Modelling Change in the Plastic Footprint of Agriculture - Evidence from the Çukurova Region of Turkey - GIZ
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Modelling Change in the Plastic Footprint of Agriculture Evidence from the Çukurova Region of Turkey
Published by:
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
Registered offices:
Bonn and Eschborn
Address:
GIZ Office Ankara
Aziziye Mah., Pak Sk. No. 1/101, 06680 Çankaya/Ankara, Turkey
T +90 312 466 70 80
F +90 312 467 7275
Programme:
PEP- Promotion of Economic Prospects for Refugees and the Host Community in
Turkey
The programme is a part of the Partnership for Prospects (P4P) special initiative of
the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ),
which is implemented in countries affected by the Syrian crisis (Jordan, Lebanon,
Turkey, Iraq and Syria).
Programme Responsible:
Alberto Vega-Exposito
Authors and contributors (in alphabetical order):
Ecem Yıldız
Eyyüp Göreke
Leyla Özer
Özgür Çetinkaya
Rezan Gündoğdu
Umut Kuruüzüm
Copy Editor
Sera Lightfoot
2
URL references:
This publication contains references to external Internet pages. Responsibility for the
content of external websites linked in this publication always lies with their respective
publishers. GIZ expressly dissociates itself from such content.
On behalf of
German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ)
This study was commissioned by GIZ. The study may reflect the personal views of
the author, which may not necessarily be shared by BMZ and GIZ, and BMZ and GIZ
may not be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information
contained therein.
Ankara, Turkey 2022
3
About PEP Programme
The PEP-Promotion of Economic Prospects Programme is financed by the German
Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and implemented
by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH.
The PEP- Promotion of Economic Prospects Programme’s main pillar is strengthening
the resilience of Syrian refugees and the host community. Programme measures are
designed to enhance economic prospects to foster systemic and community resilience
to national and local stresses. Through focus areas such as green economy, public-
private dialogue (PPD) structures and digital transformation, PEP targets increased
employability, protecting, and creating employment, enhancing public sector support
systems, improving the conditions for MSMEs and the business environment in urban
and rural areas. To achieve its goals, PEP collaborates with local and international
partners. Our approach at PEP involves a series of such measures as the provision of
vocational training and skills development, supporting decent employment measures
in private and municipal sectors, assisting entrepreneurs and start-ups, formalizing
unregistered businesses, developing capacities of key business development service
providers, and facilitating synergies between public and private sector stakeholders.
One of the primary objectives in the PEP Programme is fostering access to formal
employment for beneficiaries. Labour market-oriented measures enable the target
group to find decent and formal employment, maintaining alignment with the supply
and demand of Turkish labour market.
All PEP interventions are based on a comprehensive and integrated approach to
increase the economic prospects of households. As such, the programme aims at
easing household financial stress through a regular income. Jobs do not only provide
the necessary financial means to actively participate in socio-economic life, but also
foster resilience, dignity, and renewed self-esteem. It is in the workplace that Syrians
and Turkish people interact, cooperate, and communicate in order to get a job done.
Thus, access to decent employment is the most effective measure to cultivate social
cohesion and foster peaceful interaction between Turkish citizens and Syrians.
All PEP measures targeting Syrians Under Temporary Protection (SuTP) have a
Turkish language-training component, believing that learning Turkish is crucial for
Syrians in the context of resilience. As supportive measures, participants receive
conditional financial and nonfinancial support during Turkish and vocational training
courses and are offered trainings on work ethics, legal counselling, and occupational
health and safety. As part of this additional support to promote gender equality, PEP
provides day-care for children to ease single parents’ and especially women’s access
to employment-oriented skills development activities including Turkish language
classes.
4
Acronyms
APE Agricultural Plastics Europe
APRG Agricultural Plastics Recycling Group
BBP Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
BIPOC Black, Indigenous, People of Colour
BPA Bisphenol A
DBP Dibutyl Phthalate
DEHP Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
DEP Diethyl Phthalate
DMP Dimethyl Phthalate
DNOP Di-N-Octyl Phthalate
EU European Union
EVA Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate Copolymer
FINILOOP Financial Inclusion and Improved Livelihoods Out of Plastics
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GIS Geographical Information System
HA Hectare
IEMS The Informal Economy Monitoring Study
ILO International Labour Organisation
MSWM Municipal Solid Waste Management
MT Metric Tonnes
NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PAE Phthalate Esters
PAES Phthalic Acid Esters
PBDE Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers
PC Polycarbonate
PE Polyethylene
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
PMMA Polymethyl Methacrylate
POL Polyolefin
PP Polypropylene
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
SEWA Self-Employed Women’s Association
TUIK Turkish Statistical Institute
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
WWF World Wildlife Fund for Nature
5
Contents
Overview
1. Introduction
2. Objectives of the Study
3. Methodology
3.1. Study Design
3.2. Data Collection
3.3. Limitations
4. Literature Review
4.1. Rising Plastic Waste and Plasticulture
4.2. Governing Plastic Waste
4.3. Plastic Waste, Livelihood, and Risks
5. Evidence from the Çukurova Region of Turkey
5.1. Plastification of Agriculture
5.1.1. Types of Commonly Applied Agro-Plastics
5.1.2. Costs of Commonly Applied Agro-Plastics
5.2. Work, Livelihood, and Toxicity Along Agro-Waste Recycling Chain
5.2.1. Expanding Waste Economies and Livelihood
5.2.2. Expanding Toxic Risks to Vulnerable Populations
5.2.3. Expanding Plastic Emissions and Ecological Stress
6. Concluding Insights and Recommendations
7. Bibliography
6
Overview
The Çukurova Region of Turkey, located on the delta of the Seyhan and Ceyhan rivers,
is one of the world’s most fertile plains, abundantly producing nearly all types of
agricultural products and generating an agricultural industry worth roughly $8 billion. In
recent years, agricultural operations in the delta have been inextricably linked with
plastic use, as part of a larger trend of plastification in our lives. According to the WWF
(June 2019, 10-11) this fertile delta, today, hosts the highest plastic waste
concentration in the Mediterranean with over 31 kg of debris per kilometre.
This report aims to document the recent trend in plastic agro-waste together with policy
recommendations to bring about change in the agro-waste footprint of agriculture and
plastic emissions, in the Çukurova Region of Turkey. More than 80 in-depth interviews
have been conducted with farmers, waste collectors, waste intermediaries, employees
from recycling companies, public officials, as well as civil sector experts and academics
from universities and NGOs between July and December 2021.
The report underlines that the current level of plastic agro-waste emissions in the
region is not only harming the ecosystem, reducing soil fertility and biodiversity, and
contaminating irrigation canals and aquatic bionetworks in the eastern Mediterranean
Sea, but it also poses a threat to the well-being of humans living in such areas, with
potential negative consequences for future generations. Seasonal agricultural workers,
many of whom are Syrian and represent one of the most vulnerable socioeconomic
strata in the region, engage in agro-waste recycling, sorting, and burning leftover agro-
plastics for heating and cooking purposes in and around tents, where they are currently
exposed to toxicity combined with chronic poverty.
In order to identify and minimize the plastic footprint of agriculture, which contaminates
the biome and threatens the survival of human and non-human species particularly in
plasticised settings, increasing awareness of plastic agro-waste and capacity for
management is critical. While the issue appears to be manageable today, this initiative
in Turkey aims to raise awareness and foster cross-sectoral and international
collaboration in order to find a path for reducing agriculture's plastic footprint, in light of
Turkey's recent ratification of the Paris Agreement and Europe's Green Deal to achieve
the net-zero emission target in the near future.
7
1. Introduction
Plastics have become an indispensable component of our modern economies and
societies' material foundations. Because they are inexpensive, lightweight, resilient,
and versatile in ways that many alternatives are not, their footprint has risen
considerably in tandem with their broader applications. Plastics have changed our
material culture over the last few decades, to the point where our contemporary epoch
within the Anthropocene has been labelled ‘the plastic age.’
As a result, they have become a growing source of worry that must be addressed, as
they have been discovered to cause toxicity, contamination, soil, air, and water
pollution, as well as contribute to the global climate crisis, ocean plastification, and
biodiversity loss. Primary microplastics (less than 5 mm), such as microbeads in
cosmetics or microfibers shed from synthetic clothing and other textiles, and secondary
microplastics, which are formed by the physicochemical and mechanical breakdown of
larger plastics, do not dissolve in soil or water and can last for hundreds of years on
the earth's surface. With a predicted life expectancy of nearly half a millennium, it can
be assumed that every plastic bag we have ever used, with an average lifespan of 12
minutes, can be found somewhere on the earth in one or another form. The ubiquity of
microplastics is such that according to a recent WWF (June 2019) analysis, the
average person consumes five grams of plastic every week, which is the equivalent
weight of a credit card.
Given their massive material use, most industrialised countries see ‘recycling’ as one
solution for dealing with plastic debris. However, recycling does not completely
alleviate the stress caused by plastic waste on the environment since not all forms of
plastic are easily recyclable, and only a few recycling factories can handle all types of
plastic. Interpol (August 2020,19-20) recently highlighted the rise of criminal networks
in tandem with legitimate pollution management businesses, which are used as a cover
for illegal waste trade and disposal, particularly to low-income countries. Plastic waste
exports have been re-routed towards the eastern Mediterranean and South-East Asian
destination countries since China's waste import restrictions went into effect in early
2018. Though millions of tonnes of plastic are recycled every year, millions more end
up in landfills or oceans, or illegally dumped, and burned through opportunistic criminal
tricks, generating material and gas emissions into our already impoverished
atmosphere, sea, and soil.
Plastics have recently been widely incorporated into modern agricultural operations,
known as 'plasticulture,' and as a result end up as debris at the end of each agricultural
product cycle, known as plastic 'agro-waste.' They can be found at every stage of crop
production, from fertiliser containers to mulch covering the soil, pipes irrigating the
fields, and the packaging of the finished agricultural products. Because of their single-
8
use nature, agro-plastics emissions are continuous throughout the year, while rapidly
degrading and transforming into microplastics under the direct influence of sunlight and
winds, and being carried to the sea via drainage canals.
In the wake of anthropogenic crises, of which plastification is only one among several
causes, experienced in the form of climate crisis, biodiversity loss, acidification of
oceans, desertification, deforestation and eruptions of infectious diseases, such as
swine flu, ebolavirus, and recently the COVID-19 pandemic; humans, to some extent,
reacted and attempted to take collaborative action. For the first time in its 15-year
history, the UNDP Human Development Report 2020 adopted a new definition for
sustainable development and planetary metrics in evaluating countries' progress in
terms of the pressure placed on the earth while registering economic growth. The
European Green Deal set EU countries on a path to becoming a carbon-free economy
and society, while also issuing a carbon price on imports of a specific set of products
to ensure that ambitious climate action in Europe does not result in 'carbon leakage.'
More recently, the United Nations COP26 Climate Change Conference in 2021,
gathered people around the world who are disproportionately affected by
anthropogenic stresses; acknowledged plastic as a key contributor to global warming;
and called for the elimination of single-use plastics, which would reduce oil
consumption and carbon emissions (Plastic and Climate, May 2019).
To date, little action has been taken to address the growing amount of plastic agro-
waste in our ecosystems, let alone monitoring, documenting, and mitigating the
negative impact on the soil, which threatens our livelihood, food security, and,
ultimately, our survival on Earth. This report outlines the increasing sets of plastic use
in agriculture, the social and conservational concerns associated with plastic debris,
and finally evidence-based policy recommendations for a path forward in
acknowledging and addressing the extremely alarming issue in order to contribute to
further global cooperation and collaborative action.
9
2. Objectives of the Study
This study aims to explore and document the categories of plastic use and recycling
practises in agricultural operations in Turkey's Çukurova Region, from an empirical
perspective. Field research has been carried out to trace the afterlife of agro-waste
along the chain of recycling, starting with farmers' use of agro-plastics and progressing
to waste workers and intermediaries, and finally, recycling companies along with public
and civil sector experts who oversee the process.
The study's objectives can be broken down into four research areas:
▪ Outlining globally available interdisciplinary knowledge, policy implementations,
and alternative solutions proposed in relation to agro-waste in distinct
geographies of the world;
▪ reporting on the categories of use and recycling practises of plastic materials in
agriculture, as evidenced in the Çukurova Region of Turkey;
▪ identifying and documenting risks to humans and the ecosystem, as well as
potential economic development alternatives, knowledge gaps and institutional
arrangements;
▪ providing evidence-based policy recommendations and pathways towards
creating change in dealing with the ever-increasing plastic emission in the
Çukurova Region of Turkey, while targeting sustainable employment for
nationals and non-nationals, including refugees who are actively engaged in the
chain of waste recycling.
103. Methodology
3.1. Study Design
The empirical approach adopted covers a range of primary data collection methods,
including face to face, semi-structured in-depth interviews, structured questionnaire
surveys, and participant observation. For the first-hand empirical data collection, two
field studies were designed: the first focused on the proliferation of agro-plastics and
plastic debris. While the second concentrated on prospective routes for change in
reducing the plastic footprint of agricultural products.
Farmers, garbage collectors, and waste middlemen along the recycling value chain, as
well as public officials, experts from NGOs, academics, and recycling company
executives, were interviewed. During the interviews, a holistic and relational analysis
was applied to reveal the combined inter-relationality of rising agro-waste, emissions,
and risks to human and non-human species. The report's findings and insights were
enhanced by participant observation during field research, which provided additional
individual views and reflexivity.
Secondary literature and research data from earlier studies on agricultural waste
trends, as well as policy and regulatory frameworks influencing agricultural waste
management at the national, regional, and municipal levels, were also reviewed. The
literature review particularly focused on three interrelated areas, including (1) the
growth of plastic waste, particularly the rise of plastic use and plastic emissions in
agriculture (2) how the problem of rising plastic waste is being managed globally; (3)
and what kinds of economic capacities and livelihood opportunities have been made
available with the recycling of plastic waste. Secondary literature assisted us in
constructing the problem in different geographical contexts and informed us about
practices and working solutions.
3.2. Data Collection
Due to the fluidity of the research population, pre-planned sampling of the agro-waste
workers and intermediaries was not viable. Instead, the research team determined that
the sample should be selected from those available and willing to participate. The
intention was not to select a representative sample, rather to choose interviewees
whose participation likelihood was high and who are involved in the agricultural plastic
waste value chain in the Çukurova Region of Turkey.
11A standard interview script was written to provide background information for
respondents about the study and the process. In-depth interviews required the
development of four separate templates for the following groups: (1) waste pickers and
intermediaries, (2) farmers, (3) employees of recycling companies, (4) agro-plastics
suppliers and wholesalers. The researchers collected both numerical and text-based
information concurrently. Responses were handwritten by interviewers and then
collated digitally onto spreadsheets – one for each group of interviewees to facilitate
analysis. The results and analysis are shown in sections 5.1 and 5.2. In the first field
study, a total of 44 face to face in-depth interviews were conducted to capture specific
views on major agricultural waste-related problems, existing policies, and their
implementation, as well as the livelihood initiatives of informal waste workers, and their
contribution to the greater waste management system. Interviews were conducted
within the span of eight days during the first fieldwork assignment, including 40 men
and four women (see Table 3.1).
Figure 3.1. Discussing the potential solutions to agro-plastics pollution with farmers in
Silifke, Mersin
Source: @GIZ/Umut Kuruüzüm
The second fieldwork assignment was oriented towards identifying directions for the
proposed model for change in managing the growing problem of agro-waste. It was
also designed with the aim of increasing cooperation towards sustainable employment
creation in plastic recycling. During this phase, a total of 36 semi-structured in-depth
interviews were conducted with farmers, waste intermediaries, public and civil sector
experts, businesspeople from recycling companies in the Çukurova region, as well as
with NGO experts and academics. Additionally, questionnaire surveys on agro-waste
12were administered to 52 farmers in Çukurova. Survey responses were recorded,
tabulated, and tracked. Quantitative results, such as the amount of plastics generated
on farms each year, were calculated utilising software and verified using multiple
summation approaches (see Table 5.8 and 5.9).
Table 3.1. Categorisation of stakeholders interviewed
Source: The Authors
Survey type Stakeholder # of Participants Gender Distribution
Male Female
Face-to-face in-depth Waste Pickers 19 16 3
interviews
Waste 3 3 -
Intermediaries
Farmers 9 9 -
Fieldwork I
Recycling 3 3 -
Companies
Public/Civil Sector 10 9 1
Experts
Total 44 40 4
face-to-face,
in-depth interviews
Face-to-face in-depth Waste Pickers - - -
interviews
Waste 1 1 -
Intermediaries
Recycling 5 5 -
Companies
Fieldwork II
Plastic Suppliers 2 2 -
Public/Civil Sector 28 17 11
Experts
Questionnaire Farmers 52 52 -
Surveys
Total 36 25 11
face-to-face,
in-depth interviews
Total 80 65 15
Face to face, in-depth
interviews
13Interviews were transcribed, and data from the quantitative and qualitative instruments
were cross confirmed for validation. The open-ended answers were analysed using
thematic coding, which was organised, categorised, and summed. The thematic codes
were developed by reviewing the responses and using keyword searches to evaluate
the prevalence of identified themes, sub-themes, and patterns that emerged. Codes
were manually generated in accordance with the research questions asked, which
allowed researchers to provide direct and indirect information, including descriptions
and quotes, to support various themes and patterns. There were four main codes
generated into a codebook, including ‘types of commonly used agro-plastics,’ ‘financial
cycle of commonly used agro-plastics,’ ‘risk to humans,’ and ‘risks to non-human
ecosystems’. These themes represented data that characterised the everyday
experiences of waste pickers, waste intermediaries, and farmers in addition to the
experiences of other stakeholders along the agro-plastics waste value chain.
Observations and reflections from the fieldworkers provided contextual data, adding to
the depth and richness of the study.
3.3. Limitations
There were two major constraints to overcome. To begin, given the COVID-19
epidemic, field research required weighing the risks—to the researchers and, perhaps
more importantly, to research participants—against the larger benefits of the study. For
the safety of all parties involved, all interviews were held with masks and outdoors as
much as possible. While the fieldwork was planned to be carried out by three
researchers, only two were able to step into the field, due to the rising COVID-19
infection risks in the region. Furthermore, two colleagues of the research team
contracted the coronavirus in their second fieldwork visit, which resulted in loss of time
and delays with the reporting.
Secondly, the general absence of awareness, cooperation, and secondary data on
plastic wastes and agro plastics, placed another limitation on this study. Neither the
metropolitan nor district municipalities could provide official statistical data upon
inquiry, which narrowed our research to only primary data, thereby reducing the
richness that secondary data would have added to the study. Data retrieved from the
websites of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, as well as the Ministry of
Environment, Urbanisation, and Climate Change was also limited, which raises
concerns regarding the level of awareness at an institutional level about the growing
plastic agro-waste problem in Turkey.
144. Literature Review
This section provides an overview of the literature relevant to the research presented
in this study. The literature review is divided into three interconnected areas for ease
of understanding: (1) plastic waste growth, particularly the intensification of plastic use
and plastic emissions in agricultural operations; (2) how the problem of rising plastic
waste is being managed globally; and (3) what kinds of livelihood opportunities for
people have been made available in the recycling and recovery process of discarded
plastics in general.
4.1. Rising Plastic Waste and Plasticulture
The term plastic is derived from the Greek word ‘plastikos’, which refers to formability.
That is, they are materials that can be moulded, pressed, or extruded into various
shapes and then turned into products in the form of foil, fibre, plates, tubes, bottles,
cans, and more. Plastics are made of a wide variety of synthetic or semi-synthetic
materials, including raw materials such as cellulose, coal, natural gas, salt and crude
oil and are used for various purposes. They can be found in many areas of our lives,
mainly due to their affordability and easily-shapeable nature.
In fact, 242 million tonnes of plastic waste were generated in 2016 across the globe,
making up 12 percent of the total waste generated globally in the same year (Kaza et.
al, 2018). Studies have shown that plastic consumption per capita is rapidly growing
on a global scale (Ritchie and Roser, 2018). The convenience plastics offer, however,
led to a throw-away culture that reveals the material’s dark side: today, single-use
plastics account for 40 percent of the plastic produced every year (Chen et. al, 2021).
Many of these products, such as plastic bags and food wrappers, have a lifespan of
mere minutes to hours, yet they will persist in the environment for hundreds of years.
According to a recently published report, between 2010 and 2020 global plastic waste
production has steadily increased by 10 million metric tonnes every year, reaching
almost 360 million metric tonnes per year in 2018 (Interpol August 2020; Statista 2019).
Based on long term projections of population and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per
country, it has been estimated that the global plastic waste generation could reach 300
million tonnes annually by 2040, and 380 million tonnes by 2060 (Lebreton and
Andrady, 2019).
When the proportional distribution of the produced plastic is examined according to
production areas, estimates indicate that the most common use is the packaging
industry, which accounts for 46 percent of plastic waste generated globally in 2018
(Statista, 2021). While the agricultural sector is not the largest user of plastics, the Food
and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) reports that a massive 12.5
million tonnes of plastic were used globally in plant and animal production in 2019
15(FAO, 2021). Given the numbers, it is obvious that the rapid plastification of farming all
over the world is turning into a pollution concern, particularly in developing countries
where plastic use and disposal are less regulated (Maraveas, 2020).
The term ‘plasticulture’ has been widely accepted in the literature of horticulture, waste
management and sustainability studies as the practice of using plastic materials in
agricultural applications, while the plastic materials themselves are often and broadly
referred to as ‘agro-plastics’ (Lamont, 1996; Garnaud, 2000; Mormile, Stahl and
Malinconico, 2017; Bhattacharya, Das and Saha, 2018). Agro-plastics is most often
used to describe all kinds of plastic plant/soil coverings, including coverings ranging
from plastic mulch film, high and low tunnels, to plastic greenhouses. Plastics can help
to deter pests, control weeds with reduced reliance on chemicals, and save fuel
through lighting equipment and containers. Thus, farmers have the opportunity to grow
vegetables regardless of the season and at the same time faster and more frequently
than open-field cultivation.
In addition, plasticulture applications have brought an increase in the water transfer
capability, while allowing irrigated agriculture even in waterless areas, with the
opportunity to use drip, sprinkler and similar saving irrigation methods. Researchers
estimated that the application of plastic mulch increases crop yields by a third (Liu et.
al, 2014), and enables harvest 10 to 30 days earlier than usual (Chang et. al, 2013),
which significantly increases market advantage and the prices farmers receive. Yet
more than unsightly, discarded agro-plastics can damage farmland and cause harm to
humans and wildlife alike, making their celebrated durability long-term pollution and
public health worry (Cassou, Jaffee and Ru, 2018). Hence, the question of whether the
short-term benefits of employing plastic-based agricultural operations to increase
efficiency exceed the potential long-term risks to both human and non-human
ecosystems is a fundamental argument.
In terms of the historical development of plasticulture activities, previous studies have
documented that the first plastic-covered greenhouse was known to be applied in 1955
in England (Orzolek, 2017; Berghage, 2017). Then, Russia, southern Europe, and Asia
saw an increase in the construction of plastic-covered greenhouses in the late 1960s
and early 1970s. Meanwhile, Israel had covered large areas of high-value horticultural
crops with plastic tunnels and mulches, paralleling the creation and usage of drip or
trickle irrigation to increase crop productivity (Orzolek, 2017; Berghage, 2017). From
the early 1970s onwards, the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern countries of Spain,
Italy, Greece, Portugal, Turkey, Algeria, Jordan, and those countries in the Arabian
Gulf became renowned in the building of plastic greenhouses, as well as in the
production and sale of high-value greenhouse-grown crops. Prior research generally
confirms that the use of plastics for covering greenhouses was an attempt to produce
16fruits and vegetables 12 months of the year under extreme environmental conditions
(Janke, Almami and Khan, 2017).
To provide some precise data on the global use of plastics in agriculture, in 2010,
approximately 265 million tonnes of plastic were manufactured worldwide, with agro-
plastics accounting for 2 percent of this total (Briassoulis et al., 2013; Picuno, 2014).
Over the years, plastics have been increasingly replacing the usage of greenhouse
glass coverings or paper for mulching (Scarascia-Mugnozza et al., 2012). While Asia
is the largest user of agricultural plastic products, accounting for almost 70 percent of
the global use of mulch films (Jansen, Henskens and Hiemstra, 2019; Le Moine and
Ferry, 2018; PlasticsEurope, 2019), demand for agricultural plastics was estimated at
around 3.4 percent of overall plastics demand, which was equivalent to 1.6 million
tonnes in 2015 in the EU (Cassou, 2018; World Bank, 2018).
As for the country-specific numbers, Turkey produced over 9.5 million tonnes of plastic
in 2020 and of this, 382,000 tonnes were used for agricultural purposes, which
accounts for approximately 4 percent of the total plastics produced (PAGEV, 2021).
While Turkey ranks in the top four in the world in greenhouse cultivation, it ranks
second in Europe after Spain. In fact, Turkey's total greenhouse area has reached
almost 80,000 hectares in 2018, indicating a 42 percent increase from 2008 (Tüzel et
al., 2020).1 More specifically, the increase in plastic greenhouses, high and low tunnel
areas were documented to be 74.1 percent, 70.6 percent and 16.5 percent,
respectively (Tüzel et al., 2020). Given these figures, it is clear that plastic materials
have been playing a significant role in agricultural production in Turkey.
Against this backdrop, it is not very surprising that discussions regarding the growing
problem of agricultural plastic waste have dominated research in recent years,
particularly in the European agricultural hubs of Spain and Italy (Castillo-Diaz et. al,
2021; Aznar-Sánchez et. al, 2020; Pazienza and de Lucia, 2020; Sayadi-Gmada et. al,
2019; Briassoulis et. al, 2013; Scarascia-Mugnozza, Sica and Picuno, 2012). A recent
study conducted by Castillo-Diaz and his colleagues (2021) shows that the volume of
plastic waste from intensive agriculture in the province of Almeria in Spain is constantly
increasing, whereas the current waste management system does not meet the needs
of the sector. Syadi-Gmada et. al (2019) also reports that the rapid growth of
greenhouse applications has brought sustainability problems such as pollution, water
overuse, or inadequate waste management in Almeria. More remarkably, Zhang et. al
(2020) report that agricultural plastic film usage in China was over 2.5 million tonnes in
2017, making the country world’s largest user of this type of agro-plastics as well as
one of the biggest sources of agricultural plastic pollution worldwide. Similar concerns
1
10,000 hectare equals 100 square kilometres.
17have also been raised for countries such as Vietnam, the Philippines, and the United
States (Cassou, Jaffee and Ru, 2018; Hemphill, 1993).
Several studies on agricultural plastic waste in Turkey have also been identified in the
literature (Atılgan et. al. 2014; Güzey ve Atılgan, 2015; Boyacı and Kartal, 2019). One
of these studies focuses on the environmental effects of pollutant factors such as
plastic cover films, pesticide and chemical fertiliser containers, and drip irrigation
laterals that are widely utilised in the greenhouse enterprises in the Kumluca district of
Antalya (Boyacı ve Kartal, 2019). The result of this study suggests that almost 98
percent of the greenhouse enterprises in Kumluca use polietilen (PE) plastics in their
agricultural operations, while about 83 percent of the pesticide containers were
disposed of in the waste bins nearby or burned in the fields. Another study conducted
by Güzey ve Atılgan (2015) found out that 70 percent of the greenhouse enterprises
surveyed in the province of Denizli leave their agricultural plastic wastes in the field.
Given the pervasiveness of plastics in agriculture, it may be reassuring that their toxicity
varies and that their downsides are mostly determined by how they are produced,
designed, used, and removed (Cassou, 2018). According to a recently published report
by FAO (2021), agro-plastic residues are not only poisoning soils and food systems,
but also threatening human health and the environment. Evidence from studies shows
that the regular release of microplastics is leading to a significant accumulation in soil
(Corradini et al., 2019; van den Berg et al., 2020).
It is evidenced that microplastics included in the soil affect the water holding capacity
of the soil agglomeration, the performance and composition of the soil microbial
community, physical, chemical and biological properties such as soil biodiversity (de
Machado et al., 2018; Lehmann et al., 2019; Rillig et al., 2019; Büks et al., 2020; Fei
et al., 2020). Although the number of studies on the presence of microplastics in soil
environments has increased in the last decade, information and knowledge pertaining
to presence and effects of microplastics in this environment remains very scarce.
Overall, there is a substantial body of literature confirming that the current
intensification of the use of plastic materials in agriculture, which although has
significantly increased productivity, is generating growing adverse effects on the
environment of the agro-ecosystem (Andrady, 2015; Awet et. al, 2018; Beriot et. al,
2021; Cox et. al, 2019; Dahl et. al, 2021). Agriculture is responsible for massive use of
plastic materials, in addition to energy and water inputs, chemical fertiliser and
pesticides. Besides the pollution generated during the manufacture, at the end of their
lifetime plastic materials used for crop covering, soil mulching, packaging, containers,
pots, irrigation and drainage pipes, are become a pollution source when improperly
disposed of, left on the ground or burned. Instead, the agricultural plastic waste, if
correctly collected, can be used as a new secondary raw material or as an energy
18source. An integrated agricultural plastic waste management offers the potential for
mitigating some of the worst effects of plastic debris while preventing economic losses
and environmental damage.
4.2. Governing Plastic Waste
It has been established in the literature of environmental studies that an integrated
waste management system should cover activities that aim at preventing the formation
of waste, reducing it at its source, reusing, sorting according to its characteristics and
type, accumulating, collecting, in addition to temporary storage, transportation,
intermediate storage, recycling, recovery, disposal, monitoring, control and inspection
after disposal processes (Turner and Powell, 1991; UNEP, 1996; Seadon, 2006). The
hierarchy of these activities is oftentimes illustrated with a pyramid that consists of
prevention, reduction, reuse, recycling, energy recovery and disposal. While
prevention is ranked first in the order of priority, disposal is considered as the least
preferred method of waste management (see Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1. Integrated waste management hierarchy
Source: © GIZ
19The growing plastic waste problem has become less of an issue of consumption and
proper disposal, and more a problem of the fundamental nature of plastics (UNEP,
2021). When plastics are discarded, they do not break down and assimilate through
biological processes. Instead, they release fillers, like plasticizers, as gas and
contaminated liquid and break down into increasingly smaller pieces that retain many
of their original properties (McDermott, 2016). This persistence allows plastics to
accumulate, not only in sheer number and volume, but also as toxins and microplastics
in the environment (Choy et al., 2019). In fact, according to UNEP (2021), common
waste management processes that purport to truly eliminate plastics, such as
incineration, generate toxic outputs and significant CO2 emissions, posing additional
pollution and climate change challenges. Moreover, it has been widely reported that
incinerators generate harmful pollution posing a risk to human health in nearby
communities since burning plastic waste releases dioxin, furan, and mercury
(Donahue, December 2018; Tait et al., 2020). Combined, these features make plastic
waste pollution a considerably challenging problem, and one which goes beyond
impacting the health of our lands and oceans – it impacts the health and rights of our
communities every day.
The ‘ideal’ scenario is often considered to be the recycling of plastics, which are broken
down into their original constituents and used to form new plastic products. In this ideal
scenario, the demand for raw materials and the need to manage plastic waste is
minimised. However, in its current state, recycling does not prevent disposal; it merely
delays it (Geyer, Jambeck and Law, 2017). It is difficult to quantify the extent to which
recycling is actually alleviating pressure for primary plastic production, especially given
that only about 9 percent of plastics produced since 1950 has been recycled at all
(Geyer, Jambeck and Law, 2017). In fact, less than 10 percent of the total amount of
plastics produced between 1950 and 2015 – estimated at 8.3 billion tonnes – has ever
been recycled (only 600 million tonnes), resulting in near-permanent contamination on
a planetary scale (Geyer, Jambeck and Law, 2017).
In response to the growing challenges that have come along with growing plastic
waste, both OECD and non-OECD countries have also put significant efforts into
curbing waste generation and establishing integrated waste management systems. In
most high-income developed countries, we observe policies that impose further taxes
or bans on the use of plastics, promote the use of biodegradable alternatives, raise
consumer awareness and responsibility around consuming single-use plastic
materials, reduction of waste generation, and recycling practises.2 Regulations have
2While Canada has introduced a new strategy on Zero Plastic Waste, to be successfully implemented
by 2030, the EU is taking legislative steps towards implementing a ban on selected single-use plastics.
20also been put in place to encourage the recycling of plastic waste – with high recycling
targets that scale up to 30 percent (OECD, September 2018).
The recovery of waste through recycling, composting and incineration with energy
recovery shows an encouraging increase since 2000 across the OECD area (OECD,
2021). According to a report published by the OECD, recycling rates in other high-
income countries are typically around 10 percent (OECD, September 2018). Recycling
rates in low- to middle-income countries are largely unknown but may be significant in
situations where there is a well-established and effective informal sector. Data
indicates that plastics recycling rates may be approaching 20-40 percent in some
developing-country cities (Wilson et. al, 2009). Despite recent efforts, plastic recycling
continues to be an economically marginal activity (Heinrich Böll Foundation, n.d.).
Current recycling rates are thought to be 14-18 percent at the global level. Even if
current recycling rates continue to grow linearly, 56 percent of the estimated plastic
waste will still not be recycled in 2050 (Geyer et al, 2017). In terms of cumulative
amounts, given that plastics production and waste generation follow their historical
trends, then 65 percent of plastics ever produced will not be recycled by 2050 (UNEP,
2021).
Higher waste collection and recycling rates are not without problems but have the twin
advantages of allowing the continued realisation of the beneficial aspects of plastics
use, while also addressing the associated adverse environmental side effects. A large
number of life-cycle assessments have been carried out on the relative environmental
impacts of various options for end-of-life plastics management. Several recent meta-
analyses of this body of work unambiguously conclude that plastics recycling has a
significantly smaller greenhouse gas footprint than plastics incineration or landfilling
(Bernardo et. al, 2016). An added benefit is that higher recycling rates, to the extent
that they are driven by the emergence of an economically sustainable recycled plastics
industry, could also become a source of long-term job creation (WRAP, December
2015).
When discussing the advantages of recycling, it is worth noting that recycled plastic is
only useful if it is recycled into the same product. For instance, the recycling of
agricultural plastic in the production of plastic materials used in other sectors, such as
in construction, textile, or automotive will result in the use of original raw material in the
re-production. As a result, judging recycling only on its own merits, independent of its
intended use, may be misleading.
More importantly, previous studies have documented that plastic pollution transcends
national boundaries, making responsibilities and strategies for effective clean-up
unclear (Vince and Hardesty, 2018). Once plastics are used, their disposal presents
myriad problems, largely aggravated by global imbalances of power and inequality.
21Countries in the ‘Global North’ often ship their waste to those in the ‘Global South’
under the premise of recyclability, fuelling industries that harm the health of local
populations, such as incineration which is widely practised. Most waste management
methods for recyclables have high labour costs, resulting in an economic incentive for
retailing companies to export the pre-sorted waste to recycling companies in lower-
income countries where labour and processing costs are cheaper. Waste exports have
skyrocketed in recent decades, with shipments of recyclable materials from the EU
increasing by more than 70 percent since the turn of the century (Statista, 2021).
However, exported waste is not sufficiently monitored once they leave, and rather than
being recycled, plastic debris is often incinerated or dumped illegally due to poor
governance and waste infrastructures in low regulation countries.
Figure 4.2. Coastal hotspots of plastic pollution in the Mediterranean
Source: © WWF
22In fact, Turkey was the biggest importer of plastic waste from European countries in
2020, with 11.4 million tonnes of waste. The amount of plastic waste coming to Turkey
from Europe has seen a 196-fold increase in the last 16 years.3 However, Turkey's
mismanagement of plastic waste has developed in parallel with the increasing imports
from the EU countries. According to the report by the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN October 2020) an estimated 229,000 tonnes of plastic
is leaking into the Mediterranean Sea every year, with Turkey contributing the highest
share –16.8 percent– of European marine plastic pollution (Gündoğdu and Walker,
2021). The report states that the coastline of Cilicia in south-east Turkey has the
highest plastic pollution in the Mediterranean with 31.3 kg of debris per kilometre
(WWF, 2019).
What is deeply concerning is that Turkey’s recycling rate was just 12 percent in 2018.
In 2015, Science magazine ranked Turkey the 14th worst country in the world for
mismanagement of plastic waste (Greenpeace, 2021). Although Turkey recently
implemented restrictions on importing plastic waste, illegal dumping and burning are
widely reported (Gündoğdu and Walker, 2021). Turkey’s Mediterranean province of
Adana has become a hotspot for illegal dumping and burning of plastic wastes, not
only due to the rising number of plastic wastes imported from overseas but also
because of the large-scale plastics-reliant agricultural production in the region.
A recently published report by FAO (2021) questions the sustainability of agricultural
plastic products, while identifying alternatives and interventions to improve the
circularity and management of agricultural plastics based on the 6R model, consisting
of Refuse, Redesign, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and Recover. Based on research in
Spain, Aznar-Sánchez et. al (2020) notes that it is necessary to replace the traditional
model of ‘extract-use-consume-dispose’ with a model based on the principles of the
circular economy, thus optimising the use of resources and minimising the generation
of waste. In Italy and Greece, a Geographical Information System (GIS) at regional
scale has been implemented, in order to contribute to the analysis of agricultural plastic
waste production, flux, collection and disposal (Hiskakis, 2008; Scarascia-Mugnozza,
Sica and Picuno, 2008; Pazienza and De Lucia, 2020; Galati and Scalenghe, 2021).
In a recent study assessing the environmental and economic implications of plastics
recycling within the Finnish context, Mayanti and Helo (2022) have found out that once
a year collection of agro-plastics offers an economic saving of 27 percent and 36
percent less global warming potential than twice a year collection. In a wider context,
Briassoulis et. al (2010) have proposed a labelling management scheme for agro-
3
Prior to the China ban, Turkey imported only about 261,000 tonnes of plastic waste per year, primarily
from the United Kingdom, the EU, and the United States, but by the end of 2018, this had climbed
dramatically to 437,000 tonnes (TUIK, 2021).
23plastics that is technically feasible, economic and able to satisfy the geographic
diversity and the various technical requirements of the major stakeholders throughout
Europe, including farmers, plastics producers, recyclers and industrial facilities utilising
alternative fuels for energy production.
By the same token, Wang et. al (2021) also proposes an all-rounded tactic for the
prevention and control of plastic pollution in China based on the life-cycle assessment
of plastics. The findings of their research underline that, technically, waste plastic
pollution should be prevented and controlled throughout the entire process covering
plastic synthesis, processing, utilisation, and recycling (Wang et. al, 2021). More
specifically, previous studies in China have proven that an integrated agro-plastics
waste management should include design and processing of high-performance plastic
products with prolonged service life. The development of innovative technologies
offering efficient and large-scale capacity for recycling waste plastics, the safe disposal
of the ultimate plastic wastes as well as developing new degradable raw materials and
environmentally friendly alternatives are necessary (Liu, He and Yan, 2014; Wang et.
al, 2021).
In order to tackle the growing problem of plastic pollution in cropland farms and find a
solution to the mismanagement of agro-plastics waste, those involved in the value
chain including plastic suppliers, farmers, and recycling facilities have also started
forming alliances. For instance, the Agricultural Plastics Recycling Group (APRG) in
Canada gathered stakeholders for further discussion about a provincial solution for
agro-plastics recycling because of concerns over the lack of options for the waste
material, combined with the absence of a policy for a provincial agricultural plastics
diversion program. In the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe, Agricultural
Plastics Europe (APE) also provides a forum on non-packaging plastics products for
agriculture for sustainable, profitable production, and for reliable agro-plastics waste
management Meanwhile, Turkey's waste management system for preventing
agricultural plastic pollution is lagging behind. Although the Zero Waste Regulation
published in 2019 sets out the principles by which plastic wastes should be collected
and sent to recycling and/or energy recovery facilities, there is currently very limited
operational structure or awareness at the municipal level that can facilitate the
integration of agricultural plastic waste into the municipal solid waste management
system (Ministry of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate, n.d.).
4.3. Plastic Waste, Livelihood, and Risks
The standard waste management system is characterised by the private formal sector,
working in tandem with the state through contracts. Complimentary to this, the informal
sector has begun to gain prominence in both academic and non-academic contexts.
While a deficit lens of the informal sector defines informal work by what it lacks, we
24recognise the popular knowledge and capacities of informal work. Most scholars have
examined the informal waste sector’s participation in waste management in the global
south (Nzeadibe and Anyadike, 2012; Gutberlet and Uddin, 2017; Velis, 2017) and a
few in the global North (Wittmer and Parizeau, 2018), showing that informal workers
contribute significantly to waste management by making up for the inefficiencies of the
formal sector.
The rapid improvements in technology coupled with the aim of creating a sustainable
environment, has resulted in recyclables becoming products of economic value. As a
consequence of the environmental awareness that has developed, waste recycling has
become important, and the waste picking industry emerged as an informal area (Acar
and Baykara Acar, 2008). This waste undoubtedly contains a good deal of economic
value when properly sorted but the problem is determining who must do the sorting. It
has been estimated that 15-20 million people globally work as waste pickers, where
only 4 million of them are formally employed in the sector (ILO, 2012). Informal workers
already contribute to the management of waste and prevention of pollution from plastic
and even climate attenuation. In recent work, it has been noted that informal recycling
had the potential of attenuating the climate change index by 10 percent for the solid
waste system (Botello-Álvarez et al., 2018).
Considering the magnitude of people involved in this sector informally, it is imperative
to understand the role of waste pickers and who they are. Waste pickers are widely
accepted as the individuals or groups of people who do recovery of materials from
waste for purposes of reuse, for sale to recyclers, or for consumption (Gall et. al, 2020).
Previous studies have documented that waste pickers are mostly made up of the
marginal groups and migrants who constitute the urban poor, and waste recycling in
developing countries is done mostly by informal waste pickers (Medina, 2008). It has
been established that the basic reason that compels people to be involved in waste
picking is economic.4
The informality of waste pickers in waste management is rooted in the unregistered,
unlicensed, unrecognised, and non-tax-paying activities of waste pickers. The
consensus has been that informal waste picking is also characterised by labour
intensity, low pay, low technology, unrecorded and unregulated work (Wilson et al.,
2009), where informal waste pickers are at the bottom of the waste commodity chain.
At the top is the recyclable industry who deals directly with the intermediary waste
buyers (Gall et. al, 2020). There are also middlemen who exploit informal waste
4
Waste picking can be lucrative and well-paying if exploitation is avoided. For instance, waste pickers
earn above the national minimum wage in Brazil (Dias 2012; Dias and Samson, 2016). In Cairo, waste
pickers earn an average of €4.30 per day or roughly €100 per month, waste pickers in Lima earn up to
€135 per month. In Pune, they earn about $108 per month (Rocha Perrupato-Stahl, 2016).
25pickers; this explains the low earnings of some informal waste pickers in the waste
trade (Mumuni, 2016).
Waste pickers are more frequently exposed to occupational hazards than their formally
employed counterparts in the waste management sector. They often report the highest
incidence of work-related injuries, such as cuts, though they may be less
knowledgeable about indirect health effects of their work, such as respiratory illness
and infection, than formal waste collectors (Ravidra, Kaur and Mor, 2016; Laitinen and
Rantio, 2020).5
Waste materials can all be considered as sources of free or discounted materials that
in resource-constrained and poor communities might be leveraged to generate income
in the absence of employment. The Informal Economy Monitoring Study (IEMS),
coordinated by WIEGO, which involved quantitative/qualitative research derived from
763 waste pickers in five cities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, found out that waste
picking provides crucial income for people and households. For 65 percent of the IEMS
sample, earnings from waste picking were the main source of household income.
Although waste picking as an income-generating activity has started to gain attention
relatively recently as a topic of interest in academia, a large number of studies have
been carried out by development scholars on how people make money out of waste-
related activities such as picking, collecting, trading, and recycling, and how waste
becomes a livelihood for the poor (Holt and Littlewood, 2017; Sasaki et. al, 2014). For
instance, having explored key themes such as strategic dimensions, networks, and
social capital through the conceptual lens of bricolage, Holt and Littlewood (2017)
noted in their study that more than 25 informal economy micro-entrepreneurs in Kenya
utilise waste materials to generate income, and create a livelihood model by
improvisation, making do and the process of ‘fiddling’ or recombining resources. The
findings also suggest that differing waste livelihoods have different rates of return, or
profitability, and differing input requirements of capital, skills, and knowledge.
Another study conducted by Sasaki et al. (2014) explored household income, living,
and working conditions of dumpsite waste pickers at Bantar Gebang final disposal site
for municipal solid waste generated in Jakarta. The study investigated the feasibility of
integrating the informal sector into formal waste management in Indonesia. The study
found that despite the social, health, and environmental problems attached to working
at the dumpsite, they were attracted to the freedom of entering the informal recycling
system in Bantar Gebang and withdrawing from the system, in which a lot of
5
One study found that 93 percent of waste pickers had experienced a work-related illness (Ravindra,
Kaur and Mor, 2016).
26opportunities were provided for the people having few marketable skills to obtain cash
earnings.
According to GIZ (January 2011), better integration and co-management with local
authorities and industry are not only required for a more sustainable, efficient waste
management; also, for improving the working and living conditions of the waste pickers
who suffer from poverty in poor and/or developing countries. As it stands, these people
are in urgent socio-economic need, as well as severe disease control and public health
support. Establishing a well-functioning waste management system not only provides
sustainability of the used materials and reduces the exploitation of resources through
reuse or recycling, but it also fosters the economy.
Regarding waste as a commodity also allows us to define waste pickers as
‘entrepreneurial actors’ in the economy, who are actively participating (Buch et. al,
2021). Yet, this entrepreneurial act remains in the informal economy when
management and its regulations are not established and followed accordingly.
Integration of the informal waste workers into the formal waste management system
has been the policy proposal for many waste management scholars (Medina, 2007).
The policy proposals for integration are justified based on the jobs generated for
millions of urban poor. Furthermore, informal waste workers make numerous
contributions for the efficient and sustainable use of materials through recovery and
recycling (Gerdes and Gunsilius, 2010; Wilson et al., 2006; Mumuni, 2016).
Waste picker inclusion into the formal waste management system recognizes the value
these workers bring to the local economy, particularly waste collection and recycling
sectors, and supports their right to health and safety so they can sustain their
livelihoods. Inclusion of the informal sector in the development of infrastructure has
many benefits; current workers are experts on the front lines of waste management
and including them, with improved conditions, recognition, and respect, preserves
thousands of people’s livelihoods. In this regard, Aparcana (2017) classified the
formalisation of informal sectors into three categories: (1) informal waste workers
organised in associations or co-operatives; (2) organised in community-based
organisations or micro- and small enterprises; and (3) contracted as individual workers
by the formal waste sector.
In fact, waste-picker cooperatives, associations, and unions are on the rise around the
world (Gutberlet et. al, 2017).6 From Argentina to Uruguay, India to South Africa,
Indonesia to the Philippines, such groups are growing as they fight for bargaining
6
Latin American countries make up the largest position of countries with waste picker cooperatives that
are members of the Global Alliance of Waste Pickers; these countries are Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia,
Chile, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador, Dominican Republic, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Venezuela,
Uruguay and Nicaragua.
27You can also read
