ENVECON 2015

A prototype SWOT analysis for the agricultural plastic waste

(APW) problem in Ilida-Greece
George Sp. Kakarelidis 1 & Panagiota Garini2
1.TEI of WEST GREECE, Department of Business Administration, Patras, Greece
2. 48th Primary School of Patras
gkakarel@teiwest.gr , g.garini@gmail.com
Abstract
The agricultural plastic waste (APW), mainly greenhouses films, bags and pesticide
boxes that farmers use, are mostly disposed improperly, posing a serious risk for
products, farmers and the environment. Difficulties in managing APW are caused by
dispersion of microfarms, bureaucratic requirements, regulatory gaps, lack of
provision of information, awareness and incentives for farmers, as well as by the
direct burden on prices, in casing of regulations enforcement. Given that the proper
management of APW includes several stakeholders and investors, appropriate
research and analysis should be carried out before taking decisions which cause
additional costs. In a related management research (APW) in Ilida, a SWOT analysis
was carried out as well. This paper, even it refers to Ilida, may be applied in every
country. One basic characteristic is that the partners and stakeholders involved have
potential conflicts of interest and therefore the individual analyzes should be
synthesized properly. The findings can form the basis of a full feasibility study for
investors.
Keywords:

SWOT Analysis; Agricultural Plastic Waste; APW; Recycling;

Environmental Administration.

JEL :

O13; O21; Q15; Q52; Q53; Q56; R52

SWOT
(APW) .
. 1 & 2
1. , , gkakarel@teiwest.gr
2. 48 , g.garini@gmail.com

(APW), ,
, ,
, .
APW ,
, , ,
,
, . APW
,
, .
3
: , 30 31 2015
1

ENVECON 2015

(APW) , SWOT.
, ,
.

. ,
.
-:

SWOT , , APW,
, .

JEL Classification: O13; O21; Q15; Q52; Q53; Q56; R52

1. Introduction ()
The paper originates on an analysis conducted by the authors in Ilida, Greece
and circulated in August 2014 to the partners of The Agricultural Waste valorisation
for a competitive and sustainable Regional Development (AWARD) Interreg
Program, namely Ilida Municipality, Innopolis NGO from Greek side (IFOA,
University of Bari, Region of Apuglia BAT Province and Regional Federation of
Farmers Puglia were partners from Italy). AWARDs main task was to enhance
competitiveness of agricultural firms by reducing costs of agricultural plastic waste
(APW) collection and disposal and by making value of it through reuse & recycling.
The APW of the agricultural sector of both Puglia and Western Greece regions
is for the most part uncorrectly disposed of and poorly recycled with serious hazard
and danger to the farmers themselves and the environment. Some causes for this are
difficult collection of APW from the many widespread microfarms, bureaucratic
requirements and regulatory gaps, lack of information and motivation of farmers. But
there is also an opportunity due to the fact that APW is a resource: if correctly
recovered and recycled it can become a source of wealth, jobs creation and of energy.
The authors based their research also on questionnaires and analysis some of
which were funded and carried out for the AWARD project and can be retrieved from
http://www.award-project.eu/products/ available as at least by June 2015. None of the
authors were funded by this or other project on the subject. The first of the authors did
field research required, interviews, literature review and the swot analysis itself as a n
appointed honorary scientific supervisor and quality auditor of Ilida Municipality,
while the second did database formulation, statistical findings and reporting on
plastics and their environmental issues.
1.1 The Agricultural Plastics Waste:
For years, the growing use of plastics in agriculture has helped farmers
increase crop production. A wide range of plastics are used in agriculture, including,
polyolefin, polyethylene (PE), Polypropylene (PP), Ethylene-Vinyl Accetate
Copolymer (EVA), Poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) and, in less frequently, Polycarbonate
(PC) and poly- methyl- methacrylate (PMMA). Key agricultural applications are:
Greenhouses usually with high plastic cover.
Tunnels using low height plastics for vegetables
Mulching: plastics for covering the ground with plastic film helps maintain
humidity and prevents weed from growing.
Plastic reservoirs and irrigation systems
3
: , 30 31 2015
2

ENVECON 2015

Silage: to store animals grains and straw during the winter

Other plastic applications include boxes; crates for crop collecting, handling
and transport. Furthermore the pesticides are contained in plastic bottle/boxes as well
as fertilizers that are contained in plastic bags.
1.2 Recycling , i.e., to conserve raw materials and reduce waste.
The use of agro plastics expands per cultivtion period (normally twice a year)
or per 3 years for greenhouses. Therefore AP waste is accumulated in the fields that
must be removed. Since plastics in essence are a complex of simpler molecules based
on carbon and hydrogen it may be decomposed into these components and reused to
create other plastics or cut to flakes or pellet and sent to other plastic factories. This is
known as recycling. By decomposing certain types of plastics it was discovered that
its ingredients could be used in producing new plastic products that retained a certain
percentage of the virgin (originally synthesized) plastic characteristics. Methods for
doing this are devided in two main categories: mechanical and chemical. The
mechanical method involves collecting, sorting to plastic polymer types, cleansing,
shredding, processing. Unfortunately only 3 times the APW can be reprocessed
effectively and only clean of dirt, humidity and soil plastics are processed. So a
successful APW recycling company must be capable of processing very dirty and
contaminated Greenhouse films, that none of the other packaging recycling
companies will accept.
1.3 Energy recovery & Incineration
Because plastic is actually fuel the alternatives to recycling is the incineration and
energy recovery. For waste fractions that do not allow further economically sensible
material recovery, such as recycling, energy recovery by combustion is probably the
only alternative to landfill disposal. This is especially true when dealing with high
calorific value waste fractions and low biodegradability, such as plastics. Highly
degraded or soil contaminated plastics, that cannot be mechanically recycled can be
successfully used as an alternative fuel in power plants or in cement factories. In
energy recovery the plastic behaves as a fuel: 1 ton of plastic gives off as much energy
as 1 ton of oil [Barrales-Rienda 2002].
1.4.The Recycling Actors and stakeholders:
In broad context these are: Plastic Producers (or shops), Farmers, Collectors,
Recyclers and of course the Municipality and the People of the Area involved in the
process and the managing of APW.
1.5 Statement of the APW problem
From the 80.000 tns per year APW produced in Greece only a 25% of it has
been recycled mainly due to contamination or other causes. The same holds for Ilia
area where 8.000 tns per year are produced and confirmed by interviews and also
by comparing answers with the OPEKEPE (the Greek Payment Authority of Common
Agricultural Policy) data per farm per cultivation (available after approved request at
http://www.opekepe.gr/english/ ) The remaining is given to unofficial collectors for a
small fee, burned or burried or thrown to landfills. The legislation is very general and
simply prohibits burn and throwing the plastics. The problem arises when the farmers
do decide or being obliged to handle the APW accordingly. Which means to fold,
freigh, transport and landfill their APW. Due to the ground morphology, the non
existing collection stations and collection schema by municipalities which are only
obliged to handle urban waste, this way of removing APW from farms by farmers
3
: , 30 31 2015
3

ENVECON 2015

only means that agroproducts prices will be rocketed high. It must be noted that this
problem is an international one where states and farmers are trying to balance
environmental priorities with competitive low agro product prices.
2. Lite rature Review ( )
From the statement of the problem some research questions may arise:
2.1 Is biodegradation an altenative?
The new concepts of biodegradation (where starch additives are incorporated to
plastic) and photo degradation (where photo sensitive additives are integrated in
the manufacturing of plastic products) have been controversial towards commercial
applications. Light and air must be available in order for the biodegradable and
photodegradable materials to decompose, along with sufficient moisture and
nutrients to sustain microbial action (Alter, 2003) (Boettcher, 1992). The deeper
these plastics are buried in the landfill, or in the soil the less likely they are to
decompose. Moreover, making plastics degradable would lower the quality and
performance of the material and therefore would mitigate some of its major desirable
features in various applications (Siddique et al., 2008, p.1839). It is reasonable to
conclude that the market for plastic recycling is not threatened by biodegradable
plastic. Due to the higher manufacturing costs of these products compared to regular
plastics, and the lack of environmental benefits, firms will not replace conventional
plastic products in the near future.
2.2. Is recycling logo a guarantee for recycling?
Awareness of population of the APW caused enviro nmental problems is not
satisfactory. Recycling logo does not really mean the product is recyclable it just
denotes what type of plastic it is based on the number in the center plastic industry
refuses to change the misunderstood symbol. 67 percent of people believe that the
recycling symbol guaranteed recyclability stated the David Sadiki study in
California (Morrison & Ellenwood, 2008). Even though the benefits of recycling over
disposal are manifold, individuals should keep in mind that it better serves the
environment to reduce and reuse before recycling even becomes an option.
2.3 Is there in Europe and Greece a suitable legislation, labelling/tracing and
management system for APW?
Unfortunately not. There is a confusing situation about adequate legal framework,
labeling schema or a feasible APW disposal system in Europe. Furthermore in Greece
farmers have no knowledge on proper APW handling nor guidelines exist (Liantzas,K
et.al 2009)
3. Methods and Data ( )
3.1 Methods Used
Although Ilida Municipality is not directly involved in APW handling (only for urban
waste), the Mayor insisted in examining the matter, mapping the existing situation
and see if there are opportunities to invest and go for zero APW plastics in Ilida, well
in advance of EU directives.
A step towards the latter calls for a SWOT analysis that will result to identifying the
stakeholders, the environment, the opportunities and possibly to a well defined
Feasibility study to be given to possible investors. The whole cycle of APW
(production, Use, collection, transportation, recycling and energy recovery) need to be
3
: , 30 31 2015
4

ENVECON 2015

considered as a system.
Therefore Surveys, Pest Analysis, Statistical analysis were performed for Ilida
municipality and meta data analysis were performed on Ilia prefecture data and
results were compared and confirmed. In addition a series of interviews were done
concerning all stakeholders.
All the analysis mentioned is uploaded and available at http://www.awardproject.eu/products/
In this paper the interviews were processed and revealed the stakeholders opinions
and findings for Ilida Municipality and Ilia were calculated and compared.
A SWOT table is constructed and also an APW management system is proposed for
further investigation.
3.2 Data and Economics of Recycling and Energy recovery findings.
Ilia Findings:
Poor transport network. No cargo ports, train, natural gas pipelines, nor highways.
Farm area about 120,000 acres = 12,000 hectares (ha) distributed in microfarms of 50
acres on average. Located in relative small flat surfaces amongts hills and villages,
therefore preventing easy access of big tracks and folding plastic machinery .
1 acre requires on average 1000 kg Agro Plastic/year (greenhouse every 3 years)
Agro Plastics RRP = 1500 2000 / tn depending on the use type .
No Levy system is applied on AP purchases for obliging the balance between plastic
bought and plastics returned to collectors for recycling.
Plastic Producers: 42 in Greece BUT none in Ilia area or adjacent territories
Agro Plastics purchased by farmers: 12000 tn/year
APW produced by farmers : 8000 tn clean APW / year (Ilida municipality accounts
for 20% of APW of Ilia Prefecture, ie 1600 tn /year) ie 16000 tn gross or
contaminated /year
Collectors: operate 3 officially, picking around 1500- 2000 tn APW yearly from
farmers almost in gratis. Mass APW transportation is problematic due to the
dimensions of the truck trailers of 13,6m X 2,4m x 2,5m and the maximum transport
weight 24 tn. At a cost of 30euro per tn. The main problem for the transportation of
the APW is the large amount of dirt and humidity that the used films have. From 25 75% of the cargo could be dirt and water. To lower the costs of transportation local
collector stations could built where cleansing and sorting processing is applied to
APW before transported to recyclers.Then the material could be compressed.
Collectors sell to recyclers at a rate of 150-200 euro/tn of APW.
Incinerators and Energy Heat Industry is totally lacking and forbidden in the area.
Recycled APW is sold by Recyclers to Plastics Industry at a price varying with a
maximum of 550/tn, having a process cost of 150-200/tn.
Recyclers: operate 2 , one located in Preveza area has a recycling capacity of around
3
: , 30 31 2015
5

ENVECON 2015

7000 tns / year, but the actual are much less. In comparison the 2d recycler located in
Ilida actually processes around 500 tn / year as calculated by his balance sheet.
(Names and data are withheld).
4. The SWOT Table ( , , , )
The difference in the following SWOT table (divided into 2 parts due to
margins namely Table 1 and 2) which this paper proposes is that all stakeholders are
shown in order to find out common elements and deduce cotradictions. These if
tabulated properly reveal conflicting interests and common objectives. Thus a single
SWOT matrix for the ideal compound Stakeholder is constructed. By observing this
compound matrix (Table 3) it is easily understood that the ideal stakeholder is simply
the public interest.
Table 1: Stakeholders SWOT matrix Strengths & Weaknesses part
StakeHolders\
Strengths
Weakness
ILIDA
-Mainly farmers,
-No gas & train network
(Area,
-Big agro production
-NO Commercial Port
Infrastructure,
cheap labor area
-NO specific legislation
People,
-A national highway is
-Poor access to small farms
Legislation etc)
under construction
-No energy recovery facility
MUNICIPALITY -A bio Waste Factory is to -Bio Plant handles and
be constructed,
composte only biowaste, no
-Landfills already in place plans for handling plastics.
-relatively small reachable -No management / control or
population in regard with
authority of APW or on
awareness
decision making on the waste
-Eperience on Waste
problem
problem
-No collection stations
-Limited statistics available
on APW production and
tracing
FARMERS
-increasing agro
-High contaminated APW
production
-No machinery access for
-increasing flow of APW
rolling up thousnd plastics
-Negative APW pricing
COLLECTORS
-no serious competition,
-NO priority on Business
-almost charge free APW
Expansion
available
-NO ability to handle
-cheap labours,
pesticide containers or
-may select only the
fertilizers bags
cleanser APW
-Depend on free of charge
-vast APW amounts
APW
-Depend on APW clearness
RECYCLERS
-NO pollution
-NO priority on Expansion
-NO competition,
-NO ability to handle
-Regenerated product fully pesticide containers or
sold
fertilizers bags
3
: , 30 31 2015
6

ENVECON 2015

PRODUCERS
Energy Recovery
(Incineration)

-cheap labours,
-select only the cleanser
APW
-vast APW amounts Large R.O.I.
-Know how and
machinery in place
-Large Capacity
-Zero remainings
-1 to 1 energy recovery

-Depend on free of charge

APW
-Depend on APW clearness
-Limited reuse of plastic
resins (up to 3 times)
-High transport costs
-Untraceability of their
products
-require continuous feedstock
-Public Perception on them

Table 2: Stakeholders SWOT matrix Opportunities & Threats part

Stakeholders\
Opportunities
Threats
ILIDA
With APW schema: clean The existing legislation is
(Area, Population, environmentl pollution
very general (no burning, no
Infrastructure,
-Employment
throwing in the land) but does
Legislation etc)
- profitability for All not state where agro plastic
Enforcement of EU
waste can be disposed.
directives
MUNICIPALITY -Integration of all WASTE -Dire financial straits that
types
limit the necessary personnel
-Coordination of APW
for establishing an
schema
appropriate APW
-Real time Data
administration schema
-Public awareness
FARMERS
-Product and soil quality
-Negative pricing
-Product export
-Depend on collectors
endorsement
approval of used plastics
COLLECTORS
-Known collection schema -Selective collection at source
and stations
(ie. depend on the will of
-Less cost Increased
farmers)
quantity collected
-Business expansion
RECYCLERS
-Increased quality &
-Lower Plastic quality due to
quantity processed
resin types variety that
-Business expansion due
demands extensive sorting
to farmers obligation for
-High cost of large scale
no plastics at lanfills
recycling plants
-Opportunity to include
-high cost of handling
pesticide and fertilizer
pesticide and fertilizer
containers.
containers
-high transportation costs
PRODUCERS
-not applicable
-Virgin monomers cheaper
Energy Recovery -cont.feedstock
-Public perception

3
: , 30 31 2015
7

ENVECON 2015

Thus a single compound SWOT table (Table 3 below) may be constructed based on
common interests and conflicts for an imaginary Beneficiary.
We excluded Virgin Plastic Producers for their lack of business interest due to the
prohibitive cost for collecting and transporting the APW to their plant and to t he
untraceability of the plastics and their quality received.
We also excluded from further examination the Energy Recovery plants (incineration)
because there is only one belonging to Public Power Company (DEH) and because a
incineration plant is not allowed as a possible investment in Ilia region as it has been
decided by FOSDA (the Regional Organization managing the waste). The reason for
this is not clear since FOSDA prohibited that on the grounds of social causes without
further explanation or study.
Table 3: SWOT matrix Strengths & Weaknesses
STRENGTHS
WEAKNESSES
-Unique & Long experience in plastic
-Relatively small APW% recycled
recycling between stakeholders
-No APW managing schema
-Common concern of the APW
-Weak awareness on practical issues
problem and its impacts on the
-Lack of technology and equipment
environment & production
-Weak economic situation
-Lack of infrastructure
OPPORTUNITIES
THREATS
-Investment on recycling
-Implementation Costs
-Manpower employment increase in
-Financial crisis
collection, transport & recycling
-Coordination of various actors
processes
(stakeholders)
-Quantity & quality increase of
-Authorization (decision making and
recycled APW
chain of command)
-Avoidance of agro products quality
inferiority
-Selling of all Production
-Profitability of all stakeholders
-Law & EU directives compliance
-Market expansion
From Table 3. we understand that the opportunities bypass any threats or weakness
involved. An APW recycling seems plausible due to the fact that only a small
percentage of APWs are processed. A feasibility Study must therefore be performed
before investments decisions are taken. An utmost priority for any business is a long
range business plan and certainties on the raw materials availability. This is where an
APW administration schema with traceability of plastics comes to the surface.
5. Conclusions & Further Research ( & )
5.1 Concluding Remarks
The current situation in Greece is summarized as follows: Absence of any organized
system of control and management of APW.Collected stuff for recycling regeneration
by private collectors is around 20-25% of APW. Mostly the collected stuff for
3
: , 30 31 2015
8

ENVECON 2015

recycling includes plastics from greenhouses roofs that are of heavy duty type and
relatively clean (around 20-50% contamination with humidity, soil and pesticides).
The remaining APW is burried, burned or discarded uncontrollably.The situation gets
worse due to high collection and transport costs. APW recycling is still considered as
an investment. And It is strongly supported by EU that demands zero Plastics
landfilling by 2025.
From the Public Interest point of view
-Awareness on APW management is growing
-All agricultural products exports must be endorced on APW free soil.
-By 2025 (if not earlier on each EU ) no landfilling of Plastic Waste will be banned
-Plastic is fuel and can be recycled therefore both alternatives may be used
-But there are Poor Decision support systems, unclarified responsibilities, auhtority
levels and chain of command in State, Regional and Local Governments.
From investors point of view
-APW collection and recycling is profitable although there is infrastructure.problem.
-APW can be combined with Plastic Packaging Waste
-The recycling market is NOT mature so it is open for new comers
-The cost of machinery needed cannot be considered as a large scale investment.
-There is labour willing to work for all key players.
-Public private partnerships are endorsed
The Threats for the APW recycling can be summarized as:
-Poor investment due to limited bank loans
- Indifference of farmers due to zero earnings by giving away their APW
-Negative Public perception on Energy recovery
-Non enforced legislation
-No APW specific management and administration
5.2 Further Research On Management Of A.P.W. Flows
The roadmap towards a:
- Zero APW- Zero uncontrolled combustion -Zero uncontrolled discharge.
-Zero plastic remainings by 100% recycling / regeneration and energy recovery,
requires an:
-Enhanced Research in Universities and Laboratories concerning the chemical as well
decomposition of polymers
-Pursuing Energy recovery
-Establishment of an APW management System including traceability
-Total ban of plastics landfilling
5.3How a management system may work
Key issue for a functional management system is the triptych:
a. A clear and explicit will for the formation of a reliable APW management.
b. Control measures to impose collection and management.
c. Financial resources for a management system to function smoothly and without
obstructions.
The first can be resolved by an organization that is apparted by all stakeholders, and a
3
: , 30 31 2015
9

ENVECON 2015

funding mechanism of the costs of tracing and management of the APW, as well as to
establishing motives and penalties for the parties involved, so as to ensure cooperation
with the management system.
The second mandates the establishement of a levy and information system that will
register any transaction of agriculural plastics amongst Producers, retailers, farmers,
collector, recyclers and vise versa. Technology, especially smartphonne makes this
feasible and fairly easy to implement. At such a traceable system any record that does
not balance input-output of APW could result in not reruning levy imposed on the
buyers price. The third will be funded by the system imposed.
References ()
Alter, H. (1993). The Origins Of Municipal Solid Waste: II. Policy Options For
Plastics Waste Management. Waste Management Research 11, 319-332.
Barrales-Rienda J. M. Energy Recovery From Plastic Materials - Handbook Of Plastic
Recycling, Ed. Francesco La Mantia Rapra Technology, 2002, Shawbury, U.
K.,337- 410.
Boettcher, F.P. (1992). Environmental Compatibility Of Polymers-Emerging
Technologies In Plastics Recycling. American Chemical Society Symposium
Series 513, 1625.
GREEN PAPER On A European Strategy On Plastic Waste In The Environment In
Europe
Liantzas, K., Briassoulis, D., Hiskakis, M. (2007). Comparative Analysis Of The
European And Greek Legislative Framework For Agricultural Plastic Wastes
(APW) And Its Implementation In Greece. Proceedings on the First Conference
on Environmental Management, Engineering, Planning and Economics
(CEMEPE 2007), Skiathos Island, Greece, June 24 to 28, 2007.
Morrison, F.M. (Producer And Director), & Ellenwood, L. (Producer) (2008). Forever
Plastic [Documentary]. Canada: Canadian Broad casting Corporation.
Siddique, R., Khatib, J., & Kaur, I. (2008). Use Of Recycled Plastic In Concrete: A
Review. Waste Management 28(10), 1835-1852.

3
: , 30 31 2015
10