Agricultural Plastic Waste Challenges and Innovations

Abstract

Agricultural plastic waste is a growing global concern, as the widespread use of plastics in farming paired with limited waste management infrastructure has led to environmental pollution, resource inefficiency, and practical challenges in rural communities. This review systematically analyzes international policy frameworks and technological advancements aimed at improving agricultural plastic waste management, drawing on peer-reviewed literature and policy documents identified through targeted database searches and screened by transparent inclusion criteria. Comparative analysis of national strategies, such as extended producer responsibility, regional management models, and technology-driven incentives, is combined with a critical evaluation of recycling and biodegradable innovations. The results reveal that while integrated policies can enhance collectthion efficiency and funding stability, their implementation often encounters high costs, logistical barriers, and variability in stakeholder commitment. Advanced recycling methods and emerging biodegradable materials demonstrate technical promise, but face challenges related to field performance, cost-effectiveness, and scalability. The review concludes that sustainable management of agricultural plastics requires a multi-faceted approach, combining robust regulation, economic incentives, technological innovation, and ongoing empirical assessment. These findings emphasize the importance of adapting strategies to local contexts and suggest that the successful transition to circular management models will depend on continued collaboration across policy, technology, and stakeholder domains.

1. Introduction

Agricultural plastic waste constitutes one of the key environmental challenges of modern agriculture, due to the widespread use of plastic products such as ground cover sheets, shade nets, irrigation pipes, and pesticide packaging, which do not biodegrade naturally but accumulate in large quantities and pollute the soil, water sources, and ecosystems [1]. According to OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) data (2021) [2], approximately 6.3 million tons of agricultural plastic waste are generated worldwide each year, with the global recycling rate being only about 20% [2].

The main challenges in dealing with agricultural plastic waste include the high cost of waste removal and treatment, the extensive geographical dispersion over large agricultural areas, and the lack of adequate infrastructure and treatment and recycling facilities suitable for the types of plastic used in agriculture. Agricultural plastic is contaminated with pesticides and therefore requires special treatment. From the stakeholder perspective, it is possible to indicate a conflict between the regulators and environmental organizations seeking to reduce environmental damage and the farmers. In OECD countries [2], there are various models for dealing with the problem, such as imposing taxation on non-biodegradable plastic in France [3], an extended producer responsibility system in Germany, and promoting the use of biodegradable plastic in Spain [4]. In addition, new technologies are being developed to address the problem, including the use of biodegradable plastics, chemical recycling systems that break down plastics into basic polymers, and the use of special bacteria and enzymes that break down microplastics with high efficiency, as found in studies from recent years [5]. The impacts of agricultural plastic waste concern both the environmental aspects, such as soil and water pollution [6], and the high carbon emissions from plastic incineration, as well as social and health aspects due to exposure to hazardous chemicals. Economically, the costs of treating this waste are high, but adopting a circular economy can make plastic recycling a more profitable process [7,8]. To address the problem, several alternatives are proposed, including the introduction of mandatory recycling and separation; promoting the use of biodegradable plastics through economic incentives; an extended producer responsibility model; and education and awareness-raising programs among the public. The final recommendation is to adopt an integrated model that includes binding regulations, economic incentives, and the use of innovative technologies, which will enable an effective solution to the problem of agricultural plastic waste while minimizing the financial harm to farmers and reducing long-term environmental impacts on Marine Ecosystems.

The motivation for writing this research comes from the widespread use of agricultural plastics and inadequate waste management that have led to environmental pollution and economic challenges, creating an urgent need for effective, practical, sustainable solutions.

This research is structured to address the following central questions:

What are the core environmental, economic, and social challenges associated with agricultural plastic waste management internationally?

How effective are existing policy and technological interventions—including mechanical, chemical, and biodegradable solutions—at mitigating these challenges?

What barriers limit the implementation and transferability of successful models, and how can future strategies be optimized for diverse agricultural systems?

The contribution of this research is that it provides a systematic and comparative review of global policy frameworks and technological advances in agricultural plastic waste management. Using transparent literature selection criteria and a structured comparative methodology, it critically synthesizes international experience, evaluates solution effectiveness, and identifies persistent limitations, particularly regarding the real-world performance of recycling and biodegradable technologies. The research contributes new insights by integrating empirical evidence across regulatory, technological, and socio-economic domains, offering actionable guidance for policymakers, industry stakeholders, and researchers working to advance the sustainable, circular management of agricultural plastics.

The main aim of this work is to systematically evaluate international policy frameworks and technological interventions, critically synthesizing empirical evidence on their effectiveness and implementation barriers. The review finds that no single solution suffices; integrated approaches combining robust regulation, economic incentives, technological innovation, and context-sensitive adaptation are essential for progress. Principal conclusions highlight the need for ongoing empirical assessment, improved stakeholder collaboration, and a clear-eyed understanding of local realities to advance sustainable, circular management of agricultural plastic waste. This comprehensive synthesis is intended to support informed decision-making and to bridge disciplinary gaps for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners engaged in addressing this multi-faceted global challenge.

1.1. Chemical Recycling of Agricultural Plastics

Chemical recycling offers viable solutions for managing agricultural plastic waste, especially when materials are contaminated or unsuitable for mechanical recycling. Standard chemical processes include pyrolysis, gasification, solvolysis, and catalytic chemical recycling, each converting plastics into fuels, monomers, or raw materials that support circular economy models.

1.2. Pyrolysis [9,10,11]

Pyrolysis is a thermochemical process that decomposes plastic at high temperatures (400 °C up to 600 °C) in the absence of oxygen, yielding products such as pyrolysis oil, non-condensable gases (e.g., methane, ethylene), and solid char. It is particularly suited for mixed or contaminated agricultural waste, such as polyethylene (PE) mulch films. Overall, pyrolysis offers a versatile and environmentally friendly approach to recover energy and materials from the plastic waste stream. For example, Miskolczi et al. and Valkai I. [12] showed that pilot-scale pyrolysis of agricultural and packaging plastic waste was conducted at 520 °C with a feed rate of 9 kg/h. Using a 5% ZSM-5 zeolite catalyst, waste plastics were converted into gases, gasoline, and oils. Gasoline and light oil yields ranged from 20% to 48% and from 17% to 36%, respectively, depending on process conditions. Co-pyrolysis of biomass and plastics is an advanced thermochemical process that simultaneously decomposes both materials at elevated temperatures to produce valuable bio oils and syngas. This method leverages the complementary properties of biomass, rich in oxygen and volatiles, and plastics, rich in hydrogen and carbon, resulting in improved product yield and quality compared to pyrolyzing each separately. Co-pyrolysis also lowers the energy barrier for plastic degradation and promotes synergistic interactions, making it a promising approach for sustainable waste management and renewable fuel production. For example, it was shown [13] that co-pyrolysis of renewable lignocellulosic biomass like agricultural and wood wastes with hydrogen-rich plastics enhances bio-oil yield and quality. Overall activation energies during co-pyrolysis are lower than for plastics alone, indicating easier breakdown. The process follows a two-stage degradation, first biomass, then plastics, offering a sustainable way to produce biofuels and reduce landfill waste.

1.3. Gasification

Gasification converts plastic waste into synthesis gas (syngas), primarily hydrogen and carbon monoxide, at temperatures between 700 °C and 1200 °C using limited oxygen or steam. This method is suitable for plastics such as PE and PP, often found in films and irrigation systems. Arena [14] emphasized that gasification offers a flexible and efficient route for the recovery of energy and materials from complex waste streams. For example, López et al. [15,16] successfully produced high-quality syngas from PE-based agricultural films.

1.4. Solvolysis [17,18]

Solvolysis is especially effective for condensation polymers such as PET and polyamides, used in agricultural nets, textiles, and irrigation components. The process involves depolymerizing plastics in solvents (e.g., water, methanol, glycol) under controlled conditions to yield monomers or oligomers. Solvolysis offers a route to recover high-purity monomers from post-consumer plastics, enabling a true and actual closed-loop recycling process. García et al. [19] achieved over 90% monomer recovery from PET-based nets via methanolysis, and Lozano et al. [20] demonstrated successful hydrolysis of multi-layer films containing polyamides.

1.5. Catalytic Chemical Recycling [21,22]

Catalytic recycling is a chemical process that uses metal-based catalysts or nanomaterials to accelerate the breakdown of polymers into valuable monomers, fuels, or other chemicals. These catalysts, such as zeolites or transition metals (e.g., Ni, Pt, or Ru), lower the activation energy required for polymer degradation, making the process more energy-efficient. In the context of agricultural plastic waste, catalytic chemical recycling helps convert complex and contaminated polymers into usable products under milder conditions. For example, ZSM-5 zeolite can enhance the production of light hydrocarbons from polyethylene or polypropylene. This approach not only improves product selectivity and yield but also reduces the formation of unwanted by-products. As such, catalytic recycling offers a promising pathway for sustainable plastic waste management and resource recovery.

2. Materials and Methods

This study applied a systematic review methodology, following PRISMA guidelines, to identify and synthesize relevant peer-reviewed literature and policy documents on agricultural plastic waste management recently published. Major scientific databases and authoritative policy sources were searched using targeted keywords. Studies were screened based on explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure relevance and methodological transparency. Key data on policy frameworks, technological interventions, and implementation outcomes were extracted and thematically analyzed. Additionally, a comparative analysis of national case studies was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and limitations of various policy approaches and recycling technologies across different contexts.

For this systematic review on agricultural plastic waste challenges and innovations, literature screening was carried out using a clearly defined set of inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure transparency and rigor (Figure 1). The search focused on studies published from 2000 to the present, capturing the period during which issues related to plastic pollution and waste in agriculture have gained increasing scientific and policy attention. Relevant literature was identified in major databases using a combination of keywords, including “agricultural plastic waste,” “microplastics AND agriculture,” “plastic pollution AND soil,” “plastic mulch film AND environmental impact,” “biodegradable plastics AND farming,” “plastic recycling AND agriculture,” and “agricultural film waste management.” Both free-text terms and, where appropriate, database-specific controlled vocabulary were used. Studies were included if they were peer-reviewed articles, conference papers, or major reports examining aspects of agricultural plastics, waste management, recycling technologies, or environmental impacts. Eligible publications reported on laboratory, field, modeling, review, or case study findings relevant to the agricultural use of plastics and their ecological consequences. Only studies published in English were considered. Publications that did not address plastic use or waste in farming contexts, lacked relevant environmental or policy outcomes, fell outside the set time frame, or were methodologically incomplete were excluded from the review.

Standard chemical recycling methods are displayed in

Table 1. Agricultural Polymers and Their Suitable Chemical Recycling Methods.

Polymer	Full Name	Agricultural Use	Chemical Recycling Method	Recovery Rate (%)	Energy Consumption (MJ/kg)
PE	Polyethylene [23]	Cover films, greenhouse covers, and irrigation pipes	Pyrolysis, Catalytic cracking	Pyrolysis: 70–85%; Catalytic cracking: ~90%	Pyrolysis: ~45–65 MJ/kg; Catalytic cracking: ~50 MJ/kg
PP	Polypropylene [24]	Twine, crates, woven bags, and irrigation fittings	Pyrolysis, Catalytic depolymerization	Pyrolysis: 75–88%; Catalytic depolymerization: ~85–92%	Pyrolysis: ~50 MJ/kg; Catalytic depolymerization: ~48 MJ/kg
PET	Polyethylene terephthalate [24]	Fertilizer bottles, agrochemical containers	Solvolysis (glycolysis, methanolysis, hydrolysis)	Glycolysis: 85–95%; Methanolysis: 80–90%; Hydrolysis: 75–85%	Solvolysis: 25–40 MJ/kg
PVC	Polyvinyl chloride [23]	Pipes, flooring, animal housing	Gasification	Gasification: 70–80	Gasification: 40–55 MJ/kg

.

3. Presenting Three Examples of Approaches Taken in OECD Countries to Deal with Agricultural Plastic Waste, Detailing Policy Measures Adopted to Help Advance the Process

OECD countries have taken several approaches to dealing with agricultural plastic waste, each country adapting the measures to its local policies and unique needs [25]. Various models for dealing with the problem exist in OECD countries, such as the Extended Producer Responsibility model in France [26]. France has adopted a comprehensive approach based on binding legislation that includes the following:

The enactment of an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law specific to agricultural waste, the establishment of ADIVALOR—a government corporation for the management of agricultural waste [27], the imposition of a tax on agricultural plastic products to finance the collection system, and subsidizing equipment for sorting and separating waste on farms. As a result, 90% of the agricultural area was covered by an organized collection system, a collection rate of 85% of agricultural sheet waste and a reduction in illegal fires by 70%. Establishment of a voluntary collection system in cooperation with industry in Germany and promotion of the use of biodegradable plastics. Germany developed a unique model based on collaboration between industry and farmers that included the establishment of a voluntary corporation owned by plastic manufacturers ERDE (Erntekunststoffe Recycling Deutschland) [28] with joint financing of the collection costs (30% farmers, 70% industry) and the establishment of regional collection points with government funding and tax incentives for manufacturers participating in the program. As a result, a recycling rate of approximately 75% of agricultural plastic waste was obtained, along with a 30% reduction in treatment costs for farmers and the creation of a stable market for recycled plastic products. The Netherlands supports technological innovation and regional collaborations, focusing on the development of technological solutions and regional management [29]. In the Netherlands, regional innovation centers have been established in collaboration with universities. Research and development grants have been given for advanced recycling technologies, the creation of regional waste treatment clusters, and support for the development of biodegradable materials as a replacement for plastic. As a result, innovative technologies have been developed for the recycling of contaminated plastic, with a 40% reduction in the use of single-use plastic in agriculture and the creation of 1200 jobs in the agricultural recycling industry. The common characteristics for the success of these models are close cooperation between all stakeholders, clear and transparent cost-sharing and responsibility, investment in infrastructure and technology, and an integrated system of economic and regulatory incentives.

Policy analyses from developing countries such as China and India are described. China has made significant progress with regional initiatives, achieving up to 90% recycling rates in some provinces, driven by regulations, incentives, and pilot programs. However, challenges remain with infrastructure and policy consistency. India’s plastic waste management emphasizes extended producer responsibility and local governance, with initiatives like the India Plastics Pact promoting circular economy practices tailored to national contexts.

4. Review of Technologies (Existing and Under Development) That Can Help Reduce Agricultural Plastic Waste or Deal with Existing Waste

Technological advances in the field of dealing with agricultural plastic waste bring innovative solutions, which are based on existing technologies alongside technologies that are in an advanced development stage.

4.1. Existing and Proven Technologies Include Advanced Sorting and Cleaning Systems, Chemical Recycling Technologies, and Mobile Collection and Treatment Systems

Advanced sorting and cleaning systems [30] are automatic systems for cleaning and separating organic residues from agricultural plastic, such as the following: technologies such as dielectric membranes [31] or the use of ultrasound [32], NIR (Near-Infrared) sensors for identifying and classifying types of plastic (see Figure 2 and Figure 3, and

Table 2. Types of Plastics: Chemical Formulas.

Polymer Name	Chemical Formula
Polyethylene (PE)	(C2H4)n
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)	(C10H8O4)n
Polypropylene (PP)	(C3H6)n
Polystyrene (PS)	(C8H8)n
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)	(C2H3Cl)n

) [33], and high-pressure washing systems that incorporate special enzymes to remove impurities [34]. The use of “cold recycling” allows plastic to be recycled at lower temperatures, reduces energy consumption, and makes recycling economical [35]. The use of advanced sorting and cleaning systems can achieve up to a 95% reduction in organic contaminants from agricultural plastics.

Chemical recycling technologies enable the decomposition of polymers into their fundamental components through processes such as high-temperature depolymerization and the application of selective solvents for plastic separation [36].

Mobile collection and treatment systems, which include mobile units for compression and shredding [37], digital weighing and tracking, and autonomous robots for plastic sheet collection in agricultural fields [38], can reduce transportation costs by up to 40%.

4.2. Technologies Under Development Include Biodegradable Materials, Nano Technologies, and IoT and Artificial Intelligence Systems

Biodegradable materials consisting of starch-based and cellulose polymers [24], plastic sheets that decompose within 6–12 months, can serve as organic coatings for greenhouses. However, their implementation is currently limited by high production costs and reduced mechanical durability

Nano technologies for advanced recycling contain nanoparticles to enhance recycling efficiency [39], selective membranes for pollutant separation [40], and innovative catalysts to facilitate plastic degradation [41]. The system is currently in the development stage within research laboratories.

IoT and artificial intelligence systems are equipped with smart sensors to monitor the plastic life cycle [42], algorithms for optimizing collection and recycling [43], and predictive systems for planning sheet replacement [44]. The expectations for commercial implementation range from 2 to 3 years.

4.3. Technologies for Prevention and Reduction at the Source Include Smart Irrigation Systems, Smart Greenhouses, Reuse of Agricultural Plastic Waste, and Decomposition of Plastic Waste

Smart irrigation systems enable a reduction in the use of plastic piping [45]; they are equipped with advanced humidity and temperature sensors and computerized irrigation control and allow a reduction of up to 30% in the use of piping.

Smart greenhouses are reusable, modular structures built from advanced insulation materials and include automatic climate control systems [46]. Using this technology extends the life of the structure by two–three times.

Reuse of agricultural plastic waste includes, for example, “Plastic to Fuel” [47] technologies, HSR technology [48] based on the pyrolysis process of oil shale that can be used as fuel. This technology is used to convert agricultural plastic waste into fuel.

Decomposition of plastic waste uses special bacteria and enzymes that break down microplastics with high efficiency [49]. For example, a study by the University of Tokyo (2021) [5] demonstrated that the bacterium Idionella sakaiensis can break down polyethylene terephthalate (PET) in just a few weeks. This is an innovative solution for treating plastic waste [50]. An intelligent combination of these technologies will result in long-term savings, although an initial investment is required in building infrastructure and implementing the technologies. For the Classification Framework of Technologies for Agricultural Plastic Waste Management, see Appendix B.

Timeline of technology maturity: Pyrolysis and solvolysis (including glycolysis and methanolysis) are among the most commercially established technologies, widely applied to polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) recycling, with demonstrated recovery rates and operational plants globally. Catalytic cracking and catalytic depolymerization show promising improvements in efficiency and product quality but remain primarily in pilot or demonstration stages due to technical complexity and cost. Hydrolysis, another solvolysis method for PET, is mainly confined to laboratory research because of longer processing times and higher energy requirements. Gasification, typically used for polyvinyl chloride (PVC), is commercially operational primarily in waste-to-energy facilities; however, environmental concerns regarding chlorine emissions limit its broader adoption. Mapping these technologies along a maturity timeline enables stakeholders to evaluate which methods can be realistically implemented now and which require further development before commercialization.

5. Environmental Impacts

Agricultural plastic waste has many and varied environmental impacts that threaten ecosystems and biodiversity; see Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 regarding public health on the soil, water, animals, plants, and air. The following is a list of the main environmental impacts of agricultural plastic waste:

Soil pollution due to the accumulation of plastic residues in the top-soil layer causes damage to the soil texture and water permeability, changes in the soil microclimate, and interference with the activity of microorganisms in the soil.

Chemical pollution due to the release of additives and stabilizers from the plastics into the soil causes the accumulation of microplastics in agricultural soil, damaging soil fertility. It prolongs soil pollution due to a slow decomposition process.

Pollution of water sources includes the following: groundwater into which pollutants from decomposing plastic particles seep, some of which, including compressed materials or toxins, can penetrate groundwater and contaminate water sources; pollution of aquifers, which affects the quality of drinking water and harms underground ecosystems; surface water into which silt containing plastic waste reaches and is washed into streams and reservoirs, leading to damage to aquatic ecosystems, the accumulation of microplastics in water bodies, and, in addition, an impact on irrigation and water supply systems. Formation of plastic islands: Agricultural plastic waste is part of the waste that causes the formation of the oceanic “plastic island”, where huge, massive, vast amounts of plastic float, endangering marine animals.

Effects on biodiversity include harming animals due to trapping and injury of animals in the waste, ingestion of plastic by animals causing their injury and even death, and harm to the food chain species and habitats.

Effects on vegetation are manifested in the inhibition of natural growth, the formation of changes in root systems, damage to seed dispersal, and disruption of natural regeneration.

Atmospheric effects and air pollution are due to greenhouse gas emissions from plastic decomposition, air pollution from uncontrolled burning, the emission of microscopic particles, and the creation of toxic smoke in pirated fires. Climatic effects contribute to global warming, cause changes in local microclimate, affect the water cycle, and contribute to the greenhouse effect.

Damage to the landscape includes visual hazards in open areas, an accumulation of waste on the edges of fields, damage to tourism and recreation values, and a decrease in the value of adjacent lands. Effects on land use include limiting future land uses, damage to agricultural potential, creating nuisances for adjacent uses, and interfering with agricultural activity.

Long-term cumulative effects include systemic impact and damage to entire ecosystems, changes in biogeochemical processes, accumulation of toxins in the food chain, and irreversible changes in natural systems. Health effects occur due to exposure to microplastics in agricultural produce, contamination of drinking water sources, exposure to toxic substances from plastic decomposition, and health risks to farmers.

6. Social, Health, and Economic Impacts

Agricultural plastic waste has social, health, and economic impacts.

Social impacts include damage to the image of farmers in the eyes of the public, social tensions between farmers and residents living nearby, and frustration due to the costs of waste treatment. In addition, the effects of the impacts on residents living on the fringes of agricultural areas in agricultural regions include the concentration of waste hazards, gaps in accessibility to treatment solutions, an effect on real estate value, and inequality in environmental burden. And finally, the effects of the impacts on employment include the creation of jobs in the recycling sector, changes in the structure of agricultural employment, and the development of local companies, as well as the need for new professional training.

Health impacts include direct risks of exposure to toxic substances in plastic waste fires, contamination of drinking water with microplastics, exposure to chemicals from decomposing plastic, and safety risks in waste treatment. In addition, there are also indirect risks of the accumulation of pollutants in the food chain, effects on the quality of agricultural produce, exposure to pesticides absorbed to plastic, and a long-term impact on public health and even effects on mental health due to the mental stress and anxiety of farmers dealing with the problem and its implications for the quality of their food.

Economic impacts include the direct costs to farmers of removing and recycling agricultural plastic waste, investment in waste treatment infrastructure, ongoing operating costs, and expenses for equipment, etc. In addition, the cost to the economy includes loss of agricultural land value, environmental treatment costs, implications exports, and indirect health costs. There are additional impacts on the farm sector, including harm to farmers’ profitability, the need for efficiency and investments, impact on competitiveness, and costs of compliance with regulation. Impacts on food security include impacts on food production, potential harm to agricultural output, increased production costs, impacts on food prices, and risks to the quality of produce. In addition, there are impacts on the stability of the agricultural sector due to damage to long-term planning capacity, impact on generational continuity, risks to the stability of agricultural farms, and impact on national food security.

7. Main Barriers That May Prevent or Delay the Advancement of Solutions

Several barriers may prevent, avoid, or delay the advancement of solutions for the treatment of agricultural plastic waste. These barriers concern technological, economic, regulatory, and social challenges, which constitute a significant obstacle to dealing with the problem. The following is an overview of the main barriers:

Technological barriers include barriers to recycling due to agricultural plastic recycling technologies, such as the following: the recycling of plastic sheets, which are high in cost and not always efficient in terms of the energy required in the separation processes of the various types of plastic. There is also a lack of efficient technologies for separating the of plastic; the sorting of this waste requires unique technologies for separation according to different kinds of plastic. A barrier to the development of alternative plastic materials is that biodegradable materials are not always durable or economically viable.

Economic barriers include high costs of establishing recycling infrastructures that involve investing in recycling or waste reduction technologies, which require high costs and create resistance among farmers. In addition, the high ongoing maintenance costs of recycling are issues. The cost of switching to new solutions such as biodegradable plastics is relatively high, especially in the absence of sufficient government funding, support, or economic incentives. In addition, there is a lack of economic viability in cases where agricultural plastics are not collected or appropriately recycled; and in cases of economic uncertainty, volatility in raw material prices, instability in the recycling market, risks in long-term investments, and dependence on international markets. Possible solutions are not economical, especially on small farms or in areas where there is no appropriate infrastructure for recycling. Farmers may see recycling or the use of alternative materials as an unnecessary expense that has no immediate benefit.

Regulatory barriers exist in cases where there are multiple authorities involved, contradictions between regulatory requirements, lengthy licensing processes, and a lack of standardization. Other issues include waste laws that are not strict enough, or cases where enforcement gaps exist due to a lack of supervisory resources, difficulty in enforcement in large regions, sanctions that are not deterrent, and the absence of effective control mechanisms. Infrastructural barriers include a lack of physical infrastructure, a lack of treatment and recycling facilities, insufficient geographical distribution, inefficient collection systems, and a lack of sorting centers. Lack of incentives for industries: In cases where there are inadequate government incentives, such as subsidies for recycling, farmers or industries may prefer the use of new agricultural plastic production instead of recycling. The state should ensure a regulatory system that encourages farmers to prioritize ecological solutions. Gaps in policy between countries: In some countries, there is more considerable enforcement of environmental policies, while in others, there is more substantial enforcement of environmental policies, and in others, there are laws that are not enforced or there is a lack of coordination between local authorities and government organizations. A lack of coordination or understanding between the various actors in the country can delay the achievement of general solutions.

Social and cultural barriers due to lack of awareness and knowledge gaps: One of the and most significant barriers is a lack of awareness among farmers or the public about the problem of agricultural plastic waste and its effects on the environment. Resistance to change occurs due to conservatism in working methods, lack of training in new solutions, difficulty in changing habits, and resistance to additional investments. Sometimes, farmers resist the transition to ecological solutions, whether it is a transition to biodegradable plastic or investing in recycling systems, due to the fear of adding unnecessary costs. Knowledge and awareness gaps are due to a lack of understanding of the importance of the issue, a lack of professional knowledge, difficulty in implementing new methods, and a lack of professional expertise, as well as a lack of effective communication.

Infrastructural barriers include a lack of recycling infrastructure, especially in remote agrarian regions, where there is inadequate infrastructure for the collection or recycling of agricultural plastic waste, and a lack of access to recycling centers or facilities that recycle the waste effectively.

Logistical barriers due to operational complexity include geographical dispersion of waste sources, difficulty in scheduling collection, temporary storage problems, and complexity in transporting agricultural plastic waste.

8. Proposing Several Alternatives and Recommendations

Several structured policy alternatives offer pathways for managing agricultural plastic waste, each supported by distinct measures aimed at fostering effective implementation; see

Table 3. SWOT Matrix Alternatives and Recommendations.

Alternative	Strengths	Weaknesses	Opportunities	Threats/Barriers
EPR	Equitable cost-sharing; stability	Cost for producers; complexity	Drives eco-innovation and traceability	EPR
Regional Management	Efficiency; local adaptation	High infra. costs; uneven enforcement	Customization, regional cooperation	Regional Management
Tech. Incentives	Innovation; long-term cost saving	High upfront cost; uncertain adoption	Technological leadership, export potential	Tech. Incentives
Biodegradables (PLA/PHA)	Potential for field degradation	Excessive cost; inconsistent performance in situ	Reduces pollution, fits circular strategies	Biodegradables (PLA/PHA)

. The first option, an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) model, places legal and financial responsibility on agricultural plastic manufacturers and importers to finance the collection and recycling of plastics at the end of their life cycle. This model involves establishing a Producer Responsibility Organization to coordinate collection, implement producer levies and incentives, and mandate transparent tracking of waste flows. Its strengths lie in equitable cost-sharing, stable funding for waste management, and clear incentives for innovation, but it faces challenges related to industry resistance, increased costs, and complex coordination. The second approach is an integrated regional management model, focused on establishing regional treatment centers, fostering cooperation between local authorities, and developing shared logistics systems managed by regional clusters. This model enhances operational efficiency and adapts to local conditions but requires substantial infrastructure investment and sustained cross-jurisdictional cooperation. The third alternative is an incentive-based technological development model, centered on public investment in research and development, grants and subsidies for technology adoption, and the creation of innovation and knowledge centers. This approach aims to accelerate the deployment of advanced recycling technologies and biodegradable materials, ultimately reducing costs and potentially positioning the sector as a leader in green innovation. However, it carries high initial investment requirements and uncertain adoption rates. Across all models, cross-cutting measures such as educational programs for farmers, mandatory separation and recycling of plastics, and fiscal incentives for the use of recycled materials are critical to support compliance and long-term behavioral change. Collectively, these structured policy pathways, when combined with stakeholder engagement and robust legislative backing, can substantially reduce agricultural plastic pollution and accelerate the transition toward a sustainable, circular economy in agriculture.

8.1. Assessment of Technological and Policy Solutions

8.1.1. Effectiveness of Solutions

While EPR schemes demonstrably increase plastic recovery rates and spur design-for-recyclability, implementation is often hampered by administrative burden and the risk of cost passthrough to end users [2]. Regional management practices can lower per-ton treatment costs and encourage stakeholder buy-in, but empirical studies report variable consistency in enforcement and success, dependent on local infrastructure maturity [4].

Technological incentive models drive research advances in chemical recycling (e.g., catalytic depolymerization, solvolysis) [23]. However, field deployment encounters economic and technical barriers; for instance, many pilot-scale systems lack scalability, and the integration of such processes with existing waste streams remains suboptimal.

Biodegradable polymers (PLA, PHA) are promoted as sustainable alternatives, but several independent studies highlight weaknesses in field performance. Degradation rates are highly variable under soil and climatic conditions, with insufficient mineralization observed in some cases [3]. Additionally, high production costs and mechanical limitations restrain their practical adoption.

8.1.2. Limitations

EPR: Evidence of improved recycling rates is strongest where EPR is comprehensively legislated and enforced. Weak regulatory frameworks lead to evasion, free-riding, and inconsistent results.

Regional Management: This is dependent on robust infrastructure and coordination. Innovations tested in one region may not transfer effectively due to contextual differences.

Technological Innovation: Laboratory-stage advances (nanomaterials, advanced catalysis, mobile robotic collection) typically face scale-up hurdles and have not yet closed the gap to full commercial viability [51].

Biodegradable Plastics: Field data indicate limited efficacy in open-environment decomposition and the risk of contaminating recycling streams. There are also concerns regarding the environmental footprint of biopolymer production and after-use fate in real-world agricultural settings.

9. Results

9.1. Alternative Policies

Three principal alternatives emerged from the comparative review:

9.1.1. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Model

This m assigns end-of-life collection and recycling costs to manufacturers/importers. Common in OECD countries (e.g., France, Germany), EPR schemes often involve statutory collection targets, levy mechanisms, and coordination through Producer Responsibility Organizations. Empirical data suggest EPR improves funding stability and clarifies costs, but is constrained by high compliance costs and administrative complexity.

9.1.2. Regional Integrated Management

This model proposes the establishment of regional treatment facilities and coordinated logistics, often managed by clusters of local authorities. The Spanish and German models point to operational efficiencies and context-sensitive adaptation. Yet, their jurisdictions are separate, which negatively impacts their efficacy.

9.1.3. Incentive-Based Technological Development

Governments invest in R&D, support pilot projects, and offer adoption incentives for emerging recycling and biodegradable solutions. Technological transfer programs and innovation hubs are core components. Empirical assessments indicate that this model catalyzes innovation and economic opportunities but faces persistent barriers, such as high capital requirements, technology readiness gaps, and slow sectoral uptake.

10. Discussion

The use of plastics in agriculture has become widespread due to their effectiveness in improving crop yields, conserving water, and reducing food waste [52]. However, this reliance has led to significant environmental challenges, particularly concerning the management and disposal of plastic waste [53]. A major issue is the accumulation of plastic debris and microplastics in agricultural soils, which can disrupt soil structure, reduce fertility, impair water retention, and hinder nutrient cycling, ultimately threatening long-term crop productivity and food security [54]. Microplastics can concentrate pathogens and organic pollutants, further degrading soil health and potentially entering food chains, with implications for both ecosystem and human health [55].

Several systemic barriers hamper the management of agricultural plastic waste. Many plastics used in agriculture are designed for single use, leading to a constant influx of new material and increasing waste volumes [56]. Recycling is often limited by contamination from soil and organic matter, the diversity of plastic types, and the lack of adequate recycling infrastructure [57]. Financial constraints and limited access to disposal or recycling facilities force many farmers to resort to environmentally harmful practices such as burning, dumping, or abandoning plastics in fields [58]. These practices exacerbate pollution and contribute to the spread of microplastics to other ecosystems [59].

Comparative evidence underlines that no singular policy or technological solution suffices for the multi-faceted challenges of agricultural plastic waste. Hybrid models integrating regulatory, logistical, and technological mechanisms consistently outperform single-strategy approaches. For tangible sectoral transition, empirical evidence points toward the necessity for ongoing performance evaluation, region-specific customization, and robust stakeholder engagement. Disparities in infrastructure, economic incentives, and local capacity remain the major limiting factors.

Furthermore, while technological advances (such as integrated AI/IoT-driven collection, IoT-driven collection, or enhanced chemical recycling) show promise, their full environmental and economic impacts require further validation through long-term, field-based studies. Policy interventions should remain adaptive, evidence-led, and cautious regarding the large-scale adoption of biopolymers until efficacy and sustainability are verified under real agroecosystem conditions.

While the studies reviewed offer valuable insights into agricultural plastic waste challenges and innovations, several limitations warrant consideration. Many source studies were conducted on a relatively small scale, often focusing on isolated fields, pilot projects, or specific communities, which limits the generalizability of findings to broader agricultural contexts. Additionally, there is considerable geographic bias, with a predominance of research concentrated in developed countries or specific regions within developing nations, leaving large areas underrepresented. This limited geographic scope impedes a comprehensive understanding of local socio-economic, climatic, and infrastructural factors that critically influence plastic use and waste management practices. Furthermore, variability in methodological approaches, including inconsistent definitions of plastic types and recycling metrics, creates challenges in comparing results across studies. These constraints highlight the urgent need for larger, multi-regional studies with standardized protocols to provide more robust, scalable, and globally applicable evidence. Acknowledging these limitations underscores that current conclusions must be interpreted cautiously and that policy and technological recommendations should be adapted to local contexts based on further rigorous research.

11. Innovative Solutions and Progress

Despite these challenges, significant progress is being made through technological and organizational innovations. The development of biodegradable and bio-based plastics, such as polylactic acid (PLA) and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), offers promising alternatives to conventional petroleum-based plastics [60]. These materials are designed to decompose under natural conditions, reducing the persistence of plastic waste in soils and minimizing the formation of microplastics [61]. Additionally, advances in recycling technologies, including mechanical and chemical recycling, are improving the feasibility of reprocessing agricultural plastics, particularly when contamination can be minimized [51]. For example, innovations in collection and cleaning, such as the use of specialized machinery for compacting and dry-washing plastic films, have made recycling processes more cost-effective and scalable for specific crops like strawberries [62].

Integrated waste management approaches are also gaining traction. These include the use of anaerobic digestion for biodegradable plastics, which can generate renewable energy and nutrient-rich digestate, and the adoption of sensor-based irrigation systems that reduce the need for plastic infrastructure [63]. Furthermore, collaborative initiatives between farmers, industry partners, and researchers are fostering knowledge transfer and the development of practical recycling solutions [64]. Financial incentives and demonstration projects have proven effective in increasing farmer participation and extending awareness of best practices [65].

12. Remaining Barriers and the Path Forward

While these innovations represent important, meaningful, essential progress, several barriers remain. Biodegradable plastics, while promising, require further validation to ensure they break down effectively under field conditions and do not introduce new environmental risks [66]. The scalability of advanced recycling systems is often limited by economic and logistical factors, particularly for small or remote farms [67]. Policy frameworks and infrastructure investment are needed to support the widespread adoption of sustainable materials and waste management practices [68].

Ultimately, addressing agricultural plastic waste requires a holistic approach that combines technological innovation, policy support, farmer education, and cross-sector collaboration. By integrating these elements, the agricultural farm sector can move towards a circular economy model, reducing reliance on single-use plastics, maximizing recycling and reuse, and safeguarding environmental and food system resilience for the future [69].

13. Conclusions

Agricultural plastic waste presents a significant environmental challenge that requires a multi-faceted approach combining technological innovation, policy interventions, and changes in farming practices. The agricultural sector has made notable progress in developing and implementing solutions to address plastic waste, from advanced recycling technologies to biodegradable alternatives. While complete substitution of plastics is currently not possible without increasing the overall environmental footprint and jeopardizing food security, alternatives with smaller environmental and more minor ecological impacts should be used and endorsed within a clear socio-economic framework. Better monitoring and reporting, technical innovation, education and training, and social and economic incentives are imperative to promote more sustainable use of plastics in agriculture. As global population growth continues to increase pressure on agricultural systems to produce more food, finding sustainable solutions to agricultural plastic waste becomes increasingly urgent. By embracing innovative technologies, adopting circular economy principles, and developing appropriate regulatory frameworks, the agricultural sector can significantly reduce its plastic footprint while maintaining productivity and contributing to global food security.

Agricultural plastic waste constitutes a widespread environmental, social, and economic problem. It causes environmental pollution, health damage, and financial loss, especially when there are no effective solutions for recycling or waste management. However, there are technological, regulatory, and economic solutions that can help mitigate the problem. The main barriers include the high costs of recycling technologies, resistance to changes by farmers, appropriate infrastructure, and lack of regulatory enforcement. To deal with the problem, a combination of innovative solutions, economic incentives, and educational measures is needed.

The following are the conclusions of the report:

• For systemic conclusions, according to which a structural change in the treatment of agricultural waste is required, it is essential to develop a sustainable economic model, integrate technological and organizational solutions, and build an effective incentive system.
• For operational conclusions, according to which there is a priority for regional solutions, it is important to implement the chosen alternative in stages and gradually.

To deal with the problem, several alternatives are proposed: an extended producer responsibility model, the establishment of an integrated regional model, and a technology-based incentive model. The recommendations for policy steps for immediate implementation include the establishment of a national management mechanism and the provision of economic incentives. Medium-term recommendations include the development of infrastructure and supportive regulation, and long-term recommendations include innovation and sustainability, a systemic shift in the transition to sustainable agriculture, the implementation of advanced technologies, the development of a market for recycled products, and an increase in vocational education and training. Based on the information gathered, the authors’ reasoned recommendation is to adopt a gradual integrated model that includes binding regulation, economic incentives, and the use of innovative technologies, which will enable an effective solution to the problem of agricultural plastic waste while minimizing the financial harm to farmers, reducing long-term environmental impacts, and establishing regional pilots. In the second phase, we recommend gradual implementation of producer responsibility, development of regional infrastructure, and investment in technology. In the third phase, we recommend a complete transition to a sustainable model, integration of advanced technologies, and development of a stable recycling market. We recommend this model because of its outstanding advantages, which include a balance between the needs of all stakeholders involved, flexibility in implementation and adaptation to changing conditions, the ability to learn and adapt during implementation, and the dispersion of risks and investments over time. We chose this alternative because it provides the best solution to all the identified barriers, its applicability is higher than the other alternatives, and it has a high potential for success in the long term.

The effective management of agricultural plastic waste requires the integration of regulatory (EPR), infrastructural (regional models), and technological (R&D incentives, field-tested biopolymers) strategies. Systematic monitoring of outcomes, critical assessment of context, and ongoing adaptation based on empirical data are vital for sustainable progress.

While existing studies provide essential insights into agricultural plastic waste, their small scale, limited geographic coverage, and methodological inconsistencies restrict the generalizability and comparability of findings. Therefore, current conclusions should be interpreted with caution, and there is a pressing need for larger, standardized, multi-regional research to generate more robust and globally relevant evidence to inform effective policy and technological solutions tailored to diverse local contexts.