Circular and Transformative Economy: Advances towards Sustainable Socio-economic Transformation

Nhamo, Luxon (Ed.); Mpandeli, Sylvester (Ed.); Liphadzi, Stanley (Ed.); Mabhaudhi, Tafadzwanashe (Ed.) Book Circular and Transformative Economy: Advances towards Sustainable Socio-economic Transformation Africa Circular Economy Series Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Nhamo, Luxon (Ed.); Mpandeli, Sylvester (Ed.); Liphadzi, Stanley (Ed.); Mabhaudhi, Tafadzwanashe (Ed.) (2024) : Circular and Transformative Economy: Advances towards Sustainable Socio-economic Transformation, Africa Circular Economy Series, ISBN 978-1-003-32761-5, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003327615 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/290432 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Circular and Transformative Economy The main aim of this book is to illustrate circular models for sustainable resource management. It highlights the benefits of transformative approaches in integrating, simplifying, and facilitating understanding of complex systems and transforming systems towards greater sustainability while achieving multiple social, economic, and environmental outcomes. It provides pathways towards strategic policy decisions on socio‑economic transformation supported by case studies. Features: • Discusses exploration of a transitional path to the circular economy, explored from the point of view of waste and technology. • Explains transformational change towards sustainable socio‑ecological interactions. • Reviews provision of pathways towards sustainability through scenario development. • Provides assessment of progress towards Sustainable Development Goals. • Presents cross‑sectoral and multicentric approaches towards circularity. This book is aimed at researchers and professionals in water and environmental engi‑ neering, circular economy, sustainability, and environmental studies. Africa Circular Economy Series CRC Press (Taylor and Francis Group) introduces the Africa Circular Economy Series (with a Science and Technology outlook but preferably more interdisciplin‑ ary). Under this initiative, we invite scholars, academicians, researchers, and pro‑ fessionals to contribute to this series. We are interested in discussing monographs, references, textbooks, short‑form books and handbooks to add to our book programs at undergraduate, postgraduate, and doctoral levels. All the books published under this series will be part of our Global Publishing program. Circular and Transformative Economy: Advances towards Sustainable Socio‑economic Transformation Edited by Luxon Nhamo, Sylvester Mpandeli, Stanley Liphadzi and Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi Circular and Transformative Economy Advances towards Sustainable Socio‑economic Transformation Edited by Luxon Nhamo, Sylvester Mpandeli, Stanley Liphadzi and Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi Designed cover image: Anja Van Der Merwe First edition published 2024 by CRC Press 2385 NW Executive Center Drive, Suite 320, Boca Raton FL 33431 and by CRC Press 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, LLC © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Luxon Nhamo, Sylvester Mpandeli, Stanley Liphadzi and Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi; individual chapters, the contributors Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint. The Open Access version of this book, available at www.taylorfrancis.com, has been made available under a Creative Commons [Attribution-Non-Commercial (CC-BY-NC)] 4.0 license. Funded by University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging‑in‑Publication Data Names: Nhamo, Luxon, editor. | Mpandeli, Sylvester, editor. | Liphadzi, Stanley, editor. Title: Circular and transformative economy : advances towards sustainable socioeconomic transformation / edited by Luxon Nhamo, Sylvester Mpandeli, Stanley Liphadzi and Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi. Description: 1 edition. | Boca Raton, FL : CRC Press, 2024. | Series: Africa circular economy series | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2023050302 (print) | LCCN 2023050303 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032356013 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032356037 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003327615 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Circular economy. | Sustainable development. | Environmental engineering. | Water-supply—Environmental aspects. Classification: LCC HC79.E5 C57 2024 (print) | LCC HC79.E5 (ebook) | DDC 338.9/27—dc23/eng/20231120 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023050302 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023050303 ISBN: 9781032356013 (hbk) ISBN: 9781032356037 (pbk) ISBN: 9781003327615 (ebk) DOI: 10.1201/9781003327615 Typeset in Times by codeMantra v Contents Going Circular: A Foreword .....................................................................................xi Preface.................................................................................................................... xiii About the Editors ..................................................................................................... xv List of Contributors ................................................................................................xvii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................xxi Chapter 1 Understanding circularity and transformative approaches and their role in achieving sustainability ...............................................1 Luxon Nhamo, Sylvester Mpandeli, Stanley Liphadzi, and Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi 1.1 Introduction ...............................................................................1 1.2 Defining transformative approaches ..........................................2 1.3 Significance of circularity and transformative approaches ..........5 1.4 Conclusions ................................................................................6 References ............................................................................................6 Chapter 2 Voluntary agreements and systemic lock‑in in the circular economy: the certification of sewage sludge in Sweden ......................9 Patrik Söderholm and Kristina Söderholm 2.1 Introduction ...............................................................................9 2.2 Theoretical points of departure ............................................... 12 2.3 The management of sewage sludge in Sweden ........................15 2.4 The outcomes and challenges of REVAQ ...............................18 2.5 Concluding discussion .............................................................22 References ..........................................................................................25 Chapter 3 Global status of circular economy adaptation within wastewater services: transition pathways and the role of innovation ........................29 John Ngoni Zvimba, Eustina Musvoto, Nomvuselelo Mgwenya, and Buyisile Kholisa 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................29 3.2 Circular economy adaptation progress .................................... 30 3.3 Circular economy solutions in the water sector ......................34 3.4 Technical evaluation of the EHTP process as an emerging technology ...............................................................37 3.5 Appropriate technologies for coupling with the EHTP process to promote a circular economy .....................................50 3.6 Conclusions ..............................................................................57 References ..........................................................................................57 vi Contents Chapter 4 Transitional pathways towards sustainable food systems...................60 Luxon Nhamo, Sylvester Mpandeli, Stanley Liphadzi, Samkelisiwe Hlophe‑Ginindza, and Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi 4.1 Introduction .............................................................................60 4.2 The conceptual framework ......................................................63 4.3 Pathways towards achieving sustainability of food systems ............................................................................68 4.4 Recommendations ...................................................................72 4.5 Conclusions ..............................................................................72 References ..........................................................................................73 Chapter 5 Strengthening the transformational implementation of national climate change adaptation plans to enhance agricultural resilience .........................................................................78 Charles Nhemachena, Daniel Njiwa, Mcloud Kayira Chirwa, Anabela Manhica, Assan Ng’ombe and Protase Echessah 5.1 Introduction .............................................................................78 5.2 Literature review .....................................................................80 5.3 Methods of the study ...............................................................90 5.4 Results and discussion .............................................................91 5.5 Conclusions and recommendations .........................................95 References ..........................................................................................97 Chapter 6 Progress towards the circular economy: case studies of sanitation and organic waste–derived resource recovery technologies in South Africa ............................................................ 101 Taruvinga Badza, William Musazura, Mendy Zibuyile Shozi, Alfred Oduor Odindo, and Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................... 101 6.2 Conclusion .............................................................................128 References ........................................................................................129 Chapter 7 The circular economy as a catalyst for environmental andhuman health ............................................................................. 139 Nonhlanhla Kalebaila, Mpho Kapari, Luxon Nhamo, andSylvester Mpandeli 7.1 Introduction ...........................................................................139 7.2 Linear economy and the emergence of infectious diseases .................................................................................. 142 7.3 The circular economy model .................................................146 viiContents 7.4 Ecological benefits of the circular economy ......................... 147 7.5 Using the circular economy to build resilience against future infectious diseases ..........................................154 7.6 Conclusion ............................................................................. 155 References ........................................................................................156 Chapter 8 Gender norms and social transformation of agriculture inSub‑Saharan Africa ......................................................................159 Everisto Mapedza 8.1 Introduction ...........................................................................159 8.2 Situating gender within Africa .............................................. 160 8.3 Methodology .......................................................................... 165 8.4 Emerging themes from the literature review ......................... 165 8.5 Discussion ..............................................................................166 8.6 Conclusion ............................................................................. 167 References ........................................................................................ 168 Chapter 9 Sustainable water management: does gender matter? ...................... 175 Dalia Saad 9.1 Introduction ........................................................................... 175 9.2 Understanding gender in the context of water ....................... 176 9.3 Women and water “the untapped connection” ...................... 177 9.4 Water and women’s welfare ................................................... 178 9.5 Gender and decision‑making power ......................................180 9.6 Gender and capacity building ................................................ 181 9.7 Benefits of gender‑balanced water management ................... 182 9.8 Conclusions ............................................................................184 References ........................................................................................ 184 Chapter 10 Enhancing socio‑ecological interactions to achieve sustainable decentralised sanitation systems: why people are not using technical solutions ................................... 188 Betsie le Roux, Attie van Niekerk, Erna Kruger, and Betty Maimela 10.1 Introduction ...........................................................................188 10.2 Methodology ..........................................................................190 10.3 Traditional African cultures and the Water‑Energy‑Food nexus ...................................................................................... 191 10.4 Discussion .............................................................................. 200 10.5 Conclusions ............................................................................204 References ........................................................................................204 xv About the Editors Luxon Nhamo is a Research Manager at the Water Research Commission of South Africa (WRC) and an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of KwaZulu‑Natal (UKZN), South Africa. He has over 20 years of progressive research experience in agricultural water management, environmental Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and remote sensing, water‑energy‑food nexus, climate change adaptation, and early warning systems. Sylvester Mpandeli is an Executive Manager at the Water Research Commission of South Africa and an Adjunct Professor at the University of Venda. He is Vice President of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) and the South African National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage (SANCID) Chairman. He is a member of the Gauteng Province Premier’s Advisory Team and a South African Weather Services board member. Stanley Liphadzi is a Group Executive Manager at the Water Research Commission (WRC) and an Adjunct Professor at the University of Venda. He leads the Research & Development Branch in the WRC in the production of new knowledge and innovation in water and sanitation. Stanley’s research interest is in systems thinking for sustainable development. Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi is a Professor of Climate Change, Food Systems and Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Previously, he was the Research Group Leader: Sustainable and Resilient Food Systems at the International Water Management Institute (IWMI). He holds Honorary Professor appointments at the University of KwaZulu‑Natal (UKZN) and the University of Nottingham, Malaysia. He has more than ten years of research experience, translating it into policy outcomes. He has published more than 200 papers and received several awards. xvii Contributors Taruvinga Badza Water, Sanitation & Hygiene Research & Development Centre, University ofKwaZulu‑Natal (UKZN) Pietermaritzburg, South Africa Mcloud Kayira Chirwa Alliance for a Green Revolution inAfrica (AGRA) Nairobi, Kenya Tinashe Lindel Dirwai International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Pretoria, South Africa Nosipho Dlamini School of Engineering, University ofKwaZulu‑Natal (UKZN) Pietermaritzburg, South Africa Protase Echessah Alliance for a Green Revolution inAfrica (AGRA) Nairobi, Kenya Webster Gumindoga Construction and Civil Engineering Department, University of Zimbabwe Harare, Zimbabwe Samkelisiwe Hlophe‑Ginindza Water Research Commission (WRC) Pretoria, South Africa Nonhlanhla Kalebaila Water Research Commission (WRC) Pretoria, South Africa Mpho Kapari Water Research Commission (WRC) Pretoria, South Africa Buyisile Kholisa Water Research Commission (WRC) Pretoria, South Africa Erna Kruger Mahlathini Development Foundation (MDF) Pietermaritzburg, South Africa Edward Kurwakumire Geomatics Department, Tshwane University of Technology Pretoria, South Africa Betsie le Roux Food and Water Research (FAWR) Pretoria, South Africa Stanley Liphadzi Water Research Commission (WRC) Pretoria, South Africa Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Pretoria, South Africa and the University of KwaZulu‑Natal (UKZN), Pietermaritzburg, South Africa James Magidi Geomatics Department, Tshwane University of Technology Pretoria, South Africa xviii Contributors Betty Maimela Mahlathini Development Foundation (MDF) Pietermaritzburg, South Africa Anabela Manhica Alliance for the Green Revolution inAfrica (AGRA) Nairobi, Kenya Everisto Mapedza International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Pretoria, South Africa Nomvuselelo Mgwenya TruSense Consulting Services Pretoria, South Africa Jennifer Molwantwa Water Research Commission (WRC) Pretoria, South Africa Sylvester Mpandeli Water Research Commission (WRC) Pretoria, South Africa Lindiwe Carol Mthethwa Faculty of Education, University ofZululand Richards Bay, South Africa William Musazura University of KwaZulu‑Natal Pietermaritzburg, South Africa Eustina Musvoto TruSense Consulting Services Pretoria, South Africa Assan Ng’ombe Alliance for the Green Revolution inAfrica (AGRA) Nairobi, Kenya Luxon Nhamo Water Research Commission (WRC) Pretoria, South Africa Charles Nhemachena Alliance for a Green Revolution inAfrica (AGRA) Nairobi, Kenya Daniel Njiwa Alliance for a Green Revolution inAfrica (AGRA) Nairobi, Kenya Alfred Oduor Odindo Water, Sanitation & Hygiene Research & Development Centre, University ofKwaZulu‑Natal (UKZN) Pietermaritzburg, South Africa Dalia Saad School of Chemistry, Molecular Sciences Institute, Wits University Johannesburg, South Africa Aidan Senzanje School of Engineering, University ofKwaZulu‑Natal (UKZN) Pietermaritzburg, South Africa Mendy Zibuyile Shozi Water, Sanitation & Hygiene Research & Development Centre, University ofKwaZulu‑Natal (UKZN) Pietermaritzburg, South Africa Nafiisa Sobratee‑Fajurally International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Pretoria, South Africa Kristina Söderholm Luleå University of Technology Luleå, Sweden xixContributors Patrik Söderholm Luleå University of Technology Luleå, Sweden Cuthbert Taguta University of KwaZulu‑Natal (UKZN) Pietermaritzburg, South Africa Attie van Niekerk Nova Institute, and Centre for Faith and Community, Faculty of Theology and Religion, University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa John Ngoni Zvimba Water Research Commission (WRC) Pretoria, South Africa xxi Acknowledgements The editors are most grateful to the chapter contributors, as this book would not have been possible without their commitment. It has been a delight working with these pleasant and humble subject experts. We would also like to appreciate the construc‑ tive comments of the anonymous reviewers, whose comments we used to enhance the book’s quality. Last but not least, this book project would not have come to frui‑ tion without the support of the Water Research Commission of South Africa (WRC), the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Nexus Gains Initiative of the CGIAR, the Centre on Climate Change and Planetary Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the Centre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems (CTAFS), University of KwaZulu‑Natal (UKZN). We are indebted to Lani van Vuuren and Mpho Kapari, who dissected every word we scribbled, and Anja Van Der Merwe, who worked on graphics. 1Understanding circularity and transformative approaches and their role in achieving sustainability Luxon Nhamo, Sylvester Mpandeli, Stanley Liphadzi, and Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi 1.1 INTRODUCTION The increasing complexities with today’s interlinked challenges related to resource insecurities, the emergence of novel infectious diseases, socio‑economic decline and environmental degradation require systemic approaches that address trade‑offs, enhance synergies, minimise resource depletion, and promote waste reduction while operating within the planetary boundaries (Kimani‑Murage et al., 2021; Menton etal., 2020; Naidoo etal., 2021a). Today’s age, which is dubbed the 4th Industrial Revolution, depends on sophisticated, cross‑cutting, cross‑sectoral, and intercon‑ nected systems to conveniently deliver goods and services (Nhamo and Ndlela, 2021). Although this globalisation has come with considerable technological advances and opportunities for development, it has also exposed the globe and its systems to severe disruptions and shocks, as demonstrated by climate change and pandemics which often cause disruptions in global supply chains (Magableh, 2021; Shang etal., 2021). As in any complex system, tensions always manifest between efficiency and resil‑ ience, the ability to anticipate, absorb, recover, and adapt to unexpected disruptions (Nhamo and Ndlela, 2021). These tensions indicate the connectedness between the attributes of a system, and therefore, addressing the tensions individually is bound to exacerbate existing challenges. Therefore, sector‑based or system‑specific resilience interventions are often accompanied by systemic risks resulting from initiatives that lead to suboptimal efficiencies in one sector at the expense of others (Nhamo and Ndlela, 2021). Cross‑sectoral challenges require cross‑sectoral interventions to realise integrated and multi‑centric solutions (Naidoo etal., 2021b). Therefore, trans‑ formative approaches are cross‑sectoral and polycentric decision support tools capa‑ ble of systematically and holistically addressing cross‑sectoral challenges. This is enhanced by promoting the reuse and recycling of resources, ensuring that resources stay in use for longer periods, thus mitigating resource depletion and reducing envi‑ ronmental waste (Mastos etal., 2021). Therefore, transformative approaches pro‑ mote circularity and contribute towards achieving Sustainable Development Goals This chapter has been made available under a CC‑BY‑NC 4.0 license 1 DOI: 10.1201/9781003327615-1 8Circular and Transformative Economy Nhamo, L., Ndlela, B. (2021) Nexus planning as a pathway towards sustainable environmental and human health post Covid‑19. Environment Research 192, 110376. Nhamo, L., Ndlela, B., Nhemachena, C., Mabhaudhi, T., Mpandeli, S., Matchaya, G. (2018) The water‑energy‑food nexus: Climate risks and opportunities in southern Africa. Water 10, 567. Patala, S., Albareda, L., Halme, M. (2022) Polycentric governance of privately owned resources in circular economy systems. Journal of Management Studies 59, 1563–1596. Reike, D., Vermeulen, W.J., Witjes, S. (2018) The circular economy: New or refurbished as CE 3.0?—Exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy through a focus on history and resource value retention options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 135, 246–264. Shang, Y., Li, H., Zhang, R. (2021) Effects of pandemic outbreak on economies: Evidence from business history context. Frontiers in Public Health 9, 632043. Thiel, A. (2017) The scope of polycentric governance analysis and resulting challenges. Journal of Self‑Governance and Management Economics 5, 32. Toxopeus, M.E., De Koeijer, B., Meij, A. (2015) Cradle to cradle: Effective vision vs. efficient practice? Procedia CIRP 29, 384–389. Velenturf, A.P., Purnell, P. (2021) Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption 27, 1437–1457. Visseren‑Hamakers, I.J., Razzaque, J., McElwee, P., Turnhout, E., Kelemen, E., Rusch, G.M., Fernandez‑Llamazares, A., Chan, I., Lim, M., Islar, M. (2021) Transformative governance of biodiversity: Insights for sustainable development. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 53, 20–28. Whitmee, S., Haines, A., Beyrer, C., Boltz, F., Capon, A.G., de Souza Dias, B.F., Ezeh, A., Frumkin, H., Gong, P., Head, P. (2015) Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: Report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health. The Lancet 386, 1973–2028. Wittman, H., Chappell, M.J., Abson, D.J., Kerr, R.B., Blesh, J., Hanspach, J., Perfecto, I., Fischer, J. (2017) A social–ecological perspective on harmonizing food security and biodiversity conservation. Regional Environmental Change 17, 1291–1301. Voluntary agreements and systemic lock-in in the circular economy The certification of sewage sludge in Sweden Patrik Söderholm and Kristina Söderholm 2.1 INTRODUCTION 2.1.1 BackgroUnd and motivation The European Union (EU) promotes a transition to a circular economy in which the values of products, materials and resources are maintained (European Commission, 2015). Through waste prevention and the reuse or recycling of generated waste, avoiding the often‑significant environmental costs associated with the extraction of virgin natural resources is possible. There are also concerns about the future avail‑ ability of some virgin resources; their long‑run supply could be threatened due to depletion and/or restricted to relatively few countries in politically unstable regions. At the same time, however, the generated waste may contain high contamination lev‑ els. This implies that reusing and recycling resources and materials involve difficult trade‑offs. Specifically, it is important to identify sustainable management practices that can address the often‑conflicting goals of increased circulation of waste on the one hand and decreased exposure to toxic elements on the other (Brunner, 2010; Johansson etal., 2020). This chapter departs from this dual objective of reusing waste. At the same time, mitigating pollution addresses the opportunities and challenges of managing this through voluntary agreements between stakeholders (e.g., suppliers, end users, and public agencies). Introducing circular economy policies and regulations has proved difficult (e.g., Bengtsson and Tillman, 2004; Söderholm, 2020). One important rea‑ son for this is that various stakeholders and actors, including scientists from differ‑ ent disciplines, often have conflicting views regarding the extent to which resource recycling can be promoted without jeopardizing pollution control. In this context, it is interesting to observe how voluntary agreements between stakeholders have emerged to address barriers in the circular economy. These bar‑ riers include, for instance, cases in which one firm manufactures a product in a way that increases the cost of recycling for the downstream processor. In such a 2 This chapter has been made available under a CC‑BY‑NC 4.0 license 9 DOI: 10.1201/9781003327615-2 10 Circular and Transformative Economy case, a voluntary agreement between the manufacturer and the recycler can inter‑ nalize this cost and encourage the manufacturer to change the product design to enable downstream recycling (e.g., Nicolli etal., 2012). Many voluntary agreements involve efforts to internalize related barriers in the markets for environmental virtue, not least information problems between firms and their stakeholders (Potoski and Prakash, 2013). In the circular economy, information about the presence of trace elements and pollutants in various materials and waste fractions is an apt example (Johansson, 2018). Voluntary agreements–or green clubs–can help alleviate such information problems, e.g., by investing in and requiring in‑depth analyses of waste streams and building trust for waste recovery among stakeholders. In the chapter, we address the challenges of sewage sludge management in Sweden, with a particular emphasis on the lessons that can be drawn following the introduction of a voluntary certification scheme aiming to improve sludge quality, thereby facilitating its use in the agricultural sector. 2.1.2 the case of sewage slUdge The water used by households and industries will typically mix with surface water run‑off and be transported to a WWTP. At the plant, the wastewater is treated mechanically, biologically, and chemically to remove micro‑organisms and other substances that may be harmful to people and/or the natural environment before it re‑enters the water cycle. Sewage sludge (biosolids) is the matter, i.e., the solid resi‑ dues, resulting from this treatment. Following anaerobic digestion, sewage sludge can be managed in different ways. In the EU, the main reuse route is the application on agricultural soil (48%), particularly in countries such as Denmark, France, Ireland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, and Sweden (e.g., EurEau, 2021). Other significant sewage sludge destinations in the EU Member States include incineration, landfill, and land reclamation. Clearly, sewage sludge management is also a topic of significant interest in the Global South (e.g., LeBlanc etal., 2008; Tesfamariam etal., 2015). Using sewage sludge in the agricultural sector is a relevant empirical illustra‑ tion of the trade‑offs in addressing both circular economy and non‑toxic environ‑ ment concerns. Sewage sludge contains valuable resources–not least phosphorus and nitrogen. Applying sludge to arable land provides an opportunity to make use of the nutrients in the sludge and reduce the production and use of mineral fertilizers, which contribute to significant greenhouse gas emissions.1 However, the sludge also acts as a sink for various pollutants, i.e., toxic elements, organic contaminants, patho‑ gens, pharmaceutical residues, and microplastic. Thus, applying sewage sludge on agricultural soil will diffuse these pollutants, and the content of heavy metals (e.g., cadmium, mercury, lead and zinc) remains several times higher in sludge compared to mineral fertilizers (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2011). The levels of many other categories of substances–such as pathogens, pharma‑ ceutical residues, and microplastics–have increased over time but are generally not at all detected in mineral fertilizers. These substances could cause harm to human health and the natural environment. This, combined with the uncertainties regarding the specific characteristics and impacts of undesirable pollutants, could turn sew‑ age sludge in agriculture into a relatively risky and complex practice from both a 11Voluntary agreements and systemic lock-in in the circular economy health and business point of view (Bowler, 1999; Ekane etal., 2021).2 The applica‑ tion of sludge on agricultural soil, especially for food crop production, has faced a lot of resistance from key stakeholders such as farming and consumer organizations (Hultman etal., 2000). Sewage sludge management also represents a field in which voluntary agree‑ ments between key stakeholders have been launched, e.g., in Germany and Sweden (Johansson, 2018). In Sweden, the so‑called REVAQ scheme involves the voluntary certification of WWTPs. It was launched in 2008 to allay the concerns about sludge applications on arable land. In brief, this scheme sets limits on key contaminants in the sludge (not least certain metals) and demands continuous reduction of these in the wastewater reaching plants. These requirements have helped build trust for sludge reuse in Sweden among the key stakeholders, including farmers and consumer organizations. In this chapter, we focus on the experiences of this voluntary sludge management agreement and the lessons that can be drawn from it. 2.1.3 oBjective and research contriBUtion The chapter aims to investigate and discuss the emergence, outcomes, and future challenges of the Swedish voluntary certification scheme REVAQ. By doing this, we contribute to existing research by addressing the tension between system optimiza‑ tion and system change in the context of voluntary environmental agreements (see also below). The chapter also sheds new empirical light on the challenges of sewage sludge management for agricultural purposes. Previous literature on sewage sludge management is extensive (see Krogmann etal. (1997) for an early review). Social science research has addressed the con‑ flicts surrounding sludge recycling. Past studies have been concerned with the nature and the causes of these conflicts, e.g., shedding new light on the role of media (e.g., Goodman and Brett, 2006), public education (e.g., LeBlanc etal., 2008), the risk per‑ ceptions of important stakeholders (e.g., Ekane etal., 2021), the management chal‑ lenges in the presence of scientific uncertainty (e.g., Bengtsson and Tillman, 2004; Öberg and Mason‑Renton, 2018), and the societal challenges in terms of difficul‑ ties in establishing a common knowledge base (e.g., Ekman Burgman, 2022; Ekman Burgman and Wallsten, 2021). Related research has also investigated ways to solve these conflicts, including the involvement of the public in different decision‑making processes (e.g., Mason‑Renton and Luginaah, 2018; Pollans, 2017) and the adoption of sanitary norms in the infra‑ structure (e.g., Gerling, 2019). There exists, of course, plenty of previous research on alternative technological solutions that enable the recovery of nutrients from the sewage sludge (e.g., Jedelhauser and Binder, 2018), including the novel sanitation solutions that are more diverse in terms of, for instance, source separation and decen‑ tralization (e.g., urine diversion) (for a review, see Hoffmann etal., 2020). In this context, studies also address the barriers to socio‑technical change in the sewage sludge management field (e.g., Barquet etal., 2020; Bugge etal., 2019; McConville etal., 2017a, 2017b; Söderholm etal., 2022). In line with the latter strand of research, this chapter also builds on the sustain‑ ability transitions literature. This means that we depart from the notion that existing 12 Circular and Transformative Economy water and wastewater systems can be conceptualized as large socio‑technical sys‑ tems consisting of networks of actors and institutions (i.e., regulations, standards, codes of conduct, etc.) as well as material artefacts and knowledge (Geels, 2002; Kemp etal., 1998). A key feature of such systems is path dependency, i.e., where water and wastewater systems tend to be locked in into a few technological pathways. These pathways tend to be particularly self‑reinforcing since the investments are characterized by high upfront costs and increasing returns from adoption (such as scale, learning and network economies). Existing institutions–e.g., laws and codes of conduct–could also contribute to path dependence; these often favour the incum‑ bent actors and technologies (see Section 2.2 for a more in‑depth discussion). Unlike previous research, though, we devote particular attention to how voluntary agreements among incumbent actors in the socio‑technical system will influence the choice between system optimization, such as improving the existing system in terms of reduced production costs and improved environmental performance, and system change, i.e., seeking to innovate beyond the existing system, and infrastruc‑ ture (see Bugge etal., 2019). The latter will typically require the emergence of novel value chains, actor networks, and institutional change. The chapter highlights chal‑ lenges that are of particular concern for the establishment of a circular economy. Specifically, while voluntary agreements can help internalize the external costs associated with upstream production (in this way facilitating recycling) and address information failures among stakeholders, such agreements risk favouring the incum‑ bent actors that often prefer to prioritize system optimization over system change. 2.1.4 oUtline Section 2.2 outlines some simple theoretical points of departure for the analysis. Section 2.3 outlines the development of Swedish sewage sludge management over time, including the roles of stakeholder perceptions, government regulations, and actor collaborations. The emergence, the outcomes, and the challenges of the Swedish voluntary certification scheme REVAQ are investigated in Section 2.4, while Section 2.5 ends the chapter with a concluding discussion. 2.2 THEORETICAL POINTS OF DEPARTURE The water and wastewater sector can be conceptualized as a socio‑technical system consisting of networks of actors and institutions–i.e., regulations, standards, and codes of conduct–as well as material artefacts and knowledge (Geels, 2002). This sector is also characterized by large‑scale infrastructure with a long‑term investment horizon, creating path dependency. As a result, the system will tend to be locked in into a certain pathway of economic, technological, and institutional development (Klitkou etal., 2019). Several mechanisms often contribute to such systemic lock‑in (Blanken etal., 2019; Eijlander and Mulder, 2019). First and perhaps foremost, the incumbent actors, not least the WWTPs, are specialists in existing technologies and are, by definition, the established actors who dominate the existing regime. Moreover, these incum‑ bent actors possess substantial power and resources to influence the technological 13Voluntary agreements and systemic lock-in in the circular economy trajectories that will dominate the future. Second, the policies and institutions that have emerged over time reflect the interests and perspectives of the incumbent actors that comprise the system. These institutions include both legal rules but also informal norms and practices. For instance, in the wastewater sector, lock‑in tends to be based on a paradigm that portrays centralized systems as more efficient than small‑scale and decentralized systems (Barquet etal., 2020; Söderholm etal., 2022). Sustainability‑oriented research has devoted much attention to the long‑term, multidimensional transformation processes that shift the established socio‑technical system into more sustainable modes of production and consumption (e.g., Markard, 2011). This literature emphasizes the initial protection of path‑breaking innovations, which will otherwise fail to compete with the incumbent socio‑technical systems. Hence, so‑called niches play a key role, i.e., breeding places for evolving new tech‑ nological solutions, regulatory structures, user practices, and so forth (Kemp etal., 1998). These niches thus protect against the established technologies and create pos‑ sibilities for innovation, e.g., learning‑by‑doing processes that help lower costs and improve environmental performance. The transition to more sustainable production and consumption patterns tends to take place through a gradual configuration and reconfiguration based on what is happening within the system, e.g., in different competing niches, but also on events in what is often referred to as the landscape level (e.g., Geels, 2014). At the land‑ scape level, comprehensive ecological, cultural, geopolitical, and macroeconomic changes could occur, typically affecting all socio‑technical systems. In the sludge management context, important landscape‑level changes could involve consumer preferences towards food, increased awareness of climate change, and technological trends (such as digitalization). The above implies that the sustainable transition of the water and wastewater systems involves a tension between what can be achieved: (a) within the existing socio‑technical system, i.e., through system optimization in terms of continuous incremental improvements, or (b) through nurturing and developing novel technolog‑ ical trajectories, i.e., innovation beyond the existing system. Either of these pathways requires coordination and communication across the actors in the value chain and the mobilization of support for what these actors–and their stakeholders–consider to be the most sustainable options (Bowler, 1999). One important example of an actor‑network collaboration, which tends to be closely associated with the system optimization pathway, is voluntary environmen‑ tal agreements–or green clubs (van’t Veld and Kotchen, 2010). In these agree‑ ments, actors in the system agree to comply with certain environmental standards and/or activities. The club aspect here refers to the fact that the agreement provides non‑rival –yet excludable– reputation benefits to the participating actors, while green implies that this agreement generates environmental public goods. It should be clear that the Swedish REVAQ certification scheme meets this definition of a green club (see further Section 2.4). Specifically, many voluntary agreements attempt to address information prob‑ lems between the various actors in the socio‑technical system and their stakeholders (Potoski and Prakash, 2013). Generating environmental public goods requires shared knowledge and collaboration among actors, e.g., information about trace elements 14 Circular and Transformative Economy in existing waste streams. By establishing a benchmark of best environmental prac‑ tices, the actors that form part of the agreement will reap mutual reputation benefits. The benefits are made excludable, e.g., through a certification scheme exclusively for club members (Sandler and Tschirhart, 1980). In the case of REVAQ, the certifica‑ tion of the WWTPs that have joined the club–and thus have committed themselves to invest in (upstream) environmental improvements–signals that the quality of the generated sewage sludge is good enough for agricultural use. Potoski and Prakash (2013) identify and discuss four collective challenges facing green clubs of this kind. These are (a) programme establishment, thus securing that the relevant actors invest resources to create the agreement despite the incentives to free ride on the efforts of others; (b) recruiting, i.e., offer the joining actors (exclud‑ able) benefits from joining the club; (c) monitoring, thus making sure that the joining actors adhere to the club requirements; and (d) marketing, in the sense that stake‑ holders (e.g., consumers) need to be made aware of the environmental public goods jointly provided by the club members. By combining these challenges with the socio‑technical system perspective intro‑ duced above, it is useful to make three remarks. First, addressing the above chal‑ lenges facing green clubs, except for perhaps (a), involves continuous efforts on the part of the club members. Changes at the landscape level could lead to altered priori‑ ties and increased efforts. For instance, changes in consumer preferences could imply that the scope of the environmental activities needs to be broadened (e.g., reduc‑ ing previously unattended trace elements in the waste streams), and any progress made informed to stakeholders. Failures to adapt to such changing circumstances may destabilize the collaboration, and the signals communicating the club members’ environmental credentials (e.g., the certification of plants, processes, or products) could start to be questioned. Second, it is reasonable to hypothesize that in the absence of technological niches challenging the existing socio‑technical system, green clubs–their objectives and structure–will typically be shaped by a group of incumbent actors. As noted above, the institutions that have emerged over time tend to reflect the interests and perspec‑ tives of these actors. Therefore, they also have the resources and power to determine the nature of the green club activities. Another reason is that voluntary agreements are easier to establish if transaction costs, i.e., the costs of identifying potential part‑ ners and reaching an agreement, are low. This is typically the case in the existing socio‑technical system, not least those systems building on large‑scale infrastructure involving relatively few and easily identified actors. The establishment of voluntary agreements will also be facilitated by the fact that the existing institutions tend to favour the incumbents. Third, and finally, there will naturally be important consequences of this strong position for the incumbent actors. Positive feedback effects in technology systems reinforce technology choices, e.g., firms often choose to build on accumulated technology‑ specific knowledge when developing novel and better‑performing prod‑ ucts and processes. This leads to path‑dependent behaviour, and the costs of exploring alternative technology pathways increase. For instance, establishing new actor net‑ works around the novel technology may be cumbersome due to coordination failures and uncertainties about which actors should take on which roles in the technological 15Voluntary agreements and systemic lock-in in the circular economy development (Story etal., 2011). In other words, establishing green clubs will not necessarily promote novel technological niches and risks reducing the scope for establishing new value chains and actor collaborations. Efforts to generate environ‑ mental public goods will focus on system optimization rather than system change. In the remainder of this chapter, we discuss the issue of socio‑technical change in the presence of green clubs and the challenges facing such agreements. The specific case of sewage sludge management in Sweden, including the voluntary certifica‑ tion scheme REVAQ, is studied based on a set of secondary sources. Specifically, the analysis relies on previous research work, articles in sector magazines (e.g., VAV‑nytt) and debate articles in Swedish national newspapers. This material is rich, not least given the conflicts surrounding sewage sludge management in Sweden, and provides a good opportunity to grasp the arguments made by various system actors and the priorities these have made over time. 2.3 THE MANAGEMENT OF SEWAGE SLUDGE IN SWEDEN During the second half of the 20th century, the volumes of sewage sludge soared, not least due to the growing number of households connected to the sewage system. Since the turn of the century, the total production of sewage sludge from WWTPs in Sweden has exceeded 200,000metric tons (dry solids), with a modest decrease from 222,000 tons in 2000 to 211,000 tons in 2018 (Statistics Sweden, annual). Figure2.1 illustrates the use of this sludge in terms of the percentage shares applied to agriculture, landfills, and landfill covers over the period of 1988–2018. Another significant use (not displayed in the figure) includes other land applications, such as FIGURE2.1 The use of sewage sludge in Sweden, 1988–2018 (percentage shares). Source: Statistics Sweden (annual). Reports on discharges to water and sludge production (MI 22). 16 Circular and Transformative Economy in the form of forest fertilizers, application in green areas (following composting), and topsoil production. Figure2.1 also highlights a few key regulatory changes and events in the sewage sludge management field over the period. Since the 1960s, the agricultural use of sewage sludge has typically been per‑ ceived as a low‑cost solution to the disposal problem, which also benefits farmers.3 Only in the 1970s were regulations put in place to mitigate the risks from pathogens in the sludge (Dagerskog and Olsson, 2020). In 1973, Sweden introduced limit val‑ ues regarding the maximum allowed concentrations of heavy metals for applying sewage sludge to arable land. These limits have become more stringent over time (Hultman etal., 2000). During the late 1990s–following the implementation of the EU Directive (86/278EEC) regulating the use of sewage sludge in the agricultural sector in Swedish legislation–the government also introduced requirements on the maximum amount of sludge that can be applied on arable land in terms of limit val‑ ues expressed in grams of various metals per hectare and year.4 The Swedish require‑ ments have overall been more stringent than those stipulated in the EU Directive. Despite this regulatory progress, the 1970s and 1980s also witnessed the advent of an intensive debate on the health and environmental risks related to pollutants, both heavy metals and organic substances. There was hesitance from the public and farmers about using human waste as fertilizer. In the mid‑1980s, the debate was particularly fuelled by concerns about the presence of organic micropollutants (e.g., dioxin) in the sludge.5 Questions were also raised about other ways of managing the sludge, and researchers noted that incineration of digested sludge was one interesting alternative worthy of further evaluation (Hultman etal., 2000). Until now, though, incineration of sewage sludge (with or without phosphorus recovery) has been low in Sweden, representing around 1%–2% of total use over the period of 2010–2018 (and zero during earlier periods). In 1988, the Federation of Swedish Farmers (LRF) claimed a ban on sewage sludge application on arable land (Balmer and Frost, 1990). This ban was, however, lifted following negotiations between LRF, the Swedish Water and Wastewater Association (SWWA), and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA). This ultimately led to forming of a national consultation group that aimed to stimu‑ late the application of high‑quality sludge on agricultural soil and agree upon various precautionary measures (Hultman etal., 2000). The agreement involved additional requirements on the metal content of the sludge. In 1999, the SWWA also introduced a certification scheme–i.e., essentially a forerunner to REVAQ–and gained support from the food industry (Johansson, 1999). However, this agreement did not last long following a new recommendation of LRF to ban the application of sewage sludge on agricultural land. This time, it was primarily due to concerns about the presence of brominated flame retardants in the sludge and their potential negative effects on soils and organisms. The Swedish Chemicals Agency had also raised concerns about silver, cadmium, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), and the ban was influenced by reports on hygienic risks related to wastewater from hospitals (Bengtsson and Tillman, 2004). Consequently, LRF argued that the existing voluntary agreement had not reached its objectives (Eksvärd, 1999), while the SWWA maintained that large enough security margins related to the contents of heavy metals and toxic organic materials were already applied (Hellström, 2000). 17Voluntary agreements and systemic lock-in in the circular economy Figure2.1 shows that the concerns about the content of the sewage sludge gen‑ erated were followed by a significant decline in the agricultural use of sludge as a share of total sludge production. Following the ban in 1999, SEPA was set to evaluate the health and environmental aspects of sludge use. The agency was overall posi‑ tive towards sludge application on arable land and noted that the present situation requires that “over a transition period, society will have to accept a balance between increased recovery and reduced pollution and risk for the spread of disease” (SEPA, 2002, p.71). This standpoint remained in follow‑up evaluations. One central conclu‑ sion of SEPA was that “sewage sludge can be applied to arable land in the short‑ as well as the long run with acceptable risks concerning the added metals and organic substance as well as infection control” (SEPA, 2010, p.12). The difficulties for the WWTPs in identifying suitable applications for their gen‑ erated sludge intensified with the introduction of policy instruments aiming at aban‑ doning landfills as a waste management option. Figure2.1 displays that before the turn of the century, the share of sewage sludge destined for landfills was significant and typically above 40%. However, in 2002, the government introduced a tax on landfill disposal, and since2005, there is also a ban on the landfill of organic wastes, including sludges from WWTPs. One consequence of these policies has been that no new landfills are created in Sweden, putting a cap on the demand for sludge for landfill cover purposes. This situation put much pressure on WWTPs and SWWA to identify ways to make sludge application on agricultural soil more accepted. One important step was the introduction of the joint certification scheme REVAQ in 2008, which started as a smaller development project in 2002 (l’Ons etal., 2012). REVAQ is a voluntary agreement initially managed by SWWA, LRF, the Swedish Food Federation, and the Swedish Food Retailer’s Federation in cooperation with SEPA. The current REVAQ system is owned and administered solely by the SWWA. The agreement’s objec‑ tive has been to avoid an unacceptable long‑term accumulation of metals and unde‑ sired organic substances on agricultural land. A WWTP can be certified through REVAQ, and the plant owners then commit to, not least, upstream work in the form of removing the sources of metals and other contaminants before these reach the plant (Persson etal., 2015). Included in the REVAQ system are also requirements that the sludge must be thoroughly cleaned by one of a set of defined methods to prevent the distribution of pathogens and viruses to arable land. LRF and the SWWA recom‑ mend that solely sludge from REVAQ‑certified WTTPs that comply with the above requirements–slightly below 50% of total sludge production in Sweden–should be used on agricultural soil. Overall, REVAQ has stricter regulations (e.g., standards) than are legislated. Figure2.1 shows that the share of agricultural use of sewage sludge has increased following the introduction of the REVAQ scheme. In this way, the scheme has been successful (see further Section 2.4). However, the launch of REVAQ has not settled the controversies regarding the use of sludge on arable land. For instance, Swedish flour mills do not accept grain fertilized with sewage sludge, primarily for fear of consumer backlash. The debate on microplastics in sewage sludge has led several farmers to refuse to accept sludge applications on their land (Johansson, 2018). Overall, Swedish farmers are largely against the spreading of sludge on their land, 24 Circular and Transformative Economy instead opt for a more radical change in the system (e.g., through incineration and phosphorous recovery), building trust among all stakeholders, not least lay citizens, will be very important. Managing the often‑conflicting objectives of increased cir‑ culation of waste on the one hand and decreased exposure to various trace elements on the other is difficult and has to acknowledge the risk perceptions of the citizens. If the chosen solution does not align well with these risk perceptions, it will not matter whether it is a solution that focuses on system optimization or system change. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Financial support from the Swedish Research Council Formas (Grant No. 2018‑00194), within the national research programme Sustainable Spatial Planning, is gratefully acknowledged, as are comments from two anonymous reviewers. Any remaining errors reside solely with the authors. NOTES 1 There have also been concerns about the future availability of phosphorus reserves, both geologically and since existing reserves are controlled by only a few countries (Cordell and White, 2011). 2 Stringent regulations for the treated wastewater from WWTPs have led to more efficient treatment processes but this has also implied that an increasing percentage of pollutants in the wastewater has instead been transferred to the sludge treatment phase. 3 In the 1950s, the sludge was dumped in waterways, and following opposition, in inter‑ national waters. The latter approach was however also abandoned when deemed envi‑ ronmentally unacceptable (Ekman Burgman, 2022). 4 Bauer etal. (2020) present an updated review of the legislation relating to sewage sludge disposal in Sweden compared to a selection of other EU Member States. 5 The scientific basis for the claims made about sludge representing hazardous waste was occasionally claimed to be relatively weak (e.g., Palm etal., 1989). 6 Johansson (2018) notes that in Denmark, there is no single agency for chemicals con‑ trol; instead, this issue is the responsibility of the Danish Environmental Protection Agency. This creates, it can be argued, a more consistent stance towards sewage sludge management in Denmark compared to Sweden. 7 Since 2008, over 5000 different facilities – e.g., industries, car washes, hospitals, etc.–have been approached concerning the presence of undesired organic substances that could end up in the sewage system (REVAQ, 2021). 8 The Swedish waste management corporation Ragn‑Sells has recently patented a new technology for recovering phosphorus from sludge ash (Dagerskog and Olsson, 2020). Lipinska (2018) also reports about the development of fermentation technologies, which contribute to both the reduction of sludge and to the production of energy from biogas generated in the process of methane formation. 9 One example is the urine‑drying technology (Prithvi, 2019). It can be plugged into existing toilets, diverting, and drying out the urine in a separate box, and thus retains most of the nutrients without major retrofitting of pipes. 10 A similar development has taken place in Switzerland where a ban on sludge application was introduced in 2006 (Kärrman etal., 2019). 11 The implementation of a German ban on sludge application in agriculture is projected to take 12 years. A similar move in Sweden could likely take even longer, this since incin‑ eration already is the most common form of sludge treatment in Germany (Rasmussen etal., 2020). 25Voluntary agreements and systemic lock-in in the circular economy 12 One important challenge for policy makers who attempt to promote sustainable tech‑ nology development is whether to focus on a single technological pathway or instead adopt a portfolio approach, thus supporting several pathways in parallel. The German approach, with its focus on mono‑incineration followed by phosphoric acid production, has been criticized for its narrow scope, and the fact that other new technologies could have a greater environmental potential (e.g., permitting the recovery of also nitrogen and carbon) (Barquet etal., 2020). REFERENCES Balmer, P., Frost, R.C. (1990) Managing change in an environmentally conscious society: a case study, Gothenburg (Sweden). Water Science and Technology, 12, 45–56. Barquet, K., Järnberg, L., Rosemarin, A., Macura, B. (2020) Identifying barriers and oppor‑ tunities for a circular phosphorous economy in the Baltic Sea region. Water Research 171, 115433. Bauer, T., Ekman Burgman, L., Andreas, L., Lagerkvist, A. (2020) Effects of different imple‑ mentation of legislation relating to sewage sludge disposal in the EU. Detrius 10, 92–99. Bengtsson, M., Tillman, A.‑M. (2004) Actors and interpretations in an environmental contro‑ versy: the Swedish debate on sewage sludge use in agriculture. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 42, 65–82. Blanken, M., Verweij, C., Mulder, K.F. (2019) Why novel sanitary systems are hardly intro‑ duced? Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems 7, 13–27. Bowler, I.R. (1999) Recycling urban waste on farmland: an actor‑network interpretation. Applied Geography 19, 29–43. Brunner, P.H. (2010) Clean cycles and safe final sinks. Waste Management & Research 28, 575–576. Bugge, M.M., Fevolden, A.M., Klitkou, A. (2019) Governance for system optimization and system change: the case of urban waste. Research Policy 48, 1076–1090. Cassel, M. (2012) Styrkor och svagheter hos gällande styrmedel för avloppsslam. Bachelor’s Thesis in Environmental Science, Lund University, Sweden. Cordell, D., White, S. (2011) Peak phosphorus: clarifying the key issues of a vigorous debate about long‑term phosphorus security. Sustainability 3, 2027–2049. Dagerskog, L., Olsson, O. (2020) Swedish sludge management at the crossroads. SEI Policy Brief, Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden. Eijlander, S., Mulder, K.F. (2019) Sanitary systems: challenges for innovation. Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems 7, 193–212. Ekane, N., Barquet, K., Rosemarin, A. (2021) Resources and risks: perceptions on the appli‑ cation of sewage sludge on agricultural land in Sweden, a case study. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5, 647780. Ekman Burgman, L. (2022) What sewage sludge is and conflicts in Swedish circular economy policymaking. Environmental Sociology 8, 292–301. Ekman Burgman, L., Wallsten, B. (2021) Should the sludge hit the farm?–How chemo‑social relations affect policy efforts to circulate phosphorus in Sweden. Sustainable Production and Consumption 27, 1488–1497. Eksvärd, J. (1999) Går det att få förtroende för slammet? VAV‑nytt 5, 38–39. Eksvärd, J. (2009) LRF försvarar gödsling med avloppsslam, Sveriges Radio, 19 April. EurEau (2021) Wastewater treatment – sludge management. Briefing note, The European Federation of National Associations of Water Services, Brussels. European Commission (2015) Closing the Loop–an EU action plan for the circular economy. COM(2015) 614/2, Brussels. Fagerberg, B., Hagström, B., Eckerman, I., Barregård, L. (2010) Medicinska skäl mot sprid‑ ning av avloppsslam på åkermark. Läkartidningen, March. 26 Circular and Transformative Economy Geels, F.W. (2002) Technological transitions evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi‑level perspective and case study. Research Policy 31, 1257–1274. Geels, F.W. (2014) Reconceptualizing the co‑evolution of firms‑in‑industries and their envi‑ ronments: developing an inter‑disciplinary triple embeddedness framework. Research Policy 43, 261–227. Gerling, D.M. (2019) Excrementalisms: revaluing what we have only ever known as waste. Food, Culture & Society 22, 622–638. Goodman, J.R., Brett, P.G. (2006) Beneficial or biohazard? How the media frame biosolids. Public Understanding of Science15, 359–375. Hellström, T. (2000) Fakta på bordet ska bryta slammets oroscirkel. VAV‑nytt 1, 55–57. Hoffmann, S., Feldmann, U., Bach, P.M., Binz, C., Farrelly, M., Frantzeskaki, N., Hiessl, H., Inauen, J., Larsen, T.A., Lienert, J., Londong, J., Lüthi, C., Maurer, M., Mitchell, C., Morgenroth, E., Nelson, K.L., Scholten, L., Truffer, B., Udert, K.M. (2020) A research agenda for the future of urban water management: exploring the potential of non‑grid, small‑grid, and hybrid solutions. Environmental Science and Technology 54, 5312–5322. Hultman, B., Levlin, E., Stark, K. (2000) Swedish debate on sludge handling. Division of Water Resources Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. Jedelhauser, M., Binder, C.R. (2018) The spatial impact of socio‑technical transitions–the case of phosphorus recycling as a pilot of the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production 197, 856–869. Johansson, B. (1999) Göteborg fick första P‑märket. VAV‑nytt 4, 41–43. Johansson, N. (2018) How can conflicts, complexities and uncertainties in a circular economy be handled? A cross European study of the institutional conditions for sewage sludge and bottom ash utilization. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. Johansson, N., Velis, C., Corvellec, H. (2020) Towards clean material cycles: is there a policy conflict between circular economy and non‑toxic environment? Waste Management & Research 38, 705–707. Kärrman, E., Andersson, C., von Bahr, B., Berg, J., Nilsson, J. (2019) Översikt över återvinning av fosfor och kväve från avlopp i nio utvalda länder. RISE Report 2019:119, Stockholm. Kärrman, E., Malmqvist, P.‑A., Rydhagen, B., Svensson, G. (2007) Utvärdering av ReVAQ‑projektet. Report No. 2007–02, Svenskt Vatten Utveckling, Stockholm. Kemp, R., Schot, J., Hoogma, R. (1998) Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 10, 175–198. Klitkou, A., Fevolden, A.M., Capasso, M. (Eds.) (2019) From waste to value. Valorisation pathways for organic waste streams in circular bioeconomies. Routledge, New York. Krogmann, U., Boyles, L.S., Martel, C.J., McComas, K.A. (1997) Biosolids and sludge man‑ agement. Water Environment Research 69, 534–550. LeBlanc, R.J., Matthews, P., Richard, R.P. (2008) Global atlas of excreta, wastewater sludge, and biosolids management: moving forward the sustainable and welcome uses of a global resource. United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Nairobi. Lipinska, D. (2018) The water‑wastewater‑sludge sector and the circular economy. Comparative Economic Research 21, 121–137. l’Ons, D., Mattsson, A., Davidsson, F., Mattsson, J. (2012) REVAQ–the Swedish certification system for sludge application to land. Experiences at the Rya WWTP in Gothenburg and challenges for the future. Paper presented at the 17th European Biosoldis and Organic Resources Conference, Leeds. Malmqvist, P.‑A., Kärrman, E., Rydhagen, B. (2006) Evaluation of the REVAQ project to achieve safe use of wastewater sludge in agriculture. Water Science & Technology 54, 129–135. Markard, J. (2011) Transformation of infrastructures: sector characteristics and implications for fundamental change. Journal of Infrastructural Systems (ASCE) 17, 107–117. 27Voluntary agreements and systemic lock-in in the circular economy Mason‑Renton, S.A., Luginaah, I. (2018) Conceptualizing waste as a resource: urban biosolids processing in the rural landscape. Canadian Geographer 62, 266–281. Mattson, A., Davidsson, F. (2010) Nödvändigt att återföra fosfor via avloppsslam. Göteborgs‑posten, 31 January. McConville, J., Kvarnström, E., Jönsson, H., Kärrman, E., Johansson, M. (2017a) Source separation: challenges and opportunities for transition in the Swedish wastewater sector. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 120, 144–156. McConville, J., Kvarnström, E., Jönsson, H., Kärrman, E., Johansson, M. (2017b) Is the Swedish wastewater sector ready for a transition to source separation? Desalination and Water Treatment 91, 320–328. Nättorp, A., Remmen, K., Remy, C. (2017) Cost assessment of different routes for phosphorus recovery from wastewater using data from pilot and production plants. Water Science and Technology 76, 413–424. Nicolli, F., Johnstone, N., Söderholm, P. (2012) Resolving failures in recycling markets: the role of technological innovation. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 14, 261–288. Öberg, G., Mason‑Renton, S.A. (2018) On the limitation of evidence‑based policy: regulatory narratives and land application of biosolids/sewage sludge in BC, Canada and Sweden. Environmental Science and Policy 84, 88–96. Palm, O., Dahlberg, A.G., Holmström, H. (1989) Sludge quality from municipal wastewater treatment plants in Sweden–past and future trends. Vatten 45, 30–35. Persson, T., Svensson, M., Finnson, A. (2015) REVAQ certified wastewater treatment plants in Sweden for improved quality of recycled digestate nutrients. A case story from the IEA Bioenergy Task 37, International Energy Agency, Paris. Pollans, L.B. (2017) Trapped in trash: ‘modes of governing’ and barriers to transitioning to sustainable waste management. Environment & Planning A 49, 2300–2323. Potoski, M., Prakash, A. (2013) Green clubs: collective action and voluntary environmental programs. Annual Review of Political Science16, 399–419. Prithvi, S. (2019) The urine drying pilot is operational. Kretsloppsteknik, 11 March. Rasmussen, M., Olsson, O., Trimmer, C., Barquet, K., Rosemarin, A. (2020) Implications of new national policies on management of sewage sludge for a Swedish municipality. Policy Brief in the Bonus Return research program (www.bonusreturn.eu), Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm. REVAQ (2011) Regler för certifieringssytemet REVAQ–Utgåva 2.1, Bromma. REVAQ (2021) REVAQ årsrapport 2020, Bromma. Sandler, T., Tschirhart, J. (1980) The economic theory of clubs: an evaluative survey. Journal of Economic Literature 18, 1481–1521. SNFS 1994:2 Föreskrifter om skydd för miljön, särskilt marken, när avloppsslam används i jordbruket. Statens naturvårdsverks författningssamling, Stockholm. Söderholm, K., Vidal, B., Hedström, A., Herrmann, I. (2022) Flexible and resource‑recovery sanitation solutions: what hindered their implementation? A 40‑year Swedish perspec‑ tive. Journal of Urban Technology 30:1, 23–45. Söderholm, P. (2020) The green economy transition: the challenges of technological change for sustainability. Sustainable Earth 3, 6. SOU 2020:3 Hållbar slamhantering: betänkande från utredningen om en giftfri och cirkulär återföring av fosfor från avloppsslam. Government Offices of Sweden, Stockholm. Story, V., O’Malley, L., Hart, S. (2011) Roles, role performance, and radical innovation com‑ petences. Industrial Marketing Management 40, 952–966. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Aktionsplan för återföring av fosfor ur avlopp. Report 5214, Stockholm. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2010) Redovisning av regeringsuppdrag 21–Uppdatering av aktionsplan för återföring av fosfor ur avlopp, Stockholm. 28 Circular and Transformative Economy Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2011) Halter av 61 spårelement i avloppsslam, stallgödsel, handelsgödsel, nederbörd samt i jord och gröda. Report 6580, Stockholm. Tesfamariam, E.H., Annandale, J.G., de Jager, P.C., Ogbazghi, Z., Malobane, M.E., Mbetse, C.K.A. (2015) Quantifying the fertilizer value of wastewater sludges for agriculture. WRC Report No. 2131/1/15., Water Research Commission, Pretoria. van’t Veld, K., Kotchen, M.J. (2010) Green clubs. NBER Working Paper 16627, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge. Wallenberg, P., Eksvärd, J. (2018) Lantbrukets syn på kretslopp. MAt i Cirkulära Robusta System (Macro) system, Stockholm. Wilson, L. (2010) Mot allt sunt förnuft att säga ja till rötslam. Göteborgs‑posten, 1 June. 3Global status of circular economy adaptation within wastewater services Transition pathways and the role of innovation John Ngoni Zvimba, Eustina Musvoto, Nomvuselelo Mgwenya, and Buyisile Kholisa 3.1 INTRODUCTION In recent years, the concept of a circular economy (CE) has received global promi‑ nence in politics, business, and research agendas. Research has identified numerous potential benefits that can be derived from transitioning from a traditional linear economy to a CE. These include economic, social, improved resource security, and reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (European Environment Agency, 2016). Despite these potential benefits, it is acknowledged that transforming the traditional linear economic model is a big challenge that entails transforming the current production and consumption patterns. In this regard, innovative transfor‑ mational technologies such as digital and engineering technologies in combination with creative thinking have been identified as factors that can drive fundamental changes across entire value chains that are not restricted to specific sectors or mate‑ rials (Accenture, 2014; Acsinte & Verbeek, 2015; Vanner etal., 2014). Such a major transformation would, in turn, significantly impact the economy, environment, and society. Understanding these impacts is crucial for researchers and policymakers in designing future policies in the field (European Commission, 2017; Rizos etal., 2017; Vanner etal., 2014). Although the water sector has not yet fully transitioned to a CE, water utilities have been early adopters of technologies and business practices that support the CE (Jazbec etal., 2020). This has been in response to various threats and challenges the sector has faced in recent years (i.e., water scarcity, increasing energy prices, more stringent regulations, rapid urbanisation and climate change impacts). Impeding regulatory environments and opaque market conditions are the main obstacles to the water sector’s transition to a CE (International Water Association, 2016). Thus, This chapter has been made available under a CC‑BY‑NC 4.0 license 29 DOI: 10.1201/9781003327615-3 30 Circular and Transformative Economy to define a clear role for water utilities in transitioning to a CE, the IWA developed a framework targeted at decision‑makers in water utilities and key stakeholders. The framework identified three key interrelated pathways (water, energy, and materials) to achieving CE principles in the water sector. In addition, consumers, industry, regula‑ tion, infrastructure, and urban and basin economies have been identified as the main factors that drive and enable the transition of the water sector to a CE (International Water Association, 2016). Water utilities must anticipate, respond to, and influence these factors to accelerate the pathways to achieving a CE. In transitioning to a CE, water utilities must also change their current operation and seek new management approaches, partnerships, and business opportunities. The IWA framework further identified WWTPs as one of the key junctions in the three pathways to transitioning to a CE. This is mainly because, within the man‑made water cycle, wastewater carries 50%–100% of waste resources lost, mostly in the form of unrecovered water, energy, and hydrochar materials (Musvoto & Mgwenya, 2022). The wastewater treatment sector is also responsible for approximately 3% of electricity consumption globally, accounting for about 56% of the operational carbon footprint of urban water systems (Batstone etal., 2015). Several researchers have studied WWTPs and their potential for recovering valuable resources (Swartz etal., 2013; Van Vuuren etal., 2014; Zvimba & Musvoto, 2020). These studies have shown that energy efficiency in WWTPs and more efficient utilisation of wastewater energy potential can lead to energy‑positive WWTPs. Also, implementing energy conservation measures and using renewable energy sources significantly improve the WWTPs’ energy efficiency. Furthermore, resource and materials recovery from wastewater, such as using carbon to produce high‑value by‑products (biopolymers and fine chemicals) and nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen), which are useful in agriculture, reduces the global environmental impact of their industrial production. To successfully achieve the above, an understanding of the status of CE adaptation in the global wastewater sector and appropriate frameworks and strategies that can be adapted for application by LMIC are required. Furthermore, the role of innovative technologies as accelerators for transitioning the water sector to a CE requires criti‑ cal evaluation. Such technologies can support the utilisation of WWTPs, identified as a key junction in the IWA framework, as wastewater biorefinery platforms are at the centre of the transition for improved wastewater management and resource recovery. 3.2 CIRCULAR ECONOMY ADAPTATION PROGRESS Regions that have made considerable progress in promoting the CE are the European Union (EU), China, Japan, South Korea, and parts of the USA. 3.2.1 the eUropean Union The CE concept emerged in Europe in the 1980s and 1990s and is reported to have been formally used in an economic model for the first time by Pearce and Turner (1991). However, before this, early policies of EU member states drawing on ideas that can be traced to the 1960s and 1970s had promoted elements of circularity in certain parts of the economy. For example, driven by a desire to divert waste from 31Transition pathways and the role of innovation landfills, the Netherlands and Germany pioneered the concepts of waste prevention and reduction. The waste hierarchy was introduced to the Dutch Parliament in 1979 (McDowall etal., 2017). The concept has become increasingly prominent in the past decade and is now adopted as part of the EU economic policy and strategy. Research has shown that numerous potential benefits are derived from transition‑ ing from a linear economy to a CE, and the benefits of implementing CE principles within EU countries were found to include (European Environment Agency, 2016): • improved resource security and decreased import dependency, • reduced environmental impact, including a drastic reduction in GHG emissions, • economic benefits that include new opportunities for growth and innova‑ tion, as well as savings related to improved resource efficiency, and • social benefits ranging from new job creation across all skill levels to changes in consumer behaviour, leading to better health and safety outcomes. Through transitioning to a CE, the EU predicts a doubling of economic and environ‑ mental benefits, 11% growth in average disposable incomes and a halving of carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). Specific benefits to countries and sectors within the EU have further been highlighted in subsequent stud‑ ies (Bačová etal., 2016; European Environment Agency, 2016). While the benefits of the CE are being increasingly acknowledged, there is still a range of barriers that need to be overcome. The barriers identified as major challenges for CE implementation are technological, policy and regulatory, financial and economic, consumer and social (European Commission, 2014; Galvão etal., 2018; Rizos etal., 2017). The significance of these barriers differs for materials, products, and sectors. Several actions are required at the EU, national, regional, and local levels to drive transforma‑ tion, depending on the nature of the barrier faced. Various drivers are often required in a sector or value chain to overcome these barriers and consider the multiple factors that often influence each other. Due to its complexity, the transition to a CE is a multi‑level governance challenge, requiring actions in the public and private sectors and at an individual level. Thus, identification and detailed understanding of specific barriers are very important so that appropriate mitigation measures can be implemented. Studies in the EU have shown that the transition to a CE requires systemic change and a more holistic, integrated approach that considers the multiple connections and influences within and between sectors, value chains and stakeholders (European Commission, 2014; Humphris‑Bach etal., 2016). With this approach, key factors such as different incentives, distribution of economic rewards and impacts of spe‑ cific measures along a value chain across different sectors and policy areas should be considered. Complementary tools and approaches that can easily be advanced by the private and public sectors and individuals at all levels, from local to the EU, are required. Policy intervention beyond private initiatives has been identified as a key driver in overcoming some barriers to transitioning to a CE. Identified potential pol‑ icy actions include regulatory measures, economic incentives, targeted and increased funding efforts to engage and link actors along the value chain and initiatives to raise awareness of the benefits of the CE and available solutions. 32 Circular and Transformative Economy In 2015, the European Commission adopted an action to help accelerate the EU’s transition towards a CE, boost global competitiveness, promote sustainable economic growth, and generate new jobs (European Commission, 2015). The action plan sets out measures to ‘close the loop’ of product lifecycles, from production and consump‑ tion to waste management and the market for secondary raw materials. It also identi‑ fies five priority sectors to speed up the transition along their value chain, and these include (i) plastics, (ii) food waste, (iii) critical raw materials, (iv) construction & demolition, and (v) biomass & bio‑based materials. In this regard, close cooperation with member states, regions and municipalities, businesses, research bodies, citizens and other stakeholders involved in the CE is promoted in the action plan. 3.2.2 other regions Apart from the EU, other regions that have made significant progress in promoting a CE are China, Japan, South Korea, and part of the USA. The concept of CE is not new in China, as it dates back to the 1990s, with origins in cleaner production, industrial ecology and ecological modernisation. The think‑ ing was inspired by implementation examples in Europe, the United States and Japan (Geng etal., 2009). In 2003, the central government formally accepted the concept as a new development strategy that culminated in the 2009CE Promotion Law, the natural framework for advancing CE. Subsequently, various action plans that provide further details for specific sectors, as well as clarity on the implementation of the provisions of the CE Promotion Law, have been put in place (McDowall etal., 2017). Since its implementation, the Promotion Law has evolved to include concern for eco‑design, potential product regulations and restrictions on some classes of dispos‑ able goods, green consumption, and extended producer responsibility. In addition, the Promotion Law requires establishing target responsibility systems in support of the CE and measuring and evaluating progress against indicators. To promote CE, the Chinese government has invested significantly in demonstration projects, deployed tax incentives and allowed reuse/recycling activities previously banned, such as selling relatively clean wastewater. It is estimated that extending such practices would save Chinese businesses and households 32 trillion yuan (US$4.6 trillion) in 2030, equivalent to 14% of its projected gross domestic product that year (Geng etal., 2019). Although the Chinese CE agenda is framed on the same principles as the EU (waste minimisation, raw materials, and resource efficiency), there are dif‑ ferences in policy focus areas. EU policies focus on consumption and product design more than China, focusing on specific manufacturing sectors (McDowall etal., 2017) and measures to increase efficiency and reduce waste pollution in manufacturing. Japan and South Korea also have national strategies for enabling CE. Japan has legislated on eco‑design and made producers responsible for the after‑use of their products, thereby boosting markets for secondary materials. These CE initiatives have saved materials, waste, energy, and emissions. In Kawasaki, Japan, reusing industrial and municipal wastes in cement manufacturing has reduced GHG emis‑ sions by about 15% (41,300 tonnes per year) since2009 and saved up to 272,000 tonnes of virgin materials annually. Like China, South Korea has operated industrial parks that use the principles of a CE to link companies’ supply chains and reuse or recycle common materials. 33Transition pathways and the role of innovation The United States has hundreds of corporate recycling and a handful of regional programmes, such as the San Francisco, California Zero Waste scheme. However, beyond this, few broad federal initiatives have been comparable to those pursued by China and the EU (Klimentov, 2018). To develop new CE opportunities and realise their ambitions faster in the USA, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation launched a US chapter of its Circular Economy 100 (CE100) programme in 2016. The CE100 is a pre‑competitive innovation programme that enables organisations to develop new opportunities and realise their CE ambitions faster. It brings together corporates, governments and cities, academic institutions, emerging innovators, and affiliates in a unique multi‑stakeholder platform. Specially developed programme elements help members learn, build capacity, network, and collaborate with key organisations around the CE (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). The launch followed a study by the US Chamber of Commerce Foundation that showed that the 5,589largest publicly traded companies in the US sent 342million metric tons of waste to landfills and incinerators in 2014 (Bowdish, 2016). Companies generate 7.81metric tons of waste for every million dollars in revenue. Reducing paper waste by a mere 1% would save these companies nearly $1 billion. To date, the members of the CE100 programme include large corporations like Walmart, Microsoft, Coca‑Cola, Google, Nike, and other institutions. 3.2.3 soUth africa South Africa does not yet have a unified national policy and strategy for transition‑ ing to a CE. However, lessons learnt from other regions and increased awareness of potential opportunities stimulate serious discussions and initiatives on a CE in the public and private sectors. Despite the lack of a national policy on CE, legislation like the National Environmental Management Act (Republic of South Africa, 2009) is driving progress in some areas of CE aspects, such as waste recycling and convert‑ ing waste to energy. Efforts are also being made at the government and sector level to cooperate with other regions that have gained traction in transitioning to a CE. Examples of these efforts include the following: • The CE Mission with the EU, whose main objectives are to increase coop‑ eration between the EU and LMIC in the field of environmental policy, achieve a better understanding of the environmental challenges faced by LMIC and promote green solutions through business partnerships abroad (European Commission, 2018). The Terms of Reference for the Forum on Environment, Climate Change, Sustainable Development and Water between the EU and South Africa include an agreement to further cooper‑ ate in areas that include biodiversity, CE and water resources management issues, among others. The cooperation also involves private sector operators. • Membership to the Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy (PACE), a public‑private collaboration platform and project accelerator. PACE aims to shape global public‑private leadership and accelerate action towards the CE. Project focus areas include plastics, electronics, food & bioeconomy, a business model, and market transformation across China, ASEAN, Europe, and Africa. 40 Circular and Transformative Economy 3.4.3.1.1 Microbiological class A summary of the microbiological content of WWS and FS feedstock and the hydro‑ char produced from the EHTP process is given in Table3.2. Comparing the microbi‑ ological content in the feedstock and produced hydrochar with the limits in the DWS Guidelines shows that both the WWS and FS feedstock, including anaerobically DS, fall into Class C (Herselman & Moodley, 2009; Snyman & Herselman, 2006). The EHTP process removed all microbial life and produced a Class A hydrochar. 3.4.3.1.2 Stability class Since the EHTP is a thermal process, it is designed to produce hydrochar that sat‑ isfies the stability Class 1 of the DWS Guideline (Herselman & Moodley, 2009; Snyman & Herselman, 2006). 3.4.3.1.3 Pollutant class Ultimate analysis was carried out on feedstock and hydrochar following EHTP pro‑ cessing to determine the concentration of metals stipulated in the DWS Guidelines, as shown in Table3.3. The results generally showed an increase in the content of heavy metals in the hydrochar for all feedstock samples. This indicates that heavy metals are retained in the solid product in the EHTP reactor and not transferred into the liquid during the EHTP processing of sludge. In this regard, the classification of the hydrochar in terms of the DWS Guidelines depends on the metal content of TABLE3.2 Microbiological content of feedstock and EHTP hydrochar Parameter Escherichia coli (colonies/g) Helminth Ova (count/dry gram) Feedstock Hydrochar Feedstock Hydrochar Sludge from WWTP PS & WAS 5 × 1070 60 0 DS 5.1 × 1050 5 0 Faecal sludge from VIP latrines Area (A) FSa6.2 × 1040 0 0 Area B FSb 1.5 × 10410 151 0 a Samples from pit latrines frequently emptied (once a week or less). b Samples from stockpiled FS that have undergone significant biological degradation. TABLE3.1 South African sludge classification system Microbial class A B C Stability class 1 2 3 Pollution class a b c 41Transition pathways and the role of innovation TABLE3.3 Concentration of regulated metals in sludge from a typical WWTP (Musvoto etal., 2018) Primary sludge WAS Digested sludge Feed Product % Increase Feed Product % Increase Feed Product % Increase Compulsory metals (mg/kg) Arsenic (As) 12 11 −6.7 0 20 100.0 20 0 −100.0 Cadmium (Cd) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chromium (Cr) 202 289 43.1 152 371 143.9 277 290 4.6 Copper (Cu) 266 427 60.5 184 495 169.2 326 398 22.1 Lead (Pb) 82 152 83.9 143 384 168.6 301 245 −18.8 Mercury (Hg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nickel (Ni) 48 87 81.8 0 0 73 0 −100.0 Zinc (Zn) 2,053 2,886 40.6 1,324 3,262 146.4 2,318 3,039 31.1 Some of the recommended benchmark metals (mg/kg) Manganese (Mn) 541 384 −29.1 898 1,445 61.0 1,069 1,225 14.6 Molybdenum (Mo) 16 23 45.6 7 17 131.0 10 19 84.8 Selenium (Se) 19 22 15.1 9 14 53.7 20 27 31.4 Strontium (Sr) 103 104 1.2 90 142 57.3 123 153 24.0 Thallium (Ti) 2,254 3,780 67.7 1,384 3,679 165.9 2,489 3,632 45.9 Vanadium (V) 84 151 80.8 44 113 154.6 87 97 12.5 42 Circular and Transformative Economy the original feedstock (Herselman & Moodley, 2009; Snyman & Herselman, 2006). Although the EHTP process increased the heavy metal content of the hydrochar, the metal content is still low enough for the hydrochar to be classified as Class A. Similar results were obtained for FS, where the heavy metal content is very low, and the increase through the EHTP process does not change the hydrochar pollutant class. 3.4.3.1.4 Other micropollutants The efficiency of the EHTP process in removing contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) was also evaluated at both laboratory and pilot scales (Musvoto etal., 2019). WWS feedstock was processed in the EHTP reactor, and both the feedstock and pro‑ duced hydrochar and process supernatant were analysed for selected pharmaceuticals, oestrogens and per–polyfluoroalkyl substances. The results showed significant destruc‑ tion of the selected CECs following the processing of WWS using the EHTP process. 3.4.3.1.5 Process water About 10%–20% of the initial solids content was converted to liquid in the EHTP process. The process, therefore, produces an exceptionally low volume of process water consisting of the initial water content and water generated from liquified sol‑ ids. Like the hydrochar given in Table3.2, process water analysis has shown that it is completely sterile (no microbial life). However, the process water contains a high TCOD, TKN, and P concentration and is characterised by low pH. At centralised WWTPs, the process water can be returned to the inlet works after pH adjustment and co‑treated with the incoming wastewater. 3.4.4 Beneficial Uses 3.4.4.1 Biofuel The EHTP process produced hydrochar with a higher calorific value than the feed‑ stock except in cases where the feedstock has been previously pre‑processed (e.g., DS, old FS). Combining pre‑processed sludge with untreated sludge and/or other waste biomass (e.g., inlet works screenings, waste biomass from the community) increases the calorific value of the hydrochar. The calculated characteristics neces‑ sary to describe the energy content of both the feedstock and hydrochar are higher heating value (HHV), fuel ratio, hydrochar yield (Hy), energy densification (Ed) and energy yield (Ey). These characteristics for selected feedstock and produced hydro‑ char are summarised in Table3.4. The sludge that was not pre‑processed (PS and WAS) as combined sludge feed‑ stock produced hydrochar with higher calorific values and energy densification above 1, showing that the EHTP process improves energy densification in the feedstock. The fuel ratio (Fixed Carbon/Volatile Content) and the ash content for hydrochar were also higher than the feedstock. WWTPs processing WWS could produce better quality bio‑ fuel than the plants processing FS due to lower ash content on the feed and hydrochar. Table3.5 summarises the elemental composition and calculated O/C and H/C ratios of the feedstock and hydrochar. These ratios decreased during the EHTP process due to dehydration and decarboxylation reactions. The O/C and H/C ratios were plotted on a Van Krevelen diagram (Figure3.4), a widely accepted method for comparing the fuel properties of coals and other biofuels (Peters etal., 2016). 43Transition pathways and the role of innovation TABLE3.4 Proximate analysis results and biofuel characteristics (processing temp.190oC–200oC) Volatile (%) Ash (%) Fixed C (%) HHV (MJ/kgDS) Fuel ratio Hy (%) Ed Ey (%) Sludge feedstock PS/WAS Feedstock 68.5 17 11.6 20.3 0.17 PS/WAS Hydrochar 68.1 19.9 14.8 25.4 0.22 62.7 1.25 78.4 PS/WAS + Screenings Feedstock 73.0 6.7 13.1 22.3 0.18 PS/WAS + Screenings Hydrochar 78.9 14 14.5 27.6 0.18 47.9 1.24 59.3 DS Feedstock 60.7 29.6 9.7 18.6 0.16 DS Hydrochar 44.4 44.1 11.7 16.4 0.26 64.7 0.88 57.0 DS/Screenings Feedstock 75.4 11.1 13.5 22.0 0.18 DS/Screenings Hydrochar 70.2 13.4 16.5 25.0 0.24 60.1 1.14 68.3 Faecal sludge feedstock Area B Coarse Screened FS Feedstock 49.0 43.5 7.3 12.6 0.15 Area B Coarse Screened FS Hydrochar 35.6 54.2 10.0 10.6 0.28 45.4 0.84 38.3 Area B Fine Screened FS Feedstock 46.9 46.1 6.7 10.8 0.14 Area B Fine Screened FS Feedstock Hydrochar 30.3 59.9 9.8 9.2 0.32 53.9 0.86 46.2 Area B Coarse Screened FS/PS&WAS 51.8 39.1 8.2 12.4 0.16 Area B Coarse Screened FS/PS&WAS Hydrochar 37.2 52.6 10.1 13.2 0.27 63.1 1.07 67.3 Area B Fine Screened FS/PS&WAS 50.6 40.1 9.0 11.2 0.18 Area B Fine Screened FS/PS&WAS Hydrochar 35.3 54.1 10.5 12.4 0.30 51.8 1.11 57.5 Area (A) FS 64.2 25.3 10.3 17.6 0.16 Area (A) FS Hydrochar 49.5 40.8 9.8 13.5 0.20 72.0 0.77 55.5 Area (A) FS/PS &WAS 66.7 18.8 14.4 20.4 0.22 Area (A) FS/PS &WAS Hydrochar 64.0 20.8 15.2 23.4 0.24 60.0 1.15 68.9 44 Circular and Transformative Economy TABLE3.5 Elemental analysis and H/C and O/C ratios Sample Elemental analysis (% DS) H/C O/C C N H S O Sludge and faecal sludge Primary Sludge Hydrochar 36.9 2.0 5.1 1.3 12.0 0.14 0.33 Primary Sludge + Screenings Hydrochar 36.2 1.7 6.6 0.7 20.9 0.18 0.58 WAS Feedstock 31.0 12.8 3.0 1.3 40.7 0.10 1.31 WAS Hydrochar 41.9 13.0 2.8 0.9 34.0 0.07 0.81 Digested Sludge Feedstock 28.0 3.6 4.6 1.3 14.7 0.16 0.52 Digested Sludge Hydrochar 26.8 2.3 4.0 0.9 11.6 0.15 0.43 Composted Sludge feedstock 24.4 14.4 3.3 1.3 50.3 0.14 2.06 Composted Sludge Hydrochar 34.2 16.4 2.6 0.9 49.4 0.08 1.44 Area B Coarse Screened FS Feedstock 27.3 2.0 3.7 0.9 17.9 0.13 0.66 Area B Coarse Screened FS Hydrochar 24.9 1.7 3.0 0.7 10.3 0.12 0.41 Area B Fine Screened FS Feedstock 25.7 2.1 3.8 0.9 21.5 0.15 0.84 Area B Fine Screened FS Hydrochar 15.4 1.3 1.9 0.5 21.0 0.12 1.36 Area B Fine Screened FS + PS & WAS Feedstock 30.0 2.3 4.6 0.9 23.1 0.15 0.77 Area B Fine Screened FS + PS & WAS Hydrochar 32.4 2.0 3.9 0.7 8.3 0.12 0.26 Area B Coarse Screened FS PS & WAS Feedstock 19.2 1.6 2.9 0.6 35.6 0.15 1.85 Area B Coarse Screened FS+P & WAS Hydrochar 22.5 1.7 3.0 0.5 18.2 0.13 0.81 Area (A) FS Feedstock 39.9 3.5 5.7 0.8 18.0 0.15 0.45 Area (A) FS Hydrochar 39.6 2.3 5.6 0.5 9.7 0.14 0.24 Area (A) FS + PS & WAS Feedstock 38.5 4.9 6.0 0.7 31.1 0.16 0.81 Area (A) FS + PS & WAS Hydrochar 52.3 2.5 7.1 0.5 16.8 0.14 0.32 45Transition pathways and the role of innovation Other fuels Wood 50.0 6.0 44 0.12 0.88 Peat 54.8 0.9 5.4 0.1 35.8 0.10 0.65 Lignite 70.0 25.0 5.0 25 0.07 0.36 Coal (Pittsburgh Seam) 75.5 1.2 5.0 3.1 4.9 0.07 0.06 Bituminous Coal 83.0 2.0 5.0 11 0.06 0.13 Anthracite 83.0 2.0 3.5 2 0.04 0.02 46 Circular and Transformative Economy 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 Atomic O/C Atomic H/C x 10 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 EHTP Hydrochar Wood Sludge/Waste Biomass Primary Sludge Hydrochar Primary Sludge + Screenings Hydrochar WAS Feedstock WAS Hydrochar Digested sludge Feedstock Digested sludge Hydrochar Composted Sludge Composted Sludge Hydrochar Area B Coarse Screened FS Feedstock Area B Coarse Screened FS + PS & WAS Feedstock Area B Coarse Screened FS + PS & WA S Hydrochar Area B Fine Screened FS + PS & WAS Feedstock Area B Fine Screened FS + PS & WAS Hydrochar Area (A) FS Feedstock Area (A) FS Hydrochar Area (A) FS & WAS Feedstock Area (A) FS & WAS Hydrochar Wood Peat Lignite Coal (Pittsburgh Seam) Bituminous Coal Anthracite Area B Coarse Screened FS Hydrochar Area B Fine Screened FS Feedstock Area B Fine Screened FS Hydrochar Peat Coal-HG Anthracite Coal-HG FIGURE 3.4 Van Krevelen diagram for sludge feedstocks, hydrochars from the EHTP process, coals and other fuels. 47Transition pathways and the role of innovation The highest‑ranked coals have the lowest O/C and H/C ratios, and are normally in the bottom left corner of the diagram. The EHTP process enhances the fuel properties of biomass by removing hydro‑ gen and oxygen, resulting in carbon densification in the hydrochar. The sludge feedstocks and combined sludge and other biomass had oxygen and hydrogen con‑ tent higher than low‑grade brown coal. After EHTP processing, hydrochar oxygen and hydrogen contents are reduced, and the hydrochar O/C ratio of values between low bituminous coal and brown coal is achieved while the H/C ratios are higher than coal. CO2 emissions from fuels depend primarily on their carbon content and their hydrogen–carbon ratio. Over the years, fossil fuel usage trends have tended toward a higher hydrogen‑to‑carbon (H/C) ratio. The higher the H/C ratio, the higher the energy efficiency of the fuel and the lower the CO2 emissions from its combustion. Primitive fuel, such as wood, had twice the carbon content compared to its succes‑ sor, coal. However, coal, with a lower H/C ratio, is twice as energy efficient than wood. Later, coal was succeeded by oil, which had a much higher H/C ratio and thus benefited over wood and coal in having higher energy efficiency and lower CO2 emis‑ sions. Natural gas has an even lower carbon content compared to oil. However, the ratio of hydrogen to carbon is still lower in biofuels. In fact, biofuels such as hydrogen have zero H/C ratios. The EHTP process improves the fuel characteristics of sludge and other waste biomass by producing a hydrochar with lower H/C and O/C ratios and higher calo‑ rific value. Hydrochar also has a higher H/C ratio than traditional fuels such as coal and will thus have a lesser carbon emission when combusted as a biofuel. However, it must be noted that the ash content of the hydrochar is higher than that of high‑grade coal and will, therefore, impact the combustion efficiency of the hydrochar. 3.4.4.2 Agriculture The hydrochar produced from the EHTP process has higher concentrations of nutri‑ ents and carbon than the feedstock. Thus, the hydrochar can be used as a soil condi‑ tioner/fertiliser provided that the heavy metal concentrations do not exceed the limits in the Sludge Guidelines (Herselman & Moodley, 2009; Snyman & Herselman, 2006). In this regard, a detailed investigation of the application of hydrochar gener‑ ated from sludge for agricultural purposes is required. This should use the already developed Sludge Application Rate Advisor (Tesfamariam etal., 2015), a useful tool for sludge classification, rate application, and metal accumulation prediction. 3.4.4.3 Adsorption media Preliminary laboratory tests have shown that hydrochar produced from process‑ ing woody biomass in the EHTP process can be applied as adsorption media and has characteristics like some commercial‑grade activated carbon. Studies are being undertaken to investigate the efficacy of hydrochar from processing sludge as an adsorption media. The use of hydrochar from processing sludge as an adsorption media can be useful as a polishing step to treat final effluent from WWTPs as part of wastewater reclamation and recycling in support of the water pathway within a CE. 48 Circular and Transformative Economy 3.4.4.4 Other applications Hydrochar also has the potential to be used as a building material (cement and brick making) and cathode in microbial fuel cells (MFCs), as well as an energy storage device due to the presence of nitrogen functional groups. Further investigations on these applications need to be undertaken to ensure diversified applications are feasible. 3.4.5 applications for the ehtp process The field tests have indicated that the EHTP process can be applied to process sludge independently and in combination with other waste biomass to produce a sterile hydrochar with various potential uses. Based on the results from the field testing, the EHTP process can be applied for wastewater solids and other community waste biomass management within a CE as follows: • process untreated WWS or further treat pre‑DS at centralised WWTPs in combination with other waste biomass from the community. FS from low‑cost sanitation systems can also be co‑processed. • FS from low‑cost sanitation systems at a centralised facility or a facility for a few households. Application for individual households at a small scale is also feasible. These applications are graphically illustrated in Figures3.5 and 3.6, as previously reported by Zvimba etal. (2021). Figure3.5 illustrates the incorporation of the EHTP process into WWTPs infrastructure. Generally, the incorporation of the EHTP process into the current WWTP infrastructure demonstrates the application of the technology for the treatment of WWS in combination with other biomass to a quality higher than FIGURE3.5 Schematic layout of EHTP process retrofit into existing WWTP infrastructure. 49Transition pathways and the role of innovation generally achieved by commonly applied biochemical conversion processes utilised by the wastewater services sector, including further reduction of sludge quantity. Thus, the EHTP process provides significant flexibility based on its ability to process different sludge combinations, including incorporating screenings and other external biomass generating high energy content hydrochar. This further indicates the need for coupling the emerging technology with current WWTPs, thereby avoid‑ ing redundancy of existing infrastructure and advancing the vision of establishing resource efficiency within wastewater management to support transitioning to CE. Besides retrofitting the emerging technology into existing infrastructure, as out‑ lined in Figure3.5, the EHTP process can be applied as a standalone technology for greenfield applications. Figure3.6 shows the closed‑loop CE concept for applying the EHTP process for processing FS from a low‑cost sanitation system at a centralised facility, as previously reported by Zvimba etal. (2021). Figure3.6 demonstrates the possible integration of waste management as a wide range of biomass generated within communities can be potentially processed using the EHTP process to generate materials useful for meeting community resource requirements in support of energy and food security. As illustrated in Figure3.6, adopting the EHTP technology for processing dif‑ ferent waste streams facilitates the transition to a CE with possibilities of creating new business models and jobs, developing new skills and investments within com‑ munities, and reducing the carbon footprint as key social, economic, and environ‑ mental benefits. Therefore, the wastewater services sector needs to rethink its sludge FIGURE3.6 Detailed schematic illustration for application of the EHTP processing faecal sludge from low‑cost sanitation systems at a centralised facility in combination with another household biomass. 56 Circular and Transformative Economy FIGURE3.9 Illustration of potential coupling of EHTP process with other technologies within the material pathway (Adapted from IWA, 2016 and Musvoto & Mgwenya, 2022). 57Transition pathways and the role of innovation 3.6 CONCLUSIONS This chapter has reviewed the global status of CE adaptation globally and in LMICs like South Africa. A review of the IWA framework demonstrated that it covers all aspects of the water cycle and is considered the most appropriate framework and strat‑ egy for adoption by the water sector for transitioning to CE within LMICs. Junction opportunities presented by the three interrelated pathways of water, energy and mate‑ rials are critical in achieving this transition in the water sector. Moreover, innovation has been noted to play a significant role as an accelerator in transitioning the water sector to a CE. In this regard, the emerging EHTP process has been demonstrated as a feasible technology for processing WWS in combination with FS and other waste biomass to a multiuse hydrochar useful as a biofuel, adsorption media, soil ameliorant and construction material. The possible coupling of the emerging technology with existing well‑established technologies and other emerging technologies supporting the water, energy, and material pathways has also been outlined as feasible. Furthermore, integrating waste management through the application of this multi‑biomass processing emerging innovative technology as an accelerator to a CE within community settings is quite possible and achievable. Potential key social, economic, and environmental benefits of such an approach include creating new business models, jobs and new investment opportunities, developing new skills, and reducing the waste management carbon footprint. Overall, the chapter highlights the need for the wastewater services sector to rethink its wastewater management strat‑ egy, envisaging maximum benefits from resource recovery across the wastewater treatment cycle to support the CE implementation. REFERENCES Abu‑Ghunmi, D., Abu‑Ghunmi, L., Kayal, B. & Bino, A. 2016. Circular Economy and the Opportunity Cost of Not ‘Closing the Loop’ of Water Industry: The Case of Jordan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 131: 228–236. Accenture. 2014. Circular Advantage: Innovative Business Models and Technologies to Create Value in a World without Limits to Growth. Available at: https://accntu.re/2kYSfPn. Acsinte S and Verbeek A. 2015. Assessment of Access‑to‑Finance Conditions for Projects Supporting Circular Economy–Final report. Report prepared for DG Research and Innovation of the European Commission by InnovFin Advisory and European Investment Bank Advisory Services, Luxembourg. Bačová, M., Böhme, K., Guitton, M., van Herwijnen, M., Kállay, T., Koutsomarkou, J., Magazzù, I., O’Loughlin, E. & Rok, A. 2016. Pathways to a Circular Economy in Cities and Regions: A Policy Brief Addressed to Policy Makers from European Cities and Regions. France: Interreg Europe Joint Secretariat. Batstone, D.J., Hülsen, T., Mehta, C.M. & Keller, J. 2015. Platforms for Energy and Nutrient Recovery from Domestic Wastewater: A Review. Chemosphere, 140: 2–11. Bowdish, L. 2016. Trash to Treasure: Changing Waste Streams to Profit Streams. Washington, DC. de Jong, S., van der Gaast, M., Kraak, J., Bergema, R. & Usanov, A. 2016. The Circular Economy and Developing Countries: A Data Analysis of The Impact of a Circular Economy on Resource Dependent Developing Nations. Available at: https://hcss.nl/ wp‑content/uploads/2016/07/CEO_The‑Circular‑Economy.pdf Ellen MacArthur Foundation. 2015. Growth within: A Circular Economy Vision for a Competitive Europe. Available at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/growth‑ within‑a‑circular‑economy‑vision‑for‑a‑competitive‑europe 58 Circular and Transformative Economy European Commission. 2014. Towards a Circular Economy: A Zero Waste Programme for Europe. Brussels. European Commission. 2015. Closing the Loop ‑ An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy. Brussels. European Commission. 2017. The Role of Waste‑to‑Energy in the Circular Economy. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Available at: https:// eur‑lex.europa.eu/legal‑content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A52017DC0034 European Commission. 2018. Behavioural Study on Consumers’ Engagement in the Circular Economy. Luxembourg. European Environment Agency. 2016. Circular Economy in Europe ‑ Developing the Knowledge Base. Luxembourg. Galvão, A.G.D., De Nadae, J., Clemente, D.H., Chinen, G. & De Carvalho, M.M. 2018. Circular Economy: Overview of Barriers. In 10th CIRP Conference on Industrial Product‑Service Systems, IPS 2018. Linköping: Elsevier B.V.: 79–85. Geng, Y., Sarkis, J. & Bleischwitz, R. 2019. How to Globalize the Circular Economy. Nature, 565(7738): 5–7. Geng, Y., Zhu, Q., Doberstein, B. & Fujita, T. 2009. Implementing China’s Circular Economy Concept at the Regional Level: A Review of Progress in Dalian, China. Waste Management, 29(2): 996–1002. Greyson, J. 2007. An Economic Instrument for Zero Waste, Economic Growth and Sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(13–14): 1382–1390. Herselman, J.E. & Moodley, P. 2009. Guidelines for the Utilisation and Disposal of Wastewater Sludge: Volume 4 Requirements for the Beneficial Use of Sludge at High Loading Rates. Pretoria. Hislop, H. & Hill, J. 2011. Reinventing the Wheel: A Circular Economy. London: Green Alliance. Humphris‑Bach, A., Essig, C., Morton, G. & Harding, L. 2016. EU Resource Efficiency Scoreboard 2015. European Union. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_effi‑ ciency/targets_indicators/scoreboard/pdf/EU Resource Efficiency Scoreboard 2015.pdf International Water Association (IWA). 2016. Water Utility Pathways in a Circular Economy. Published by the International Water Association. Available at: https://iwa‑network.org/ water‑utility‑pathways‑circular‑economy‑charting‑course‑sustainability/ Jazbec, M., Mukheibir, P. & Turner, A. 2020. Transitioning the Water Industry with the Circular Economy, Prepared for the Water Services Association of Australia, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, September 2020. Available at: https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/10453/143397 Klimentov, M. 2018. Coming Full Circle? The State of Circular Economies around the Globe. Available at: https://www.greenbiz.com/article/coming‑full‑circle‑state‑circular‑ economies‑around‑globe McDowall, W., Geng, Y., Huang, B., Barteková, E., Bleischwitz, R., Türkeli, S., Kemp, R. & Doménech, T. 2017. Circular Economy Policies in China and Europe. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3): 651–661. Musvoto, E. & Mgwenya, N. 2022. The Role of Emerging Innovative Wastewater Sludge to Energy Technologies in Transitioning to a Circular Economy in the Water Sector: A South African Case Study. Pretoria. Musvoto, E., Mgwenya, N., Cingo, X. & Zvinowanda, C.2019. Application of Emerging Low Energy Technologies for the Removal of Endocrine Disrupting Compounds in Wastewater and Wastewater Sludge. Pretoria. Musvoto, E., Mgwenya, N., Mangashena, H. & Mackintosh, A. 2018. Energy Recovery from Wastewater Sludge–A Review of Appropriate Emerging and Established Technologies for the South African Industry. Pretoria. 59Transition pathways and the role of innovation Republic of South Africa.2009. National Environmental Management Waste Act 59 (NEMA) of 2008. Government Gazette No. 32000, Vol. 525 (March 2009). Government Printer, Cape Town, Cape Town, p.47. Pearce, D.W. & Turner, R.K. 1991. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(1): 227–228. Peters, K.E., Xia, X., Pomerantz, A.E. & Mullins, O.C. 2016. Chapter 3‑ Geochemistry Applied to Evaluation of Unconventional Resources. In Y.Z. Ma & S.A.B.T.‑U.O. and G.R.H. Holditch, eds. Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources Handbook. Boston: Gulf Professional Publishing: 71–126. Puyol, D., Batstone, D.J., Hülsen, T., Astals, S., Peces, M. & Krömer, J.O. 2017. Resource Recovery from Wastewater by Biological Technologies: Opportunities, Challenges, and Prospects. Frontiers in Microbiology, 7(JAN): 1–23. Rizos, V., Tuokko, K. & Behrens, A. 2017. The Circular Economy a Review of Definitions, Processes and Impacts. Report No 2017/08, CEPS, Brussels. Snyman, H.G. & Herselman, J.E. 2006. Guidelines for the Utilisation and Disposal of Wastewater Sludge Volume 1: Selection of Management options. Pretoria. Swartz, C.D., van der Merwe‑Botha, M. & Freese, S.D.2013. Energy Efficiency in the South African Water Industry: A Compendium of Best Practices and Case Studies. Pretoria. Tesfamariam, E.H., Annandale, J.G., de Jager, P.C., Ogbazghi, Z., Malobane, M.E. & Mbetse, C.K.A. 2015. Quantifying the Fertilizer Value of Wastewater Sludges for Agriculture. Pretoria. Vanner, R., Bicket, M., Withana, S., ten Brink, P., Razzini, P., van Dijl, E., Watkins, E., Hestin, M., Tan, A., Guilcher, S. & Hudson, C.2014. Scoping Study to Identify Potential Circular Economy Actions, Priority Sectors, Material Flows and Value Chains: Study Prepared for the European Commission, DG Environment’s Framework. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 18 Sept 2014. Van Vuuren, S.J., Dijk, M. Van & Loots, I. 2014. Conduit Hydropower Pilot Plants. Pretoria. Zvimba, J.N. & Musvoto, E.V. 2020. Modelling Energy Efficiency and Generation Potential in the South African Wastewater Services sector. Water Science and Technology, 81(5): 876–890. Zvimba, J.N., Musvoto, E. V., Nhamo, L., Mabhaudhi, T., Nyambiya, I., Chapungu, L. & Sawunyama, L. 2021. Energy Pathway for Transitioning to a Circular Economy within Wastewater Services. Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering, 4: 100144. 4Transitional pathways towards sustainable food systems Luxon Nhamo, Sylvester Mpandeli, Stanley Liphadzi, Samkelisiwe Hlophe‑Ginindza, and Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi 4.1 INTRODUCTION Food systems play an important role in sustainable development as they are at the centre of the nexus that links food and nutritional security, human health, provision of eco‑ system services, climate change, and social justice (Caron etal., 2018; UNGA, 2015). However, the agriculture sector faces the challenge of meeting the food demands of a growing population without degrading the environment (Campbell etal., 2016; Misra, 2014). An increased world population of 2 billion people from the current 7 billion by 2050 will exert pressure on the agriculture sector to produce enough food to feed the increasing global population (Horton, 2017). As the population is projected to reach 9 billion people by 2050, agricultural production should increase by at least 70% during the same period to meet future food and nutritional requirements (Ehrlich and Harte, 2015; Krishna Bahadur etal., 2018). However, such changes will have to happen at a time when essential resources such as water, energy, and land are depleting and degrading, and at times compelling humankind to exceed planetary boundaries as demand and use exceed replenishment (Scoones etal., 2019; Whitmee etal., 2015). The challenges are com‑ pounded by climatic and environmental changes induced by unsustainable food systems (Misra, 2014). These adverse environmental changes result in the degradation of about 12million hectares of fertile land globally per annum, sufficient to produce20 tonnes of grain (Gibbs and Salmon, 2015; Higginbottom and Symeonakis, 2014). Besides, the intensity and frequency of droughts, cyclones, and floods have increased in recent years, further threatening food security (Nhamo etal., 2019a). The need to produce more food has witnessed an increase in the global cultivated area to more than a third (4.8 billion ha) of the total global surface area (13.5 billion ha) (FAO, 2020). As a result, the agriculture sector is now the second largest contributor of greenhouse gases after energy (IPCC, 2014) and the major contributor to land and water degradation (Borrelli etal., 2020). In the case of southern Africa, agriculture contributes about 20.2% to the gross domestic product (GDP) and, thus, plays an important role in economic development (Nhamo etal., 2019b). However, the region has lost over 25% of its soil fertility over the years due to degradation and overexploitation, further exacerbating its vulner‑ ability (FAO, 2020; Nkonya etal., 2016). This happens when the sector is expected This chapter has been made available under a CC‑BY‑NC 4.0 license 60 DOI: 10.1201/9781003327615-4 61Transitional pathways towards sustainable food systems to produce more food to feed a population projected to reach 2 billion people by 2050 in southern Africa alone (Hall etal., 2017). There is, therefore, a need for transfor‑ mational change in food systems through the adoption of smart and clean production systems that lead to a circular economy. Operationalising and implementing the cir‑ cular economy model is anticipated to propel resource security and a cleaner envi‑ ronment (Hall etal., 2017). Adopting circular approaches in place of current linear models is the first transitional step towards sustainable food systems (Cosgrove and Loucks, 2015), as they provide pathways towards food and nutrition security for all and at all times without compromising the environment (Béné etal., 2019a). This is why food systems are at the heart of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and are linked to at least 12 of the 17goals (Chaudhary etal., 2018; UNGA, 2015). A sustainable food system refers to an agricultural system that delivers healthy food to meet current food requirements while at the same time preserving healthy and sustainable ecosystems that are capable of providing food for generations to come with a controlled negative impact on the environment (Allen and Prosperi, 2016; UNGA, 2015). It is a system that encourages local production and knowledge, providing nutritious and healthy food which is available, accessible, and affordable to all at all times while protecting farmers, workers, consumers, and communities (Eakin etal., 2017). A food system comprises sub‑systems, including a farming system, waste man‑ agement system, and input supply system. It is also intricately connected to other related systems such as energy, water, trade, and health systems (Figure4.1) (Tomich etal., 2019). The interconnectedness of these systems indicates that any structural change in a food system might originate from a change in another system (Béné etal., 2019a). Thus, changes in a food system could be triggered by a policy that promotes more biofuel in the energy system, impacting the food system. Therefore, a food system is a complex system driven by intricately interlinked economic, social, cultural, and environmental factors, which require transformative thinking and inte‑ grated assessment tools to guide informed strategic policies that lead to sustainability in the whole agricultural value chain (Allen and Prosperi, 2016). Thus, food sustain‑ ability transitions include the transformation processes needed to drive changes in the food value chains towards sustainable food systems (El Bilali and Allahyari, 2018). Although it is complex, recent technological advances and digitalisation have enhanced ongoing transformation processes in global agriculture and food chains (El Bilali and Allahyari, 2018). Sustainability transitions refer to long‑term, multi‑dimensional, multi‑sectoral, and structural transformational changes aimed at achieving shifts in socio‑technical systems towards more sustainable modes of pro‑ duction and consumption (Klerkx and Rose, 2020). The term transition is associated with transitional pathways, a term referring to significant change processes in society (Geels etal., 2016). Sustainability transitions in the agriculture and food value chains facilitate changes towards novel production and consumption ways and practices that are more sustainable (El Bilali and Allahyari, 2018). Therefore, transitioning towards sustainable food systems should be built around integrated strategic policies formulated around the intricately linked resources of water, land, environment and energy, nutrition, and health (Nhamo and Ndlela, 2021; Wittman etal., 2017). Transitional pathways concern a demarcated trajectory that 62 Circular and Transformative Economy leads from one situation to another through a particular territory. Transitions are evolutionary, open‑ended, non‑linear, and based on searching, learning, and experi‑ mentation (Geels etal., 2016). They are mainly supported by transformative and circular models, which are important in addressing today’s challenges that cut across all sectors and require integrated, iterative and cross‑sectoral interventions (Naidoo etal., 2021b). The pathways inform coherent, strategic policies that lead to sustain‑ able adaptation and resilience. Such informed policies provide transformative pathways towards national and regional targets like regional integration, employment creation, poverty allevia‑ tion, inclusive economic growth, climate action, and good health and well‑being (Mabhaudhi etal., 2019; Nhamo etal., 2018). One such transformative approach is nexus planning, which is a catalyst for achieving the sustainability of food systems (Mabhaudhi etal., 2021; Nhamo and Ndlela, 2021). But nexus planning is also linked or informed by other transformative approaches, including scenario planning, just transitioning, circular economy, one health, strategic foresight, and horizon scanning (Nhamo etal., 2021). These circular models provide tools that inform investment decisions on agriculture infrastructure, climate‑smart agriculture technologies, agri‑ culture water management, and on‑field decision‑support tools to manage resource flow and implement and reduce losses (Adamides, 2020; Naidoo etal., 2021a). For example, smart systems and technologies that include product service systems and performance models are envisaged to guide the interlinkages between the circular economy and the Internet of Things (IoT) in food systems and accelerate the needed FIGURE4.1 The impact of climate change on water, energy and food resources and how climate action drives the evolution towards the green economy and sustainable food systems and facilitates remaining within planetary boundaries. 63Transitional pathways towards sustainable food systems transformational change and achieve the green economy (Ingemarsdotter etal., 2019; Naidoo etal., 2021a). In this digital world of globalisation, the circular economy model is driven by digital technologies like the IoT, Big Data, and Data Analytics, which facilitate the smooth tracking and flow of products, components, and mate‑ rials, allowing the derived data to be used to improve resource management and inform decision‑making across various phases of the production cycle (Kristoffersen etal., 2020). In particular, nexus planning and circular economy provide the decision‑support pathways that lead to transformational change in the agricultural value chain and ensure socio‑ecological sustainability (Rockström et al., 2017). Thus, this chap‑ ter aims to provide policy and decision‑makers with tools that guide the transition towards sustainable food systems. Achieving sustainable food systems facilitates balancing social, economic, and ecological systems and sustainability (Lindgren etal., 2018). The rationale is to develop nexus planning and circular economy tools that guide the transitional pathways towards sustainable food systems, establishing the interlinkages between food system components, including producing, process‑ ing, packaging, distribution, retailing and consuming. This is essential for provid‑ ing management solutions for both synergies and trade‑offs and identifying priority areas for intervention. 4.2 THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK As the concept of sustainable food systems is quite complex and cuts across many sectors and has various components, a conceptual framework was developed to guide the identification of pathways that drive towards sustainable food systems. The framework is based on the intricately interlinked but distinct components of a food system that include producing, processing, packaging, distribution, retailing, and consuming and how each connected system and component is impacted by cli‑ mate change and other drivers of change. This is critical to understanding the socio‑ economic and environmental interactions and how they influence global environmen‑ tal change. The derived knowledge facilitated the evaluation of societal outcomes such as food security, ecosystem services, and social welfare resulting from these interactions (Ericksen, 2008; Tendall etal., 2015). Figure4.2 presents the developed framework, illustrating the interlinked processes of a food system and highlighting the role of nexus planning in transitioning towards sustainable food systems. Nexus modelling is preferred as it facilitates transformational change through its polycen‑ tric and circular modelling capabilities (Figure4.2). As food systems are complex social‑ecological systems that include various interactions between humans (economic and political trends, food price volatil‑ ity, population dynamics, changes in diets and nutrition, and advances in science and technology) and natural (landcover changes, land and soil degradation, climate change, biodiversity loss, sea‑level rise, and air pollution) components (Béné etal., 2019b; Ericksen, 2008; Marshall, 2015), it is paramount to understand these relation‑ ships and assess them holistically. This is the initial phase in transitioning towards sustainable food systems. In between the social‑ecological systems are external drivers (Figure4.2), which include exposure and sensitivity, that also determine the 64 Circular and Transformative Economy impact of change on human and environmental health. Knowledge of these drivers and how they influence activities and outcomes of food systems is important for informing policy decisions (Béné etal., 2019a). Food and nutritional security and sound human and environmental health are the main outcomes of any food system (Nemecek etal., 2016). Thus, a food system is considered vulnerable or resilient depending on its capability to deliver and ensure food security (Ericksen, 2008). According to Figure4.2, nexus planning connects these interactions by defining, measuring, and modelling progress towards sustainability through indicators formu‑ lated around resource utilisation, accessibility, and availability (Nhamo etal., 2020). These developments facilitate modelling, monitoring, and simulating some aspects of sustainability. The framework (Figure4.2) emphasises the development of a food system that efficiently uses resources and reduces food waste at every stage, from primary pro‑ duction to transformation and consumption. An efficient food system is, therefore, built around circular models such as nexus planning, circular economy, one health, strategic foresight, horizon scanning and scenario planning (Jurgilevich etal., 2016), other than linear models that encourage the introduction of wastes into the environ‑ ment, causing detrimental environmental and human health risks and climate change (Didenko etal., 2018). For example, nexus modelling develops knowledge‑based tools that assess vulnerability and resilience, as well as recovery options and the potential of a food system (Nhamo etal., 2020). These tools facilitate the identification of path‑ ways for simultaneous food security and resource conservation through an analysis of food system activities and outcomes, integrating environmental, social, political, and economic determinants summarised in socio‑economic and global environmental change drivers (Figure4.2). This is based on the understanding that food systems are FIGURE4.2 A nexus planning‑based conceptual framework illustrating the connected pro‑ cesses and interactions needed to achieve a sustainable food system. 65Transitional pathways towards sustainable food systems socio‑ecological systems comprising biophysical and social factors that are linked through feedback mechanisms (Binder etal., 2013; Ericksen, 2008; Marshall, 2015). Identifying and modelling the intrinsic processes of a food system through nexus modelling ensures that food and nutritional outcomes are preserved or enhanced over time and across generations. This is achieved by promptly identifying priority areas for intervention, allowing decision‑makers to trace progress towards sustainability and implement policies that foster positive transformations, and allowing humankind to remain within planetary boundaries in resource use. Thus, this chapter addresses the following identified thematic areas that drive towards sustainable food systems: (a) drivers of change, (b) risk and exposure, (c) nexus planning, and (d) pathways towards sustainable food systems. 4.2.1 gloBal drivers of change impacting food systems Achieving sustainability has become the guiding principle for transformational change and the main goal for human development (Mensah and Ricart Casadevall, 2019; UNGA, 2015). The current and closely interlinked grand challenges that trans‑ verse all socio‑economic and ecological sectors (Figure4.3) are prompting a shift from how humankind views the world from a linear view to a circular perspective (Geissdoerfer etal., 2017; Sariatli, 2017). A shock in one sector often triggers a host of interrelated but distinct challenges in the other sectors (Nhamo and Ndlela, 2021). For example, environmental degradation reduces the area under cultivation, causing low crop yields and triggering social distress, economic instability, food insecurity and price fluctuations (Gomiero, 2016). FIGURE4.3 Interactions between environment and food systems as drivers of change and the pathways needed towards sustainable development, as well as human and environmental health. 72 Circular and Transformative Economy 4.4 RECOMMENDATIONS Transitioning towards a sustainable food system is a complicated process that requires improvements in land use and agricultural practices. Transformational and integrated approaches provide the pathways to sustainable food systems, but to achieve optimum results, we recommend the following guidelines: a. Integrated pathways should emphasise critical biophysical and economic ‘leverage points’ in food systems, focusing on resource use efficiency and enhancing food production processes and the environment’s performance with the least effort and cost. This calls for adopting modern technologies that enhance productivity in all domains. b. Advances that are earmarked to improve agricultural productivity should also consider enhancing the food system’s resilience. Although high‑ efficiency and mechanised agriculture have many benefits, it is also highly vulnerable to disasters that include extreme weather events, novel pests and diseases, and economic shocks (Calicioglu etal., 2019). c. There is an urgent need to develop methods to evaluate trade‑offs of agricultural practices and balance them with advances in technological developments. Research should develop decision‑support tools to support management decisions, productivity, and environmental stewardship. d. Sustainable development in the agriculture sector should be at par with technological development, as informed by circular and transformative modelling, which enhances transformational change, ensuring food secu‑ rity and environmental performance of food systems. Current linear models are generally sector‑based and only exacerbate existing challenges by focus‑ ing on a single sector (Nhamo and Ndlela, 2021). e. Transitioning towards sustainable food systems should be supported by coherent policies that create a strategic and enabling environment for agro‑ ecology. This is supported by a policy framework based on a holistic per‑ formance monitoring system that considers nutritional and environmental impacts and the system’s long‑term stability. Agriculture is the key driver of environmental and climatic change. As a result, the sector requires a shift from the current linear approaches to circular modelling to enhance food production sustainably. The transformation should be accompanied by societal awareness to catalyse a change from current practices. 4.5 CONCLUSIONS The systemic cross‑sectoral nature and the intricate interdependencies and interac‑ tions of food systems require transformative approaches that address challenges in an integrated manner and simplify human understanding of complex socio‑ecological connections. Nexus planning has been used to assess the food system’s sustainabil‑ ity by identifying key properties that support life and healthy environments. The approach guides policy and supports decision‑making to identify priority areas that 73Transitional pathways towards sustainable food systems need immediate intervention, a key step in ensuring food and nutrition security while promoting environmental sustainability. The essence of nexus planning is the capa‑ bility to examine the multi‑causality of dynamic processes within a complex system, including food systems. Indicating priority areas needing immediate intervention paves the way for using scenarios to evaluate various possibilities that lead to coher‑ ent strategies. This is critical to understanding and appreciating the change in food security and social and environmental outcomes. These outcomes depend on the decisions and actions taken in the activities practised during the food system but are also impacted by global socio‑economic, political, and environmental drivers. Simplifying human understanding of the complex interactions among food system components provides pathways that reduce risk and exposure, an initial step towards sustainable development. This chapter has provided these pathways using nexus plan‑ ning as today’s challenges are complex, cut across sectors and interlinked. Sectoral interventions that do not consider the interlinkages and connectedness of sectors will only compound existing challenges. REFERENCES Adamides, G. (2020) A review of climate‑smart agriculture applications in Cyprus. Atmosphere 11, 898. Allen, T., Prosperi, P. (2016) Modeling sustainable food systems. Environmental Management 57, 956–975. Béné, C. (2020) Resilience of local food systems and links to food security–A review of some important concepts in the context of COVID‑19 and other shocks. Food Security 12, 805–822. Béné, C., Oosterveer, P., Lamotte, L., Brouwer, I.D., de Haan, S., Prager, S.D., Talsma, E.F., Khoury, C.K. (2019a) When food systems meet sustainability–Current narratives and implications for actions. World Development 113, 116–130. Béné, C., Prager, S.D., Achicanoy, H.A., Toro, P.A., Lamotte, L., Cedrez, C.B., Mapes, B.R. (2019b) Understanding food systems drivers: A critical review of the literature. Global Food Security 23, 149–159. Bieber, N., Ker, J.H., Wang, X., Triantafyllidis, C., van Dam, K.H., Koppelaar, R.H., Shah, N. (2018) Sustainable planning of the energy‑water‑food nexus using decision making tools. Energy Policy 113, 584–607. Binder, C.R., Hinkel, J., Bots, P.W., Pahl‑Wostl, C. (2013) Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social‑ecological systems. Ecology and Society 18(4), 26. Borman, G.D., de Boef, W.S., Dirks, F., Gonzalez, Y.S., Subedi, A., Thijssen, M.H., Jacobs, J., Schrader, T., Boyd, S., Hermine, J. (2022) Putting food systems thinking into practice: Integrating agricultural sectors into a multi‑level analytical framework. Global Food Security 32, 100591. Borrelli, P., Robinson, D.A., Panagos, P., Lugato, E., Yang, J.E., Alewell, C., Wuepper, D., Montanarella, L., Ballabio, C. (2020) Land use and climate change impacts on global soil erosion by water (2015–2070). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 21994–22001. Brouwer, I.D., McDermott, J., Ruben, R. (2020) Food systems everywhere: Improving rel‑ evance in practice. Global Food Security 26, 100398. Calicioglu, O., Flammini, A., Bracco, S., Bellù, L., Sims, R. (2019) The future challenges of food and agriculture: An integrated analysis of trends and solutions. Sustainability 11, 222. 74 Circular and Transformative Economy Campbell, B.M., Vermeulen, S.J., Aggarwal, P.K., Corner‑Dolloff, C., Girvetz, E., Loboguerrero, A.M., Ramirez‑Villegas, J., Rosenstock, T., Sebastian, L., Thornton, P.K. (2016) Reducing risks to food security from climate change. Global Food Security 11, 34–43. Caron, P., y de Loma‑Osorio, G.F., Nabarro, D., Hainzelin, E., Guillou, M., Andersen, I., Arnold, T., Astralaga, M., Beukeboom, M., Bickersteth, S. (2018) Food systems for sus‑ tainable development: Proposals for a profound four‑part transformation. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 38, 1–12. Chaudhary, A., Gustafson, D., Mathys, A. (2018) Multi‑indicator sustainability assessment of global food systems. Nature Communications 9, 1–13. Cosgrove, W.J., Loucks, D.P. (2015) Water management: Current and future challenges and research directions. Water Resources Research 51, 4823–4839. Didenko, N.I., Klochkov, Y.S., Skripnuk, D.F. (2018) Ecological criteria for comparing linear and circular economies. Resources 7, 48. Eakin, H., Connors, J.P., Wharton, C., Bertmann, F., Xiong, A., Stoltzfus, J. (2017) Identifying attributes of food system sustainability: Emerging themes and consensus. Agriculture and Human Values 34, 757–773. Ehrlich, P.R., Harte, J. (2015) Opinion: To feed the world in 2050 will require a global revolu‑ tion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 14743–14744. El Bilali, H., Allahyari, M.S. (2018) Transition towards sustainability in agriculture and food systems: Role of information and communication technologies. Information Processing in Agriculture 5, 456–464. Ericksen, P.J. (2008) Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. Global Environmental Change 18, 234–245. Eriksen, S., Schipper, E.L.F., Scoville‑Simonds, M., Vincent, K., Adam, H.N., Brooks, N., Harding, B., Lenaerts, L., Liverman, D., Mills‑Novoa, M. (2021) Adaptation interven‑ tions and their effect on vulnerability in developing countries: Help, hindrance or irrel‑ evance? World Development 141, 105383. Fanzo, J., Haddad, L., Schneider, K.R., Béné, C., Covic, N.M., Guarin, A., Herforth, A.W., Herrero, M., Sumaila, U.R., Aburto, N.J. (2021) Rigorous monitoring is necessary to guide food sys‑ tem transformation in the countdown to the 2030global goals. Food Policy 104, 102163. FAO (2020) Land use and land cover statistics: Global, regional and country trends, 1990–2018. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Rome, Italy. Freeman, O.E., Duguma, L.A., Minang, P.A. (2015) Operationalizing the integrated landscape approach in practice. Ecology and Society 20(1), 24. Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Fuchs, G., Hinderer, N., Kungl, G., Mylan, J., Neukirch, M., Wassermann, S. (2016) The enactment of socio‑technical transition pathways: A reformulated typol‑ ogy and a comparative multi‑level analysis of the German and UK low‑carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014). Research Policy 45, 896–913. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M., Hultink, E.J. (2017) The circular economy–A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production 143, 757–768. Gibbs, H., Salmon, J.M. (2015) Mapping the world’s degraded lands. Applied Geography 57, 12–21. Giller, K.E., Delaune, T., Silva, J.V., Descheemaeker, K., van de Ven, G., Schut, A.G., van Wijk, M., Hammond, J., Hochman, Z., Taulya, G. (2021) The future of farming: Who will produce our food? Food Security 13, 1073–1099. Gomiero, T. (2016) Soil degradation, land scarcity and food security: Reviewing a complex challenge. Sustainability 8, 281. Hall, C., Dawson, T., Macdiarmid, J., Matthews, R., Smith, P. (2017) The impact of popula‑ tion growth and climate change on food security in Africa: Looking ahead to 2050. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 15, 124–135. Higginbottom, T.P., Symeonakis, E. (2014) Assessing land degradation and desertification using vegetation index data: Current frameworks and future directions. Remote Sensing 6, 9552–9575. 75Transitional pathways towards sustainable food systems HLPE (2017) Nutrition and food systems. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition. HLPE, Rome, Italy, p.152. Horton, P. (2017) We need radical change in how we produce and consume food. Food Security 9, 1323–1327. Iacovidou, E., Hahladakis, J.N., Purnell, P. (2021) A systems thinking approach to under‑ standing the challenges of achieving the circular economy. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28, 24785–24806. IFPRI (2017) 2017 Global food policy report. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, p.148. Ingemarsdotter, E., Jamsin, E., Kortuem, G., Balkenende, R. (2019) Circular strategies enabled by the internet of things—A framework and analysis of current practice. Sustainability 11, 5689. IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group iii to the 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in: Edenhofer, O., Pichs‑Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P. (Eds.). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge and New York, p.1454. Jurgilevich, A., Birge, T., Kentala‑Lehtonen, J., Korhonen‑Kurki, K., Pietikäinen, J., Saikku, L., Schösler, H. (2016) Transition towards circular economy in the food system. Sustainability 8, 69. Kimani‑Murage, E., Gaupp, F., Lal, R., Hansson, H., Tang, T., Chaudhary, A., Nhamo, L., Mpandeli, S., Mabhaudhi, T., Headey, D.D. (2021) An optimal diet for planet and peo‑ ple. One Earth 4, 1189–1192. Klerkx, L., Rose, D. (2020) Dealing with the game‑changing technologies of Agriculture 4.0: How do we manage diversity and responsibility in food system transition pathways? Global Food Security 24, 100347. Krishna Bahadur, K., Dias, G.M., Veeramani, A., Swanton, C.J., Fraser, D., Steinke, D., Lee, E., Wittman, H., Farber, J.M., Dunfield, K. (2018) When too much isn’t enough: Does current food production meet global nutritional needs? PLoS One 13 (10), e0205683. Kristoffersen, E., Blomsma, F., Mikalef, P., Li, J. (2020) The smart circular economy: A digital‑enabled circular strategies framework for manufacturing companies. Journal of Business Research 120, 241–261. Lindgren, E., Harris, F., Dangour, A.D., Gasparatos, A., Hiramatsu, M., Javadi, F., Loken, B., Murakami, T., Scheelbeek, P., Haines, A. (2018) Sustainable food systems—A health perspective. Sustainability Science13, 1505–1517. Mabhaudhi, T., Chibarabada, T., Modi, A. (2016) Water‑food‑nutrition‑health nexus: Linking water to improving food, nutrition and health in Sub‑Saharan Africa. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13, 107. Mabhaudhi, T., Nhamo, L., Chibarabada, T.P., Mabaya, G., Mpandeli, S., Liphadzi, S., Senzanje, A., Naidoo, D., Modi, A.T., Chivenge, P.P. (2021) Assessing progress towards sustainable development goals through nexus planning. Water 13, 1321. Mabhaudhi, T., Nhamo, L., Mpandeli, S., Nhemachena, C., Senzanje, A., Sobratee, N., Chivenge, P.P., Slotow, R., Naidoo, D., Liphadzi, S. (2019) The water–energy–food nexus as a tool to transform rural livelihoods and well‑being in Southern Africa. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, 2970. Malhi, Y., Franklin, J., Seddon, N., Solan, M., Turner, M.G., Field, C.B., Knowlton, N. (2020) Climate change and ecosystems: Threats, opportunities and solutions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 375(1794), 20190104. Marshall, G. (2015) A social‑ecological systems framework for food systems research: Accommodating transformation systems and their products. International Journal of the Commons 9(2), 881–908. Mensah, J., Ricart Casadevall, S. (2019) Sustainable development: Meaning, history, prin‑ ciples, pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent Social Sciences 5, 1653531. 76 Circular and Transformative Economy Mercure, J.‑F., Paim, M.‑A., Bocquillon, P., Lindner, S., Salas, P., Martinelli, P., Berchin, I., de Andrade Guerra, J., Derani, C., de Albuquerque Junior, C. (2019) System complexity and policy integration challenges: The Brazilian Energy‑Water‑Food Nexus. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105, 230–243. Misra, A.K. (2014) Climate change and challenges of water and food security. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 3, 153–165. Misselhorn, A., Hendriks, S.L. (2017) A systematic review of sub‑national food insecu‑ rity research in South Africa: Missed opportunities for policy insights. PLoS One 12, e0182399. Myers, S.S., Smith, M.R., Guth, S., Golden, C.D., Vaitla, B., Mueller, N.D., Dangour, A.D., Huybers, P. (2017) Climate change and global food systems: Potential impacts on food security and undernutrition. Annual Review of Public Health 38, 259–277. Naidoo, D., Nhamo, L., Lottering, S., Mpandeli, S., Liphadzi, S., Modi, A.T., Trois, C., Mabhaudhi, T. (2021a) Transitional pathways towards achieving a circular economy in the water, energy, and food sectors. Sustainability 13, 9978. Naidoo, D., Nhamo, L., Mpandeli, S., Sobratee, N., Senzanje, A., Liphadzi, S., Slotow, R., Jacobson, M., Modi, A., Mabhaudhi, T. (2021b) Operationalising the water‑energy‑food nexus through the theory of change. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 149, 10. Nemecek, T., Jungbluth, N., i Canals, L.M., Schenck, R. (2016) Environmental impacts of food consumption and nutrition: Where are we and what is next? The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 21, 607–620. Nhamo, L., Mabhaudhi, T., Modi, A. (2019a) Preparedness or repeated short‑term relief aid? Building drought resilience through early warning in southern Africa. Water SA 45, 75–85. Nhamo, L., Mabhaudhi, T., Mpandeli, S., Dickens, C., Nhemachena, C., Senzanje, A., Naidoo, D., Liphadzi, S., Modi, A.T. (2020) An integrative analytical model for the water‑energy‑food nexus: South Africa case study. Environmental Science and Policy 109, 15–24. Nhamo, L., Matchaya, G., Mabhaudhi, T., Nhlengethwa, S., Nhemachena, C., Mpandeli, S. (2019b) Cereal production trends under climate change: Impacts and adaptation strate‑ gies in southern Africa. Agriculture 9, 30. Nhamo, L., Ndlela, B. (2021) Nexus planning as a pathway towards sustainable environmental and human health post Covid‑19. Environment Research 192, 110376. Nhamo, L., Ndlela, B., Nhemachena, C., Mabhaudhi, T., Mpandeli, S., Matchaya, G. (2018) The water‑energy‑food nexus: Climate risks and opportunities in southern Africa. Water 10, 567. Nhamo, L., Rwizi, L., Mpandeli, S., Botai, J., Magidi, J., Tazvinga, H., Sobratee, N., Liphadzi, S., Naidoo, D., Modi, A., Slotow, R., Mabhaudhi, T. (2021) Urban nexus and transformative pathways towards a resilient Gauteng City‑Region, South Africa. Cities 116, 103266. Nkonya, E., Johnson, T., Kwon, H.Y., Kato, E. (2016) Economics of land degradation in sub‑Saharan Africa, economics of land degradation and improvement–A global assess‑ ment for sustainable development. Springer, Switzerland, pp.215–259. Pérez‑Escamilla, R., Segall‑Corrêa, A.M. (2008) Food insecurity measurement and indicators. Revista de Nutrição 21, 15s–26s. Porter, J., Xie, L., Challinor, A., Cochrane, K., Howden, S., Iqbal, M., Lobell, D., Travasso, M. (2014) Food Security and Food Production Systems Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.485–533. Ray, D.K., Gerber, J.S., MacDonald, G.K., West, P.C. (2015) Climate variation explains a third of global crop yield variability. Nature Communications 6, 1–9. 77Transitional pathways towards sustainable food systems Rockström, J., Williams, J., Daily, G., Noble, A., Matthews, N., Gordon, L., Wetterstrand, H., DeClerck, F., Shah, M., Steduto, P. (2017) Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio 46, 4–17. Sariatli, F. (2017) Linear economy versus circular economy: A comparative and analyzer study for optimization of economy for sustainability. Visegrad Journal on Bioeconomy and Sustainable Development 6, 31–34. Scoones, I., Smalley, R., Hall, R., Tsikata, D. (2019) Narratives of scarcity: Framing the global land rush. Geoforum 101, 231–241. Tendall, D., Joerin, J., Kopainsky, B., Edwards, P., Shreck, A., Le, Q.B., Krütli, P., Grant, M., Six, J. (2015) Food system resilience: Defining the concept. Global Food Security 6, 17–23. Tomich, T.P., Lidder, P., Coley, M., Gollin, D., Meinzen‑Dick, R., Webb, P., Carberry, P. (2019) Food and agricultural innovation pathways for prosperity. Agricultural Systems 172, 1–15. UNGA (2015) Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly (UNGA). United Nations General Assembly, New York, p.35. Van Berkum, S., Dengerink, J., Ruben, R. (2018) The food systems approach: Sustainable solutions for a sufficient supply of healthy food. Wageningen Economic Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands, p.34. Velenturf, A.P., Purnell, P. (2021) Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption 27, 1437–1457. Warhurst, A. (2002) Sustainability indicators and sustainability performance management. Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD), Warwick, p.129. Whitmee, S., Haines, A., Beyrer, C., Boltz, F., Capon, A.G., de Souza Dias, B.F., Ezeh, A., Frumkin, H., Gong, P., Head, P. (2015) Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: Report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health. The Lancet 386, 1973–2028. Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., Garnett, T., Tilman, D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A. (2019) Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet 393, 447–492. Wittman, H., Chappell, M.J., Abson, D.J., Kerr, R.B., Blesh, J., Hanspach, J., Perfecto, I., Fischer, J. (2017) A social–ecological perspective on harmonizing food security and biodiversity conservation. Regional Environmental Change 17, 1291–1301. 5Strengthening the transformational implementation of national climate change adaptation plans to enhance agricultural resilience Charles Nhemachena, Daniel Njiwa, Mcloud Kayira Chirwa, Anabela Manhica, Assan Ng’ombe and Protase Echessah 5.1 INTRODUCTION Climate change, directly and indirectly, impacts food systems, food trade, food and nutrition security, and the attainment of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, such as achieving zero hunger, ending poverty, ensuring healthy lives, and promoting well‑being. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sixth assessment report (AR6) states that evidence shows an increased intensity and occur‑ rence of observed extreme climate changes such as heavy precipitation, agricultural and ecological droughts, heatwaves, and tropical cyclones since the AR5. The AR6 further highlights, with high confidence, that all regions are projected to experience further increases in hot climatic impact drivers (CIDs1) and decreases in cold CIDs. For example, extreme heat thresholds relevant to agriculture and health would be exceeded more frequently at higher global warming levels. Also, Africa is projected to experience increased frequency and or intensity of agricultural and ecological droughts with medium to high confidence (IPCC, 2021). These climate changes sig‑ nificantly impact food systems, ecosystem services, economic growth and develop‑ ment, disproportionately impacting vulnerable systems and communities. Given the vulnerability of food systems to climate change variability and extremes, building resilience is crucial to help countries meet the growing demand for healthy and safe diets while achieving socio‑economic and sustainability goals. The 2015 This chapter has been made available under a CC‑BY‑NC 4.0 license 78 DOI: 10.1201/9781003327615-5 79Strengthening the national climate change adaptation plans Paris Agreement, adopted by 196 Parties at the Conference of the Parties 21 on 12 December 2015 and entered into force on 4 November 2016, commits all Parties to engage in adaptation planning processes and implementing actions as well as devel‑ oping or enhancing relevant plans, policies and/or contributions (Article 7.9) to con‑ tribute to the global goal to enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability (Article 7.1) (UNFCCC, 2015a). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat’s 2021 progress report on national adaptation plans (NAPs) indicates that as of November 2020, 125 of the 154 developing countries had undertaken activities to formulate and or implement NAPs (UNFCCC, 2021). Article 7 of the 2015 Paris Agreement also calls for all Parties to implement, monitor, evaluate and learn from adaptation plans, policies, programmes and actions (UNFCCC, 2015a). Much of the focus on climate change adaptation progress has been on mainstreaming and effectiveness of planning of adaptation policies, plans and strategies with limited evidence on implementation and impacts of the adaptation plans (Bauer, Feichtinger, & Steurer, 2012; Leiter, 2021; Olazabal & De Gopegui, 2021; Runhaar, Wilk, Persson, Uittenbroek, & Wamsler, 2018; UNEP, 2021). The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report acknowledged that, at the global level, evidence of adaptation implementation remained limited and required overcoming resource, institutional and capacity barriers (Mimura etal., 2014). The extent of implementa‑ tion, monitoring and evaluation remains limited across African countries, despite a series of technical and financial support by national and international partners assisting the countries in formulating the climate change adaptation plans/strategies/ policies and implementing pilot projects. Often, the implementation ends at the pilot projects, and countries have not mainstreamed the allocation of resources in their national‑ and local‑level planning and budgeting processes. This gap makes indicators that assess whether a country has developed a national adaptation plan/strategy/policy, such as the SDG indicator “13.2.1 Number of countries with (…) national adaptation plans (…)” (UN, 2020) and the International Climate Fund (ICF) Key Performance Indicator (KPI) 13 scorecard on mainstreaming climate change in national agriculture plans/strategies/policies misleading to policymakers and the public as they assume climate change adapta‑ tion and resilience are being addressed. The lack of evidence on climate change adaptation implementation affects the ability to understand whether countries are effectively preparing their populations and economic sectors to better cope with climate change shocks (Binet etal., 2021). The planning of climate change adapta‑ tion and resilience is important; however, translating the plans into implementation is critical to building the adaptative capacity to respond to the increasing number and intensity of climate change shocks. The governments of Malawi and Mozambique recognise the critical role of climate change adaptation in their medium‑ and long‑term development plans and in a range of other strategies and policies, to the extent that they have developed and are main‑ streaming programmes addressing climate change through, for example, the Malawi National Climate Change Management Policy (Government of Malawi, 2016, 2017) and the Mozambique National Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Strategy (NCCAMS) 2013–2025 (Government of Mozambique, 2012). With technical and 80 Circular and Transformative Economy sometimes financial support from development partners, the governments of Malawi and Mozambique have extensively invested in national adaptation plans/strate‑ gies/policies. The national plans, strategies and policies highlight the importance of responding to the impacts of climate change and building adaptive capacity to better prepare for future risks and shocks. However, despite the favourable national framework and adaptation plans/strategies/policies developed to guide adaptation investments in these countries, implementing agricultural sector adaptation priori‑ ties remains a challenge. Furthermore, despite several projects implemented across the countries with support from national and international partners, there is scant empirical evidence of the implementation outcomes; and at a higher level, there is limited evidence of monitoring and learning of the national climate change adapta‑ tion plans/strategies and policies. The chapter’s main objective was to assess the extent and challenges of imple‑ menting, monitoring, and evaluating climate change adaptation plans/strategies/poli‑ cies to enhance agricultural resilience at national and sub‑national levels in Malawi and Mozambique. This chapter contributes to the need for more empirical evidence on implementing, monitoring, and evaluating climate change adaptation and resil‑ ience policies and plans beyond stated intentions in national planning documents and country submissions to the UNFCCC. Relying on stated intentions in NAPs leads to over‑estimation of countries implementing, monitoring and evaluating the progress of their plans (Leiter, 2021). The need for more empirical research on climate change policies/plans implementation (Rykkja, Neby, & Hope, 2014) is confirmed by the AGRA ICF KPI 13 scorecard results (AGRA, 2019, 2020, 2021) and the 2019 CAAP Biennial Review. The empirical findings of this chapter contribute to climate change advisory reports to engage stakeholders in the respective countries to strengthen the implementation of national climate change plans/strategies/policies. 5.2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5.2.1 overview of the statUs of climate change adaptation planning and implementation The UNFCCC was established in 1992 to help countries formulate and implement national adaptation strategies. Least developed countries developed National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA) that documented the country’s perceived urgent and immediate needs to adapt to climate change (UNFCCC, 2011). In addition to the NAPs addressing medium‑ to long‑term impacts of climate change, after the 2015 Paris Declaration, countries have developed Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). The IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above the pre‑industrial levels shows the need for the urgency of greater ambition in NDCs if the global mean temperature is to be limited to 1.5°C (IPCC, 2018). Pauw and Klein (2020) argue that the ambition of the intended NDCs before or shortly after the 2015 Paris Climate Conference is not enough, and there is a need for countries to improve the effectiveness of the plans and policies underpinning their NDCs. This can be achieved through improved transparency, coherence and implementability of the NDCs (Pauw, Castro, Pickering, & Bhasin, 2020; Pauw & Klein, 2020; Pauw etal., 2018). 81Strengthening the national climate change adaptation plans Mainstreaming climate change in policy development across sectors is important (England etal., 2018) to ensure countries reduce the adverse impacts of climate change risks and better prepare to respond to projected future changes. Climate change adap‑ tation is increasingly integrated into national planning and policy processes. Röser, Widerberg, Höhne, and Day (2020) argue that the process of preparing the NDCs contributes positively to national climate policy processes by raising awareness, cata‑ lysing institutional change, and improving political buy‑in across government and non‑ government stakeholders. However, the process of preparing and implementing NDCs in developing and emerging countries faces challenges such as political support, finan‑ cial, human and technical resources, and analytical capabilities (Röser, Widerberg, Höhne, & Day, 2020). Despite evidence of delays due to the COVID‑19 pandemic on NAP development processes in some countries, especially least developed countries, there is considerable progress on NAP agendas. As of August 2021, more than 75% of African countries had adopted at least one national‑level adaptation planning instrument (such as a plan, strategy, policy, or law) (see Figure5.1) (UNEP, 2021). Leiter (2021) conducted an evidence‑based global stocktake of monitoring and evaluation systems of national climate change adaptation plans to determine whether FIGURE5.1 Status of adaptation planning in Africa, as of 5 August 2021. Note: Territories marked as N/A are those which are recognised as disputed by the United Nations or whose status has not yet been agreed upon. Source: UNEP (2021). 88 Circular and Transformative Economy evaluations increased by 40%. Leiter’s (2021) stocktakes also found that system‑ atic assessment of NAP implementation was lacking in more than 60 percent of the countries that adopted NAPs, making it difficult to understand the impacts of the NAPs. The findings above call for increased efforts in ensuring countries implement the commitments in their NAPs and conduct systematic monitoring and evaluation of the implementation and impacts in the respective economies. A study on ways to effectively build capacity to adapt to climate change in Malawi found that capacity building from long‑term and short‑term training complemen‑ tarily influences the design and implementation of successful adaptation practices (Mataya, Vincent, & Dougill, 2020). This includes designing and implementing short‑term training participatory workshops customised to the needs of the trainees and using context‑specific examples as well as on‑the‑job training, action planning and mentoring after the training (Mataya, Vincent, & Dougill, 2020). The study also reiterated the importance of coordinated design, implementation and monitoring of adaptation capacity‑building activities and ensuring appropriate institutional support after the training sessions to improve adaptation planning across the continent. The Mozambique Government, in collaboration with national and international partners, has implemented several climate change‑related projects and programmes. The gaps and barriers identified in the implementation of climate change adaptation actions in Mozambique include insufficient coordination and governance mecha‑ nisms leading to policy coherence at the national, provincial and district levels; lack of technical capacity to mainstream climate change at national, provincial and dis‑ trict planning and budgeting systems; and poor climate change and gender‑sensitive data and information (UNDP, UNEP, & GEF, 2020). The National Adaptation Plan Global Support Programme (NAP‑GSP) identified the following opportunities to strengthen the NAP formulation and implementation processes in Mozambique: define precise coordination mechanisms; operationalise the implementation mech‑ anisms of the NCCAMS; elaborate and implement the capacity plan to conduct research in relevant areas; increase the capacity to lead the climate change adaptation cycle; strengthen relevant institutions to collect and manage data and information, run climate models and elaborate scenarios at provincial levels; develop and imple‑ ment strategies for climate change education, awareness‑raising, communication and public participation; assess adaptation technology needs; update sectoral poli‑ cies; develop or improve monitoring and evaluation tools; strengthen capacities to mainstream other cross‑cutting issues such as gender or biodiversity; build national technical and institutional capacities to design and manage projects to access climate financing; and establish climate insurances (UNDP, UNEP, & GEF, 2020). Alves etal. (2020) analysed implementation challenges of climate change poli‑ cies and agendas in 13 countries. They found that despite accounting for different non‑governmental stakeholders, the NAPs/NASs remain largely state‑centred, with the steering and implementation responsibilities assigned to each country’s Ministry of Environment. The other finding from the same study was that the objectives of the NAPs reflected a more global agenda with less focus on national/regional contexts and vulnerabilities. The experiences from Niger indicate that most of the NAPA priorities were addressed through pilot projects supported by bilateral or multilateral cooperation 89Strengthening the national climate change adaptation plans arrangements. However, the challenge that remains in most developing countries is to scale these into the medium and long term (UNDP, UNEP, & GEF, 2018). The expe‑ riences of the NAPA process in Niger also highlight similar constraints observed in other countries, such as coordination; institutional and technical capacity; data availability, reliability and management; integrating climate change adaptation into planning and budget processes. Also, mobilising financial resources remains critical to scaling up and sustaining the pilot projects co‑implemented with bilateral and multilateral partners (UNDP, UNEP, & GEF, 2018). Ampaire etal. (2017) and Ampaire, Happy, Van Asten, and Radeny (2015) anal‑ ysed policy development and implementation gaps in Rakai District, Uganda, focus‑ ing on institutional challenges to climate change adaptation. The studies were based on literature reviews across multiple governance levels, spatial scales, and field assessments. The policy development processes were centralised at the national lev‑ els, and led by central government agencies with the insufficient engagement of other actors, and local stakeholders (communities) were excluded. In addition, the study found the main constraints to climate policy implementation included a disconnect in communication across all governance levels (national, district and community), lim‑ ited technical capacity and finances, political interference and absence of functional implementation structures across all levels (Ampaire, Happy, Van Asten, & Radeny, 2015; Ampaire etal., 2017). The study recommended measures to enhance linkages across all governance levels and among actors to improve policy formulation, imple‑ mentation and adaptation by smallholder farmers. Ampaire etal. (2016) analysed barriers to the successful implementation of cli‑ mate change policy in Tanzania. They found that there have been considerable efforts to support resilience‑building actions in the agriculture sector. The main barriers to implementing climate change actions included limited climate change knowledge across levels, lack of effective national finance mechanism to direct climate funds and poor coordination of climate change actions from national to local levels (discon‑ nect between national and local governments). Uittenbroek (2016) analysed the role of organisational routines in constraining the mainstreaming of climate change adaptation at the implementation stage. The study found that despite the relative ease of mainstreaming climate change adapta‑ tion in national policies, the problem is with implementation. Often, policies are implemented by actors other than the policymakers, whose actions are guided by organisational routines, which, if not adjusted, hamper the implementation of new policy goals such as climate change adaptation (Uittenbroek, 2016). Ensuring appro‑ priate changes in organisational routines across all levels (national and sub‑national) is important to strengthen the implementation of climate change adaptation plans/ strategies/policies. Some required changes include reallocating resources and adapt‑ ing existing practices to implement the priorities and actions in climate change adap‑ tation plans/strategies/policies. Totin etal. (2015) found that despite progress in formulating national climate change policies and action plans in Ghana, Mali and Senegal, district‑level staff and the general public at the regional and local levels lacked awareness and understanding of the climate policy implementation processes. The common bar‑ riers to policy development and effective implementation in the three countries 90 Circular and Transformative Economy included: a lack of awareness and funding, a lack of operational capacity at lower administrative levels and little involvement from stakeholders. Furthermore, the effective implementation of climate policy was hampered by a lack of informa‑ tion flows on existing climate policy processes between national and local levels. The study recommended supervised knowledge‑sharing platforms for national, regional and local policymakers and other stakeholders to strengthen informa‑ tion flows and support policy development and implementation. Other constraints that hamper the translation of climate change policies and plans into concrete actions and implementations in Ghana, Mali, and Senegal include lags in the policy planning, development and approval processes. Furthermore, the develop‑ ment of climate change policies in Ghana, Mali and Senegal was not comprehen‑ sive in the participation of all relevant stakeholders, especially at the sub‑national levels. Effective participation is important in ensuring the policy development process integrates context‑specific inputs to create awareness and understanding of the priorities to be mainstreamed in development activities, especially at the sub‑national levels. 5.3 METHODS OF THE STUDY Building on other empirical studies on the implementation of climate change adapta‑ tion policies, such as those presented by several researchers (Ampaire etal., 2016, 2017; Alves etal., 2020; Leiter, 2021), the chapter is based on a review of the lit‑ erature and qualitative data collected from key informant interviews with identified key national and sub‑national stakeholders. The systemic desktop review focused on climate change adaptation planning and policy documents from national government ministries/departments (such as the Ministries of Environment, Agriculture, and Trade) responsible for designing and implementing climate change adaptation plans/ strategies/policies. The review assessed the availability of monitoring and evaluation systems and reports for the country’s national adaptation plans/policies as indicated in the NAP technical guidelines (UNFCCC, 2012) and Article 7 of the 2015 Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015a). We also explored agriculture sector monitoring and evaluation systems and published literature like the global stocktake of NAP moni‑ toring and evaluation systems such as Leiter (2021), UNFCCC NAP progress reports, and UNEP adaptation gap reports (UNEP, 2021), reports from academics, national and international organisations. In addition, the review identified gaps and challenges in climate change policy implementation processes, such as technical capacity and budget provisions to translate the policy actions into outputs and outcomes. For key informant interviews, the identified stakeholders included policymakers, farmers, scientists, and non‑state actors such as development partners and the private sector working on climate change adaptation and resilience in the respective focus countries. The analysis triangulated the findings from the systemic literature review through outreach to key stakeholders from government and national and interna‑ tional partner organisations working on climate change adaptation in the respective countries. The findings from the review and outreach to key informant stakeholders from the respective countries helped develop climate change adaptation advisory reports to inform stakeholder engagement. 91Strengthening the national climate change adaptation plans 5.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This section discusses findings from stakeholder engagements in Malawi and Mozambique on the extent of implementation of climate change policies and priorities. as highlighted above. The two countries have comprehensive sets of policy frameworks developed to address climate change issues. The stakeholders from both countries reported that they have adequate climate change policy frameworks that, if implemented, would signifi‑ cantly contribute to building climate change adaptative and resilience capacity across all levels and sectors. The respective Ministries of Environment coordinate the national policy frameworks. The stakeholder engagements showed that the challenges affect‑ ing the implementation of climate change adaptation priorities/actions in national poli‑ cies included the following: lack of financial and technical resources, implementation coordination challenges, and lack of awareness of the policy frameworks, especially at sub‑national levels. The stakeholder engagements showed that much of the efforts have been on mainstreaming climate change adaptation in national planning documents and policies. There is limited evidence of significant traction on the implementation of these policies. Malawi and Mozambique remain vulnerable to climate change variability and extremes. In early 2022, both countries experienced tropical storms, Anna and Gombe, respectively, which significantly destroyed livelihood sources and infrastructure in the affected communities. 5.4.1 limited financial resoUrces The stakeholder engagements in both Malawi and Mozambique showed that the low and often limited allocation of financial resources remains a significant constraint to implementing climate change adaptation priorities across sectors such as agriculture. Despite the comprehensive national climate change frameworks in both countries, without adequate financial resources, many policy documents get to their end dates without considerable implementation. The respective climate change departments reported limited budgetallocations to operationalise their annual plans. Malawi and Mozambique have budget challenges and significantly depend on donor support; even if they have the political will, limited financial resources hamper their ability to operationalise their climate change adaptation policies/plans. Some government stakeholders highlighted that the limitations in financial resources leave the coun‑ tries largely dependent on development partners who often drive their agenda, which sometimes does not align with government priorities. Another challenge is the priorities regarding budgeting allocations; for example, in Malawi, close to 50% of the agriculture budget is allocated to the input subsidy programme, leaving minimal resources for other activities, including implementing climate change adaptation policies/plans. The other challenge regarding financial resources stakeholders highlighted in Malawi is balancing public good programmes (such as food and nutrition security) and commercial programmes in allocating public resources. Because governments are constrained in resources, development partners and NGOs drive their own agenda. This affects the sustainability of such programmes beyond the funding pro‑ grammes if the government considers them primarily donor/NGO driven without effective partnership in designing, planning and implementation. 92 Circular and Transformative Economy Innovative financial approaches are critical to driving the implementation of cli‑ mate change adaptation from domestic and international sources. The capacity of government and other domestic institutions should be improved to help them access international climate change adaptation finances to implement their adaptation plans and policies. Advocacy for increased investments in climate change adaptation is critical to ensure the strengthened implementation of adaptation policies and plans. Climate change adaptation should not be taken as an extra in the planning of the Ministry’s annual plans. Still, it should be embedded in the ongoing activities to bring transformative adaptation outcomes that help the countries develop and build resilience to climate‑related risks. 5.4.2 limited awareness of the policy frameworks, especially at sUB‑national levels The stakeholder engagements in both countries also showed limited awareness of climate change policy frameworks at the sub‑national levels where implementation occurs. Despite some of the officials at sub‑national levels being consulted in devel‑ oping these documents, when completed, copies are often not shared with them. In some cases, the policy documents were reported to be too long and difficult to read and understand easily. The stakeholders highlighted that these need to be simpli‑ fied into easy‑to‑read and useable versions to facilitate easy reading, understanding and use in the planning and implementation of sub‑national development plans. The stakeholders involved in implementing climate change adaptation at sub‑national lev‑ els highlighted that in some cases, the officials have either not seen the national cli‑ mate change policies/plans or they have not read them. Stakeholders in both Malawi and Mozambique reported that, in some cases, the climate change adaptation docu‑ ments remain in national offices and are never seen at the sub‑national level. The above findings contribute to weak mainstreaming and implementing climate change adaptation at the sub‑national level as the officials mandated to develop and oversee sub‑national development activities have either been limited or are unaware of climate change policies/plans. Some of the stakeholders in Malawi argued that in some cases, the climate change adaptation policies/plans are known to the officials actively involved in their development. The limited awareness in other line ministries beyond the staff engaged in consultations during the development of the climate change adaptation policies/plans affects the integration of adaptation and resilience in broader national pro‑ grammes and activities. Furthermore, some non‑state stakeholders argued that although there are efforts to engage various actors in developing climate change adaptation poli‑ cies/plans, more needs to be done to ensure effective and inclusive participation. The stakeholders highlighted that engagement should not only validate already developed policies/plans but facilitate participation in actively shaping their development. 5.4.3 coordination challenges in planning and implementation of adaptation priorities Engagements with government, development partners, NGOs, farmer organisa‑ tions, etc., reiterated the lack of coordinated planning and implementation of climate 93Strengthening the national climate change adaptation plans change adaptation and resilience activities in both countries. Government depart‑ ments (including in the same ministry) still work in silos on climate change adapta‑ tion issues despite efforts and structures to coordinate efforts. Similarly, NGOs and Development Partners (DPs) were reported to implement their own programmes/ projects sometimes without the effective involvement of the government. The gov‑ ernment stakeholders argued that NGOs sometimes get money in the name of helping the government implement adaptation priorities; however, there is no accountability to the government and sometimes reported outputs and impacts are not what is on the ground. Some stakeholders highlighted a disconnect between the results and impacts in institutional reports and what can be verified in the target communities. Furthermore, coordination of DPs (among themselves and with or by the govern‑ ment) on implementing climate change adaptation and resilience activities was lim‑ ited. Stakeholders highlighted the urgent need to improve coordination among DPs and also with the government in planning and implementing climate change adap‑ tation priorities for the respective countries. For example, in Malawi, some stake‑ holders reported that whoever funds the Technical Committee on Climate Change called the shots, and the committee’s focus ended up with the focus of the funding agency. Some of the stakeholders highlighted that the coordination of the Technical Committee on Climate Change should be strengthened to mirror the effectiveness of the DCAFS in coordinating and driving the implementation of climate change adaptation and resilience priorities in the country. Furthermore, these technical com‑ mittees should move beyond discussing projects to focus on the country’s thematic climate change adaptation/resilience priorities. The lack of effective and inclusive coordination in the planning and implemen‑ tation of climate change adaptation and resilience at sub‑national levels results in staff at these levels receiving multiple and different uncoordinated climate change adaptation and resilience information and projects. The climate change messaging and programming can be overwhelming to sub‑national staff and end‑users and fail to achieve the desired outputs and impact. Coordination can help streamline climate change adaptation, resilience messaging, and implementation across all levels. The coordination of the committee needs to remain broad to cover national priorities and drive their implementation across all sectors. Some stakeholders highlighted that due to the lack of national coordination, different institutions focus on getting as many resources as possible in the name of climate change adaptation and resilience; however, there is no evidence to demonstrate the impact. Despite the mandate of respective Ministries of Environment to coordinate climate change issues in each country, current efforts are inadequate as different institutions continue to plan and implement their own activities within the climate change space. 5.4.4 limited transparency in the implementation of national adaptation policies/plans While some stakeholders engaged in Malawi reported that the National Climate Change Resilience Strategy developed by the government was not being implemented, engagements with other government departments showed that implementation started with a pilot in six districts, and plans are to scale to other districts and the rest of the 94 Circular and Transformative Economy country. One of the challenges highlighted during the stakeholder engagements is that the National Resilience Strategy is now housed at the Department of Disaster Management (DoDMA) without much awareness and reach to stakeholders across the country beyond disasters. Without awareness and visibility of the strategy to other sectors and stakeholders who are expected to implement some of the priorities,it is challenging to improve implementation, monitoring and evaluation significantly. Stakeholders in Malawi highlighted that multi‑sectoral climate change adapta‑ tion/resilience policies/plans should not be housed in a department or line ministry. The experience in the country has been most of this ends up being plans for that respective department or line ministry. The engagements highlighted that depart‑ ments or line ministries sometimes act as rivals because each needs access to climate change adaptation/resilience resources. This results in adaptation activities being implemented piecemeal without coordinated planning to scale up the implementa‑ tion. Structures such as the Office of the President are ideal for driving multi‑sectoral efforts such as climate change adaptation. However, the limitation is that anything under the statehouse will live as long as the President is in power. There is a need for structures with convening power to bring different ministries, DPs, and NGOs together to strengthen coordination and alignment. 5.4.5 lack of national monitoring and evalUation of adaptation progress This is linked to the limitations in coordinated planning and implementation despite ongoing efforts in Malawi, such as developing a management information system (MIS) to monitor and track all climate change investments, outputs and impacts in the country. When fully operational, the information systems being developed by the Department of Environment will help the country monitor and track all climate change‑related investments and progress. However, neither country could provide documented evidence of monitoring and evaluation reports on national climate change adaptation priorities during the stakeholder engagements. This is despite cli‑ mate change adaptation policies and frameworks being developed with monitoring and evaluation plans. The finding also highlights the limited capacity to monitor and evaluate the implementation of climate change policies and plans in relevant institu‑ tions. The individual investments by different actors usually have monitoring and evaluation of results for specific projects, and there is no readily available data at the national level on project performance. Monitoring and evaluating climate change adaptation activities at the national level is important to ensure that countries identify success stories to scale to other parts of the countries and learn from the implementa‑ tion to improve future adaptation programmes. 5.4.6 recUrrent climate change shocks and responses to emergencies Malawi and Mozambique have been hit by several tropical cyclones, storms and droughts that have increased in frequency and intensity in recent years. The latest IPCC report shows that this trend will continue in the future due to climate change and variability. The recurrent climatic extreme events that often hit both countries reduce the capabilities of the respective governments to always respond to emergencies 95Strengthening the national climate change adaptation plans that significantly impact medium‑ and long‑term planning and implementation of programmes. The severe impacts of the shocks mean that government budgets are always inadequate as available resources are channelled to respond to emergencies. 5.4.7 limited institUtional capacity The chapter also undertook an institutional capacity assessment focusing on imple‑ menting climate change policies in the agriculture sector. Stakeholder engagements highlighted that several national and sub‑national government departments man‑ dated to implement climate change adaptation have inadequate institutional capacity to deliver on their goals. The institutional capacity challenges reported include a lack of laws, regulations and frameworks to ensure the department gets a budget from the national treasury, limited human and technical capacities (such as the number of skilled officials and representation at sub‑national levels) and competing institu‑ tional mandates. For example, in Malawi, the Department of Climate Change and Meteorological Services and the DoDMA highlighted that no legal frameworks exist to guide their operations. As such, they have no budget votes. Furthermore, expertise is needed to translate the scientific information in national climate change policies and climate forecasts into easy‑to‑use forms for end‑users at different levels. Climate change adaptation and resilience should be mainstreamed in sub‑national‑level extension services to strengthen access to climate informa‑ tion for improved decision‑making that builds adaptive capacity and resilience to future shocks. The decentralisation of government in Malawi and ongoing efforts in Mozambique require the institutional capacity to mainstream, implement and moni‑ tor climate change adaptation and resilience policies and plans at sub‑national levels, which often is not there. 5.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Planning climate change adaptation and resilience is important; however, translating the plans into implementation is critical to building the adaptative capacity to respond to climate change shocks. The assessment showed that despite progress in mainstreaming climate change considerations in national policies and strategies, the extent of imple‑ mentation, monitoring and evaluation remains limited. Often, the implementation ends at the pilot projects, and countries have not mainstreamed the allocation of resources in their national‑ and local‑level planning and budgeting processes. The lack of evi‑ dence on climate change adaptation implementation affects the ability to understand better whether countries are effectively preparing their populations and economic sec‑ tors to better prepare for climate change shocks. The stakeholder engagements showed that the challenges affecting the implementation of climate change adaptation priori‑ ties/actions in national policies included the following: lack of financial and technical resources, implementation coordination challenges, and lack of awareness of the policy frameworks, especially at sub‑national levels. The recommendations to address some of these challenges include the following: Design and implement innovative financing mechanisms and strengthen tech‑ nical capacity and resources: The results showed that Malawi and Mozambique, 96 Circular and Transformative Economy like many developing countries, lack viable financing mechanisms to operationalise adaptation policies and plans. There is a need to create innovative financing options leveraging public (especially financial support from public funds in the national bud‑ get) and private sector sources (domestic and international). This includes integrating adaptation financing in budgeted development interventions to ensure transformative adaptation outcomes that help the countries develop and build resilience to climate‑ related risks. Other measures include expanding and strengthening the capacity of government and other domestic institutions to help them access international cli‑ mate change adaptation finances to implement their adaptation plans and policies. Countries should also continuously develop the technical capacity of their staff in translating climate change adaptation policies into action and innovative financing options to ensure the policies and plans are operationalised. Strengthen advocacy and awareness of climate change adaptation policy frame‑ works, especially at sub‑national levels: The climate change adaptation policies and plans must be packaged in user‑friendly formats for dissemination to diverse stakeholders across the countries. Deliberate efforts must ensure climate change adaptation policies are widely disseminated beyond the national offices coordinat‑ ing their development. Increased climate change adaptation policy advocacy should be strengthened, including inclusive development, planning and implementation of these policies and plans, especially at the sub‑national levels, other ministries and departments and sector‑wide stakeholders. Inclusive climate change adapta‑ tion stakeholder participation should be beyond validating policy/planning docu‑ ments to active engagement in their development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Strengthen coordination in planning and implementation of adaptation priori‑ ties in national and sub‑national development programmes: The evidence from the review and stakeholder engagements calls for an urgent need to strengthen coordina‑ tion in planning and implementing climate change adaptation activities at national and sub‑national levels. This includes coordination within government ministries and departments and with sector stakeholders (development partners, private sector, farmer organisations, NGOs, etc.). There is also a need to strengthen coordination among other stakeholders themselves, such as within the development partners and NGOs, to better plan and coordinate climate change adaptation interventions. This would help to coordinate climate change adaptation and leverage resources to scale the implementation of national priorities and bring transformational change. Also, strengthening coordination would help streamline climate change adaptation and resilience messaging and implementation across all levels. Improve transparency in implementing national adaptation policies/plans: Deliberate efforts are required to ensure the visibility of progress with climate change policies to sector‑wide stakeholders. Implementing national climate change policies and plans should not be closed within some departments but visible to other departments, ministries and stakeholders. This is also important to ensure account‑ ability for action and results in climate change adaptation interventions. There is a need for national structures with convening power to bring different ministries, DPs, and NGOs together to strengthen coordination and alignment. Strengthen national monitoring and evaluation of adaptation progress: There is an urgent need to develop and/or strengthen monitoring and evaluation systems 97Strengthening the national climate change adaptation plans (and management information systems) of climate change adaptation activities at the national level. This would help to ensure that countries document their investments in climate change adaptation and track the impacts, identify success stories to scale to other parts of the countries and learn from the implementation to improve future adaptation programmes. The institutional and individual capacity to monitor and evaluate the implementation of climate change adaptation policies and plans should be developed and strengthened at national and sub‑national levels. Build climate change forecasting capacity to improve planning and decision‑ making in responding to recurrent climate change shocks and emergencies: There is an urgent need to strengthen the capacity of the respective departments and ministries working with partners to produce close to real‑time, medium‑ and long‑term forecasting of climate changes, including shocks such as the recur‑ rent tropical storms and droughts. The information should be readily accessi‑ ble to sector‑ wide stakeholders to inform appropriate planning beyond reactive responses to emergencies when there is a shock. This would also help avoid diverting significant budget allocation to other development programmes to attend to climate change emergencies. NOTE 1 “Climatic impact‑drivers (CIDs) are physical climate system conditions (e.g., means, events, extremes) that affect an element of society or ecosystems. Depending on system tolerance, CIDs and their changes can be detrimental, beneficial, neutral, or a mixture of each across interacting system elements and regions” (IPCC, 2021). REFERENCES AGRA. (2019). AGRA International Climate Finance (ICF) KPI 13 scorecard. Regional Food Trade and Resilience Programme. Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, Nairobi, Kenya. AGRA. (2020). AGRA International Climate Finance (ICF) KPI 13 scorecard. Regional Food Trade and Resilience Programme. Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, Nairobi, Kenya. AGRA. (2021). AGRA International Climate Finance (ICF) KPI 13 scorecard. Regional Food Trade and Resilience Programme. Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, Nairobi, Kenya. Alves, F., Leal Filho, W., Casaleiro, P., Nagy, G., Diaz, H., Al‑Amin, A., & Saroar, M. (2020). Climate change policies and agendas: Facing implementation challenges and guiding responses. Environmental Science & Policy, 104, 190–198. Ampaire, E., Happy, P., Van Asten, P., & Radeny, M. (2015). The role of policy in facilitat‑ ing adoption of climate‑smart agriculture in Uganda. Copenhagen: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Ampaire, E., Jassogne, L., Providence, H., Acosta, M., Twyman, J., Winowiecki, L., & Van Asten, P. (2017). Institutional challenges to climate change adaptation: A case study on policy action gaps in Uganda. Environmental Science & Policy, 75, 81–90. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.05.013. Ampaire, E., Okolo, W., Acosta, M., Jassogne, L., Twyman, J., Muindi, P., & Mwongera, C. (2016). Barriers to successful climate change policy implementation in Tanzania. CCAFS Info Note. Copenhagen: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). 104 Circular and Transformative Economy Foundation, 2013). This linear framework has placed many countries at risk of resource overexploitation and depletion, potentially disrupting the continuous inter‑ national economic growth. These are signs indicating an impending plateau in terms of economic development. Considering the wide range of challenges and limitations associated with LE (Box6.1), there is no doubt that migrating from LE to CE is critical. This migration would be a positive transition from the current Cradle‑to‑Grave economic system towards an alternative Cradle‑to‑Cradle system, returning as many resources to their original state as possible or replenishing resources where possible, thus supporting FIGURE6.3 Linear economy resource flow. FIGURE6.2 Forecasted growth and increase in global resource extraction from the year 1980–2020. Source: Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2013). 105Progress towards the circular economy sustainable development (Burchard‑Dziubinska, 2017; Drabe and Herstatt, 2016; Özkan and Yücel, 2020). The challenges in balancing industrial development, eco‑ nomic growth, and environmental and human health have strengthened the need to support the CE concept. For instance, sanitation and organic waste products manage‑ ment focus on environmental and human health services provision and drives CE; product management promotes reduced pollution and a cleaner environment. Clean environments are critical for human health. In addition, CE needs to move from a theoretical development phase to successful implementation across multiple sectors and all countries. This concept can be partially implemented sector by sector depend‑ ing on a sector’s potential to implement CE, or what is also called a “closed‑loop” economy. However, for a wholistic realisation of CE, regions or countries must have sectoral engagement so that none of the sectors is left behind in playing its part in this noble economic model to drive sustainable development (Owojori and Okoro, 2022; Sharma etal., 2021). Literature and emerging research show CE as the best economic model to replace the LE (Table6.1); however, it is clear that CE is still in an infant stage in terms of implementation. In the European Union, programmes, regulations, and direc‑ tives were implemented in support of the CE model (Camilleri, 2020; European Commission, 2017, 2018; European Union, 2020; Oakdene, 2018); however, little is observed in other regions, especially in the developing world (Desmond and Asamba, 2019). There is little or no clear action to support transformative efforts and TABLE6.1 Differences between linear and circular economies Category Linear economy Circular economy Attitude towards nature Extensive resource extraction from the Earth Decoupling economic activities from the consumption of scarce resources, keeping products and materials in use Attitude towards production Take‑make‑use‑waste 6Rs–Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Rethink, Repair, Recover Closing loops and flows One lifetime use of products, materials and energy Materials and renewable energy flow infinitely in circles through the economy Product attributes Products become obsolete while still usable Product life extension and used materials serve as valuable inputs for other products The ecosystem services Best simply on efficiency and one‑size‑fits‑all approach Many connecting nodes and scales show a greater resistance in the face of external stresses and shocks Economic key values Money and efficiency are the dominant values in linear businesses Highly focused on economic, ecological, and social aspects Source: Adapted from Shevelov (2020). 106 Circular and Transformative Economy policies facilitating the migration from LE to CE in developing countries, especially in Africa (Desmond and Asamba, 2019; Negi etal., 2021). This chapter traces previous and current CE efforts in South Africa. The focus is on the historical development of resource recovery from sanitation, particularly organic waste materials. As highlighted before, the economic and developmental sector or industry drives the perception of a CE, which is different in mining, agri‑ culture, energy, water, human settlement, and waste management, to name a few. This chapter evaluates CE progress in South Africa from the perspective of resource reclamation from organic waste. Several technologies and projects in this field that have been or are running are described. Here, these projects are identified, and their strategies elucidated, including opportunities for scaling. Challenges, as well as proj‑ ects that were halted, are also discussed. This work also describes the potential sus‑ tainable integration of these approaches into the wider South African economy and remedial pathways for such projects and technologies to succeed. In short, we assess the progress made so far in organic waste management and its contribution to accel‑ erating the CE model in South Africa. 6.1.3 an overview of the soUth african circUlar economy framework: policies and involvement South African government and practitioners have put extensive resources and effort into developing rigorous guidelines for waste reuse. Risks become a critical factor whenever the CE is considered and wastes are re‑used. Any waste destined for reuse must be classified as safe before being slotted back into the CE. Local guidelines support this effort, making it simple for practitioners to test and classify waste as safe for reuse. For instance, in organic waste management and reuse, elegant and clear regulations and guidelines have been developed in South Africa, mainly focus‑ ing on municipal sewage and water treatment residual sludge reuse in agriculture (Herselman, 2013; Snyman and Herselman, 2006). Similarly, the testing and application of general organic waste are well‑described under the National Environment Management: Water Act of 2009 (Godfrey etal., 2021). As much as this is a noble and useful attempt to regulate the use of organic wastes, the current guidelines focus on quality standards for sludges targeted for reuse in the agriculture sector, protecting the receiving environment from contami‑ nants. This risk‑focused approach can potentially limit rather than support or facil‑ itate the transition to a CE. Ideally, considering this problem’s magnitude, policy should describe risk mitigation and create directives for this transition. The specific policies necessary to support and mandate the transition to CE do not currently exist in South Africa. Although proposals have been tabled for consideration, they are yet to be promulgated into government policies and legislation (Desmond and Asamba, 2019). Current and historical efforts in strengthening the move to CE, particularly regarding organic waste and resource recovery, are driven mainly through individual sectorial efforts, either by researchers or private companies. Due to these disintegrated efforts, the model has been marred with several chal‑ lenges hindering a smooth take‑off into a viable and sustainable transformative effort from LE to CE. In recent years, the South African Department of Science and 107Progress towards the circular economy Innovation (DSI) launched the ‘Science, Technology, and Innovation for Circular Economy’ initiative. The department pledged to support the country’s transition to CE through these avenues. This initiative has made significant strides in CE policy formulations, paving the way for waste research and developing an innovation road‑ map towards a functional transition. To align its efforts with the national and inter‑ national priorities for CE, the Waste Research, Development and Innovation plan was initiated, a ten‑year waste management plan aimed at growing and transform‑ ing South Africa’s waste sector (Department of Science and Technology, 2014). The government also included CE as a paramount option for sustainable growth. In gen‑ eral, policy documents like the White Paper on Science, Technology and Innovation (Department of Science and Technology, 2019), the Decadal Plan (Department of Science and Innovation, 2021), and the National Waste Management Strategy (Department of Environment Forestry and Fisheries, 2021). Although these are noble initiatives in support of the drive towards CE, the country’s policy framework on CE remains fragmented across various government institutions and departments, like the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), the DSI, the Department of Science and Technology (DST), and others (Nahman etal., 2021). This lack of a consolidated approach does not acknowledge the urgency of the situation and is one of the primary factors inhibiting the progress of the transition. Despite limited national strategic planning towards a CE, South Africa is working towards a transformative migration. In the regional and international space, South Africa has assumed a leading role in pushing the CE forward through its current role as co‑chair of the African Circular Economy Alliance, which aims to redress these consolidation challenges, linking up continental projects and programmes, and facil‑ itating collaboration to drive the transformation to a CE. This alliance was jointly launched by South Africa, Rwanda and Nigeria at COP23, the annual United Nations Climate Change conference held in 2017 in Bonn, Germany. South Africa is also a co‑founder of the African Circular Economy Network (ACEN), which was formed in June 2016 by a group of CE professionals in Cape Town. This CE network envisions strategies for a restorative continental economy that generates social cohesion and community success through economic production and consumption that supports the regeneration of environmental resources (GRID‑Arendal, 2021). It doubles as an active participant in the World Circular Economy Forum and a member of the Global Alliance on Circular Economy and Resource Efficiency (Nahman etal., 2021). Its involvement in these regional and global CE organisations allows the country to share challenges and learn from the world’s transformative ideas that will help shape and align the national strategic policy framework with the global sustainable devel‑ opment goals. 6.1.4 organic waste management as a circUlar economy platform in soUth africa Like in any other developing country, waste management in South Africa is still a challenge. The published statistics show that approximately 80% of the 108 Mt of 2017 waste generated in South Africa has been landfilled (Department of Environmental Affairs, 2018). In 2020, a notable proportion of waste was reported as mismanaged, 108 Circular and Transformative Economy with almost 37.4% of households having no access to refuse removal, necessitat‑ ing illegal dumping (Chitaka and Schenck, 2022). This has been compounded by the rise in population, rural urban migration, and industrialisation (Department of Environmental Affairs, 2017). These demographic and social challenges give rise to increasing waste generation, which is challenging to manage. This increases pressure on already‑limited water supply infrastructure, environmental health and sanitation, and many other services, especially in cities and peri‑urban areas. In South Africa, a notorious management challenge is associated with water and waste infrastruc‑ ture in mushrooming unplanned community settlements, especially in peri‑urban areas. This was evidenced by the cholera outbreaks reported in South Africa from 1980 to 1986 (Sidley, 2001), in 2003 and from 2008 to 2009 (National Institute for Communicable Disease, 2009). Cholera outbreaks are a sign of public health sys‑ tem failure, associated with a lack of access to running water and proper functional sanitation services (Ali etal., 2011; Ismail etal., 2013). This was the case with South Africa during those outbreaks, when about 80% of informal settlement residents had no regular access to clean water, and close to 18million rural South African citizens had no access to municipal sanitation services (Sidley, 2001). To address these challenges, soon after attaining independence in 1994, the gov‑ ernment of South Africa initiated large‑scale sanitation infrastructure programmes. A national sanitation programme called the National Sanitation Policy White Paper, was developed and launched in 1996, which defined the basic sanitation technologies fit for households (Bhagwan etal., 2019). Many communities had limited or no access to dignified sanitation services during the apartheid era. However, since water access and availability have always been a major challenge, especially in rural and informal settlement communities, and considering the scale of addressing this inequality that needed redressing, these communities received primarily on‑site sanitation systems, which are more cost‑effective than flush toilets. Although on‑site technologies come in different forms, most households were installed with ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrines. Since the inception of this sanitation programme and after 1994, over two million VIPs and other on‑site toilets were installed (Bhagwan etal., 2019). As much as these technologies were deemed adequate, ideal in line with United Nations (UN) standards, and cost‑effective for rural communities, they also come with challenges. The associated limitation observed with the VIPs is the high rate of saturation, which then demands either decommissioning of the full toilets or intermit‑ tent emptying of the faecal matter if the same toilet is to be used continuously (Mjoli, 2010; Still etal., 2012). Either of these choices is associated with expenses. When the former is chosen, the household would need to rebuild another toilet in a differ‑ ent location, which demands land and space. Emptying and reusing latrines involves handling the faecal matter and disposal costs of the human excreta. Generally, sludge disposal in South Africa from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and on‑site systems is a challenge to municipalities (Pillay and Bhagwan, 2021). Proper sludge handling is fundamental to reducing illegal sludge dumping and consequent environ‑ mental contamination. Large amounts of faecal matter are generated from these on‑site sanitation sys‑ tems in communities. Therefore, several options for waste handling were proposed as waste management strategies. Initially, the focus was managing these organic 109Progress towards the circular economy materials as waste. However, with the help of emerging academics and industrial research, the idea of resource recovery from human excreta material was devel‑ oped. The CE concept was born, gaining prominent attention in the waste industry (Department of Environmental Affairs, 2017; Still etal., 2012). With the need to implement successful strategies for resource recovery from human excreta materi‑ als, different sanitation technology prototypes were designed and piloted in South Africa by stakeholders like researchers, municipalities and public‑private compa‑ nies. Ideally, these are advanced sanitation technologies, as they should have the capacity to enhance the value chain of resource recovery more effectively than VIP latrines. These advanced technologies include urine diversion dry toilets (UDDTs), decentralised wastewater treatment systems (DEWATS), organic waste composit‑ ing and biochar material production. The details of how these technologies work and the products produced for reuse are well documented in the literature (Gutterer etal., 2009; Kvarnström etal., 2006; Mkhize etal., 2017; Mnkeni and Austin, 2009; Musazura etal., 2018; Vinnerås, 2001; Vinnerås and Jönsson, 2002). There is adequate evidence that recycling and reusing human excreta‑derived material benefits agriculture. This knowledge led to pilot projects targeting gen‑ erating resources out of organic wastes (wastewater, sludge, human faecal matter and urine, food, or green waste). Although many strategies have focused on waste disposal, the new paradigm focuses more on resource recovery, deriving fertiliser materials, and harnessing municipal effluent for agricultural use. This doubles as a positive strategy for sustainable environmental protection (Sharma etal., 2022). It is a sustainable intervention because it reduces the amount of waste to be channelled into the environment by diverting wastes from landfills into reusable materials like organic fertilisers and irrigation water. 6.1.5 organic waste–derived resoUrces recovery technologies and innovations sUpporting the circUlar economy in soUth africa Like any other country, South Africa faces environmental degradation and pollu‑ tion challenges from municipal sludges, landfills and dumping sites for food and other organic waste. In addition, rapid resource extraction and depletion are preva‑ lent across the country. A wealth of literature has shown that CE has the potential to address these challenges (Sehnem etal., 2019; Tahulela and Ballard, 2020; Wijkman and Skånberg, 2015). Various technologies are available to facilitate resource recov‑ ery and reuse of organic waste–derived materials from waste streams. These waste products are as broad as food waste (food market dumping sites and household waste), wastewater, and municipal sludge (from centralised or on‑site sanitation facilities) like faecal sludge or human excreta and urine. Urine can be harvested from on‑site sanitation facilities like UDDTs, improved urine diversion toilets and VIP latrines. Treatment is always aimed at improving the materials’ quality regarding physical, chemical and biological properties while maintaining their beneficial value (e.g., nutrient content). Risk is an important consideration, and processing must render it safe and pleasant for handling, agricultural use and consumption of the associated products (i.e., crops grown in waste‑fertilised soils). This section details the strate‑ gies and technologies currently used for resource recovery from organic wastes in 110 Circular and Transformative Economy South Africa. We also highlight how these strategies support the CE concept and are linked to sustainable waste management through organic waste treatment. 6.1.6 faecal slUdge treatment techniQUes for resoUrce recovery and reUse In the context of promoting access to sanitation services for all in South Africa, coupled with resource recovery, technologies have been developed and installed around the country. For example, over 80,000 UDDT were installed in eThekwini municipality, Durban (Bhagwan etal., 2019). This type of sanitation technology was an upgrade from the general VIP, as it separates faecal matter and urine, facilitating easy drying and making emptying, collection and transport manageable. However, there was some resistance to adopting the technology as people were familiar with their traditional VIPs (Roma etal., 2013). The study by Roma etal. (2013) showed that the rejection was attributed to reasons such as smell and malfunctioning of ped‑ estals. As a result, the authors recommended that adopting such technologies can be improved by educating the users on the potential benefits of using such technologies, especially regarding the nutrient recovery aspect. Etter etal. (2015a) reported that user acceptance was increased with adequate education, contributing to increased urine collection from households for valorisation. Faecal sludge from existing sanita‑ tion technologies like pit latrines in most rural communities of South Africa is con‑ sidered unsafely managed. This poses both environmental and health risks (Bishoge, 2021; Kalulu etal., 2020; Mamera etal., 2020), necessitating improved treatment and collection strategies and awareness campaigns, hence making the UDDT an important technology to consider during the transition towards CE. To reduce faecal sludge’s pathogenicity, toxicity and odour for use as soil fertilising material, sludge must be treated and stabilised before use. Several techniques are applied for faecal sludge treatment in South Africa and globally to improve the sludge quality for agri‑ cultural reuse. The existing treatment techniques in South Africa include the use of composting and co‑composting, wastewater treatment using a DEWATS, black sol‑ dier fly larvae (BSFL), latrine dehydration and palletisation (LaDePa), and pyrolysis. The next section details these faecal sludge treatment techniques. 6.1.6.1 Composting, co‑composting, and vermicomposting In faecal sludge management (FSM), composting and co‑composting are heat and microbial stabilisation processes used to sanitise organic waste materials, making them fit for handling, use in agriculture, and lowering human health risks. Sánchez etal. (2017) define composting as an aerobic, thermophilic microorganism‑mediated solid‑state fermentation process, transforming organic waste materials into more stable organic compounds. Co‑composting is a simultaneous composting process of two or more types of organic waste materials, which are sources of N or C to enhance microbial activity (Das etal., 2011; Petric etal., 2012). The processes increase the potential for improved and enriched compost quality for agricultural use (Paredes etal., 1996). With the global increase in the generation of organic waste, for example, garden and food wastes, which are being disposed into landfills, leading to envi‑ ronmental pollution through greenhouse gas emissions, it is important to consider innovative and ecologically sustainable waste management strategies. Technologies 111Progress towards the circular economy such as co‑composting and subsequent agricultural use of the compost materials minimise volumes of organic wastes entering landfills and environmental pollution. This ensures environmental sustainability, as physical waste volumes or released organic compounds from such organic wastes are reduced, limiting their transfer into groundwater and surrounding trophic food chains. Composting processes have proven to be useful (Körner etal., 2003), as they transform organic wastes into nutrient‑ rich fertilising materials (Scheutz etal., 2011) and are used as soil condition‑ ers (Iqbal etal., 2010). Such strategies for waste resource recovery and reuse in agri‑ culture close the loop of an originally linear system and create a CE in the sanitation or organic waste management system. Faecal sludge and municipal sludge can be composted too or co‑composted with other agro‑ or green waste or animal manure to produce a compost suitable for use as a soil conditioner or fertilising material (Iqbal etal., 2010; Petric etal., 2012). Generally, compost materials are typically low‑value products regarding plant nutri‑ ent content and can be primarily used as soil conditioners. However, co‑composting or fortification with municipal sludge or human urine can enrich compost materials and increase their fertiliser value (Cofie etal., 2016). Fortification can also be done by adding a fraction of chemical fertilisers, usually using nitrogen or phosphorus fertilisers. In addition, most composting techniques reduce pathogen loads in faecal matter (Dumontet etal., 1999; Grantina‑Ievina and Rodze, 2020). Common compost‑ ing or co‑composting is done in windrows or piles. However, sometimes composting can be done at the household level, especially when communities are provided with designed composting toilets as on‑site sanitation services. Vermicomposting is one of the alternative methods used for degrading organic mat‑ ter. According to Singh etal. (2011), vermicomposting is the decomposition of solid organic waste facilitated synergistically by microbes and earthworms. The authors state that, even though microbes primarily facilitate waste degradation, earthworms are the true foundational drivers of the decomposition process. They fragment and condition the substrate and enhance microbial degradation. Vermicomposting pro‑ duces a more nutrient‑rich compost material than the traditional composting process (Suthar, 2009). There is some mixed information on the ability of vermicompost to deactivate pathogens. Ndegwa and Thompson (2001) reported that the vermicom‑ posting process cannot deactivate pathogens from organic wastes such as faecal sludge. However, this contrasts with earlier studies by Eastman (1999), which indi‑ cate that vermicomposting can deactivate pathogens more than general composting. According to Samal etal. (2022), vermicomposting can deactivate pathogens if the process is done properly, and from their review, it was stated that pathogen deactiva‑ tion takes 60 days under optimal conditions. South Africa is one of the Sub‑Saharan African countries facing food insecurity due to degraded soils resulting from minimal use of organic fertilisers (ten Berge etal., 2019). The recovery of nutrients from organic wastes or co‑compost and reuse in agricultural fields as a soil conditioner helps improve soil properties by enhancing microbial activity for nutrient recycling, increasing soil moisture and nutrient reten‑ tion capacity and increasing soil aggregate stability (Cofie etal., 2016; Fuhrmann etal., 2022; Iqbal etal., 2010). This recovery and reuse create a closed‑loop cir‑ cular system in a way that intertwin food security while addressing sustainable 112 Circular and Transformative Economy waste management in line with responsible consumption and production (SDG 12) (Drangert etal., 2018; Harder etal., 2020). Although these processes have gained momentum as resource recovery technolo‑ gies from solid organic waste such as faecal or municipal sludges, the development of business models for implementation in South Africa is still lacking. However, sewage co‑composting is currently underway as a pilot project through a multidis‑ ciplinary project called Rural Urban Nexus: Establishing a Circular Economy for Resilient city‑region food systems (RUNRES) implemented by the University of KwaZulu‑Natal’s (UKZN) Crop Sciences team. It is executed in collaboration with some private companies and the uMngeni WWTP in the Msunduzi Municipality, KwaZulu‑Natal, South Africa. In this case, shredded green waste (garden waste) is mixed with municipal sludge and co‑composted on windrows over time. Periodic sampling and analyses are employed to continuously monitor the composting pro‑ cess, focusing on the changes in microbial pathogens, chemical composition, and the final compost quality. The compost is not yet sold on the formal market due to the unavailability of certification of faecal sludge‑derived compost products. As a result, compost production is still under research and not yet produced at a large, eco‑ nomically viable scale. Until then, operated as a business entity, this is still limited in supporting the CE approach. However, with relevant support and policies in place, the demonstration of such composting case studies could support this technology to drive CE in sanitation and organic waste materials. 6.1.6.2 Decentralised wastewater treatment system (DEWATS) The DEWATS is a robust waterborne package that treats various types of wastewater close to the generation source. The DEWATS is a low‑cost, decentralised, community‑ based wastewater treatment technology that can be made from low‑cost, locally avail‑ able materials and operates on a low energy demand (Gutterer etal., 2009). By design, DEWATS works the same way as the conventional system. The treatment follows the common four processes, i.e., primary, secondary, tertiary (advanced secondary treatment) and post‑treatment phases (Gutterer etal., 2009; Singh etal., 2019). The DEWATS anaerobically degrade organic compounds from various wastewater types into inorganic compounds, producing effluent that contains mineral nutrients and some pathogens. In hybridised DEWATS, the planted gravel filters (PGFs) (horizontal flow constructed wetlands; HFCW and vertical flow constructed wetlands; VFCW) have sand filters to further polish the effluent to remove pathogens and other nutri‑ ents (Singh etal., 2019). The effluent enters the VFCW and vertically flows down the sand filters, and during seepage, the oxygen promotes nitrification processes. The difference between HFCW and VFCW is that in the former, effluent moves horizon‑ tally, but in both systems, pathogens are captured onto gravel particles, where they are eventually deactivated (Gutterer etal., 2009). The deactivation of pathogens is hastened by several processes, including predation by protozoa and other bacteria such as Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus (Wand etal., 2007). The advantages over conven‑ tional treatment include easy operation in small communities (decentralised), simplic‑ ity (minimum operational skills, no to low energy requirements) and reusable product generation (resource recovery from treated wastewater) (Singh etal., 2019; Varma etal., 2022). DEWATS have been used widely in developing countries like India 113Progress towards the circular economy (Singh etal., 2019), Nepal (Bright‑Davies etal., 2015), Brazil (Dariva and Araujo, 2021), Indonesia (Kerstens et al., 2012) and South Africa (Reynaud and Buckley, 2015), among others. However, in South Africa, this technology is still at the pilot scale at Newlands Mashu Ecological Centre. In 2018, the eThekwini municipality planned to scale the DEWATS to other areas such as Banana City and kwaDabeka (Tuyens etal., 2018). However, the same idea has been adopted for rural schools, whereby the suitability of DEWATS technology is being piloted at iNtapuka primary school (H2O Sanitation Services, 2022). The RUNRES project operating in Msunduzi has selected various innovation platforms. One is the DEWATS plant connected to urine diversion toilets and will be piloted for wastewater treatment at a rural school in Howick. The innovation will include the recovery of wastewater and urine for agricul‑ tural use; if successful, the project plans to scale out the innovation. This implies that South Africa is still in the transitional phase when it comes to the implementation of DEWATS technologies in Ces. Generally, conventional centralised municipal sewage systems are the most com‑ mon treatment technologies installed in towns and cities. Although their sizes may vary in design and preferences, they are considered most suitable due to the large volumes of wastewater they can handle and treat at a time and their efficiency in organic compound removal. However, they are associated with several challenges as they are considered resource intensive, for example, (i) high initial capital investment requirement, (ii) high operations & maintenance (O&M) costs, (iii) high technical capacities requirement, and (iv) high energy requirements, among others (Bhagwan etal., 2019; Gutterer etal., 2009). Thus, despite the quality of effluent, the mentioned set of challenges of these systems often make them not feasible for rural communi‑ ties and unplanned peri‑urban and informal settlements. Designing such plants for undulating and mountainous locations also involves extensive additional costs. Despite these challenges, every community deserves to have a dignified sanitation system at its service. To overcome the hurdles of large‑scale conventional treatment systems, DEWATS can be used instead. DEWATs have been identified as an alternative wastewater treatment approach to conventional systems. They can be used for waste‑ water treatment with the on‑site sanitation technologies commonly employed in small townships and rural communities of South Africa. This system is considered economi‑ cally feasible as a Community‑Based Sanitation framework for small, densely popu‑ lated communities in rural and peri‑urban settlements (Water and Sanitation Program, 2013). Although this technology is decentralised, best suited for small communities, and capable of treating low wastewater flows ranging from 1m3–1,000m3 per unit per day (Gutterer etal., 2009), it can potentially be used to complement the conventional treatment system when needed. Evidence‑based information shows that the DEWATS technology supports CE by allowing water and nutrient recovery for agricultural use (Bame, 2012; Busari etal., 2020; Magwaza etal., 2020). Furthermore, studies by Musazura and Odindo (2021) showed that the use of DEWATS effluent from both the anaerobic filter (AF) section and after the PGFs have no negative effects on soils, crops, environment and irrigation equipment. However, in South Africa, the effluent originating from the DEWATS is not being used for agri‑ culture despite evidence that it is suitable for the purpose and following the existing World Health Organization guidelines (Reynaud and Buckley, 2015). The pilot scale 120 Circular and Transformative Economy 2020a). In addition, studies have highlighted that biochar has the potential to improve soil carbon capture, climate change mitigation, soil pollution remediation, wastewa‑ ter treatment and energy storage (Ahmad etal., 2014; Chen etal., 2016; Inyang and Dickenson, 2015; Leng etal., 2015; Yan etal., 2022). Technical details like feedstock types and the associated pyrolysis temperatures have been highlighted and summarised in a review by Ahmad etal. (2014). The feed‑ stocks range from woody material like tree plantation residues, crop residues, and animal waste/manure to sludge waste, grass and saw‑dust. Biochar quality and stabil‑ ity depend on the biochemical composition of the feedstock, temperature level and time taken to heat the feedstock. Although biochar use has gained global attention, its production from faecal sludge feedstock has not been adopted at a large scale; rather, it is still limited to laboratory‑scale research (Krueger etal., 2020). However, there is evidence of potential benefits from faecal sludge biochar. Besides being used as a soil conditioner, faecal sludge can be made into biochar and be returned to on‑site sanita‑ tion technologies like VIP toilets to help reduce microbial pathogens and leaching of pollutants into underground waters (Ahmad etal., 2014; Mamera etal., 2021, 2022) and other soil and sludge conditioning (Bai etal., 2018; Deng etal., 2022). Biochar has the potential to address sanitation and soil fertility challenges. However, there is a need for a transdisciplinary approach to transition from experimental‑ based scales to viable commercial scales. Although this technology is promising to address the limitations, its implementation, especially regarding faecal sludge biochar production, is still confined to research and has not been expanded to commercial‑scaled endeavours. 6.1.7 challenges limiting the sUccess of circUlar economy and progress in resoUrce recovery technologies Although the CE approach is beneficial relative to the current LE, it is still derailed at the interface between research, design and implementation. Several hindrances impede the implementation of CE approaches, either at the sectoral or national level. Meanwhile, 193 countries from the United Nations globally attended and proposed a set of actions, including strategies to sustainably boost their economies by 2030 (UNGA, 2015). However, with eight years to go to achieve these goals, there is lim‑ ited evidence of achieving 100% progress on several set goals. Understanding the hurdles impeding this transition is crucial (Jensen, 2022). The authors have identified several challenges in implementing the CE approach in the sanitation and organic waste management sector in South Africa. 6.1.7.1 Technological and financial challenges Successful implementation of the CE approach in the organic waste management sector requires a well‑planned investment in technology. Developed technological infrastructure is critical at various waste management value chain stages to realise substantial benefits of waste‑derived materials and recycling. For off‑site centralised wastewater treatment, lack of financial support for O&M, upgrading and maintain‑ ing ageing infrastructure are some of the challenges highlighted by the DWS’s Green Drop National Report, a regular national report investigating the reuse of wastewater 121Progress towards the circular economy in agriculture (Department of Water and Sanitation, 2022). Several WWTPs scored below 31%, based on the assessment criteria put in place, revealing the dismal state of wastewater management in the country in meeting the Green Drop Status (Department of Water and Sanitation, 2022). Green Drop Status essentially investi‑ gates the nationwide attempts to transform waste into a product that can be utilised in agriculture, much like many of the technologies discussed in this report. While the upgrade and expansion of these plants are imperative, the difficulties WWTPs face include challenges in sourcing the required funds, skills to access such funds, and the time it takes to develop new financing mechanisms. Many technologies are available to transform waste into useful and safe outputs, but particularly in developing countries, even maintaining the current infrastructure is financially limiting. Funding is a primary problem in implementing these novel ideas that are gaining international support. Additionally, centralised wastewater treatment technologies typically treat household influents from flush toilets. This approach is not sustainable in terms of both water and sanitation security. Mixing the faecal material with water in flush toilets requires additional and expensive treat‑ ment during resource recovery. On‑site sanitation treatment technologies, with waste isolation and separation capabilities, are a viable alternative, as described above. Such options allow no or minimal use of water resources (no‑flush toilets) relative to conventional flush toilets, which is particularly critical in a drought‑ridden country like South Africa. Operations and maintenance remain one of the key challenges for on‑site sanitation. The WRC of South Africa has driven some work investigating the reasons for these challenges, including a lack of O&M budgets, poor revenue collection and limited capacity to manage toilet facilities. Competing needs from other sectors, such as tertiary education, the social grant systems, and the country’s low economic growth, have placed tremendous strain on budgets allocated for these on‑site sanitation technologies (Akinsete etal., 2019). 6.1.7.2 Business‑as‑usual mindset for waste treatment Conventional wastewater treatment techniques for removing organics, nutrients, heavy metals and pathogens have a long local legacy, and the effluent is typically discharged into the receiving environment. This is an important step for water recov‑ ery, to either be returned into the water cycle or later treated to potable standards at water treatment plants. However, this is more common in neighbouring Namibian cities than in South Africa. Although this method seeks to reduce health risks and protect the environment, treating wastewater to appropriate discharge standards is an energy‑intensive process. Natural fertiliser resources, such as nitrogen and phospho‑ rous, quickly decline but can be recovered from wastewater or general human waste. Additionally, energy can be simultaneously generated from these wastes through the co‑digestion of sludge (Junior etal., 2021). This whole process requires a systemic shift from wastewater treatment plants to waste resource recovery facilities. However, a major stumbling block is the current linear model of treating wastewa‑ ter instead of exploring closed‑loop or circular modes of treatment. Additionally, per‑ ceptions are critical, and a public mindset shift is necessary, encouraging a popular view of wastewater as a resource that requires specific economic resource recovery management strategies. This includes carefully assessing the fate of waste‑derived 122 Circular and Transformative Economy products that can be generated from wastewater treatment systems as part of the overall decision‑making processes for designing and operating relevant technologies. It also includes commercial stakeholders, bridging municipal role players (waste managers), researchers and companies, and evaluating economic models for transi‑ tioning WWTPs to waste recovery facilities. 6.1.7.3 Social hesitancy in accepting the product There has been great headway in conducting research that evaluates user acceptance of sanitation technologies from VIP latrines (Gounden etal., 2006; Mkhize etal., 2017) to low‑flush toilets (Akinsete etal., 2019) and various urine‑diverting dry and flush toilets (Devkota etal., 2020). According to Akinsete etal. (2019), waterless dry toilet systems have not been accepted. The chance of a new or innovative sani‑ tation technology being deemed acceptable is higher when there have been in‑field experiments and testing technologies within the communities that would benefit from implementation. Action research is a promising strategy, bridging the interface between science and social dimensions. This process involves simultaneously act‑ ing (implementing a strategy) and doing research, linked by critical reflection steps, which have been shown to influence the uptake of these technologies, as described by Owojori etal. (2022). This facilitates feedback to the technical team about the technology’s user design and experience, allowing for changes to be made that would suit the receiving com‑ munity (Kabundu etal., 2022). However, due to a lack of funding, some technol‑ ogy developers cannot always financially support the lengthy redesign process and its reiterations. In terms of perception, in previous studies, although hesitancy was reported on acceptance of the sanitation technologies, there was positive attitude and perceptions on the use of human waste–derived fertilising products (Gwara etal., 2021) due to perceived economic benefit from these fertilising materials relative to chemical fertilisers. The ‘yuck’ factor (for example, utilising a fertiliser derived from human waste for food crops) is one aspect that would need to be overcome through social behaviour change, education and awareness. 6.1.7.4 Stakeholder involvement hesitancy Successful transitioning from an LE to a CE model in organic waste management requires participatory water and waste governance as an enabling mechanism. While there is legislation and strong support in theory, the implementation of poli‑ cies and engagement with principles for community and stakeholder participation in waste and water resource management has not been effective. The involvement of stakeholders in these CE initiatives remains a challenge, particularly at the level of priority‑ setting, planning, decision‑making and implementation (Hove etal., 2021). 6.1.7.5 Lack of supportive institutional regulatory and policy frameworks As stated by Desmond and Asamba (2019), specific policies supporting the CE do not currently exist in South Africa, although they have been tabled for consideration. This is a challenge when attempting to valorise organic waste or waste‑derived prod‑ ucts. If there are no policies, regulations, or standards that determine the acceptable quality of waste‑derived products (closely related to those made for fertilisers, soil 123Progress towards the circular economy conditioner materials, animal feed products, and others), then it becomes more dif‑ ficult to develop a market for the CE in the country, particularly since perception is such a difficult hurdle. Strong quality evaluation systems and concepts similar to “Organic” labelling could tap into an environmentally aware market. According to Montwedi etal. (2021), the policies that could support this initiative include: i. Participation of all stakeholders to provide clear mandates and roles. ii. Supporting the provision of free basic services for all citizens, particu‑ larly the provision of water and sanitation services by local or district municipalities. iii. Reintroducing recovered waste products as safe end‑use products through implementing standards to provide legal certainty for market uptake. iv. Limiting the discharge of waste sludge to landfills. v. Finding effective links between water, sanitation and resource recovery through policies and national frameworks that touch on environmental pro‑ tection and health. Resource recovery should not be at the expense of human or environmental health. 6.1.8 fUtUre direction for the sUccess and growth of ce in sanitation and organic waste management Although researchers have demonstrated the potential of technologies supporting CE in organic waste management, there is still a very limited implementation of these waste materials feeding into the CE, especially in developing countries (Negi etal., 2021). Several “wicked” challenges have been highlighted to hinder the expected progress and implementation of CE in organic waste materials. This section, in con‑ trast, details the potential enabling avenues which could foster the success of a CE in sanitation and organic wastes. 6.1.8.1 Creation of public‑private partnerships (PPPs) Collaboration is critical to the successful commercial implementation of such endeav‑ ours. Although independently run or funded business entities exist, the CE approach in organic waste management through resource recovery and reuse requires a collab‑ orative business model due to the nature of the system, including a municipally man‑ aged waste stream and numerous decentralised waste treatment options proposed here. This is a unique business model that largely depends on the primary service type that an entity will offer. In the case of organic waste–derived materials, services may target resource recovery and reuse (fertilising material, water, or energy source), as well as sanitation or environmental protection services. Planning and implemen‑ tation require a broad knowledge and skill set unavailable to a single individual or sector in the organic waste management sector and sanitation service chain. For example, accessibility and availability of quality raw materials and transportation, especially when dealing with faecal sludge from on‑site sanitation systems, could be associated with high costs that might not meet initial investments, especially for young sanitation waste management businesses (Mallory etal., 2020a). 124 Circular and Transformative Economy Generally, it requires a large initial capital investment that could be difficult to finance if one is a sole proprietor, in addition to the challengingly diverse socio‑ economic dynamic around the actors involved along the organic waste value chain. Other than the non‑monetary benefits of organic waste management, like sanitation services and mitigating environmental pollution, the return on investment (ROI) may not be positive if one is to consider the fertiliser value of organic waste–derived mate‑ rials, which is relatively lower than synthetic fertilisers. Therefore, these challenges could be addressed by forming public‑private partnerships (PPPs) and building col‑ laboration at various levels along the value chain. PPPs are utilised to generate syn‑ ergistic collaborations between public and private sectors, during which the private sector’s somewhat public operations are efficiently carried out, allowing co‑financing and capitalising of its innovations (Yescombe, 2011). These PPPs are critical in the waste management services of local authorities or any entity hoping to venture into waste management as part of their business model. Private companies are believed to have the capacity to implement waste management businesses successfully, while public institutions like the local authorities primar‑ ily lack financial and institutional capacities and the required technological skills (Khajuria and Rudra, 2016). Developing PPPs as a pathway to enhance the success of CE in waste management business entities could benefit both the local authori‑ ties and private companies in facilitating better, new and improved technologies. Such would put in place relevant infrastructural development, increased financial support, job and product market creation, and increased cost efficiencies (Khajuria and Rudra, 2016). Therefore, implementing some long‑term PPP contracts could be highly beneficial in driving forward the CE in sanitation and organic waste in South Africa. The public sector would use the private sector’s financial strength, technolog‑ ical know‑how, flexibility and innovation to improve service delivery on sanitation services provision, waste management and other shared initiatives (Cui etal., 2020b). 6.1.8.2 Collaborations, stakeholder engagement, and co‑designing of circular economy projects Transitioning towards a CE business model in sanitation and waste‑derived materi‑ als and reuse is now central; after years of research and development, we are ripe for implementation. However, although this business approach and concept domi‑ nates the current discussions within corridors of various sectors and actors, most of these conversations are still being conducted in “silos”. The individualism in these non‑collaborative discussions fragments the confidence needed to encourage the implementation of CE projects amongst stakeholders. The “silos” prevent holistic planning and cause duplication of activities between institutions. Multi‑stakeholder collaborations and engagements are still not functioning well in South Africa, as con‑ versations in the sanitation and organic waste management value chain are individu‑ ally held or converge at best at a local level. For example, the strongest footprint is at research institutions and universities, disseminated as research papers or at national conferences. In South Africa, collaborations have been limited to universities and the WRC providing funding for developing and testing prototype technologies initiated by var‑ ious universities. A few industrial actors like WWTPs and some local municipalities 125Progress towards the circular economy are encouragingly engaging with the research, especially successful collaborations between the UKZN and the eThekwini municipality. Although there seem to be some strong collaborations, these initiatives and engagements are research‑focused, developing prototypes and piloting technologies. Noble technologies promising to drive the CE in sanitation organic waste management have been developed; how‑ ever, no single technology has been scaled up and implemented as a functional and revenue‑generating commercial entity. There is a need to strengthen the existing initiatives and facilitate productive collaborations and engagements among relevant stakeholders within and outside the sanitation and organic waste management value chain to ensure successful dialogues regarding transitioning towards a CE in South Africa. Engagement of various stakeholders of different backgrounds for a common cause could be between research institutions, institutes of higher learning (univer‑ sities and colleges), private sectors, government departments and local authorities (public sector), including representatives from the local communities. Collaborations among relevant stakeholders facilitate progressive engagement for strategic project design, sharing ideas regarding how project implementation could be initiated (Mishra etal., 2021). Such collaborative engagements would allow for designing, redesigning and co‑designing project strategies (Nakakawa etal., 2010). Collaborations are integral to any business entity’s success, and role players must be carefully selected for successful engagement. Particularly, astute and experienced commercial role players are necessary to rigorously consider the financial feasibility of these technologies. To ensure a smooth flow of organisational arrangement, planning and coordina‑ tion among the stakeholders, to convene the necessary meetings and to facilitate rational dialogues, there is a need for a lead organisation that chairs the whole platform and keeps the itinerary and inventory of relevant stakeholders. Although there are already ongoing initiatives, the discussions are still under the corridors of a few institutions, like research institutes, academic institutions, or municipali‑ ties, without centralising national activities and collaborations among stakeholders. There is a need for multi‑stakeholder platform development from now onwards, upon which stakeholder engagement strategies can be designed to move towards the co‑ implementation of CE’s sustainable and integrated development scenarios in the san‑ itation and organic waste management sector. This multi‑stakeholder platform can be the vehicle to enhance stakeholder engagement, involvement, and participation in the creation of sustainable CE in sanitation and organic waste–derived materials and reuse. Recently, after becoming aware of the work the UKZN (Department of Crop Sciences) is doing on innovations around resource recovery and reuse derived from various organic waste streams, the DWS directorate came on board to gain an understanding of the work being done by UKZN Crop Science team. The team also initiated the dialogue on formulating FSM guidelines. It is also developing potential business models on CE in sanitation products that will be used as a national guide on how communities could realise some revenue flows (learn‑ ing new financial techniques and improved local economic benefits) from sanitation and organic waste resource recovery programmes. The involvement of government departments is an encouraging stance and the beginning of a long‑term planning trajectory in fostering CE in the sanitation and organic waste–derived materials 126 Circular and Transformative Economy and reuse sector. These government stakeholders are the first representatives in the relevant forums for policy formulations needed to support the success of these CE projects. We, therefore, propose that as the deliberations and dialogues on driving CE in sanitation and organic waste management procedures, the DWS should be at the centre as the chair of these dialogues and facilitate stakeholder engagement for this cause. The department is a sector leader and shoulders a responsibility to guide the sec‑ tor to take steps towards transitioning into the CE, unlocking potential sanitation and resource recovery and reuse economic opportunities. This must be done in conjunc‑ tion with other sister departments, which include the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (Department of Environmental Affairs), among others. Extensive research institutions and scientists are nationally involved in this endeavour and willing to support such initiatives with quality testing strategies, technology design and action research bridging science and perceptions. The dialogues initiated in KwaZulu‑Natal are critical towards achieving a positive drive towards CE in sanitation and organic waste resource recovery at the national level. The challenges of resource shortages and organic waste generation are a nationwide concern. It will be important if such platforms and deliberations are replicated across all provinces of the Republic of South Africa. 6.1.8.3 Designing policy, standards, and regulation framework promoting circular economy South Africa is a member of the ACEN, a network of 14 African countries. Like in any other developing country, South Africa still has no clear CE policy framework to regulate and guide companies or individuals to venture into resource recovery and reuse of organic waste–derived materials. However, there are some existing support‑ ing policies. Although not directly focused on the CE, they can be used as a spring‑ board to create policy frameworks specifically targeting CE in sanitation and organic waste resource recovery. The National Sanitation Policy of 2016 (Department of Water and Sanitation, 2016) acknowledges that sanitation is economically valuable. It also recognises that the demand for resources derived from human excreta, such as plant nutrients, can create self‑sustaining sanitation businesses and encourage investment in sanitation, thereby reducing dependence on public and donor funding. Although no policy cur‑ rently speaks directly to the CE per se, as highlighted above, the DWS recently ini‑ tiated consultations. A process is underway with the UKZN Crop Science team to produce a project document that will be a baseline for drafting the FSM guidelines towards CE in sanitation and organic waste resource recovery. The Department shares the sanitation sector research vision that a CE replaces the current linear food consumption model, followed by human excreta secretion into sanitation facilities. The sludge would be funnelled into septic tanks or pits for disposal. Therefore, designing the FSM guide to regulate the CE in the sanitation value chain would facilitate transforming sanitation products, components, and materials, such as faecal sludge, into products of the highest utility and value possible. At this 127Progress towards the circular economy juncture, faecal sludge can now be treated for beneficial use or resource recovery, which can be utilised in various sectors. As such, it is an urgent need and DWS’ responsibility to facilitate the dialogue and drafting of guidelines that support the development of financial mechanisms and business models to support the CE in the sanitation value chain to ensure economically and financially sustainable sanitation services following the National Sanitation Policy (2016). 6.1.8.4 Technical and financial support Currently, venturing into organic waste resource recovery does not seem to be a viable business model due to the low fertiliser value of most of the products, and they are often costly activities along the value chain. For example, a study by Mallory etal. (2020b) revealed that very few case studies exhibited a value above $5/person/year from municipal sludge reuse, indicating very low returns on investment. Therefore, to successfully promote implementing the CE approach in organic waste resource recovery as a viable business model, other drivers, such as socio‑economic benefits, should be highlighted besides financial gains. Although the benefits do not directly translate to monetary gains, their effects are valuable. For example, reusing organic waste contributes to environmental pro‑ tection and sanitation services within communities, which brings human dignity and potentially motivates investment. Additionally, fertilisers will soon become a limited resource, driving the value of soil conditioners up as demand for fertilisers continues to rise (Bumb and Baanante, 1996; Heffer and Prud’homme, 2016; Mogollón etal., 2018). As such, the waste man‑ agement and sanitation sectors need some funding mechanisms to assist interested parties intending to venture into resource recovery from organic waste. As of now, several technological innovations have been successfully tested to generate resources from waste; however, they have not been able to be scaled into communities because they are technically complex or require hefty monetary investments for their pro‑ duction and operations at a large scale. Examples include the LaDePa process that pelletises treated municipal sludge and the urine and urine products processing tech‑ nologies tested in eThekwini municipality, KwaZulu‑Natal, South Africa. However, these are still yet to be developed for large‑scale production, for example, the VUNA project. Investment and financial plans, subsidies and incentives are required nation‑ ally through government and private sector collaborations and interventions. 6.1.8.5 Education, conscientisation and awareness Attitude and perceptions studies demonstrate hesitancy in accepting human waste–derived fertilisers for reuse in agriculture, which has been reported by several scientists globally (Chen etal., 2015; Guo etal., 2021; Gwara etal., 2021; Msaki etal., 2022; Nancarrow etal., 2008; Simha etal., 2017, 2020). As much as the par‑ ticipants in the studied locations ascribed hesitancy to social, cultural, or religious beliefs, generally, lack of information, awareness, and knowledge has been central across all studies (Guo etal., 2021). In their study, Simha etal. (2017) showed that the farmers’ position in society influenced hesitancy, with those in high positions in soci‑ ety fearing ridicule for using human waste–derived fertilising materials. A review by 128 Circular and Transformative Economy Gwara etal. (2021) highlighted that the level of education and lack of awareness of the benefits of these materials negatively influenced the decision to accept the recy‑ cling and reuse of human waste–derived fertilising materials. There is a need for evidence‑based information and action research to inform relevant stakeholders about the importance, benefits and limitations associated with recycling and reuse of sanitation and organic waste materials in agriculture. Not only the consumers of the final product seem hesitant due to a lack of knowledge about these materials. Some high‑profile stakeholders relevant within the sanitation value chain, especially those who might not have been involved in the initial phases of plan‑ ning and inception of these innovations, are also often unaware of the benefits. This, therefore, shows the importance of cross‑sectoral planning and co‑designing of devel‑ opment projects so that relevant to the project is involved from initiation, educated, well‑informed and conscientious. This will help in imparting knowledge and reduce misinformation, particularly for the more vulnerable who might associate waste with low status. Equipping the stakeholders with relevant knowledge and awareness will help them understand that recycling and reuse of human waste–derived materials are not about status, but about the choices, values and benefits attached to these materi‑ als, including potential economic and definite environmental benefits. 6.2 CONCLUSION This work explored the current progress towards achieving a CE in the sanita‑ tion and organic waste management sector in South Africa. The focus was on the need for transitioning towards a CE and gave a detailed inventory of the current resource recovery technologies and associated opportunities for transitioning to a CE in sanitation products and organic waste. The work highlighted that the country faces myriad challenges with its current linear economic model, which has strained several resources nationally. However, we identified different technologies currently at various development and implementation phases and detailed how these poten‑ tially contribute to achieving CE through resource recovery. The identified technolo‑ gies include composting and co‑composting, using DEWATS, the LaDePa process, BSFL, biochar and urine valorisation products. These were seen as noble FSM strat‑ egies, with the potential to recover resources for agricultural use and potentially improve livelihoods within rural and peri‑urban informal communities. However, it was seen that although the existing technologies have been scientifically evaluated and proven effective in treating organic wastes and turning them into safe‑to‑use fertilisers, the implementation of these technologies as a feasible business model is still not evident. These technologies’ general uptake and scaling are limited, limit‑ ing their use to local research institutes and a few pilot projects in collaboration with the government. It was also further revealed that several barriers impede achieving a CE in the sanitation and organic waste value chain. The authors propose strate‑ gic pathways to navigate the identified challenges limiting the progress, particularly consolidating collaboration and strategic national management. If these steps are put in place, and the environment to do business around these technologies and their products is improved, particularly in terms of communication between parties, this 129Progress towards the circular economy would enhance the transformative approach and may be the next step in the transition to a CE in South Africa. REFERENCES Ahmad, M., Rajapaksha, A.U., Lim, J.E., Zhang, M., Bolan, N., Mohan, D., Vithanage, M., Lee, S.S., Ok, Y.S. (2014) Biochar as a sorbent for contaminant management in soil and water: A review. Chemosphere 99, 19–33. Akinsete, A., Bhagwan, J., Hicks, C., Knezovich, A., Naidoo, D., Naidoo, V., Zvimba, J.N., Pillay, S. (2019) The sanitation economic opportunity for South Africa ‑ Sustainable solutions for water security & sanitation. WRC and Toilet Board Coalition, pp.1–40. Ali, M., Emch, M., Park, J.K., Yunus, M., Clemens, J. (2011) Natural cholera infection–derived immunity in an endemic setting. Journal of Infectious Diseases 204, 912–918. Austin, A. (2001) Health aspects of ecological sanitation, Abstract Volume, First International Conference on Ecological Sanitation. Citeseer, pp.104–111. Bai, X., Li, Z., Zhang, Y., Ni, J., Wang, X., Zhou, X. (2018) Recovery of ammonium in urine by biochar derived from faecal sludge and its application as soil conditioner. Waste and Biomass Valorization 9, 1619–1628. Bame, I.B. (2012) A laboratory and glasshouse evaluation of an anaerobic baffled reactor efflu‑ ent as a nutrient and irrigation source for maize in soils of KwaZulu‑Natal, South Africa, Soil Science. University of KwaZulu‑Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, p.156. Bhagwan, J., Pillay, S., Koné, D. (2019) Sanitation game changing: Paradigm shift from end‑of‑pipe to off‑grid solutions. Water Practice and Technology 14, 497–506. Bischel, H.N., Schindelholz, S., Schoger, M., Decrey, L., Buckley, C.A., Udert, K.M., Kohn, T. (2016) Bacteria inactivation during the drying of struvite fertilizers produced from stored urine. Environmental Science & Technology 50, 13013–13023. Bishoge, O.K. (2021) Challenges facing sustainable water supply, sanitation and hygiene achievement in urban areas in sub‑Saharan Africa. Local Environment 26, 893–907. Bonvin, C., Etter, B., Udert, K.M., Frossard, E., Nanzer, S., Tamburini, F., Oberson, A. (2015) Plant uptake of phosphorus and nitrogen recycled from synthetic source‑separated urine. Ambio 44, S217–S227. Bright‑Davies, L., Lüthi, C., Jachnow, A. (2015) DEWATS for urban Nepal: A comparative assessment for community wastewater management. Waterlines 34(2), 119–138. Bumb, B.L., Baanante, C.A. (1996) World trends in fertilizer use and projections to 2020. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Brief 38. Washington DC, p.4. Burchard‑Dziubinska, M. (2017) Cradle to cradle approach in development of resource‑effi cient economy. Ekonomia i Środowisko. Busari, T.I., Senzanje, A., Odindo, A.O., Buckley, C.A. (2020) Effect of intercropping mad‑ umbe (Colocasia esculenta) and rice (Oryza sativa L.) on yield and land productivity under different irrigation water management techniques with effluent water. Water SA 46, 205–212. Camilleri, M.A. (2020) European environment policy for the circular economy: Implications for business and industry stakeholders. Sustainable Development 28, 1804–1812. Chen, D., Li, Y., Cen, K., Luo, M., Li, H., Lu, B. (2016) Pyrolysis polygeneration of poplar wood: Effect of heating rate and pyrolysis temperature. Bioresource Technology 218, 780–788. Chen, W., Bai, Y., Zhang, W., Lyu, S., Jiao, W. (2015) Perceptions of different stakeholders on reclaimed water reuse: The case of Beijing, China. Sustainability 7, 9696–9710. Chitaka, T.Y., Schenck, C. (2022) Transitioning towards a circular bioeconomy in South Africa: Who are the key players? South African Journal of Science118, 1–8. Circular and Transformative Economy232 Recent reports indicate that water supply schemes within the basin have been unable to sufficiently distribute water to their respective demand sites due to multiple drivers, including population growth (Dlamini and Mostert, 2019; Shabalala etal., 2020; uMgeni, 2020; uThukelaWater(Pty)Ltd, 2021) (uMgeni, 2020), poor resource management (e.g., pollution and degradation) (Wade, 2019) (Dlamini and Mostert, 2019) (uMgeni, 2020), economic growth (DAEARD, 2010), and climate change con‑ sequences have worsened such water deficits in this arid region (DAEARD, 2010; Lubega etal., 2019; Patrick, 2021; UNU‑WIDER, 2016). For instance, the Ngagane water treatment plant (WTP), which is the largest WTP in the catchment, providing water to approximately 90% of the Newcastle Local Municipality’s growing popula‑ tion, has been in deficit, and the droughts from 2015/2016 further exacerbated this deficiency in water supply (uMgeni, 2020). The required demand from the Ngagane WTP is 131.2 Ml/day, exceeding its design capacity of 130 Ml/day. By 2050, the Buffalo River catchment’s total projected population water demand of 304 Ml/day is anticipated not to be catered for as it exceeds the total existing water supply infra‑ structure’s capacity of approximately 192 Ml/day (uMgeni, 2020). 12.4.3 energy and agricUltUral sectors’ pressUres on the water sector To the best of our knowledge, no electricity production is currently taking place within the Buffalo River catchment. However, 24–27million m3 is allocated annu‑ ally from the catchment’s Zaaihoek Water Transfer Scheme to the Majuba Power Station for power plant cooling (uMgeni, 2020). The Majuba power station in the Upper Vaal WMA falls under the six South African power stations managed by Eskom, a state‑owned public electricity utility. This diversion highly depends on Eskom’s water demand projections and only occurs when required. Surplus water is transferred to the lower segments of the catchment, where it can be utilized for domestic and irrigation purposes (uMgeni, 2020). The irrigation sector is the largest water consumer in the Buffalo River catchment, with requirements reaching 50 million m3/annum, thus surpassing water use by domestic and industrial sectors (Dlamini and Mostert, 2019). Under climate change conditions, according to the global Agro‑Ecological Zoning, assessment performed by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and a recent climate change study conducted by Dlamini et al. (2022), irrigation water requirements (IWR) in the Buffalo River basin are projected to increase due to reduced land productivity and crop suitability, particularly for soyabean, as its IWR is expected to double by the end of the 21st century. This poses a potential threat to the catchment since it will put more strain on the already‑overburdened water supply system and the general economic development and population well‑being. 12.4.4 the need for integrated climate change adaptation measUres Implementing the WEF nexus thinking is essential for resource allocation and future resilience since the sectors are intimately dependent upon one another. Changes in one sector can profoundly impact an adjacent sector (Mabhaudhi etal., 2018b). In the case of the Buffalo River catchment case, increased intensities in precipitation and surface runoff projected under climate change are also set to impact water provisions 233Understanding the nexus between water, energy and food and production outputs for agricultural and energy generation activities (Dlamini etal., 2022). Evidence‑based decision‑making is required to sustainably manage WEF resources under climate change. Despite the challenges of the interconnected WEF resources, efforts to address them are not integrated. The challenges are highly complex in nature and constitute sce‑ narios that can be addressed in an integrated manner (Rasul and Sharma, 2016). In the case of the Buffalo River catchment, each local and district municipality has developed integrated development plans, which address WEF issues in the respective area and potential adaptation strategies to climate change. Disjointed resource management can be unsustainable as these regions share water resources (Aklilu and Makalela, 2020). In addition, the uThukela WMA and uMgeni Water institutes also proposed water management strategies under climate change. However, policy strategies addressing water security under climate change focus predominantly on increasing the water system’s supply capacity to meet domestic water demands. Notwithstanding the importance of domestic water use, the agricultural and energy sectors are equally pivotal for poverty and vulnerability reduction. They must also be prioritized when developing integrated adaptation strategies to curb climate change impacts. 12.5 SYNERGIES AND TRADE‑OFFS IN WEF NEXUS ADAPTATION STRATEGIES Brunner etal. (2019) reported that the WEF nexus approach provides policymakers with the options for: a. “Synergies: whereby one intervention achieves multiple objectives,” b. “Trade‑offs: whereby a sector objective is rendered sub‑optimal in favour of another that is optimized, and” c. “Compromise: whereby all sectors accept a result that is less than perfect for one or more stakeholders for the sake of the common good.” Identifying trade‑offs, synergies, and compromises in the WEF nexus might bring new perspectives and prospects to minimize trade‑offs and increase synergies for the development of effective adaptation strategies (McGrane et al., 2019; Rasul and Sharma, 2016), which is fundamental for developing regions which are prone to experiencing high vulnerabilities from climatic changes (Dlamini etal., 2022; Kurian etal., 2018). The nexus approach’s objectives for adapting to climate change are strongly linked and have many similarities. Hence, even though sector‑specific, i.e., non‑nexus, adaptation measures such as groundwater extraction, desalination plants, water‑use‑ efficient irrigation technology, renewable energy, and growing biofuels on wasteland might have positive implications for water, energy, and food resources, they may also increase the nexus challenge (Rasul and Sharma, 2016). This can be both very chal‑ lenging and costly (Bhaduri etal., 2015); therefore, in the intricate and uncertain cli‑ mate change environment, non‑nexus measures should be put into action if they have the potential to produce combinatorial win‑win outcomes or serve as complementing actions that promote resource‑use maximization and enhance WEF nexus solutions (Brunner etal., 2019; Diez‑Borge etal., 2022). Circular and Transformative Economy234 Under climate change, well‑established renewable energy sources allow a just transition toward a less carbon‑intensive future while still attaining sustainable water and food sector development (Zhang etal., 2018). For example, in Siklesh Village in Nepal, a 100 kW micro‑hydro plant was built in 1994 to provide electricity for domestic and agro‑processing, aiming to reduce carbon emissions. The findings show that the micro‑hydro plant boosted the establishment of agro‑processing mills, hence increasing agricultural productivity (Guta etal., 2017). In Canada’s Saskatchewan province, wind energy expansions produce synergies by offsetting thermal power reductions. That WEF nexus study highlighted that wind energy decreases green‑ house gas emissions and water consumption for cooling thermal power plants. It also improves groundwater conservation due to reduced groundwater demands (Wu etal., 2021). Improving the efficiency of freshwater usage also provides the potential for cross‑sector synergy under climate change (Rasul and Sharma, 2016). For instance, drip irrigation can create synergies between the water and food sectors in the Zhangye catchment in China. The intervention can significantly improve the fields’ water‑use efficiency amid climate change (Shen etal., 2022). Furthermore, trade‑offs with the energy sector were addressed in this WEF nexus assessment, indicating that the high‑cost input factors may surpass the benefits of increased crop yield and water‑saving measures. Mulching with the plastic film was suggested as an addi‑ tional measure to increase the water‑saving benefits (Shen etal., 2022). It has been evidenced that using a piped irrigation system instead of a canal system can produce synergy between the water, energy, and food sectors in the Breede River catchment of South Africa by cutting electricity costs by 30% per 5%–10% increase in irrigated areas, while additionally improving water quality (Seeliger etal., 2018). Adopting water management practices to produce more food and energy with fewer water resources is vital for climate change adaptation (Mpandeli etal., 2018). Ahmadaali etal. (2018) established that implementing water management strategies, which encompass crop pattern changes with increased irrigation efficiency, decreases water demands and improves agricultural and environmental sustainability in the Urmia Lake basin, located in the north‑western regions of Iran. Additionally, adjust‑ ing water allocation strategies that encourage a balance between WEF sectors and domestic water usage is recommended for improved WEF sustainability in the catch‑ ment (Ahmadaali etal., 2018). Similarly, surplus water in the Buffalo River catchment is available in the basin, which needs to be cautiously allocated (Dlamini and Mostert, 2019; Dlamini etal., 2022). From examining the effects of climate change and water resource policies on the water supply‑demand relationship in the Buffalo River catchment, Dlamini (2022) found that existing water resources policy plans are centred around ensur‑ ing that more than 70% of domestic water demands are met. However, little to no improvements were modelled in closing the gap between agricultural water demands and supply. Less than 3% of irrigation and energy generation water demands are projected to be met throughout the 21st century. Furthermore, Dlamini (2022) proposed long‑term integrated water resources strategies to improve water allocations within the Buffalo River catchment to accom‑ modate agricultural and energy water demands. The proposed strategies include: 235Understanding the nexus between water, energy and food (a) diverting excess water in densely populated municipalities like Newcastle and Dannhauser to more agriculture‑intensive areas such as Nquthu and Utrecht local municipalities, (b) upgrading existing WTPs, such as the Ngagane WTP, so that they operate at optimum capacity, (c) constructing dams in the Ncandu and Ngxobongo rivers for increased water supply, and (d) increasing water abstractions of reservoirs during peak rainfall years. As much as the proposed strategies’ water allocation changes decrease water resources’ reliability to provide domestic water demands, this trade‑off was mod‑ elled to significantly improve the overall water provisions and equality in water dis‑ tribution among the WEF sectors (Dlamini, 2022). To curb this anticipated decline in reliability in meeting domestic water demands, Dlamini (2022) strongly advo‑ cated for the use of multi‑purpose dams to reduce the pressure on water supplies by increasing irrigation diversions and generating hydropower, as well as working with the communities in the catchment to further establish water demand management strategies in light of the catchment’s limited land resources, climate change, and ecosystem degradation. In light of the WEF nexus thinking, discussions around the synergies and trade‑offs emerging from these strategies should involve researchers, policymakers and decision‑makers in developing the Buffalo River catchment’s WEF resources (Dlamini, 2022). Therefore, it is recommended that multiple stakeholder platforms be established in the Buffalo River basin to address better synchronization and inte‑ gration of WEF development plans, policies, and procedures for improved service delivery. Instead of the current fragmented management of water by local municipalities, the establishment of the Phongola‑Umzimkulu Catchment Management Agency (CMA), which is part of the nine CMAs planned by South Africa’s Department of Water and Sanitation to execute water resource management at the catchment level (Munnik, 2020), and that covers the Buffalo River catchment, is encouraged (Munnik, 2020). The reason is that CMAs are better equipped to cope with water allocations in light of droughts, current unpredictability, and climate change chal‑ lenges. They provide a better opportunity to host multiple stakeholders when framing integrated adaptive management strategies (Munnik, 2020). 12.6 CONCLUSIONS Climate change has significantly impacted developing regions due to their low adaptive capacity and, more importantly, the lack of integration of climate change adaptation in the respective regions’ development plans. Due to climate change’s complexity, unpredictability, and urgency, developing adaptation strategies sustain‑ ably should not only focus solely on mitigating its effects. Still, it should also con‑ sider the broader social frame of reference in which these changes are taking place and the consequential impact on the security of water, energy, and food. This chapter, therefore, elaborated on the WEF nexus approach, which encourages the integration of WEF resource sustainability under climate change. From a basin perspective, better knowledge and understanding of the WEF nexus under climate change provides a practical possibility to coordinate nexus Circular and Transformative Economy236 solutions to balance the sustainable use of resources and build resilience. In the case of the Buffalo River catchment case, different governmental bodies manage water resources to meet their domestic needs, which renders their resource management strategies unsustainable as the water supply system has proven unreliable for provid‑ ing water for energy and food sectors. In such cases, coordinating policies for the sustainability of the WEF nexus through research, development, and practices are advocated for boosting sustainable livelihoods and climate resilience in catchment communities. REFERENCES Acevedo, M., Pixley, K., Zinyengere, N., Meng, S., Tufan, H., Cichy, K., Bizikova, L., Isaacs, K., Ghezzi‑Kopel, K., Porciello, J. (2020) A Scoping Review of Adoption of Climate‑Resilient Crops by Small‑Scale Producers in Low‑ and Middle‑Income Countries. Nature Plants 6, 1231–1241. Adom, R.K., Simatele, M.D., Reid, M. (2022) Addressing the Challenges of Water‑Energy‑Food Nexus Programme in the Context of Sustainable Development and Climate Change in South Africa. Journal of Water and Climate Change 13, 2761–2779. Ahmadaali, J., Barani, G., Qaderi, K., Hessari, B. (2018) Analysis of the Effects of Water Management Strategies and Climate Change on the Environmental and Agricultural Sustainability of Urmia Basin, Iran. Water 10, 160. Aklilu, A., Makalela, K. (2020) Challenges in the Implementation of Integrated Development Plan and Service Delivery in Lepelle‑Nkumphi Municipality, Limpopo Province. Internationaal Journal of Economics and Finance Studies 12, 1–15. Altamirano, M., vanBodegom, A., vanderLinden, N., deRijke, H., Verhagen, A., Bucx, T., Boccalon, A., vanderZwaan, B. (2018) Operationalizing the WEF Nexus: Quantifying the Trade‑Offs and Synergies between the Water, Energy and Food Sectors. Dutch Climate Solutions Research Programme, Netherlands, Europe. Ang, B.W., Choong, W.L., Ng, T.S. (2015) Energy Security: Definitions, Dimensions and Indexes. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42, 1077–1093. Benson, D., Gain, A.K., Rouillard, J. (2015) Water Governance in a Comparative Perspective: From IWRM to a ‘Nexus’ Approach? Water Alternatives 8, 756–773. Bhaduri, A., Ringler, C., Dombrowski, I., Mohtar, R., Scheumann, W. (2015) Sustainability in the Water‑Energy‑Food Nexus. Water International 40, 723–732. Brunet, C., Savadogo, O., Baptiste, P., Bouchard, M.A., Rakotoary, J.C., Ravoninjatovo, A., Cholez, C., Gendron, C., Merveille, N. (2020) Impacts Generated by a Large‑Scale Solar Photovoltaic Power Plant Can Lead to Conflicts between Sustainable Development Goals: A Review of Key Lessons Learned in Madagascar. Sustainability 12, 7471. Brunner, J., Carew‑Reid, J., Glemet, R., McCartney, M., Riddell, P. (2019) Measuring, Understanding and Adapting to Nexus Trade‑Offs in the Sekong, Sesan and Srepok Transboundary River Basins. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Ha Noi, Viet Nam. Butler, D., Ward, S., Sweetapple, C., Astraraie‑Imani, M., Diao, K., Farmani, R., Fu, G. (2017) Reliable, Resilient and Sustainable Water Management: The Safe & SuRe Approach. Global Challenges 1, 63–77. Caretta, M., Mukherji, A., Arfanuzzaman, M., Betts, R., Gelfan, A., Hirabayashi, Y., Lissner, T., Liu, J., Lopez‑Gun, E., Morgan, R., Mwanga, S., Supratid, S. (2022) Water, in: Portner, H., Roberts, D., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E., Mintenbeck, K., Alegria, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Loschke, S., Moller, V., Okem, A., Rama, B. (Eds.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, pp.551–712. 237Understanding the nexus between water, energy and food Cullis, J., Rossouw, N., DuToit, G., Petrie, D., DeClercq, G., Horn, A. (2018) Economic Risk Due to Declining Water Quality in the Breede River Catchment. Water SA 44, 464–473. DAEARD (2010) KwaZulu‑Natal State of the Environment 2004: Inland Aquatic Environment Specialist Report. Department of Agriculture, Environmental Affairs and Rural Development, KwaZulu‑Natal Provincial Government, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. de Loë, R.C., Patterson, J.J. (2017) Rethinking Water Governance: Moving beyond Water‑Centric Perspectives in a Connected and Changing World. Natural Resources Journal 57, 75–99. Diez‑Borge, D., Garcia‑Moya, F., Rosales‑Asensio, E. (2022) Water Energy Food Analysis and Management Tools: A Review. Energies 15, 1146. Djurfeldt, A.A., Dzanku, F.M., Isinika, A.C. (2018) Perspectives on Agriculture, Diversification, and Gender in Rural Africa: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Dlamini, N. (2022) Developing Integrated Climate Change Strategies using the Water‑ Energy‑Food Nexus Approach: A Case Study of the Buffalo River Catchment, South Africa University of KwaZulu‑Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. Dlamini, N., Mostert, R. (2019) Closure Plan in Support of the Environmental Authorisation for the Proposed Prospecting Right Application for Coal, Pseudocoal, Anthracite, Sand and Clay on the Remainder of the Farm 15454, Remainder of the Farm Highvake 9311, Remainder and Portion 1 of the Farm Lowvale 15596, Remainder of the Farm Ormiston 8195, Remainder and Portion 3 of the Farm Langklip10711 and Remainder of the Farm 16763, Under Dannhauser Local Municipality, Kwa‑Zulu Natal Province. Thikho Resources, Johannesburg, South Africa. Dlamini, N., Senzanje, A., Mabhaudhi, T. (2022) Climate Change Impacts on Water Reliability: A Case Study of the Buffalo River Catchment, Thukela Water Management Area, South Africa. Manuscript under review. Dube, R., Dube, B., Managa, R., Malan, A., Ramulondi, D., Ramathuba, T. (2021) Integrated Catchment Management: From Source to Receptor. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa. DWAF (2007) Guidelines for the Development of Catchment Management Strategies: Towards Equity, Efficiency and Sustainability. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF), Pretoria, South Africa. DWAF, WRC (1996) The Philosophy and Practice of Integrated Catchment Management: Implications for Water Resources Management in South Africa (WRC Report No TT 81/96). Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) and Water Reserach Commission (WRC), Pretoria, South Africa. FAO (2014) The Water‑Energy‑Food Nexus: A New Approach in Support of Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy. FAO (2022) The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture–Systems at breaking point. Main report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy. Filho, W., Balogun, A., Olayide, O., Azeiteiro, U., Ayal, D., Munoz, P. (2019) Assessing the Impacts of Climate Change in Cities and their Adaptive Capacity: Towards Transformative Approaches to Climate Change Adaptation and Poverty Reduction in Urban Areas in a Set of Developing Countries. Science of the Total Environment 692, 1175–1190. Grey, D., Sadoff, C.W. (2007) Sink or Swim? Water Security for Growth and Development. Water Policy 9, 545–571. Grigg, N.S. (2019) IWRM and the Nexus Approach: Versatile Concepts for Water Resources Education. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 166, 24–34. Guta, D., Jara, J., Adhikari, N., Chen, Q., Gaur, V., Mirzabaev, A. (2017) Assessment of the Successes and Failures of Decentralized Energy Solutions and Implications for the Water‑Energy‑Food Security Nexus: Case Studies from Developing Countries. Resources 6, 24. Circular and Transformative Economy238 GWP‑TAC (2000) Integrated Water Resources Management. Global Water Partnership, Stockholm, Sweden. Hoff, H. (2011) Understanding the Nexus. Background Paper for the Bonn2011 Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus, Stockholm. Holtermann, T., Nandalal, K. (2015) The Water–Energy–Food Nexus and Climate Change Adaptation. Change and Adaptation in Socio‑Ecological Systems 2, 118–120. Howden, S., Soussana, J.‑F., Tubiello, F., Chhetri, N., Dunlop, M., Meinke, H. (2007) Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104, 19691–19696. Huang, S., Wortmann, M., Duethmann, D., Menz, C., Shi, F., Zhao, C. (2018) Adaptation Strategies of Agriculture Water Management to Climate Change in the Upper Tarim River Basin, NW China. Agricultural Water Management 203, 207–224. Hulley, S.M., (2015) The Food‑Energy‑Water‑Land‑Biodiversity (FEWLB) Nexus through the Lens of the Local Level: An Agricultural Case Study. Department of Environmental and Geographical Science University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. IEA (2022a) Energy Security: Ensuring the Uninterrupted Availability of Energy Sources at an Affordable Price. International Energy Agency (IEA) Paris, France. IEA (2022b) Energy security: Reliable, affordable access to all fuels and energy sources. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France. IRENA (2015) Renewable Energy in the Water, Energy and Food Nexus. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Abu Dhabi. Knuppe, K., Meissner, R. (2016) Drivers and Barriers Towards Sustainable Water and Land Management in the Olifants‑Doorn Water Management Area, South Africa. Environmental Development 20, 3–14. Kurian, M., Portney, K., Rappold, G., Hannibal, B., Gebrechorkos, S. (2018) Governance of Water‑Energy‑Food Nexus: A Social Network Analysis Approach to Understanding Agency Behaviour, in: Hulsmann, S. (Ed.), Managing Water, Soil and Waste Resources to Achieve Sustainable Development Goals. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp.125–147. Lele, S., Srinivasan, V., Thomas, B., Jamwal, P. (2018) Adapting to Climate Change in Rapidly Urbanizing River Basins: Insights from a Multiple‑Concerns, Multiple‑Stressors, and Multi‑Level Approach. Water International 43, 281–304. Lin, B.B. (2011) Resilience in Agriculture through Crop Diversification: Adaptive Management for Environmental Change. BioScience61, 183–193. Lubega, M.J., de Lavenne, A., Thuresson, J., Byström, M., Strömqvist, J., Bartosova, A., Arheimer, B. (2019) The Impact of Climate Change on the Water Quality in the KwaZulu‑Natal Province of South Africa, 1st EGU General Assembly, EGU2019, Proceedings from the conference held 7‑12 April, 2019 in Vienna, Austria, id.17049. Mabhaudhi, T., Mpandeli, S., Madhlopa, A., Modi, A.T., Backeberg, G., Nhamo, L. (2016) Southern Africa’s Water–Energy Nexus: Towards Regional Integration and Development. Water 8, 235. Mabhaudhi, T., Mpandeli, S., Nhamo, L., Chimonyo, V., Nhemachena, C., Senzanje, A., Naidoo, D., Modi, A. (2018a) Prospects for Improving Irrigated Agriculture in Southern Africa: Linking Water, Energy and Food. Water 10, 1881. Mabhaudhi, T., Nhamo, L., Mpandeli, S., Nhemachena, C., Senzanje, A., Sobratee, N., Chivenge, P.P., Slotow, R., Naidoo, D., Liphadzi, S., Modi, A.T. (2019) The Water–Energy–Food Nexus as a Tool to Transform Rural Livelihoods and Well‑Being in Southern Africa. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, 2970. Mabhaudhi, T., Simpson, G., Badenhorst, J., Mohammed, M., Motongera, T., Senzanje, A., Jewitt, G. (2018b) Assessing the State of the Water‑Energy‑Food (WEF) Nexus in South Africa. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa. Mahlaba, N. (2019) Newcastle Local Municipality Annual Report 2018/19, Newcastle, South Africa. 239Understanding the nexus between water, energy and food Materechera, F.M. (2012) Towards Integrated Catchment Management: Challenges surround‑ ing implementation in the Gamtoos River Catchment, Environmental Geography. Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Gqeberha, South Africa. McGrane, S., Acuto, M., Artioli, F., Chen, P., Comber, R., Cottee, J., Farr‑Wharton, G., Green, N., Helfgott, A., Larcom, S., McCann, J. (2019) Scaling the Nexus: Towards Integrated Frameworks for Analysing Water, Energy and Food. The Geographical Journal 185, 419–431. Methner, N., Midgley, S.J.E., Price, P., Ningi, T., Nxumalo, N.P., Rebelo, A.J., Stuart‑Hill, S.I., Zhou, L., Mjanyelwa, V., Taruvinga, A. (2021) Exploring the Evidence of Water‑Energy‑Food Nexus Linkages to Sustainable Local Livelihoods and Wellbeing in South Africa. Water Research Commission (WRC), Pretoria, South Africa. Midgley, S., New, M., Spelman, S.‑S., Parker, K., (2014) The Food‑Energy‑Water‑ Land‑Biodiversity (FEWLB) Nexus and Local Economic Development in the Berg River Catchment: Framework and Description. African Climate and Development Initiative, University of Cape Town, Cape Town. Miller, B.G. (2017) 16‑ The Future Role of Coal, in: Miller, B.G. (Ed.), Clean Coal Engineering Technology (Second Edition). Butterworth‑Heinemann, Massachusetts, USA, pp.757–774. Molobela, I. (2011) Management of Water Resources in South Africa: A Review. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 5, 993–1002. Mpandeli, S., Naidoo, D., Mabhaudhi, T., Nhemachena, C., Nhamo, L., Liphadzi, S., Hlahla, S., Modi, A. (2018) Climate Change Adaptation through the Water‑Energy‑Food Nexus in Southern Africa. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, 2306. Munnik, V. (2020) The Reluctant Roll‑out of Catchment Management Agencies. Water Research Commission Research Report, Pretoria, South Africa. Naidoo, D., Nhamo, L., Mpandeli, S., Sobratee, N., Senzanje, A., Liphadzi, S., Slotow, R., Jacobson, M., Modi, A., Mabhaudhi, T. (2021) Operationalising the Water‑Energy‑Food Nexus through the Theory of Change. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 149, 111416. Nhamo, L., Mabhaudhi, T., Mpandeli, S., Dickens, C., Nhemachena, C., Senzanje, A., Naidoo, D., Liphadzi, S., Modi, A. (2020a) An Integrative Analytical Model for the Water‑Energy‑Food Nexus: South Africa Case Study. Environmental Science and Policy 109, 15–24. Nhamo, L., Ndlela, B., Mpandeli, S., Mabhaudhi, T. (2020b) The Water‑Energy‑Food Nexus as an Adaptation Strategy for Achieving Sustainable Livelihoods at a Local Level. Sustainability 12, 8582. Nhamo, L., Ndlela, B., Nhemachena, C., Mabhaudhi, T., Mpandeli, S., Matchaya, G. (2018) The Water‑Energy‑Food Nexus: Climate Risks and Opportunities in Southern Africa. Water 10, 567. Ningi, T., Taruvinga, A., Zhou, L., Ngarava, S. (2021) Household water‑energy‑food security nexus: Empirical evidence from Hamburg and Melani communities in South Africa. International Journal of Development and Sustainability 10, 315–339. Olabanji, M., Ndarana, T., Davis, N. (2020) Impacts of Climate Change on Crop Production and Potential Adaptive Measures in the Olifants Catchment, South Africa. Climate 9, 6. Owen, G. (2020) What Makes Climate Change Adaptation Effective? A Systematic Review of the Literature. Global Environmental Change 62, 102071. Patrick, H.O. (2021) Climate Change and Water Insecurity in Rural uMkhanyakude District Municipality: An Assessment of Coping Strategies for Rural South Africa. H2Open Journal 4, 29–46. Phan, T., Smart, J., Sahin, O., Stewart‑Koster, B., Hadwen, W., Capon, S. (2020) Identifying and Prioritising Adaptation Options for a Coastal Freshwater Supply and Demand System Under Climatic and Non‑Climatic Changes. Regional Environmental Change 20, 1–14. Circular and Transformative Economy240 Rapholo, M., Makia, L. (2020) Are Smallholder Farmers’ Perceptions of Climate Variability Supported by Climatological Evidence? A Case Study of a Semi‑Arid Region in South Africa. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 12, 571–585. Rasul, G., Sharma, B. (2016) The Nexus Approach to Water‑Energy‑Food Security: An Option for Adaptation to Climate Change. Climate Policy 16, 682–702. Sadeghi, S.H., Sharifi Moghadam, E. (2021) Integrated Watershed Management Vis‑a‑Vis Water–Energy–Food Nexus, in: Muthu, S.S. (Ed.), The Water–Energy–Food Nexus: Concept and Assessments. Springer, Singapore, pp.69–96. Seeliger, L., DeClercq, W., Hoffmann, W., Cullis, J., Horn, A., DeWitt, M. (2018) Applying the Water‑Energy‑Food Nexus to Farm Profitability in the Middle Breede Catchment, South Africa. South African Journal of Science114, 1–10. Shabalala, I., Zungu, N., Ntombela, P., Ngobesse, M., Moloi, L., Hoffman, L. (2020) Integrated Development Plan 2020/21. Nquthu Local Municipality Executive Committee, KwaZulu‑Natal, South Africa. Shen, Q., Niu, J., Liao, D., Du, T. (2022) A Resilience‑Based Approach for Water Resources for Water Resources Management over a Typical Agricultural Region in Northwest China under Water‑Energy‑Food Nexus. Ecological Indicators 144, 109562. Simpson, G., Jewitt, G. (2019) The Development of the Water‑Energy‑Food Nexus as a Framework for Achieving Resource Security: A Review. Frontiers in Environmental Science7, 1–9. Simpson, G.B., Badenhorst, J., Jewitt, G.P.W., Berchner, M., Davies, E. (2019) Competition for Land: The Water‑Energy‑Food Nexus and Coal Mining in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa. Frontiers in Environmental Science7, 86. Smith, M., Clausen, T.J. (2015) Integrated Water Resource Management: A New Way Forward (A Discussion Paper of the World Water Council Task Force on IWRM). World Water Council (WWC). StatsSA (2011) Stastics by Place: Nquthu Local Municipality. Statistics South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa. StatsSA (2016) Provincial Profile: KwaZulu‑Natal Community Survey 2016. Statistics South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa. Stucki, V., Smith, M. (2011) Integrated Approaches to Natural Resources Management in Practice: The Catalyzing Role of National Adaptation Programmes for Action. Ambio 40, 351–360. Tavenner, K., Van Wijk, M., Fraval, S., Hammond, J., Baltenweck, I., Teufel, N., Kihoro, E., De Haan, N., Van Etten, J., Steinke, J. (2019) Intensifying Inequality? Gendered Trends in Commercializing and Diversifying Smallholder Farming Systems in East Africa. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 3, 10. uMgen (2020) Infrastructure Master Plan 2020 (2020/2021–2050/2051): Buffalo System. UMgeni Water, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. UN‑DESA (2019) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/420). United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York. UN‑DESA (2021) Global Population Growth and Sustainable Development (UN DESA/ POP/2021/TR/NO. 2), New York. UN‑DESA (2022) World Population Prospects 2022: Summary of Results (UN DESA/ POP/2022/TR/NO. 3). United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York. UNESCO (2022) Groundwater: Making the Invisible Visible. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2022, Paris, France. 241Understanding the nexus between water, energy and food UNU‑WIDER (2016) Potential Impacts of Climate Change on National Water Supply in South Africa. United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU‑WIDER), Helsinki, Finland. UN‑Water (2013) Water Security and the Global Water Agenda: A UN‑Water Analytical Brief. United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment & Health (UNU‑INWEH), Hamilton, Canada, https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12870/4206. UN‑Water (2018) Water, Food and Energy: A UN‑Water Analytical Brief. UN‑Water, Geneva, Switzerland, https://www.unwater.org/sites/default/files/app/uploads/2018/10/WaterFacts_ water_food_and_energy_sep2018.pdf uThukelaWater(Pty)Ltd (2021) uThukela Water (Pty) Ltd Draft Annual Report 2021, in: Khambule, N. (Ed.). uThukela Water (Pty) Ltd, Newcastle, South Africa. van Vuuren, D.P., Bijl, D.L., Bogaart, P., Stehfest, E., Biemans, H., Dekker, S.C., Doelman, J.C., Gernaat, D.E.H.J., Harmsen, M. (2019) Integrated Scenarios to Support Analysis of the Food–Energy–Water Nexus. Nature Sustainability 2, 1132–1141. Wade, M. (2019) Management of Multiple Stressors to the Lower Reach of the Thukela River Ecosystem, Ecological Sciences, School of Life Sciences, College of Agriculture, Engineering and Science. University of KwaZulu‑Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. Wa’el A, H., Memon, F.A., Savic, D.A. (2017) An Integrated Model to Evaluate Water‑ Energy‑Food Nexus at a Household Scale. Environmental Modelling & Software 93, 366–380. WEC (2013) World Energy Scenarios: Composing Energy Futures to 2050. World Energy Counci, London. Wu, L., Elshorbagy, A., Pande, S., Zhuo, L. (2021) Trade‑offs and Synergies in the Water‑Energy‑Food Nexus: The Case of Saskatchewan, Canada. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 164, 105192. Yang, J., Yang, Y.C.E., Khan, H.F., Xie, H., Ringler, C., Ogilvie, A., Seidou, O., Djibo, A.G., van Weert, F., Tharme, R. (2018) Quantifying the Sustainability of Water Availability for the Water‑Food‑Energy‑Ecosystem Nexus in the Niger River Basin. Earth’s Future 6, 1292–1310. Zhang, X., Li, H., Deng, Z., Ringler, C., Gao, Y., Hejazi, M., Leung, L. (2018) Impacts of Climate Change, Policy and Water‑Energy‑Food Nexus on Hydropower Development. Renewable Energy 116, 827–834. Circular and Transformative Economy248 injury, among other risks (Comunian etal., 2020; Miller, 2020). In South Africa, these health challenges are prevalent in urban areas (Matooane etal., 2004). 13.3.2 changes in aerosols pollUtion levels The presence of aerosols over South Africa has become a severe human health and climate change concern, as evidenced by the degradation of air quality, coupled with challenges related to visibility impairment on the roads as well as the resultant increase in the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events (Kwon etal., 2020; Manisalidis etal., 2020). Atmospheric aerosols (sulphate, nitrate, ammonium, organic carbon, elemental car‑ bon, and mineral elements) absorb and diffuse solar and longwave radiations emitted from the Earth’s surface. This process alters the surface’s atmospheric radiation budget (Thandlam and Rahaman, 2019). Due to the critical function of aerosols in cloud con‑ densation, changes in their composition can alter clouds’ macro and micro characteris‑ tics, causing negative radiative impacts that result in the greenhouse effect (Christensen etal., 2020; Ren‑Jian etal., 2012). Aerosol particle concentrations reduced drastically during the COVID‑19‑induced lockdown (Figure 13.3). However, KwaZulu‑Natal Province remained the most aerosol‑contributing province in South Africa. The spider graph (Figure 13.4) demonstrates sulphur dioxide (SO2) changes per province during the 2020 COVID‑19 economic lockdown. The trends indicate reduced SO2 during March and April as there were reduced vehicular volumes, FIGURE13.3 Variation in aerosols (mol/m2) presence in the atmosphere in South Africa before, during and after the COVID‑19lockdown. Aerosol presence drastically dropped dur‑ ing the COVID‑19lockdown, particularly between March and May 2020. [Document text truncated for crawler view.]