How Can Ghana Transition from a Linear to a Circular Economy of Waste Management? A Conceptual Analysis of Policy Approaches

Abstract

Sustainable waste management remains critical to achieving economic prosperity and creating safer cities. However, sustainable waste management policies and programmes in developing countries receive less attention and need stronger implementation by governments and private institutions. Ghana is one example where waste management is predominantly linear, such that only 2–5 percent of over one million tons of waste are recycled. Transitioning to a circular waste management approach is required, but more must be explored. This study sought to examine policy approaches that can catalyse the transition to the circular economy of solid waste management. The study examined (i) the critical factors that can catalyse the transition from a linear to circular waste management approach, (ii) developed a theoretically grounded framework that can guide circular waste management in Ghana, and (iii) identified the potential implications for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. The study can inform policymaking, analysis, and implementation for sustainable waste management in Ghana, with implications for other developing countries across the globe.

1 Background

The concept of circular economy (CE) has received significant attention in academic literature (Bauwens et al., 2020; Kirchherr et al., 2017; Lowe & Genovese, 2022), policy think tanks (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015), and development co-operations (European Commission, 2015) in recent time because of the sustainability risk the world faces. Over the last two decades, materials exploited to meet consumption needs have increased by about 70 percent, less than 10 percent of e-waste per capita are sustainably recycled, five trillion single-use plastics are improperly disposed of each year, and enormous renewable energy resources are untapped (United Nations, 2021). These appalling characteristics of the state of the earth reflect the deteriorating effect of the open-loop systems utilised over a century and the vast threats to nature these systems pose. The risk of the current production and consumption systems is unevenly distributed, with more harm likely to be witnessed in developing economies. For instance, less than 5 percent of Ghana’s 22,500 tons of waste per day are recycled (Enterprise Agency, 2019a), compared to over 70 percent of recycling by Italy and Belgium in 2020 (European Commission, 2020). Even though developing countries are the least material consumers with the lowest domestic consumption per capita, they suffer the far-reaching consequences of the linear economy model (take-make-dispose) (United Nations, 2021) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Domestic consumption per capita (2000 and 2017) (Source United Nations [2021])

Given the apparent urgency for a substantial reduction in waste generated by the current take-produce-dispose business model (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017), the concept of circular economy has emerged as the sustainable approach to addressing the looming threat of unsustainable waste management (Bauwens et al., 2020; Erdiaw-Kwasie et al., 2023; Urbinati et al., 2017).

The CE is defined as an “economic system that is based on business models which replaces the end-of-life concept with reducing, alternatively reusing, recycling, and recovering materials in production or distribution and consumption processes, thus operating at the macro- to micro-level, to accomplish sustainable development, which implies creating environmental quality, economic prosperity, and social equity to benefit present and future generations” (Kirchherr et al., 2017, pp. 224–225). More importantly, the circular economy seeks to transform significantly the way resources are used by replacing linear economy systems with closed-loop approaches that ensure that products are reused, recycled, and remain in the production loop for a longer period, allowing them to create value (Erdiaw-Kwasie et al., 2023; Urbinati et al., 2017) continuously. Essentially, the CE of waste management ensures that waste does not end up at landfill sites but is reused, recycled, and transformed into secondary raw materials, thus reducing over-reliance on primary resources (Lowe & Genovese, 2022).

A transition to CE has the potential to reduce the unsustainable exploitation of finite resources and maximise the utilisation of secondary raw materials, placing CE at the centre of sustainable waste management (Sharma et al., 2021). The Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015) estimates that transitioning to a CE could half CO₂ emissions by 2030. Also, the European Commission estimates that full implementation of CE could cut CO₂ emissions by 25 percent (European Commission, 2015). Additionally, the CE could create about 2 million jobs and cut unemployment significantly (European Commission, 2014). In Africa, the CE of waste management could inject about US$8 billion into the economy each year (UN-HABITAT, 2021). Furthermore, sustainable treatment of organic waste, the dominant form of waste in most developing countries, can transform local agriculture, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and create more jobs along the waste management value chain (Kaza et al., 2018).

However, CE’s conceptualisation and operationalisation remain blurred and indeterminate (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Kirchherr et al., 2017). As a result, policymakers, analysts, and academics have come up with a myriad of conceptualisations of the concept of CE, allowing multiple interpretations and utilisation (de Jesus & Mendonça, 2018). While the CE can take several forms, the conceptual contentions concerning the “how-to” of the circular economy of waste management affect its implementation at both the national and firm level (Bauwens et al., 2020). For instance, the tendency to focus extensively on one aspect of the waste hierarchy points to the conceptual contentions about the meaning and the focus of the circular economy, as evident in the analysis of 114 definitions of a CE by Kirchherr et al. (2017), where about 79 percent of the definitions of CE focused on recycling, followed by reuse. This can significantly affect the aspect of the circular economy of waste management that receives more policy and investment focus. For example, Enterprise Agency (2019b) identified most of the circular economy of waste management efforts in Ghana are overly concentrated on recycling.

The circular economy concept is nascent in Ghana. As a result, the existing policies, regulations, and institutional frameworks still need to be harmonised and coordinated to achieve the CE of waste management (Diaz, 2017). An abundance of legal frameworks and institutions have been established; however, the focus of the institutions and laws is disconnected from a CE of waste management. Nonetheless, different aspects of the CE of waste management have developed in the formal and informal waste management industry (Enterprise Agency, 2019b). The current CE principles implemented particularly in the informal sector are undertaken under unclean conditions, disconnected from the formal sector, and do not provide decent wages (Diaz, 2017). This underlines the point that transitioning from a linear economy to a CE of waste management must be conceived as a fundamental systemic change rather than twisting some aspect of the waste management value chain to reflect the impact of CE (Kirchherr et al., 2017).

Thus, the policy, regulatory, and private sector incongruence exist because the transition to CE has yet to be understood as a fundamental systemic change of the nature of CE of waste management the country wants to achieve and the policies and business models that can deliver such objectives. Therefore, the paper sets off to understand how the transition to CE of waste management can occur and the policy approaches that can deliver a circular economy of solid waste management in Ghana and developing countries. The study addresses this question by examining how the transition can occur, and different scenarios and their potential to achieve the four main principles of the CE of waste management (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and Recover).

2 Methodology

This is a desk study of key literature related to the concept of CE contextualised from the perspective of solid waste management. A catalogue of existing literature on the concept of CE, theories, and conceptual approaches to transitioning to a CE was gathered mainly from Elsevier Scopus, Sage, Emerald, and Google Scholar. Reports by development corporations, policy, and consulting firms such as Ellen MacArthur Foundation, World Bank, United Nations, Africa Union, and Country Reports on Waste Management in Ghana complemented this. Based on a critical literature review, the Deep Transition Framework by Schot and Kanger (2018) was used to conceptually explain how Ghana can transition from a linear to CE of solid waste management. The scenario analysis by (Bauwens et al., 2020) was adopted to explain the practical approaches Gha and other developing countries can adopt to transition to a CE of waste management.

The Deep Transition Framework critically explains the overall fundamental change process from one system to another (Bauwens et al., 2020). The Deep Transition Framework is distinct and relevant primarily because it explains how social and technical systems interact to produce change. Its emphasis on socio-technical systems places technology and institution at the centre of the change process. The Deep Transition Framework helps understand how socio-technical systems emerge, mature, decline, and evolve into other socio-technical systems (Schot & Kanger, 2018). The current linear economy of waste management is the product of a socio-technical system, and thus the Deep Transition is useful to understand the transition to a new socio-technical system underpinned by the circular economy of waste management. Given that the concept of CE in Ghana is nascent and its possible form unknown, the scenario analysis provides insights into the possible form the transition to CE of waste management in Ghana could take and the socio-technical transformation that must occur for the CE of waste management to be attained.

3 State of Waste Management in Ghana and Developing Countries

3.1 Waste Management Situation in Sub-Saharan Africa

Africa’s population is increasing steadily, and its cities and towns have become more urbanised. With an urban growth rate of about 3.55 percent every year, the urban population in Africa is expected to grow from the present 40 percent to about 56 percent by 2050 (United Nations Environment Programme, 2018). With such rapid population growth and urbanisation, the region’s waste generation will increase and become one of the major developmental problems. Thus, a restorative and regenerative system that minimises waste creation and prolongs the life span of products in the economy is needed.

Accurate waste generation data in Africa remains a challenge. However, estimates by the World Bank indicate that the sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) region generates about 174 million tons of waste annually, with an average waste generation per capita of 0.78 kg/day (World Bank, 2018). While this is below the global average of 0.74 kg per capita/day, the spatial variations are significant, with countries like Ghana recording about 0.78 kg per capita/day while Seychelles records over 2 kg per capita/day (United Nations Environment Programme, 2018).

Organic waste forms about 57 percent of total solid waste generated in urban centres due to high fresh food preparation, mainly among low-income households. However, high-income urban centres are likely to see a significant increase in plastic and paper use linked to the growing fast food industry in urban centres (United Nations Environment Programme, 2018; World Bank, 2018). In most African countries, waste collection and transportation are emphasised more than treatment and disposal (United Nations Environment Programme, 2018). That notwithstanding, less than half of the total waste generated is collected, particularly in SSA, where only 44 percent is properly collected (Kaza et al., 2018). This indicates that most waste is generated through unapproved waste collection and treatment mechanisms. As a result, 69 percent of solid waste generated in SSA is openly dumped, 24 percent in landfill sites, and only 7 percent recycled and recovered (World Bank, 2018).

4 Waste Management in Ghana

Similarly, Ghana generates about 8.2 million tons of solid waste annually, using an annual waste generation of 22,500 tons/day of waste and 0.75 kg per capita/day (Enterprise Agency, 2019b). Organic waste constitutes about two-thirds, and about 83 percent of the total waste generated is collected. Like most developing countries, a significant proportion of the waste collected is openly dumped. The waste management industry in Ghana is complex because of the interplay between formal and informal waste management players. In high-income neighbourhoods, waste is collected by formal waste management companies that practice improved hygienic processes in collecting and treating waste. Individual waste collectors using tricycles and three-wheeled motorcycles serve low-income communities with no hygienic handling processes and play a limited role in waste treatment. Communities with poor road networks and slums continue to practice open dumping sites. A complex institutional framework with conflicting functions affects the clarity of policies towards effective waste management (See Table 1). For instance, the work of the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology and the Ministry of Sanitation and Water Resources conflicts as they are implementing separate policies towards addressing waste management, leading to a thinly spread of resources in addressing the waste management problems. Both agencies charge separate levies (EPA Levy, ECO-Levy, and the Sanitation Levy) to address the same problem.

Table 1 List of institutions in Ghana’s Waste Management Sector

Formal waste management companies undertake limited waste recycling and recovery mechanisms because they can finance the investments required, leaving the informal waste management section of the market largely relying on landfill sites and open dumping. Therefore, a transition towards CE must consider creating a coherent system that integrates the different aspects of the market in the waste management value chain. Over the years, the waste management (formal or informal) industry has been dominated by the private sector, managing about 80 percent of the total waste generated across the 254 Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies (MMDAs) in Ghana (Enterprise Agency, 2019b). However, despite the poor waste handling, disposal, and treatment in Ghana, several activities that reflect the waste management hierarchy (mainly recycling) and the CE are taking place in the waste management industry. In 2019, Enterprise Agency (2019b) identified 25 established recycling companies with a combined capacity of 320 tons/day engaged in recycling flexible plastics to create dustbins, carrier bags, car mats, and buckets and paid about €1.1milion monthly to plastic waste collectors, indicating the high financial value of the CE if properly implemented.

Between 1993 and 2020, eleven separate legislations were passed in Ghana to address the waste management challenges (See Table 2). However, none of the laws targets the promotion of CE, even though some of the policies explicitly mention aspects of the 4Rs. As a result, institutions have yet to be assigned the role of promoting a circular economy. This points to the need for more policy clarity on a CE, targets, and alternative mechanisms to achieve circular futures in waste management.

Table 2 Laws, policies, and regulations

Considering that the private sector plays a dominant role in the waste management sector of Ghana, a transition from the current linear waste management mechanism to a circular future would depend heavily on the private sector. However, the complexity of the industry due to the different processes of waste handling and treatment by the informal and formal sectors makes it imperative for government to define the circular targets and technology and create a regulatory environment that integrates both formal and informal sectors, allowing the players to operate synergistically.

5 Theoretical Framework

The CE of waste management is underpinned by several principles demonstrating the transition from linear to a CE. The core principles form the rules that guide the behaviour of actors in implementing policies that promote the CE, as well as measuring the progress countries or firms make towards the circular future. In the context of Ghana, where there are no existing laws guiding the transition from a linear economy, the core principles provide a basis for setting policy targets and measuring the transition. This section critically examines core principles that underlie the circular economy transition, the alternative transition processes, and the theoretical frameworks underpinning policies and business models that make the transition possible.

5.1 Core Principles of Circular Economy of Waste Management

Noting Kirchherr et al. (2017), the plenitude of definitions indicates that the transition from linear to CE can be underpinned by several principles and methods of application (Yuan et al., 2008). The vast principles and methods could also blur the identification of the fundamental principles that form the rules of the CE of waste management (Ghisellini et al., 2016). The core principles of the CE can be viewed from two main perspectives; the R-Framework (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Recover) and the Systems Perspective (Kirchherr et al., 2017). The R-Framework explains how the CE occurs and the observable characteristics. Zhu et al. (2010) argue that the R-Framework is the “how-to” of the circular economy and thus qualifies as the core principle of the CE of waste management. The system perspective on CE, on the other hand, argues that the transition from a linear economy to CE requires a fundamental shift from the current system to a new system. The systems perspective views the transition at three levels. The macro-level highlights adjustment in industry operations and the entire structure of the economy, the meso-level focuses on eco-industrial parks, and the micro-perspective looks at the individual firms, products, and materials to enhance the circularity (Heeres et al., 2004; Jackson et al., 2014; Li et al., 2010).

While the systems perspective shows the different levels of firm-level organisations that can deliver the transition to a CE, the system’s efficiency can be measured by the extent to which waste is reduced, new resources are developed, and product lifespan is enhanced through recycling and reuse. This makes the R-Framework a good core principle to explain the CE transition. Additionally, the R-Framework is at the heart of the Circular Economy Promotion Law of the Peoples’ Republic of China (Beijing Review, 2008), and the EU Waste Framework Directive (European Commission, 2008), indicating that the R-Frameworks have been used in some of the successful circular economy countries and regions. That notwithstanding, several studies have also proposed other forms of Rs to the framework from 4R (European Commission, 2008) 6R (Sihvonen & Ritola, 2015), and 9R (van Buren et al., 2016). A hierarchy beginning with Reduce as the desired outcome is inherent in all the varying forms of R-Framework. For this analysis, the 4R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and Recover) is adopted as the core principle of the circular economy of waste management. Kirchherr et al. (2017) identified over 40 percent of the 114 definitions examined and concluded that the core principle of the circular economy was the 4R. Additionally, Kern et al. (2020), after examining the second Deep Transition towards the circular economy, concluded that the meta-rules (underlying principles) of the circular economy were the 4R framework (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2

(Source Adapted from the EU Waste Framework Directive [European Commission, 2008])

The 4R-framework

Based on the framework, the circular waste management economy is achieved when energy recovery from waste is maximised, products are transformed (high or low quality), product reusability is enhanced, and waste generation is reduced. This framework simplifies policy targets regarding the CE and can potentially guide businesses to identify the aspect of the waste hierarchy where value can be maximised.

5.2 Theorising the Transition from Linear to Circular Economy of Waste Management

This section examines the transition process from the current linear system to the circular future and the potential factors influencing the transition. The Multi-level Perspective of the Deep Transition Framework is adopted to understand how the current waste management system is transformed into a circular economy. The Deep Transition Framework developed by Schot and Kanger (2018) explains the change process across multiple systems and the mechanisms through which the systems become connected and coordinated to form a new system. The Deep Transition is a series of connected and sustained fundamental transformations of various socio-technical systems (Schot & Kanger, 2018).

The Deep Transition Framework argues that the transition of a society from one system to the other occurs within a socio-technical system. The socio-technical systems represent the interconnection between technology and institutions to create a new order. The socio-technical system comprises technology, science, regulations, culture, user practice, and production and supply networks (Bauwens et al., 2020; Erdiaw-Kwasie & Basson, 2018). The current waste management system is a configuration of the interaction between the current technology, regulation, and institutions. The socio-technical systems are underpinned by meta-rules (core principles) which drive innovation and evolution of the systems towards a particular direction (Schot & Kanger, 2018). The transition from one current system to another requires that the underlying meta-rules need to change to meet the demands of the current problems. This implies that for the current waste management system to transition to the CE; the current meta-rule (take-produce-dispose) needs to change for the core principles of the circular economy (reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover).

This places technology and institution at the heart of the transition to a CE. However, the institutions (regulations) established over time can either hamper or promote the transition to a circular economy. For instance, the current levy on flexible plastics and Eco-levy charged against the producer in Ghana do not incentivise the producers to explore new technologies that reduce waste and facilitate recycling and the reuse of secondary materials (Bauwens et al., 2020). Additionally, if the requisite technology for transitioning to the CE requires high upfront costs and research and development, it could delay the transition process. Therefore, the transition to CE must be seen in light of how technology and institutions interact effectively to drive the new waste management system.

The Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) of the Deep Transition Framework focuses on explaining the long-term and large-scale transition from one socio-technical system to another. For instance, how society transitioned from a horse-drawn carriage to an automobile and fossil fuel to renewables (Kern et al., 2020). The transition from one socio-technical system to another can be explained using three main components; the socio-technical regime, niches, and socio-technical landscape. The socio-technical regime refers to the shared set of rules or routines directing the behaviour of actors on how to produce, regulate, and use technology in the socio-technical system (Schot & Kanger, 2018).

In the waste management industry, the socio-technical regime is the rules that determine the technology, regulatory framework, and policies that shape the activities linked towards incremental innovation towards a CE. As the set of rules continues aligning, coordinating, and connecting, they manifest themselves as the socio-technical system, depicting the interaction between technology and institutions. The new rules that emerge and gradually become aligned and connected are called the Niche. These can be a set of rules that propose new technology and models to address the existing system’s challenges. The new set of rules tends to compete with the existing socio-technical system. In the early stages, actors in a niche or promoting the new rules are few; however, they grow over time to become the dominant rules underpinning a new socio-technical system. The core principles (reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover) and the associated technology of CE is the niche. The landscape refers to the external factors that shape the niche and regime. The external factors could be international conventions, climate crises, environmental degradation, and constraints that exert pressure for change in the socio-technical system. The external environment triggers new rules to address the looming threats the existing system poses. The increasing waste generation, resource inefficiencies, and environmental crisis constitute the social pressures that result in the new rules (reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover) to address these problems.

The MLP proposes that an interaction between the socio-technical regime, niche, and landscape leads to the transition from an existing socio-technical system to another. This implies that a combination of the new rules of CE of principles, niche technologies, and the external pressures for improved solid waste management would produce the transition from the current linear economy to the CE of waste management.

The transition can be explained in three main stages. The first stage, called the start-up phase, is where the landscape pressure or external environment raises more concerns about the internal problems caused by the existing system, creating opportunities for new rules and niche technologies. The second stage, also known as the acceleration stage, is where the niche technologies expand, attract more actors, and become the mainstream market to compete with the incumbent regime and other niches for dominance. For example, the use of recycled plastic bottles by bottling companies begins to compete with the existing system that creates non-recyclable plastic bottles. The last stage is called the stabilisation stage, where the niche technologies and socio-technical regimes have become well established, the number of actors has increased, the technologies have become more mature, and regulations are stable. This allows for the smart adoption of the technology since the institutions have become stable, and the behaviour of actors has become more predictable. New socio-technical systems also provide a blueprint for new entrants.

In the context of waste management, the transition will be driven by unsustainable resource exploitation, climate change, environmental risk, and the high cost of waste generation as the external factors that raise concerns about the sustainability risk of developing countries. At this stage, solid waste generation will not be the only concern, however, the risk excess waste poses to the environment and unsustainable production and consumption. This is similar to how the circular economy of waste management emerged as a critical policy idea in the EU during the 1980s, where rising mountains of waste generated and resource consumption became critical ecological and environmental concerns and brought waste management into the EU policy and legislation (Kern et al., 2020). Considering that over 90 percent of all waste collected in SSA will end up on open dump sites and landfill sites, the outbreak of diseases, recurrent flooding, resource depletion, and climate change have driven the call for more sustainable waste management programmes. As a result, new waste management rules underpinned by the core principles of CE and related technologies have emerged, although uncoordinated and less organised largely because of the complexity of formal and informal waste collection and management in developing countries such as Ghana.

Presently, the alternative waste management technologies that have emerged due to the CE’s new rules cannot compete with the current system of open dumping and landfill sites because they are cheaper alternatives but extremely hazardous. The increased health hazards would increase the pressure for more waste reduction, reuse, waste recycling, and energy recovery from waste, paving the way for the CE rule and technologies. For instance, Enterprise Agency (2019a, 2019b) identified 25 formal recycling companies in Ghana involved in the transformation of waste into multiple semi-final and final products. The lack of clear policy direction and legislation promoting a CE contributes to the low incentive for companies to move up the waste management hierarchy towards a CE. However, with the increased interest of academics, civil society organisations, and some quasi-government institutions in the circular economy, the core principles (forming the meta-rules) are likely to be considered in future policy and legislative reviews, leading to the recognition of the CE as the new rule for waste management in Ghana and other SSA countries. As seen in the EU, the work of Potocnik on resource efficiency led to the recognition and consideration of the CE of waste management in 2012 and consequently its consideration in the 2014 Circular Economy Action Plan and the EU Action Plan for Circular Economy in 2015 (European Commission, 2015; Kern et al., 2020).

Over time, the improvement in policy and legal frameworks promoting CE and the economic case of solid waste management in Africa would potentially incentivise investment in the technologies required to climb up the waste hierarchy. For instance, United Nations Environment Programme (2018) estimates that at the base case scenario of 5 million tons of waste recovery; the financial value of recovered resources could be about US$318.6 million. Also, at about 25 percent and 50 percent recovery of the 125 million tons of waste generated in 2012, the resources recovered from moving higher the waste management hierarchy is estimated at US$1.7 billion and US$3.7 billion, respectively (United Nations Environment Programme, 2018). The economic value of recovered resources can boost investment and address the existing financing constraints of the waste management industry in Ghana and SSA. The economic value of recovered resources, combined with the improved technology and regulations and the external pressure to reduce waste, would enable the circular economy to compete with the existing waste management system, leading to the transition to the circular economy of waste management.

The Deep Transition Framework is a process where new rules emerge, compete with the existing system, and become well-coordinated and connected with the institution and technology, transitioning from one socio-technical system to another. The interactions between actors, rules (devised to regulate actors’ actions), and the socio-technical system are important for the transition. Based on the MLP of the Deep Transition Framework, the transition from a linear economy to CE of waste management would occur when the existing and new laws, regulations, and policies of waste management are underpinned by the 4R framework (reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover). Ghana is at the start-up phase of the transition because the rising environmental hazards of open dumping and landfill sites coupled with increasing floods caused by indiscriminate dumping of plastics have intensified the call for more robust approaches to addressing waste issues, thus, paving the way for the circular economy. Additionally, several aspects of the core principles of circular economy are happening in the waste industry; however, there is no clear regulatory direction to guide the behaviour of actors (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3

(Source Authors’ construct, 2022)

Conceptual framework of the multi-level deep transition to circular economy of waste management

5.3 Approaches to Accelerating the Transition to Circular Economy of Waste Management

Policymakers can design appropriate policy responses to catalyse the transition to CE of waste management when there is a clear understanding of how the future CE would look. Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) argue that most of the existing CE literature overemphasises the impact of CE without critically analysing the form CE future may take. Bauwens et al.’s (2020) scenario analysis of the possible future of CE is adopted and contextualised in Ghana to assess how the CE transition would look like, the implications, and the policy and business solutions relevant to the paradigm shift.

Bauwens et al. (2020) argue that technology and institutions are the core drivers of change in a socio-technical system. Thus, the interaction between technology and institutions can create different environments that influence the upward progress in the waste treatment hierarchy (the core principles of the circular economy). Some aspects of the core principles of the circular waste management require low technology, while others may require high technologies to move up the waste treatment hierarchy. For instance, Reduce may require low technology and changes in the behaviour of consumers, while Recycling may require low, high technology, and behavioural changes.

Additionally, governments play critical roles in the circular economy in successful markets such as the EU and China (Bauwens et al., 2020). Governments provide policy clarity and regulations that ensure predictability in the behaviour of actors. However, excessive control of the system can distort the allocation of benefits from the CE. For instance, informal waste collectors in Ghana reach a larger proportion of the population because formal waste management companies serve high and middle income communities. Suppose the circular economy transition is centralised around only formal waste management firms. In that case, it will exclude the larger waste collectors in the system from benefiting from the economic opportunities created in the value chains. As a result, some authors advocate for a decentralised governance structure towards the transition to a CE because it is inclusive and promotes a participatory process in decision-making and policy development.

Bauwens et al. (2020) scenario analysis indicate that the interaction between institutions and technology would produce four (4) scenarios of waste management’s circular future: Peer-to-Peer Circularity, Planned Circularity, Bottom-up Circularity, and Circular Modernism. A Peer-to-Peer Circularity requires high-technology innovation and a decentralised governance system. This system relies greatly on collaborative platforms, smart technologies, and blockchain systems to create distributed production to enhance resource efficiency. This approach promotes waste reduction by enabling the sharing of underutilised goods between consumers. Essentially, this approach creates a market or platform for consumers to trade used goods, enhancing reuse and promoting waste management’s CE. The planned circularity approach requires low technology innovation and centralised decision-making. Under this system, the circular economy principles (reduce, reuse, recycle, and recovery) are centrally implemented by the government through tight regulations and directives that determine the technology and the processes to achieve the circular economy. For example, the government can ban certain products, such as single-use plastics, and introduce legislation on production and resource extraction by manufacturing companies to reduce waste generation.

The Bottom-up Circularity requires low technology and a decentralised governance system. This approach relies greatly on the behavioural modification of consumers towards waste reduction and a shift from conventional production and consumption patterns. Consumers are incentivised to embrace behaviours that reduce waste by ensuring the reuse of waste items. The circular modernism system relies on high-technology innovation and centralised decision-making. Under this approach, the transition to circular economy decision-making rests with the government and a few large waste management companies with high—technologies targeted at higher R strategies (the core principles of circular economy). The government set the circular economy targets and create the requisite business environment for the high-tech waste generation companies to innovate. For instance, in pursuing high R strategies of the circular economy, the government invests in research and development on the key technologies, which then become the building blocks for the waste management companies to install innovative processes to achieve them (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4

(Source Adapted from Bauwens et al. [2020])

Approaches/scenarios for transitioning to the circular economy of waste management

Reflecting on Ghana’s current waste management situation and Bauwen et al.’s (2020) scenario analysis of the possible CE future, a planned circularity and circular modernism are plausible in Ghana. The central government has direct control and influence over the formulation of laws, regulations, and guidelines, which makes a planned circularity probable in Ghana even though the policy regime is less authoritarian due to the collaborative role of decentralised agencies at the local level. Table 2 indicates the influence of the government in the waste management industry through almost a dozen laws and regulations. Even though these laws are not designed with CE in thinking and do not provide clear pathways and guidelines for waste management firms to transition to CE, they demonstrate the power of the government to implement a planned circularity in Ghana. However, the planned circularity will be achievable when the existing and new laws and regulations are underpinned by the principles of CE (such as the 4Rs) as discussed in Sect. 5.2. Additionally, successive governments have consistently attributed unsustainable waste management practices to a lack of finance to implement appropriate modern technologies. Thus, a planned circularity offers the government a low-cost approach towards transitioning to CE of waste management because the government’s role under this scenario is to enforce the regulations, monitor and evaluate the implementation of the guidelines towards CE by waste management firms.

The circular modernism scenario of transition to CE of waste management is probable in Ghana because the private sector collects and manages about 80 percent of waste, and the formal sector has adopted modern technologies towards sustainable waste management in Ghana. For example, the Accra Compost and Recycling Plant (ACARP—has a waste recovery rate of 80 percent, processes 600 tons of waste per day, and produces 100 tons of compost daily) and the Kumasi Compost and Recycling Plant (KCARP—can receive about 1200 tons of MSW per day) are private sector initiatives supported by the government. They are evidence that the government creates a conducive environment for the private sector to adopt innovative technologies in waste management. The existing partnership between the large-scale formal waste management companies and the government creates the requisite partnership for the circular modernism scenario in Ghana. Additionally, the high socio-political support for formal waste management companies, including awarding district, municipal, and metropolitan contracts to large waste management companies, can help reduce the social and economical implementation cost, as indicated by Bauwens et al. (2020).

These notwithstanding, the planned circularity and circular modernism can successfully transition towards CE of waste management if it effectively integrates the informal waste management sector with the formal waste management industry. Due to the poor organisation of the informal waste sector, they are often not recognised by the government and less likely to receive support despite their enormous compliment to waste collection and recovery. The government can implement guidelines to begin regulating the activities of informal waste collectors and provide technical assistance and financial aid to organise the informal operators. This would ensure that the activities of informal waste businesses are aligned with the efforts towards CE. In addition, the government can create a regulatory framework that allows informal waste collectors to sell recyclable and recoverable materials to formal waste management companies at an economically fair price. This would prevent the unsafe recycling and recovery undertaken in the informal waste sector. A balance between planned circularity and circular modernism would ensure that government promotes CE by creating an enabling environment for the private sector to innovate and invest in high-technology equipment to achieve a sustainable waste management industry.

Given that, behavioural influences towards waste reduction and collection have not worked effectively and the weak development of collaborator platforms, the peer-to-peer circularity, and Bottom-up Circularity, which are more value-driven, are least probable and preferable. Thus, the preferable transition towards CE of waste management in Ghana would be a cocktail of planned circularity and circular modernism.

6 Policy Discussion

The adoption of the circular economy of waste management practices can have a crosscutting impact on other SDGs such as Climate Action (SDG.13), Zero Hunger (SDG.2), Decent Jobs (SDG.8), and Sustainable Cities (SDG.11). The reduction of food waste is estimated to create an economic opportunity of about US$155–405 billion by 2030 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019). The circular economy in five sectors (cement, aluminium, plastics, food, and steel) is estimated to eliminate almost half of the current emissions (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019). In 2019, 25 recycling companies across the major metropolis (Accra, Tema, Kumasi, and Takoradi) were operating at a combined capacity of 360 tons of plastic waste per day and reported an average pay-out of EUR1.15million (GHC6.7million) to plastic waste collectors. This excludes the recycling and reuse initiatives within the informal sector. For instance, Agbogbloshie in Accra is well known for different forms of recycling and reuse of waste products and employed about 40,000 people in 2019 (Enterprise Agency, 2019a). D’ambrières (2019) adds that a plastic recycling plant with a capacity of 50,000 metric tons can employ an average of 30 people, indicating the economic potential of implementing circular economy principles.

To achieve these benefits of circular economy, the government must set clear CE targets and harmonise the existing legal, regulatory, and policy framework to include the core principles of the CE. This would enable businesses to pivot around technologies that are supportive of achieving the targets and ensure effective measurement of progress towards the transition. In addition, the reforms must be followed by consistent enforcement of the rules and regular monitoring and evaluation. A major challenge to achieving this reform is the need for successive governments’ more political will to continue past governments’ waste management programmes. Thus, non-state actors such as civil society organisations and industry players must be involved in the reform process to strengthen demand-side accountability.

Additionally, the multiplicity of institutions in the waste management industry must be addressed to enhance coherence in the performance of stateside actors. A single agency must be tasked with promoting a CE of waste management. Currently, the Ghana Innovation and Research Commercialisation Centre is a potential entry point for the private sector in waste management to develop innovative approaches to promote CE at both the formal and informal levels. However, a multi-stakeholder framework must be developed to delineate the respective functions of key stateside actors and sub-national agencies towards achieving the circular economy. For instance, the Ministry of Sanitation and the Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology, and Innovation make policies about waste management. However, the implementation rest with sub-national agencies under the Ministry of Local Government, Decentralisation, and Rural Development. Under-resourcing of sub-national institutions would lead to low prioritisation of CE by the implementing agencies, leading to weak enforcement of regulations designed to promote CE.

It is increasingly clear that the transition would depend on improved waste treatment technologies. Thus, the government must consistently invest in developing localised alternative waste treatment technologies. This will provide innovative ideas for the waste management firms to build upon, invest in local capacities, and ensure sustainable approaches. Moreover, research and development can benefit all waste industry sectors by deliberately integrating the informal and formal waste management sectors. Integrating the informal sector means their activities will be regulated to ensure that they use safe, healthy, and environmentally friendly means of collecting, transporting, and treating waste. Given the low government funding commitment to research in Ghana, this can be achieved by using the existing environmental excise tax, eco levy, and sanitation levy to provide technical and financial assistance to the informal sector and support the funding of formal waste management companies to integrate operations with the informal sector.

Government must ensure accountability in the use of waste management-related levies and taxes. For instance, stakeholders in the waste management sector must know how much Sanitation and Pollution levy, Environmental Excise Tax, and Eco-Levy has been collected and the areas of their utilisation. Moreover, these funds can be leveraged to address the financing gap and provide cheaper capital for the formal and informal waste management actors to upscale localised technologies.

7 Conclusions

This study examined theoretical and conceptual approaches that can contribute to the transition from a linear to a circular economy of solid waste management in Ghana.

It is increasingly clear that the current socio-technical system demonstrated by a multiplicity of institutions, poor policy and institutional incoherence, and relatively low technology cannot effectively deliver a transition towards CE of waste management. The existing laws, programmes, and policies need to explicitly recognise CE as the innovative approach to addressing the waste management menace in Ghana. As a result, the existing system needs to offer a clear transformative pathway to change the linear economy. Additionally, the study finds that the existing meta-rules that form the core principles of a Deep Transition are not CE-oriented. Even though there is evidence of the core principles of CE (4Rs) in the waste management sector, largely recycling, they are insufficient to deliver a transformative change towards the CE of waste management.

Furthermore, the study finds that the core principles of the circular economy must underpin all policies, regulations, and programmes on solid waste management in Ghana for the transition to occur. Now, Ghana is at the early stage of the transition, given that open dumping and unsanitary landfill sites are the cheapest waste treatment option because the circular economy technology, policies, and regulations are not well established.

Nonetheless, the high political support for formal waste management innovative programmes and the increased role of the informal waste management sector offer an opportunity to re-align institutions in the sanitation sector, reform policies, and promote CE. Furthermore, the centralisation of policies and programmes decision-making regarding waste management and the high participation of the private sector makes planned circularity and circular modernism probable and preferred scenarios of CE of waste management in Ghana.