Agricultural Plastics, a Multi Actor Analysis
Agricultural Plastics, a Multi Actor Analysis
In 2024 a PAPILLONS study was published in the journal Cambridge Prism: Plastics. The study, entitled “Addressing the environmental sustainability of plastics used in agriculture: a multi-actor perspective”, aimed at analyzing stakeholder responses and perceptions towards the use of Agricultural Plastic (AP), shedding light on each group’s perceived knowledge gaps and proposed actions. The study collected inputs through surveys and in person meetings from four main stakeholder groups across the world:
1. Farmers’ Perspective
Farmers prioritize productivity, efficiency, and food security, which often make APs an attractive option, as they preserve food quality, facilitate higher yields, and reduce pesticide use. However, there is a growing awareness of the negative environmental impact, particularly on plastic waste accumulation and soil contamination.
2. Industry & Industry Associations’ Perspective
They emphasize the economic and environmental trade-offs of reducing AP use, as it could contribute to sustainability by reducing water use, pesticide dependency, and crop losses. Most support better end-of-life (EoL) management solutions, rather than banning APs.
3. Environmental NGO Perspective
NGOs view APs as a major source of pollution. They advocate for reducing APs through policy reforms, economic incentives, and education, arguing that the long-term consequences of plastic pollution outweigh the short-term benefits.
4. Environmental Scientist
They highlight the lack of data on the long-term impact of AP pollution on soils and ecosystems, as research has focused more on marine pollution than on agriculture thus far.
In 2024 a PAPILLONS study was published in the journal Cambridge Prism: Plastics. The study, entitled “Addressing the environmental sustainability of plastics used in agriculture: a multi-actor perspective”, aimed at analyzing stakeholder responses and perceptions towards the use of Agricultural Plastic (AP), shedding light on each group’s perceived knowledge gaps and proposed actions. The study collected inputs through surveys and in person meetings from four main stakeholder groups across the world:
1. Farmers’ Perspective
Farmers prioritize productivity, efficiency, and food security, which often make APs an attractive option, as they preserve food quality, facilitate higher yields, and reduce pesticide use. However, there is a growing awareness of the negative environmental impact, particularly on plastic waste accumulation and soil contamination.
2. Industry & Industry Associations’ Perspective
They emphasize the economic and environmental trade-offs of reducing AP use, as it could contribute to sustainability by reducing water use, pesticide dependency, and crop losses. Most support better end-of-life (EoL) management solutions, rather than banning APs.
3. Environmental NGO Perspective
NGOs view APs as a major source of pollution. They advocate for reducing APs through policy reforms, economic incentives, and education, arguing that the long-term consequences of plastic pollution outweigh the short-term benefits.
4. Environmental Scientist
They highlight the lack of data on the long-term impact of AP pollution on soils and ecosystems, as research has focused more on marine pollution than on agriculture thus far.
PAPILLONS
Ongoing | 2021-2025
- Main funding source
- Horizon 2020 (EU Research and Innovation Programme)
- Geographical location
- Norway