusions about a population probability distribution. It involves using the sample obtained from the target population to determine whether H⁰ can be rejected or not.

Initially, a tentative assumption is made about the parameter or distribution which is being requested. This assumption is termed as the “null hypothesis” and is denoted as H⁰. On the other hand, an alternative hypothesis, which is denoted as H^a, is the opposite of what is assumed in the null hypothesis.

Hypothesis H1:

i.

The null hypothesis (H⁰) stipulates that farmers do encounter difficulties disposing of APW.

ii.

The alternative hypothesis (H^a) stipulates that farmers do not encounter any difficulties in disposing of APW.

Hypothesis H2:

i.

The null hypothesis (H⁰) stipulates that farmers are not knowledgeable regarding the methods for disposing of APW.

ii.

The alternative hypothesis (H^a) stipulates that farmers are knowledgeable about how to dispose of agricultural plastics.

Hypothesis H3:

i.

The null hypothesis (H⁰) stipulates that farmers are willing to change their disposal patterns to safeguard the environment.

ii.

The alternative hypothesis (H^a) stipulates that farmers are not willing to change their disposal patterns, regardless of the environment.

To test these hypotheses, the Chi-squared method was utilized. This method is used for data that consists of variables that are distributed across different categories and helps to identify whether that distribution is different from that in the hypothesis. The Chi-square is denoted by χ² in the Chi-square formal χ² = ∑(Oi − Ei)2/Ei, where Oi is the observed or actual value, while Ei is the expected value. Following this, the tests produced a p-value, which indicates if there is any correlation. The p-value, which represents the probability value, defines the probability of obtaining a result which is either the same or more extreme than the one observed. Hence, the p-value for the data that does not match is high, the null hypothesis is rejected. If the p-value of the Chi-square test is very small, it indicates that the data matches the expected result, and the hypothesis is accepted [25].

The focus is now shifted to the questionnaires. While an online link was available, the questionnaires were mainly disseminated physically. In this case, the snowball and chain referral methods were used to increase the necessary sample size. This method yields a sample through referrals made among people who share, or know others who possess, some characteristics or requirements that are of interest to the research [20]. In this research, the main requirement was being a farmer. While the snowballing method has its advantages, it does not guarantee representation, and possibilities of bias are present, particularly since when people nominate their acquaintances, they likely share similar traits. In addition to the snowballing sampling method, other channels like village bars, online community forums, vegetable markets and the local vegetable brokerage site, known as “il-Pitkalija” were also visited (See Appendix B.2).

Specialized interviews involved the formulation of a set of open-ended questions which encouraged the interviewees to give their thoughts, opinions, and experiences in relation to the subject at hand. These interviews were organized with the main stakeholders responsible for the management of waste and the attainment of sustainable development targets. These included ERA, WasteServ Malta Ltd. (WSM), and the Ministry for the Environment, Sustainable Development, and Climate Change (MECP). All these entities play a crucial role in the product lifecycle of APW, both as producers, influencers, and waste generators.

In the final stage of the research, the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) was used to map the frequency and location of the operation of the survey respondents. This reflected the outcome of the areas being investigated and was relevant in the generalization and mapping of agricultural plastics produced geographically. GIS mapping tools were used, given the benefits of integrating spatial patterns. An example can be drawn from [26,27], who integrated geographical data and survey responses to analyze and illustrate patterns, trends, and correlations between various areas. GIS assists in the generation of intricate maps that demonstrate the prevalence of conditions like infectious illnesses, asthma, and hypertension and enable a thorough understanding of the spatial aspects of these health issues by superimposing survey data onto geographical data. Using GIS mapping tools can help identify high-risk locations, evaluate the effects of the environment, and provide information for specific interventions, thus assisting policymakers and public health professionals in making well-informed decisions.

4. Results

4.1. Agricultural Plastic Waste

Agricultural plastic waste falls under the European Waste Code (EWC) 02 01 04 waste plastics, but excludes packaging generated under Agriculture/Hunting/Fishing/Food processing.

Table 2. Plastic waste generated under EWC 02 01 04 between 2016 and 2020. Source: Environment and Resources Authority (ERA).

EWC 02 01 04	Tonnes
	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021
Amount generated	33.8	217.02	100.9	61.42	301.42	54.16
Amount exported for R3	68.78	48.6	21.28	-	12.28	8.36
Amount landfilled	33.88	32.85	79.62	61.42	41.56	45.8

shows the quantities recorded under this code between 2016 and 2021, along with their final destinations. When waste is exported under R3, it refers to “recycling/reclamation of organic substances which are not used as solvents (including composting and other biological transformation processes)”. This classification is provided in the Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC).

Both Table 2 and Figure 5 show that the figures are not stable, with spikes registered in 2017 and 2020. A possible cause for this spike is that certain plastics are not replaced annually, but are retained for long use. External anomalies like sun, heat, etc. also impact the longevity of plastic tools [10]. Figure 5 shows the quantities of EWC 02 01 04 between 2010 and 2021.

4.2. Locality Mapping of Respondents

Figure 6 shows all localities where the respondents originated. This figure was rendered by ArcGIS after all responses to question five were tabulated. Most questionnaires were obtained from localities with a significant agricultural footprint, meaning that most responses originated from Rabat, Mellieha, Zurrieq, Siggiewi, Dingli, and Mgarr. No responses were obtained from the northern harbor region.

Table 3. Localities from which questionnaires were collected and their frequency. Source: the authors.

Locality	Latitude (°N)	Longitude (°E)	Count
Rabat	35.8826	14.3978	30
Mellieha	35.9500	14.3667	24
Zurrieq	35.8292	14.4744	20
Siggiewi	35.8542	14.4383	19
Imgarr	35.9197	14.3664	14
Dingli	35.8603	14.3814	12
Naxxar	35.9136	14.4436	8
Luqa	35.8597	14.4892	5
Nadur	36.0381	14.2950	5
Birzebbuga	35.8267	14.5278	4
Saint Paul’s Bay	35.9483	14.4017	4
Zabbar	35.8772	14.5381	3
Mgarr–Gozo	36.0247	14.2924	2
Birkirkara	35.9000	14.4667	1
Qrendi	35.8342	14.4589	1
San Gwann	35.9056	14.4761	1
Zejtun	35.8556	14.5333	1

provides the precise count.

4.3. Hypothesis Testing Technique

The one-sample one-parametric test was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). This test served to compare the observed probabilities to the hypothesis presented in Section 2. The null hypothesis was rejected when the asymptotic significant level was less than 0.5.

4.3.1. Hypothesis 1: Do Farmers Encounter Difficulties When Disposing of Plastic Waste?

The null hypothesis (H⁰) stipulates that: farmers do not encounter difficulties in disposing of agricultural plastic waste.

The alternative hypothesis (H^a) states that: farmers do encounter difficulties in disposing of agricultural plastic waste.

N represents the total number of samples processed. The test statistic value is the numerical result generated—the larger the number, the bigger the discrepancy between the survey replies. The degree of freedom parameter represents the number of possible survey replies minus one; for example, for yes/no questions (i.e., two possible observations), this parameter is one. This is because such a statistic first computes the mean of the data, and therefore, not all the information can be utilized for the actual test. The asymptotic significance, also known as the p-value of the test, indicates the significance of the tested relationship. If the value is less than 0.05, there is no difference between the mean values.

This hypothesis is tied to question 11 on the questionnaire. Figure 7 shows that a significant number of respondents answered “yes” when asked whether they face difficulties in disposing of APW. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis is accepted, while the null hypothesis is rejected. This is also proven by the Chi-square test summary in Figure 8. The total sample N reached 154 responses. The degree of freedom 1 refers to the number of variables provided by the researcher in the proposed hypothesis. A significance value of 0.024 was obtained when running the one-sample Chi-square test, resulting in the rejection of the null hypothesis, since the value did not exceed 0.5. The H^a was accepted.

4.3.2. Hypothesis 2: Do Farmers Need Information about How to Dispose of Plastic Waste?

The second hypothesis tested referred to whether farmers are sufficiently knowledgeable about how APW should be disposed of. The null hypothesis (H⁰) stipulated that farmers are not knowledgeable regarding how to dispose of APW, while H^a stipulated that farmers are knowledgeable regarding how to dispose of APW.

This ties in with question 15 of the survey, which asked respondents, “Do you need any information about how you can dispose of plastic waste in an environmentally friendly manner?”

Figure 9 shows that most farmers responded “yes”, and therefore, as noted in the one-sample Chi-square test summary (Figure 10), for sample N = 154 with a degree of freedom of 1 (since there were only two variables presented by the researchers), the level of significance was at 0.000. Since this is below 0.5, the null hypothesis was rejected, and H^a was adopted.

4.3.3. Hypothesis 3: Are Farmers Willing to Change Their Disposal Patterns to Safeguard the Environment?

This hypothesis ties in with question 14 of the survey. Here, the null hypothesis (H⁰) stipulates that farmers are not willing to change their disposal patterns to safeguard the environment, while the alternative hypothesis (H^a) states that farmers are willing to change their disposal patterns, regardless of the environment. In this case, respondents were allowed three possible replies—yes, no, and maybe (Figure 11).

Figure 11 notes the observed responses compared to those hypothesized. A large portion of the respondents affirmed that they were willing to change their disposal patterns, followed by the “maybe” response, and finally, by the “no” answer. The hypothesized values were not met, and therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected.

Figure 12 shows the results of the one-sample Chi-square test. While the respondents numbered 154, in this case, the degree of freedom is 2, since 3 variables were provided. The level of significance reached 0.001. Since this was not greater than 0.5, the null hypothesis was rejected, and H^a was adopted.

4.4. Survey Results

This section provides an analysis of the survey results, which were originally assembled through Google Forms and then exported into SPSS. The survey was available in both Maltese and English (see Appendix B.2). The number of surveys conducted adopted a 95% confidence level statistically and a confidence interval of +/−12, while adding two strata—full- and part-time farmers—as a representation of the target population. This made it possible for the researchers to calculate the required responses, which totaled 130. To offset the confidence interval, a total of 154 responses were obtained.

The first four questions of the survey sought to obtain a demographic profile of the sampled group. As expected, male respondents reached 143, while females amounted to only 11. Additionally, most respondents (64) fell between the ages of 51–62 years, followed by the 36–50-year-oldcohort (43), the 63+ age cohort reached 25, while the 26–35 and 18–25 totaled 17 and 5, respectively. Therefore, along with farming being male-dominated, the survey confirmed that the farming population is an aging one, with many participants set to retire soon. This may affect both production quantities and crop types, hence impacting the type and quantity of APW generated. Furthermore, most respondents have been practicing agriculture on the same site for over 21 years (34, while another 34 stated that they have been practicing agriculture between 21 and 25 years and 26 and 30 years, respectively). In contrast, only 5 respondents stated they had worked on the same site between zero and 5 years, while 14 said they had been working on the farm between 6 and 10 years. This means that most respondents had ample experience and could therefore add depth to their responses. However, together with a reduced entry into the trade, this also means that farming practices have been embedded in these farmers for a long time, and as such, they are more difficult to change. Additionally, most farmers work on a part-time basis. In the sampled population, just over 60 farmers worked full-time, while the remainder worked part-time. The discrepancy in the number of respondents is also significant to the sample size, which was calculated using a stratified sampling technique.

Questions 5 through 10 sought to identify the farm location and the crop types grown to connect them with the APW generated. Furthermore, the questions sought to obtain a rough estimate of the type and quantity of APW generated annually.

The results of Question 5 emphasize that most farms are located in Rabat, followed by Mellieha, Zurrieq, Siggiewi, Mgarr, and Dingli sequentially, therefore confirming the data from Section 2.4. In question 6, the respondents noted that the most common crops grown were potatoes, tomatoes, and olives, followed by strawberries and peppers. Question seven follows up from the previous question, in which respondents were asked to list, from highest to lowest, the crops that utilize the most plastic material. The responses that were presented in a numerical grading system, from the first to the last listed crop, were tabulated in a histogram provided in Figure 13 below. Here, it can be noted that tomatoes, followed by strawberries and potatoes, are the crops with the highest plastic requirements. This correlates with the responses given in Question 6. Olive trees, on the other hand, are graded much lower in terms of plastic requirements, even though they are equally cultivated. This may result from the fact that olive trees are more adaptable to the semi-arid climate prevalent in the Maltese Islands, thus requiring less water, exerting a lower demand on irrigational systems. Additionally, since these trees are perennial and not seasonal, the cultivation process is less intensive.

Question 8 sought to establish the type of plastic waste generated. Together with a set of pre-established options, respondents could also input additional items. Figure 14 underlines that irrigation pipes are the most common type of APW, followed by plastic mulching, packaging containers, plastic crates, fertilizer bags, and low tunnels. The least generating items were nets and buckets, while one respondent stated that no plastic is used on his farm. The high disposal of irrigation pipes denotes high water consumption and distribution on the farm site.

The usage of APW tends to be on a long-term scale. When respondents were asked about the frequency with which plastic materials and tools are replaced (question 9), most said that this takes place every three years (78 responses). A total of 34 respondents said that plastics are replaced annually, while 28 said that replacement takes place every two years. Figure 15 tabulates these responses. The results correspond with the waste disposal figures presented in Table 2 and Figure 5, whereby a spike in the waste generated was noted every three years.

An attempt to quantify the plastic waste generated annually was made using Question 10. Here, the majority of respondents said that they dispose of 0 to 20 kg, while less than 50 respondents stated that they generate between 20 and 50 kg per year. Questions 11 to 19 aim to identify the difficulties and attitudes of respondents towards APW, with a total of 80 respondents affirming difficulties when dealing with this type of waste.

The disposal system for APW does not function adequately, and farmers do not have a clear-cut solution to dispose of this waste. The disposal methods presently used by farmers are discussed in Question 12 and displayed graphically in Figure 16. While most respondents (120) make use of the local civic amenity site and the local waste collector for recycling purposes, the practice of onsite incineration and plowing are regularly employed (38 and 21 respondents, respectively, said that they engage in these practices to dispose of APW). Finally, a few respondents indicated that waste is transported by a private waste collector for a fee.

Question 13 sought to map farmers’ attitudes towards recycling and/or the sustainable disposal of APW. Most respondents strongly agree or agree with recycling and/or the proposed disposal of this waste, while less than 40 were neutral. Furthermore, no respondents disagreed. This proves that the farming community is concerned about the health of the environment and expresses caution about the manner in which APW is disposed of. Harmful methods of disposal, like incineration and plowing, may stem from barriers experienced by farmers. However, a number of respondents reported a neutral stance regarding the importance of plastic waste being disposed of adequately. The willingness of farmers to change their disposal practices is clearly expressed in the responses given to Question 14. Here, almost 100 respondents asserted their willingness to change their disposal practices, although misgivings remained, causing 39 respondents to tick the “maybe” box and 17 to simply say “no”. Therefore, while the trend reveals a willingness to change, these responses denote that some respondents remain hesitant.

The last five questions (15 to 20) sought to identify the barriers that farmers encounter when they need to dispose of plastic and their WTP for an adequate collection scheme. In Question 15, an overwhelming majority of respondents (128) stated that they needed more information, with only 26 respondents responding no. Furthermore, when inquiring whether they encounter barriers related to material storage and collection (Question 16), the majority said no (less than 100), while less than 60 said yes. The latter response facilitates the possibility of introducing a collection scheme, since plastic would need to be stored before being transferred to the treatment facility. It also reduces the chances of the weathering of the material, thus facilitating recycling and reusing. However, barriers are encountered when farmers want to preserve the material for long-term use. In fact, Question 17 points out that the provision of storage facilities prior to collection would encourage farmers to divert APW to a recycling program. Respondents, on the other hand, were less enthusiastic about transporting plastic waste to a collection center and expressed a negative outlook towards the payment of a surcharge on APW to fund a recycling program.

The negative predisposition towards a surcharge can be noted in Figure 16, with the majority of respondents emphasizing a zero surcharge. When an EUR 0.75 surcharge is suggested, an immediate drop is noted. As the suggested surcharge increases, the WTP drops, thus impinging on the chances to implement a self-funding program (See Figure 17). More success is guaranteed if a small sum is reimbursed to the farmers when they deliver the APW to the collection center. In this case, more than 100 respondents responded favorably, while the remainder answered negatively. The introduction of a deposit-refund scheme would also eliminate or reduce the opposition of farmers to transporting the plastic waste to a collection center, which, as noted in question 17, could prove to be a problem.

Finally, Question 20 focuses on governance. Respondents were questioned about who should be responsible for overseeing the management of APW in Malta, and they were provided with a list of stakeholders to choose from, with the opportunity to add additional fields. More than one stakeholder could be selected. In most cases, respondents suggested Wasteserv Malta Ltd. as the manager of the scheme, followed by ERA, and the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries, Food, and Animal Rights. The variable with the lowest respondents was that of individual responsibility.

4.5. Agri-Plastic Waste Audits

To carry out the audit, stratified sampling was employed, based on the working status of the farmers, i.e., full- or part-time. The sample size was determined by calculating the percentage of full- and part-time farmers divided by the total population. This resulted in 23 audits.

$$\mathrm{Plastic} \mathrm{audit} \mathrm{sample}=\frac{\mathrm{Fulltime} \mathrm{farmers} \mathrm{per} \mathrm{cent} / \mathrm{partimefarmers} \mathrm{per} \mathrm{cent}}{\mathrm{Total} \mathrm{population}}$$

The localities targeted in the audit are shown in Figure 17.

The result of the audits is tabulated in

Table 4. Plastic waste generated on farms. Source: the authors.

Plastic Materials	Types of Plastic Polymers	Per Year (kg)	Per Season (kg/3 Months)
Plastic mulching	LDPE	19.35	4.838
Low tunnels	LDPE, EVA, LLDPE, PVC	14	3.5
Greenhouse plastics	LDPE, LDPE.IR, LLDPE, EVA	23.33	5.833
Irrigation pipes	LDPE, HDPE, PVC, PRFV	22.71	5.677
Plastic containers for produce	PET, PP	3.71	0.929
Plastic crates	HDPE	N/A	N/A
Buckets	HDPE	0.600	0.150
Fertilizer bags	LDPE, HDPE	1.02	0.255
IBC Tanks	HDPE	N/A	N/A

. The audits were conducted by the researchers, along with the farmer or person responsible for the cultivation of crops, with the localities shown in Figure 17. These individuals were also requested to provide any records in relation to the plastic materials that were purchased within the last year. In addition to this, a detailed account of the purchasing and disposal trends for each plastic material are listed in Appendix B.1. The values obtained from each farm were tabulated in a separate table, where they were eventually averaged, as shown in Table 4.

The most prevalent waste consisted of greenhouse plastics, followed by irrigation pipes, and plastic mulching. Table 4 shows that greenhouse plastics reached 23.33 kg for the year under examination; irrigation pipes, on the other hand, amounted to 22.71 kg, followed by plastic mulching, with 19.35 kg. Items like plastic crates and IBC tanks are listed as non-available due to their long-lasting features, which makes their disposal patterns both irregular and infrequent, as opposed to other types of materials. Further observations revealed that the most frequently disposed material consists of soft, flexible plastic, such as LDPE, while HDPE material has a much lower disposal frequency.

Onsite discussions and investigations revealed that the annual disposal of certain materials, such as greenhouse plastic, is financially unsustainable. However, another variable that influences disposal patterns is the weather, which can cause irreversible damage, thus offsetting any savings realized in the previous years. In the case of irrigation pipes, disposal is more frequent since weather conditions make the material more brittle and difficult to manage without damaging the system. Generally, irrigation pipes have a 3.5-year cycle. Plastic mulching and low tunnel disposal patterns are similar. However, variations exist, depending on the severity of the weather and the harvesting methods employed. Site managers pointed out that harsh weather conditions can cause irreversible damage, resulting in the need for the items to be replaced. This material should therefore last for an average of one or two seasons. Finally, the onsite discussions also revealed that farmers who utilize machinery for harvesting indicated a higher disposal rate of plastic mulching, as it becomes damaged during this process.

Plastic containers were noted to be used to sell foraging plants, fruits, and berries. Such sales were noted to typically spike around spring and summer when berries and other fruits are more in demand. However, the disposal of the containers is left to the customer, since they are sold as an integral part of the product and are not considered single-use plastic due to their composition, as described by the EPR compliance and enforcement officer in the stakeholder interview in Appendix B.3, Interviewee 2.

In scenarios where intermediate bulk container (IBC) plastic tanks were used; their main scope was water storage and the integration of an irrigation system. The use of such material was predominantly observed in agricultural sites, which were used for kitchen gardens or by part-time farmers; hence, the disposal frequency of IBC tanks was much lower.

4.6. Stakeholder Interviews

Several interviews were held with stakeholders, which are critical in the management of plastic waste within the Maltese Islands, including the formation of policies, the enforcement of illegal waste disposal, and the upkeep and compliance of policies. These included an environmental protection officer regarding waste policy, the team manager over compliance and enforcement (waste schemes and exports), the compliance and enforcement officer over the illegal management of waste from ERA, and the Director of the Environment at the Ministry for the Environment, Climate Change, and Sustainable Development (MECP).

When questioned about the feasibility of a collection and recycling program for APW, the ERA officials outlined that the creation of policy required data from within the industry, which is currently unavailable. This situation prevails due to the current perception that only low quantities of plastics are generated from this sector, as compared to those from other industries. The inclusion of APW in an EPR scheme could offer an opportunity for managing the waste and binding the importer. However, issues regarding its feasibility might arise, since EPR costs are reflected in products, which in turn would add pressure to the farming community. Policy personnel highlighted that before the formation of any policy on agriculture, it is crucial to ensure that the sustainability of the farming practice and the affordability of food prices are kept in mind.

The introduction of an EPR scheme for APW was initiated by the ERA representative over the compliance and enforcement of policies and schemes, who noted that in Malta, this scheme was solely tied to packaging.. Additionally, new policies focus on single-use plastic target materials employing certain polymers that are not reusable. In the context of APW, none of the polymers are listed as single-use plastics, not even fruit containers, since they contain polymers which make the reuse of material possible. He also noted that in discussions concentrated on the introduction of EPR schemes solely on APW, it was concluded that they would not be economically feasible due to the market value of the product and its low quantities, as opposed to EPR plans using other products, such as batteries. However, APW can potentially be included in other schemes.

Another point that emerged in these interviews was the illegal disposal of waste. The researchers questioned the frequency of reports concerning the burning of waste plastics and cases of illegal waste disposal at agricultural sites. The main illegalities encountered, the responsible officer noted, concerned illegally dumped or incinerated waste, but cases were not limited to these infractions. Generally, between four and ten cases are reported on an annual basis. These reports mostly concern plastic incineration, which is evidenced by foul odors or black plumes—both common indicators of plastic burning. The most incinerated plastics are irrigation pipes, plastic mulching, and sampling containers. Fines are issued if the contravener admits to the illegality or is intercepted while incinerating the material. Very few cases of plowing on-site are reported, since this is more likely to go unnoticed. However, if caught red-handed, contraveners are fined and ordered to clear the site.

The officer representing the MECP revealed that presently, there are no obligations or schemes targeting APW. However, international agreements, i.e., the EU Green Deal, are binding for Malta. The targets set in this agreement include the agricultural sector, particularly the reduction of the environmental and climate footprint to ensure a sustainable food system. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs) were also highlighted as a key measure to guide the development of such industries. Therefore, although APWs are not directly targeted, international commitments bind the Maltese authorities to improve food security and ensure the sustainability of the industry.

5. Discussion

This research was the first step in gathering primary data directly from the generators of APW in Malta. While the study is focused on the Maltese archipelago, agricultural practices and crops nurtured are common for the region, thus increasing the applicability of the results. The audits identified three main types of APW, consisting of greenhouse plastics, irrigation pipes, and plastic mulching. These plastics are meant to be used long-term; however, weather conditions often result in severe damage requiring them to be replaced. Efforts to increase the sustainability of agricultural practices include the Common Agricultural Policy 2023–2027 (CAP 2023–2027) and the Biodiversity Strategy 2030. However, in the former, the emphasis on soil conservation is primarily concentrated on pesticides and fertilizer use [28]. The Biodiversity Strategy 2030, on the other hand, aims to build on societies’ resilience to future threats, including food insecurity and the challenges emanating from soil pollution, including plastics [29]. The European strategy for plastics in a circular economy [COM (2018) 28]—although in a brief, fleeting comment—mentions the possibility of introducing an EPR scheme for the recycling of APW [30]. On a local basis, the document guiding agricultural waste management in Malta, namely, “Agricultural Waste Management in the Maltese Islands (2015–2030)”, does not account for this type of waste, but turns its primary focus to manure and slurry, while looking for energy generation options. Therefore, the deficiency in policy measures for tackling APW is present both at the local and international levels. This is despite influential institutions like the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) having already published documents which warn that there is “increasing evidence that degraded plastics are contaminating the soil and impacting biodiversity and soil health” ([3], p. 1).

To this end, of critical concern are the replies given to Question 12 of the questionnaires, whereby 38 and 21 respondents, respectively, affirmed that they incinerate and plow plastic into the soil. This means that for 38% of respondents, these are regular practices. While the agricultural industry consumes smaller quantities of plastics as compared to other industries (in 2021, Plastics Europe, stated that the agricultural, farming and gardening industries consumed 4% of the 390.7 Mt of plastics produced), their erratic release is directly injected into the soil, affecting its health and impacting the food chain. The latter is of crucial importance, particularly in the current quest for the achievement of the SDGs, especially SDG 12—sustainable consumption and production and SDG 15—life on land, together with the targets set in the CAP 2023–2027, the Farm to Fork Strategy and the Biodiversity Strategy 2030. It should be emphasized that in the stakeholders’ interviews, it emerged that only about 4 to 10 cases of on-site incineration are reported annually, while the cases of plowing often go unnoticed. When confronted, farmers often reply that they were not aware that these practices are harmful and illegal. This resonates with the motivations behind the LabelAgriWaste Scheme project, which was launched to develop a collection system to reduce or eliminate the erratic disposal methods for APW within Europe.

However, until recently, collection schemes for APW within the EU were almost absent. FAO, in their recent report, ”Assessment for Agricultural Plastics and Their Sustainability: A Call for Action”, notes that within the EU, only four countries have a system in place for the collection of APW, three of which are voluntary. The latter consists of France, Germany, and Spain, while Ireland is the only country with a mandatory collection scheme ([5], p. 83). One main reason for the absence of policy initiatives is the sparse availability of data, a factor which was also echoed in the stakeholders’ interviews. All interviewees referred to the absence of data as the leading cause for APW to be overlooked in policy interventions. This shortcoming is evident not only in Malta, but on an international level, to the extent that FAO, in the same report, points out that figures for plastic use in agriculture are not conclusive, particularly since they “do not specify the agricultural value chains that had been included in their assessments” [Page 16]. In view of this, the report uses the figure of ten million tonnes as an estimate of the quantity of plastics used in terrestrial crops and agricultural production [5].

The results of Hypothesis Questions 1 and 2 (see Section 4.3.1 Hypothesis H1: Do farmers encounter difficulties when disposing of plastic waste? and Section 4.3.2 Hypothesis H2: Do farmers need information about how to dispose of plastic waste?) highlight the difficulties that farmers face when they need to dispose of APW. In fact, the responses were strongly skewed towards the “yes” answer, with farmers expressing their frustration when they need to dispose of this waste and stressing that additional information would be beneficial. Furthermore, in Section 4.3.3 (Hypothesis H3: Are farmers willing to change their disposal patterns to safeguard the environment?), the respondents also express an overwhelming willingness to change their present methods of disposal. This corresponds to the case study presented in Section 2.3.2, which focused on Nova Scotia, Canada, whereby respondents also revealed a strong desire for farm plastics to be recycled or disposed of in a sustainable manner and noted that the disposal of APW in a public landfill is not an adequate method.

Therefore, a clear first step should be the introduction of information sessions for farmers which provide the necessary guidance about the available solutions for the disposal of APW. These initiatives will guide farmers to avoid erratic practices that impart harm to their own resources, while at the same time, assisting in improving the soil conservation necessary to ensure sustainable food production systems.

While the present figures for APW are limited, they can be expected to intensify as the use of plastic diffuses itself further into agricultural practices. Therefore, the introduction of a collection scheme for appropriate disposal offers an opportunity to provide preventative measures before these figures escalate further. This would prevent a reactive system, applied as a bolt-on approach. Malta, in view of the geographical constraints and the relative concentration of farms, could be used as a case study for the application of a holistic collection, recycling, and recovery scheme for APW. Lessons learned from the LabelAgri Waste scheme regarding the setup necessary for the management of the scheme could be utilized.

The results of this research stress that an overwhelming majority of the farmers strongly agree (63 respondents) or agree (62 respondents) with the need for proper disposal and/or recycling of APW. However, the introduction of a fee to finance a recycling scheme (Figure 16) was met with less enthusiasm, with the majority (58 respondents) stating that they would not be willing to pay anything. The next-highest cohort stated that a nominal fee of EUR 0.75 is acceptable. Furthermore, most farmers also stated that the storage of plastic until it is collected can be accommodated. However, the scheme would also need to cater to those who are unable to store the APW. As discussed in Section 4.4, a more successful implementation of the scheme is guaranteed if plastic collection takes the form of a deposit refund system, since farmers would need to take back their waste to receive a reimbursement of the nominal fee paid upon purchasing. This would also encourage more farmers to transport their waste, which was reported as a barrier. Similar findings were noted in the Nova Scotia case study.

6. Conclusions

This research sought to examine the current use of plastics within the agricultural industry, as well as the current disposal practices. A literature examination outlined the impacts that plastic usage within agriculture has on the environment. Given that the local context exhibited a data gap for these two facets, the researchers utilized the information from the reviewed literature to adopt adequate research approaches and to address the data gaps. Together with a qualitative and quantitative study conducted using farmers, the researchers took into consideration the stakeholders that influence the decision-making within the industry and undertook interviews to delve deeper into the goals of the study.

The Maltese farming sector is characterized by an individualist approach, which maintains the notion of a self-abiding mentality. This approach surfaced during the waste audits, as various disposal patterns emerged, some of which cause harm to the environment and the very land which the farmers depend upon. In addition to this, an extensive knowledge gap in regards to the topic was observed during the audits, including during on-site discussions with site managers. The issue also came to light in an interview held with the ERA enforcement officer: farmers clearly uninformed about measures or efforts to properly dispose of waste and minimize environmental impacts. Researchers also noted an increased focus on producing fruits and vegetables associated with the lowest costs, due to the ever-increasing expenses involved in obtaining raw materials like seeds, saplings, plastic, and fuel. While figures also suggest that the predominant disposal method is that of delivering plastics to civic amenity sites, waste incineration or plastic plowing are ongoing practices.

It can be concluded that additional research is a necessity to further investigate the impact these practices are having on local soil. Further investigations are also required to identify the differences between imported agricultural plastics and disposal figures. This study, while bringing the Maltese situation to the forefront, points to similar lacunas in other European countries. To this end, the FAO reports that “data from five European countries with an established national collection and recycling schemes indicates a collection between fifty and eighty-four percent of end-of-life APW which means that the balance remains either uncollected, disposed on farms or sent directly for disposal elsewhere” [page 31] [5]. This, therefore, calls for additional identification of the flows followed of the plastics purchased for agricultural purposes, along with their usage and ultimate disposal and/or recycling or recovery.

Together with shedding light on the disposal practices of APW, the research also disclosed that farmers are aware that they require additional knowledge regarding the impacts of their actions and therefore, we set forth a clear path for authorities, beginning with education, and possibly followed by schemes that cater to the collection of these items. The necessity of these actions is becoming more pressing along with the requirements set by international policy calling for the increased sustainability of food production processes. One aspect that was not examined in this research is the possibility of using alternative materials instead of plastic, which may prove to be longer lasting, without exhibiting the disintegrating qualities of plastic. This can be a preventative initiative that guarantees financing possibilities, lowers replacement and disposal expenses, and ensures the benefits generated by plastic use for agricultural output, while preventing the degradation of soil and biodiversity, therefore allowing an improvement in sustainability infrastructure.