Many farming systems across Africa suffer from insufficient recirculation and replenishment of nutrients and organic matter, contributing to soil degradation. At the same time the scant management of municipal organic waste, agro-processing residues, and human excreta creates substantial externalities. Valorizing organic waste and recycling it back to farmland could create a win-win situation. This exploratory, cross-sectional study investigated the current state and emerging trends in ex situ organic waste recycling toward organic fertilizers and soil amendments (OFSA) across eleven African countries. The topic is timely, as recent disruptions in inorganic fertilizer supply chains may have heightened interest in ex situ OFSA.
Methods
We triangulated 74 key informant interviews with document and literature review, using the Technological Innovation System framework as analytical lens.
Results and discussion
Our analysis shows that while all system functions have progressed beyond the “pre-development” phase, most still remain in an early formation stage. Core functions such as entrepreneurial activities, knowledge development and diffusion, guidance of the search, market formation, resource mobilization, and legitimacy are emerging, for instance through the introduction of subsidies, the implementation of quality standards, and initial efforts of cross-country coordination. South Africa stands out, with multiple functions institutionalizing and reinforcing one another, characterized by pronounced private sector R&D, established entrepreneur networks and professional associations as well as recycling targets and public support of knowledge brokers. Across all countries, disruptions in national and international value chains are acting as pull factors for increased experimentation, raising demand, and enhancing legitimacy. Certified organic farming and export oriented high value crops constitute important niches. Yet, ex situ volumes remain small relative to organic waste volumes and nutrient demand in agricultural production. Looking ahead, strengthening ‘guidance of the search’ and ‘resource mobilization’ could drive system development by enhancing resource recovery and recycling of organic waste and closing the loop to agriculture.
agroecologycircular bio-economyorganic fertilizerorganic waste recyclingresource recoverysoil amendmentssub-Saharan Africatechnological innovation systemsThe author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This publication is making use of data collected for a scoping study that was realized within the DeSIRA-LIFT project financed by the European Union (FOOD/2021/424–11). Additional data analysis and writing of this article was conducted within the framework of the Horizon 2020 project SustInAfrica, Grant agreement no. 861924.section-at-acceptanceClimate-Smart Food SystemsIntroductionBackground and state of the art
Loss of soil fertility and nutrient depletion on agricultural land are widespread across Sub-Saharan Africa (Jones et al., 2013; Nkonya et al., 2016), contributing to overall low agricultural productivity (Bjornlund et al., 2020). The transfer of agricultural produce from rural production areas to urban consumption centers leads to significant shifts of nutrients and biomass (Drechsel et al., 2007). In urban areas, the scant management of municipal solid waste, agro-processing residues, and human excreta creates substantial externalities, including environmental and health hazards (Cao et al., 2025; Ferronato and Torretta, 2019; Friedrich and Trois, 2011; Rajoo et al., 2020; Tomita et al., 2020), along with associated monetary costs (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012). Recycling organic waste back to agricultural land, particularly non-renewable resources such as phosphorus (Childers et al., 2011; Raniro et al., 2025), is thus a crucial step in building circular bio-economies (Feleke et al., 2021; Muscat et al., 2021).
Therefore, in this paper we focus on ex situ organic waste recycling, i.e., off-farm treatment pathways that convert urban and agro-industrial residues (e.g., municipal organics, agro-processing by-products, fecal sludge) into organic fertilizers and soil amendments (OFSA). By contrast, in situ denotes on-farm production or management (e.g., farmyard composting). For brevity, we use ‘ex situ OFSA’ to denote OFSA produced via off-farm (ex situ) treatment pathways.
Recycling and returning nutrients through ex situ OFSA1 production can enhance nutrient and biomass recirculation back to agricultural systems (Ellssel et al., 2024a; Castro-Herrera et al., 2022; Freyer et al., 2023; Leitzinger, 2001; Meinzinger et al., 2009; Perez-Mercado et al., 2022), and thus support the remediation of soil degradation. Yet uptake remains limited, with recycling via ex situ pathways into OFSA such as compost, liquid formulas, or digestate still remaining in its infancy in Africa, or being limited to pilot projects (Kalina et al., 2022; Kaza et al., 2018; Sekabira et al., 2022; Yeo et al., 2020). Kaza et al. (2018) estimate that less than 1% of the organic municipal waste is composted in Sub-Saharan Africa. Systematic assessments of national-level agro-processing waste volumes and recycling potential are scarce; notable exceptions include FAO (2019) and Mugodo et al. (2017). For human excreta, recycling is seldom practiced (Cofie et al., 2016), although it has substantial potential as most households in Sub-Saharan Africa use onsite sanitation systems (Cofie et al., 2009; Greene et al., 2021). However, recent disruptions to inorganic fertilizer supply chains linked to COVID-19 and the Russo-Ukrainian war (Vos et al., 2025), along with increasing policy engagement for soil health (AUC, 2023), heighten the timeliness of examining innovation dynamics in ex situ organic waste recycling into OFSA.
Literature gaps and study contribution
Despite growing interest in organic waste valorization as part of a circular bioeconomy (Feleke et al., 2021), the evidence base for ex situ organic waste recycling into OFSA in sub-Saharan Africa remains fragmented. Most studies are city- or project-specific (Castro-Herrera et al., 2022; Danso and Drechsel, 2014; Ddiba et al., 2022; Leitzinger, 2001), with few cross-country studies (Cofie et al., 2009; Lenhart et al., 2022; Sekabira et al., 2022, 2023). Some work has been conducted on potential business models and financing for resource recovery from organic waste (Otoo and Drechsel, 2018; Lazurko et al., 2018; Taron et al., 2023), and on entrepreneurship and innovation in waste valorization, particularly in South Africa (Godfrey et al., 2022; Adewunmi, 2024). However, empirical work seldom analyzes innovation-system dynamics (e.g., market formation, legitimation, resource mobilization) alongside technology pilots, and quantitative information on production volumes/capacities is scattered and inconsistent. Hence, describing and understanding the dynamics of innovation in ex situ OFSA production becomes crucial.
Therefore, we investigated the current state and trends in the ex situ OFSA innovation systems across eleven African countries. We choose the Technological Innovation System (TIS) framework as our analytical lens. TIS is a systems approach that has been proposed to study transitions in socio-technical systems (Loorbach et al., 2017) and is defined as “a set of networks of actors and institutions that jointly interact in a specific technological field and contribute to the generation, diffusion and utilization of variants of a new technology and/or a new product” (Markard and Truffer, 2008, p. 611). The framework has been applied to technological domains such as carbon capture and storage technologies in South Africa (Ko et al., 2021), wind and solar energy in South Africa, Brazil, and Ethiopia (Furtado and Perrot, 2015; Kebede and Mitsufuji, 2017), and biogas and improved cookstove development in Rwanda and Kenya (Tigabu et al., 2017; Tigabu et al., 2015a, 2015b).
To our knowledge, no prior study applied a TIS lens to ex situ OFSA production and innovation systems in Africa, nor adopts a cross-country perspective. The latter is particularly useful to inform decision makers (Bergek et al., 2008). We addressed this gap by providing the first cross-country TIS assessment of ex situ OFSA production across eleven African countries. Specifically, we (i) identified the current state and trends of the field; (ii) assessed the maturity and performance of core TIS functions (entrepreneurial experimentation, knowledge development/diffusion, guidance, market formation, resource mobilization, legitimation) alongside structural features; and (iii) combined descriptive production indicators (e.g., reported OFSA volumes/capacities) with a functional diagnosis to reveal emerging dynamics, country contrasts, and cross-cutting patterns. This integrated analysis provides insights for policy, practice, and priorities for future research.
The remainder of the article is organized as follows. Section 2 outlines the analytical framework, describing the TIS framework, its relevance and adaptation to our study context. Furthermore, the section describes the methods including data sampling and collection, coding/analysis procedures of empirical data, and the triangulation across interviews, policy documents, and grey as well as scientific literature. Section 3 presents the combined results and discussion along the seven core functions of the TIS framework. Then, we offer a cross-sectional analysis spanning across the eleven countries and present limitations and our suggestion for future research. Section 4 briefly concludes with key takeaways.
Analytical frameworkTechnological innovation systems framework
Within sustainability transitions research, several complementary approaches—Multi-level Perspective, Strategic Niche Management, Transition Management, and Technological Innovation Systems (TIS)—offer distinct lenses on socio-technical change (Loorbach et al., 2017). We adopt TIS for its technology-field specificity and diagnostic system functions (Table 1) (Carlsson and Stankiewicz, 1991; Hekkert et al., 2007), which also facilitates comparison across diverse institutional contexts. TIS is used to analyze the development of a technology, technology field, a product, or a combination thereof (Hekkert et al., 2007; Negro et al., 2007; Suurs and Hekkert, 2009). We treat ex situ OFSA as a technology field-level TIS that encompasses several sub-fields of recycling pathways (e.g., composting, anaerobic digestion, black soldier fly (BSF) frass, pyrolysis) and the resulting OFSA products (e.g., composts/blends, frass, biochar). These sub-fields differ in technology readiness, regulatory status, nutrient profiles, and actor constellations. However, they share (i) common upstream inputs, (ii) overlapping governance and standards, (iii) partially shared market channels and agronomy, and (iv) cross-cutting legitimacy narratives around safety, quality, and efficacy. This hybrid scope allows us to capture the full innovation chain from technical experimentation to market uptake of the resulting product (Markard and Truffer, 2008). Considering different waste sector particularities, raw materials and processes are key to final product quality and, consequently, user and market demand (Manipura et al., 2025; Pandyaswargo and Premakumara, 2014; Roy et al., 2021). By focusing on this integrated technology field, the analysis captures the systemic interdependencies between technological innovation and product utilization.
Core functions in the Technological Innovation Systems (TIS) framework for organic fertilizer and soil amendment (OFSA) production (adapted from Bergek et al., 2008; Binz and Truffer, 2017; Edsand, 2019; Hekkert et al., 2007; Negro et al., 2007).
Core functions of TIS
Description
F1. Entrepreneurial activities
The extent to which entrepreneurs are actively engaged and experimenting with new products, processes, or business models for organic waste recycling toward OFSA production.
F2. Knowledge development
Determines how knowledge about the technology is developed, e.g., co-creation/collective experimentation and social learning; R&D investment and projects, increase of technological performance, and formal/codified knowledge development (e.g., research output).
F3. Knowledge diffusion
Describes how knowledge about the technology/product is shared and applied across actors and regions through networks, peer exchange, and advisory systems, e.g., informal learning networks.
F4. Guidance of the search
The clarity and strength of the direction for technology/product development, typically through policy, regulations, donor agendas or market signals, e.g., targets set by governments.
F5. Market formation
Emergence of markets for OFSA products, including demand and supporting infrastructure, supply chains, and pricing, such as introduced niche markets, tax regimes, environmental and/or other standards.
F6. Resource mobilization (Government/International loans and grants)
Availability of public support, e.g., financial, human, logistical, or institutional, and global partnerships for OFSA development and deployment.
F7. Creation of legitimacy/advocacy coalitions
The extent to which the technology gains societal and political legitimacy, e.g., acceptance and support from key stakeholders and society, growth and actions of interest groups.
Further, we analyzed actors, networks, institutions, and functional dynamics. These elements are interdependent and drive the development of a technology field (Bergek et al., 2015). While we emphasized actors in TIS Function 1, networks in Function 3, and institutions in Function 4 and 5 for expositional clarity, consistent with TIS literature we treated actors, networks and institutions as cross-cutting dimensions that jointly shape all system functions (Hekkert et al., 2007; Bergek et al., 2008). According to Bergek et al. (2015), institutions within the TIS context include, e.g., laws, policies, and regulatory frameworks. Policies set the overarching goals, principles, and strategic direction. Laws establish the legal framework and enforceable rules, while regulations are derived from laws and provide specific guidelines, technical standards, and enforcement mechanisms.
Although TIS is often applied dynamically to map innovation system processes over time (Hekkert et al., 2007), we used it cross-sectionally to portray the current state (2023) across eleven countries. This broad, exploratory approach allowed us to identify the overall system features, enable comparisons across regions and countries, and delineate potential hotspots for further in-depth study (cf. Bergek et al., 2008). Hekkert et al. (2007) identified seven key system functions that typically underpin the emergence and diffusion of new technologies (Table 1). To increase context specificity of the TIS framework proposed by Hekkert et al. (2007), we followed Edsand (2019) by differentiating ‘resource mobilization’ by national vs. international sources to reflect low- and middle-income realities (Table 1).
Recognizing that many TIS are transnational (Bergek et al., 2008), we adopted a global innovation systems perspective as knowledge, capital, and legitimacy flow across borders (Binz and Truffer, 2017). Accordingly, in ‘knowledge development’ and ‘knowledge diffusion’ functions we considered domestic and cross-border collaborations; in ‘resource mobilization’, international loans and grants; and in ‘legitimization’, international advocacy coalitions. This perspective further aids in understanding how innovation systems evolve in regions like Africa, where actors often rely on international collaborations, external funding, transnational policy frameworks and technology transfer mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism to foster new technologies (Binz and Truffer, 2017).
MethodsStudy design
We conducted an exploratory, qualitative multi-country study with a comparative approach and convergent multi-source triangulation to assess the current state and trends of ex situ OFSA production in Cameroon, Ethiopia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe (Figure 1). Key informant interviews provided primary evidence, whereas documentary and scientific sources contextualized and corroborated findings. The three data streams were analyzed in parallel and integrated during interpretation: (i) semi-structured interviews; (ii) documentary evidence (policies, regulations, technical/implementation reports); and (iii) scientific literature relevant to TIS functions (e.g., technologies, markets). Countries served as comparative contexts. Quantitative figures from documents (e.g., production volumes/capacities) were used as descriptive indicators to contrast with interview accounts. Data sources were integrated via tables and narrative synthesis, assessing convergence, complementarity, and discrepancy across sources.
Analytical framework for the study, illustrating the triangulation of research methods and their mapping onto Technological Innovation System (TIS) functions via a four-phase coding guide.
Diagram titled Analytical Framework showing three columns: Methods Triangulation, Coding Guide, and TIS Functions. Methods include interviews, document analysis, literature review, and bibliometric analysis. Arrows connect these methods to TIS Functions: entrepreneurial activities, knowledge development, knowledge diffusion, guidance of the search, market formation, resource mobilization, and legitimization, illustrating relationships between methods and analytical functions. Color-coded outlines group related boxes.Geographical scope
We selected eleven countries balanced between African sub-regions (East, West, South)2 and agro-ecological zones (semi-arid to humid). We also considered interviewer networks, ongoing research, and observable market developments to ensure feasibility and relevance.
Key informant interviewsSampling
We combined purposive and snowball sampling to access stakeholders with relevant expertise across a wide geography (Palinkas et al., 2015; Noy, 2008). In total, we recruited 74 key informants, including OFSA entrepreneurs, scientists, policy makers, retailers, farmers, consultants, farmers’ organizations, advisory services, civil society actors, inter- and non-governmental organizations. Interviewee abbreviations are used throughout (Table 2).
Overview of countries, interviewee types and number of interviews.
Interviewee abbreviations in brackets are used throughout the study for referencing purposes.
Data collection
We used semi-structured interviews, suitable for exploratory research, to cover core topics while allowing interviewees to introduce new perspectives and insights (Adams, 2015). Interview guides were tailored to stakeholder groups and addressed: (1) fertilizer markets (e.g., market demand, pricing), (2) OFSA production (e.g., technologies, business models), and (3) trends and policy needs (Supplementary file 1). We conducted online interviews from March–September 2023, recorded, and transcribed them. Interviews lasted 30–60 min; 65 were in English and 9 in French. French interviews were translated into English by a native French-speaking co-author with support from translation program DeepL.3 We used Descript (v65.1.1) for transcription and manually corrected errors. All participants provided informed consent for recording and transcription.
Coding and analysis
We applied a deductive code scheme based on the seven TIS functions and used descriptive coding to assign short labels to text (Saldana, 2015). To compare countries and functions, we developed a phase rubric (four development phases) grounded in TIS. For each country and function, we compiled an indicator sheet (interview excerpts, document extracts, quantitative figures) and mapped evidence to the four phases using anchor criteria (Table 3 and Supplementary file 2). Two researchers independently assigned a phase using a majority-signal rule (≥ 2 concordant indicators). Tie-breaks were handled as follows: if evidence spanned adjacent phases, we selected the lower phase unless corroborated by two independent sources (e.g., interview + regulation). Disagreements, which only occurred in one case (South Africa; F2), were resolved by structured discussions among the author team.
Development phases of the Technological Innovation System (TIS) in organic fertilizer and soil amendment (OFSA) production, qualitatively assessed using a coding guide (Supplementary file 2), adapted from Bergek et al. (2008), Hekkert et al. (2007), and Suurs and Hekkert (2009).
Development phase
Interpretation
A). Pre-development
Function absent or extremely weak
B). Formation
Function emerging in an ad hoc or fragmented manner
C). Growth/expansion
Function institutionalizing and reinforcing others
D). Maturation
Function fully embedded, professionalized, and stable
For cross-country synthesis, we produced country summaries by function (1–2 pages each), and a country by function matrix then used pattern matching and explanation building to identify recurrent configurations (e.g., strong entrepreneurial activity but weak market formation) and linkages among functions. The phase classifications are interpretive summaries of triangulated indicators. Countries may display features of multiple phases simultaneously of which we report the prevailing pattern per country and function to aid comparison. For structuring, clustering, and analyzing the data, we used Microsoft Excel (Version 2021; 16.0.14332.20631).
Literature review and document analysis
We conducted a non-systematic search (Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar; September 2023–September 2024) to contextualize and corroborate interview data. Search strings combined keywords such as “organic fertilizer,” “soil amendment,” “organic waste recycling,” “organic waste valorization” and country names. We included peer-reviewed articles, FAO and AU reports, and relevant IGO/NGO publications. Grey literature was obtained via institutional websites and direct requests to key agencies (e.g., GIZ, TechnoServe). Policy documents were searched online or directly on government websites and triangulated selectively, particularly for TIS functions ‘Guidance of the search’ and ‘Market formation’ and were cited, respectively. Documents were screened for relevance to process technologies, market development, and policy and regulatory frameworks.
Consistent with TIS applications that treat publication activity as one indicator of codified knowledge (e.g., Aliahmad et al., 2022; Negro et al., 2007), we distinguished codified (publications) and practice-based knowledge (e.g., learning-by-doing, farmer trials). Given data constraints across eleven countries (e.g., R&D finances, patents), we used bibliometrics as a partial proxy for codified outputs and triangulate with practice-based evidence from interviews and grey literature. We assessed the Scopus database to indicate publication trends related to the current state of OFSA publications. We searched for articles in the time range 1980 to 2025 with the following keyword combinations: “organic fertil*” OR “soil amendment*” OR “soil conditioner” OR “compost*” OR “organic waste recycling” OR “organic waste valorization” OR “organic waste valorisation” OR biochar AND “country.” We included peer-reviewed publications, conference proceedings and book chapters and removed any duplicates.
Results and discussion
We present the results and discussion along the seven core functions of the TIS framework. We place particular emphasis on actors in Function 1, networks in Function 3, and institutions in Functions 4 and 5. Then, we offer a cross-sectional analysis spanning across the eleven countries and present limitations and our suggestion for future research.
Structures and functions of the innovation systemEntrepreneurial activities and experimentation (F1)
Across the eleven countries, entrepreneurs are experimenting with and exploring new solutions and problem-solution combinations, a key feature of TIS (Hekkert et al., 2007).
A group of ten countries emerged, in which Function 1 remains in development phase B: “formation.” It was characterized by multiple, isolated, small-scale, often donor funded projects that lack networks and self-reinforcing activity bundles. This is typical for TIS in the formation phase (Bergek et al., 2008). Production generally remains limited to batch-size artisanal production, under 500 t/a−1, with some mechanized operations producing up to 10,000 t/a−1 (see Supplementary file 3 for an overview on production sizes). Among these ten countries, Ghana and Kenya show signs of phase C: “institutionalization” with ex situ OFSA entrepreneurs scaling production and expansion plans (KE-4; KE-3; GH-6; GH-7). Ghana has industrial scale entrepreneurs, such as Zoom Lion, ACARP, Safisana. While Kenya is characterized by a multiplicity of actors with new entrants and business models (Jumba et al., 2024; TechnoServe, 2023). Some of the entrepreneurs in both countries are backed by international parent companies with respective know-how or operate in public-private partnerships.
South Africa stood out from the other ten countries with entrepreneurial activity indicating development phase C: “growth.” Its semi-industrialized niche comprises profitable, scaled entrepreneurs offering certified, diversified portfolios, coordinated by professional associations. As one of the interviewees underscored: “Now with up to 15 products of which 14 are all hundred percent organic certified […], we export to Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Swaziland, Uganda and up to Unit Arab Emirates.” (SA-6: OFSA entrepreneur).
Entrepreneurial experimentation in South Africa has departed from ad hoc trials to sophisticated systems with mechanized composting, precision organo-mineral blending, and biodigesters from low-tech to industrial scale (Mutungwazi et al., 2018). However, as stated by an interviewee, municipal organic waste management, sanitation and agriculture integration remains limited, largely confined to research pilots (SA-8).
Technological experimentation
The interviews revealed that in most countries, technologies for OFSA production are generally low tech, such as composting. There are sporadic mid-tech pilots such as small biodigesters, modular biochar kilns and some more high-tech pilots that include containerized composting with sensor technology.
Conventional composting persists in low-tech settings, but mechanization yields higher quality and volumes (KE-4; CC-1; Tumuhairwe et al., 2009). An entrepreneur in Uganda (UG-10) experimented with containerized composting, a controlled process potentially reducing composting time (Smårs et al., 2002). Various interviewees experimented with vermicomposting and black soldier fly larvae, highlighting their nutrient-rich outputs (CC-5; KE-4; UG-6; ZW-4) as also shown by Beesigamukama et al. (2022) and Soobhany (2019). This experimentation is particularly prominent in Kenya and Uganda, valued for dual revenues of frass fertilizer and larvae, if consistent, uncontaminated waste is supplied (CC-5) (Isibika et al., 2023). As one Kenyan entrepreneur noted: “Regarding the great variety of waste, it was really difficult for us to come up with a model with which we could expand [our production]. We have perfected that, now we have the technology to deal with the different types of wastes.” (KE-3: OFSA entrepreneur).
In Ghana, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe, some entrepreneurs incorporate human excreta to raise nutrient density. Urine, rich in N and P (Rose et al., 2015), is either marketed directly or combined with biochar (CC-1; SA-8). Co-treatment of toilet sludge with market waste is common (SA-8; GH-9; Banamwana et al., 2022). One Ghanaian entrepreneur couples biodigestion for biogas with co-composting of the digestate and market waste (GH-6). Some entrepreneurs reduce pathogen levels to recommended safety thresholds (CC-1; SA-8), which is feasible if the co-composting process is properly managed (Manga et al., 2021; Werner et al., 2023).
Various entrepreneurs experimented with pyrolytic biochar potentially attributable to increasing research and popularity (Abdeljaoued et al., 2020; Qi et al., 2024). Some interviewees emphasized a lacking willingness of farmers to pay for sole biochar as it is not a fertilizer and its function needs explaining (CC-5; CC-6; KE-3). To address low nutrient content, entrepreneurs blended organic with inorganic fertilizers or combine different organic inputs to enhance product appeal to farmers, such as mixing biochar with compost, Tithonia diversifolia, or chicken manure (e.g., KE-3; KE-4; CM-1; UG-10).
In all countries, interviewees reported increased blending of organic and inorganic fertilizers following the price spikes due to Covid-19 and the Russo-Ukrainian war. Blending is considered promising in literature, but several challenges need to be addressed such as quality consistency and testing with long-term field trials (Bouhia et al., 2022; Sakrabani, 2024). Indeed, quality issues as well as the need for crop and soil specific fertilizer blends have been uttered by various interviewees (e.g., KE-4; CC-1). And in our study, only a few entrepreneurs actively experiment with crop specific nutrient formulations and conduct scientifically valid field trials, sometimes supported by donors and universities (CC-3; KE-4; SA-6; UG-10).
Business models and market experimentation
Beyond technology, entrepreneurs experiment with raw material sourcing and market access: “It is not the technology that is usually the challenge. It’s sourcing the input and getting the product out to the market. Those are the pieces, the demand and the supply side and what connects that.” (CC-2: Consultant). Some entrepreneurs collaborate with municipalities and agro-processors to restructure organic waste flows, which is identified as a key for advancing circularity (Desmond and Asamba, 2019). Private-public-partnerships can enhance waste management activities by improving efficiency and access to funding, among other benefits. While some highlight the success of such organizational models (Otoo and Drechsel, 2018), others remain critical, arguing that successful cases in sub-Saharan Africa are still limited (Kaza et al., 2018). Interviewees reported municipal support as a key lever. For example, in Ethiopia, municipal support enabled source-separated household waste collection (CC-1; ET-5), while in other countries municipalities allocated land near waste streams (KE-4). In South Africa, entrepreneurs partnered with the municipality in a private-public-partnership and co-located with a wastewater-treatment facility. Sewage sludge from the latter is co-composted with city-wide collected green waste and then marketed to commercial growers. This strategic siting minimized transport costs and capitalized on existing municipal infrastructure (CC-1; SA-8).
We show that go-to-market experiments are equally diverse, comprising bulk sales to farmer associations, marketing via community retailers, and farm demonstrations in the communities (GH-6; KE-4; RW-6), the latter considered a key success factor. Entrepreneurs also test farmer-driven campaigns and embedded extension to stimulate demand, while others focus on certified organic farms or export-oriented, high value crops (KE-4; SA-6; SE-6).
In Uganda, one entrepreneur works on an on-site business model with containerized composting units at food processing facilities, e.g., coffee, sugar, and juice processing. Fertilizers are distributed back to contract farmers, creating a closed-loop system that links waste management, fertilizer provision, and crop procurement. Processor’s pre-finance fertilizer and recover costs post-harvest, thus addressing smallholder farmers’ cash-flow constraints (UG-10). Such an input credit scheme, also referred to as asset-based financing or in-kind credit model, can enhance smallholder productivity as shown by Girma (2022). A similar model was reported in Senegal (SE-3), where biodigesters were provided without upfront payment, to reduce the initial investment. High initial costs have been previously identified as a key impediment of biodigester uptake (Diouf and Miezan, 2019); and in the studied Senegalese case (SE-3), households repay by providing a share of the biodigester’s organic fertilizer (slurry). The business operator collects the slurry and integrates it into organic fertilizer production, thus generating higher profits over time compared to a one-time biodigester sale.
Increasing carbon prices and biochar integration are considered promising (Galgani et al., 2014; Ottani et al., 2024). Among interviewees, some report the integration of carbon credits into business models to increase and diversify revenue streams, although it was not a major part of the revenue in 2023 (CC-6; KE-3, 4).
Grassroots and community innovations
NGOs have been proven to serve as enablers of grassroots innovations (Christopher Go and Brummer, 2024; Dyck and Silvestre, 2019). In our study, we identified various NGOs experimenting with small scale, manual labor- and community-based approaches (ET-1; UG-7; RW-4; SE-4; CA-3). For instance, in Cameroon, local women’s groups were organized around a tontine-style4 model using locally available materials and community knowledge. Their model followed a systemic logic that blends social innovation, such as cooperation, inclusion with ecological and economic objectives (CA-3). Such bottom-up initiatives are associated with adaptive learning (e.g., iterative product adjustments, peer-to-peer learning) and thus sociotechnical change – patterns consistent with De Boni et al. (2022).
Key actors in entrepreneurial activity
The spectrum of actors involved in OFSA production ranges from private informal, e.g., community-based groups, and formal, e.g., small and medium sized enterprises, inter- and non-governmental organizations, public actors and policy makers, e.g., municipalities, and research organizations (see Supplementary file 3 for an overview of identified actors). Private informal initiatives are often small-scale and supported by NGOs that provide organizational support and knowledge input. We show that these initiatives are generally driven by the objective of improving agricultural production through organic inputs (CM-2, 3; UG-1, 4, 7; RW-4; SN-1, 4).
Municipalities play a key role in the public sector, as they are officially responsible for municipal waste management. However, due to lacking finances of municipalities, the informal waste sector is crucial in many African countries (Godfrey and Oelofse, 2017). The informal sector operates outside official regulation, where waste collection and recycling activities are unregistered and uncoordinated (Harfadli et al., 2024). Interviewees also highlighted that municipalities are usually mainly motivated by reducing the amount of waste that goes to landfills (CC-2, 6). Some public-private-partnerships were identified, where for example the municipality provides the waste to OFSA entrepreneurs (CC-1; ET-5; SA-8). Due to the amounts of waste available, e.g., from households, these operations generally produce higher OFSA volumes.
We show that private national companies are sometimes backed financially by international donors and technically by research partnerships and/or by their parent companies where they are subsidiaries (GH-6; KE-4; SE-6; UG-10). Particularly international companies play a crucial role by advancing technical expertise and innovation. Initiatives on municipal level are sometimes fostered by research projects or supported by research institutions (CC-1; ET-5; SA-8). Some of the small and medium sized enterprises cooperate with agricultural input dealers, extension agents, farmer cooperatives or large farms to market their products but also for experimental reasons (KE-4; GH-6). Manufacturers of production equipment for OFSA production were only identified in South Africa. They are currently no key actors in the innovation system of most of the other 10 countries. Actors of importance, in countries where they exist, are national and ARSO5 as a transnational standardization organization as they define quality standards for OFSA.
Knowledge development (F2)
Across the eleven countries, Function 2 ‘knowledge development’ remains in phase B. It is largely ad hoc and fragmented. Practice-based learning is abundant with isolated R&D projects, informal trials, iterative product tweaks, and entrepreneur-led experiments, albeit with local variations in depth, institutional support, and international linkages. Formalized knowledge on the other hand, i.e., codification and institutionalization (peer-reviewed studies, standard methods, efficacy protocols, coordinated agendas) lag behind. This divergence explains why entrepreneurs report promising field effects yet face limited external validation and quality assurance, thus constraining diffusion (F3) and market formation (F5).
A targeted bibliometric scan indicates research activity across all countries. Most publications are found in Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, and South Africa with more than 150 publications compared to the other seven countries with less than 100 publications (Figure 2). Although various of the retrieved studies examine themes such as ex situ processing, product composition, or agronomic performance of ex situ OFSA, a substantial part of the retrieved studies rather addresses in situ OFSA, e.g., on-farm composting. Therefore, bibliometrics need to be interpreted only as a contextual signal, not as a stand-alone measure of Function 2.
Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications. Total number of scientific publications related to OFSA production and use across 11 study countries, based on Scopus database records from 1980 to 2025.
Bar chart showing the number of scientific publications on OFSA production and use in eleven African countries from 1980 to 2025. Ethiopia, Ghana, and South Africa have the highest publication counts, while Ivory Coast and Senegal have the lowest.
South Africa demonstrates the most institutionalized R&D. Its national level Waste Research Development and Innovation Roadmap contains a 10-year program funded R&D that supports municipal waste valorization and circular-economy research (CSIR, 2024; Godfrey et al., 2021). Although this included research on crucial aspects such as organic waste separation at source (Nahman et al., 2018) and waste diversion from landfills (Schenck et al., 2022), there is a dearth of published research on themes such as ex situ OFSA production, product quality, and agronomic impacts. More particularly in our study, although some isolated research takes place at universities (SA-4, 8), there is no systematic approach to R&D of ex situ OFSA production, cross-sector integration and inclusion in mainstream agriculture. Private sector pioneers often have conducted all their own product development and field trials (SA-6; SA-4), indicating a growth phase dynamic where firms internalize R&D (Hekkert et al., 2007). Yet, the overall picture of ex situ organic waste valorization suggests fragmented knowledge development as indicative for the formation phase (Bergek et al., 2008).
Apart from South Africa, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda, and Uganda have established organic fertilizer standards, indicating signs of institutionalization in knowledge development. However, many standards have been only established recently, and public staff often still lack respective knowledge: “They [public administration providing dealership certificates] are usually handling chemical fertilizer. And they have never seen any organic or biofertilizer before, so they have no knowledge about it.” (UG-10: OFSA entrepreneur).
Although no organic fertilizer standards have been established yet, Ghana shows early signs of institutionalization as the Ministry of Food and Agriculture created a National Technical Team to promote organic fertilizers (GH-3) and published guidelines on registration, sampling, and testing (PPRSD, 2022). Larger entrepreneurs have established in-house laboratories for OFSA analysis, while national labs perform quality control (GH-9).
Across all countries, except South Africa, one of the main features of knowledge development is, as characterized by Hekkert et al. (2007), learning-by-doing. Many of the interviewed entrepreneurs and NGOs experiment in a non-systematic and non-coordinated manner with different feedstocks to produce OFSA, small-scale on-farm trials with anecdotal evidence as emphasized by some entrepreneurs: “We do not have formalized research on the outcome as it is also a small-scale project.” (CA-3: Advisory service). “We engage in own research and opinion of people who are knowledgeable in the fertilizer sector.” (GH-11: OFSA entrepreneur). “We see some farmers who apply it appropriately, and it’s totally anecdotal, up to a 30% increase.” (KE-4: OFSA entrepreneur). “The data we have on the effects of fertilizers are only visual […] We need quantitative research on yield impact to provide real evidence.” (CA-2: NGO). The dominance of learning-by-doing aligns with Hekkert et al. (2007) classification in early TIS. The fragmented R&D and weak coordination is mirrored in Bergek et al. (2008) description of emerging TIS, while the multi-actor platforms (GreenCape, industry associations) in South Africa reflect the contextual embedding as described by Bergek et al. (2015).
International learning-by-searching (Hekkert et al., 2007) occurs in all eleven countries through international partnerships conducting research and other development activities, where deliberate R&D and knowledge-scouting activities take place with the aim of adapting external scientific knowledge and technical information (cf. Hekkert et al., 2007). These multi-scalar networks indicate a transnational innovation system (Binz and Truffer, 2017), which has also been highlighted by Tigabu et al. (2015a, 2015b) for biogas TIS in Rwanda and Kenya and by various interviewees: “The company has enjoyed partnership from other organizations both local and international like from Germany and Ghana. These partnerships have helped the company both at the policy and research front.” (GH-10: OFSA entrepreneur). “We received knowledge and technology from partners from Cornell University, MIT, Nairobi University, mostly in the research phase. They have been key in product development.” (KE-3: OFSA entrepreneur).
Our study indicates that international research partnerships with local research institutions, NGOs, and intergovernmental organizations foster knowledge development through social learning by methods such as farmer field schools, community demos, training-of-trainers schemes and collective experimentation (CC-1, 5; CA-3; ET-1; UG-1, 4, 7; RW-4). These partnerships along with international companies are currently the key knowledge creators, supporting pioneers, and niches, as also identified by Hauser and Lindtner (2017). However, there are no formalized national research agendas building systematic knowledge. Furthermore, we show that there is a lack of cross-sector coordination and knowledge development between waste management, sanitation and agriculture regarding the restructuring of feedstock flows and product development to ensure viable business cases (CC-2, 6). Across all countries, systematic knowledge on the impacts of different combinations of ex situ feedstocks and potential blending with inorganic inputs and respective impact on product quality and crop as well as soil specific usage is lacking: “There is need for authentication of the products done through research and standardization to avoid selling with claims that are far from reality.” (GH-4: Consultant) “Organic fertilizer companies should also come up with products that are specific to crops depending on individual crop nutrient requirement rather than selling a product that is said to have a blanket effect.” (MA-1: Farmers organization). However, there are exceptions with emerging institutional anchors such as government-initiated research trials on organo-mineral fertilizer blends like in Malawi (Mwafulirwa, 2023), or the testing of efficacy of ex situ OFSA in Ghana by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (GH-3).
Knowledge diffusion (F3)
Function 3 ‘knowledge diffusion’ through networks can be differentiated between pan-African and national or local networks (Table 4). Across the eleven countries, only South Africa indicates clear signs of institutionalization in the knowledge diffusion function, i.e., phase C, while Kenya, Rwanda and Ghana show only early signs. Each of these countries hosts at least one platform where public, private, and civil society actors exchange technical and other expertise. In the other countries efforts are fragmented and often led by NGOs or project consortia rather than permanent institutions, hence the function is emerging in a fragmented manner (Hekkert et al., 2007; Musiolik et al., 2012), corresponding to phase B. The absence of sustained, formal actor networks restricts cross-functional feedback loops that are essential for TIS consolidation (Bergek et al., 2008; Binz and Truffer, 2017). Nonetheless, in our study, even where formal networks are absent, informal networks occasionally coordinate standard development with national bureaus of standards (e.g., UG-10). Such informal networks play an important role in aligning policy decisions, on fertilizer and waste standards for example, with on-the-ground technological developments (Hekkert et al., 2007).
Key national and transnational level networks and industry associations supporting organic waste recycling toward organic fertilizer and soil amendment (OFSA) production across eleven African countries.
Country
Network/association
Description
Source
1. Cameroon
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
2. Ethiopia
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
3. Ghana
Environmental Service Providers Association (ESPA)
Represent waste companies, provide networking, advocacy, coordination and capacity building.
www.espaghana.com
Organic Fertilizer Entrepreneurs Association of Ghana (OFPAG)
Founded during the fertilizer shortages in 2022 with aim to coordinate production.
GH-3 (policy maker)
4. Ivory Coast
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
5. Kenya
Kenya Association of Waste Recyclers (KAWR)
Umbrella body for private sector entities engaged in material recovery from waste.
www.kenyarecyclers.co.ke
Fertilizer Association of Kenya (FA-K)
FA-K represents manufacturers, importers, formulators, blenders, and distributors of both inorganic and organic fertilizers in Kenya.
www.fa-k.or.ke
Organic Fertilizers and Input Manufacturers Association of Kenya (OFIMAK)
Promotes sustainable agriculture. Platform for collaboration among organic input manufacturers.
www.ofimak.co.ke
6. Malawi
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
7. Rwanda
Circular Food Systems for Rwanda (CIRF)
Multi-stakeholder platform to enable and encourage exchanges and dialogue between public, private and civil society players.
MoE (2022)
8. Senegal
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
9. South Africa
Organics Recycling Association of South Africa (ORASA)
Promote and represent the organics recycling sector / anaerobic digestion and biogas from organic waste. Advocacy, lobbying for regulatory frameworks, provision of trainings and knowledge sharing.
www.orasa.org.za
South African Biogas Industry Association (SABIA)
www.sabia.org.za
GreenCape
Cross-stakeholder mediator and information service (market reports).
www.greencape.co.za
Fertilizer Association of Southern Africa (Fertasa)
Serves as the primary industry body for the inorganic and organic fertilizer sector (entrepreneurs, traders, blenders, and distributors).
www.fertasa.co.za; SA-6 (OFSA entrepreneur)
10. Uganda
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
11. Zimbabwe
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
12. Transnational
African Circular Economy Alliance (ACEA)
Government-led coalition and policy platform consisting of 15 countries.
www.aceaafrica.org; ACEA (2021)
African Circular Economy Network (ACEN)
Multi-stakeholder network platform for entrepreneurs and new business models.
www.acen.africa
Africa Circular Economy Facility (ACEF)
Facility for funding and technical assistance for scaling of CE initiatives in African countries.
AfDB (n.d.)
Africa Organization for Standardization (ARSO)
Harmonize standards across Africa.
www.arso-oran.org
South Africa hosts multiple formal associations that facilitate advocacy, capacity building, and policy dialogue. FERTASA serves as an industry network for the inorganic and organic fertilizer industry, while ORASA and SABIA focus specifically on organic waste valorization (Table 4). These networks organize training workshops, lobby for regulatory frameworks, and disseminate best practices, thereby strengthening legitimacy and reducing information asymmetries (Furtado and Perrot, 2015; Ko et al., 2021). Government-backed intermediaries (GreenCape) further catalyze multi-stakeholder coordination by hosting forums that identify circular economy opportunities (GreenCape, 2019). The network initiatives along with government regulations are considered important support mechanisms for the development of the sector in South Africa (Godfrey et al., 2021). These formalized networks and policy initiatives create an enabling environment that supports scaling of OFSA technologies.
In Kenya, formal networks have formed in the waste recycling sector through associations and among inorganic and organic fertilizer entrepreneurs (Table 4). However, a lack of cooperation and knowledge sharing has been highlighted by an interviewee for example for Black Soldier Fly (BSF) technology: “There are lots of BSF entrepreneurs in Kenya, […] often they’re struggling with the same issues. And somehow some have found some solutions, but they don’t talk to each other. They’re in this mindset of competition. […] They’re scared to share. And that just blocks, it’s such a barrier.” (CC-5: Scientist). This reluctance highlights that formal networks alone do not guarantee effective diffusion. Trust building and shared governance must accompany institutional structures (Bergek et al., 2015).
Rwanda lacks formal industry associations dedicated to OFSA, but the CIRF program - a multi-stakeholder platform aligned with the Circular Economy Action Plan - facilitates dialogue between public, private and civil society players (MoE, 2022). Coordinated agendas across sectors are of importance for strategic TIS development (Hekkert et al., 2007). CIRF’s strategic alignment with the Ministry of Environment’s roadmap ensures that knowledge exchange channels incorporate and coordinate both policy and technical dimensions.
In Ghana, the ESPA association organizes waste management firms, and the Organic Fertilizer Producer Association emerged as a response to the 2022 inorganic fertilizer shortages (GH-3). These associations represent an early step toward institutionalizing knowledge diffusion in Ghana’s OFSA sector, particularly by coordinating production targets and sharing processing protocols.
On a Pan-African level, we found several coalitions and initiatives that foster cross-border learning and harmonization of standards. The African Circular Economy Alliance and Africa Circular Economy Facility support policy advocacy and technical assistance that directly benefits OFSA innovation. The African Circular Economy Network convenes grassroots stakeholders, while the Africa Organization for Standardization works to harmonize organic fertilizer standards across member states (Table 4). These transnational networks contribute to legitimacy building (Function 7), funding flows (Function 6), and training programs (Function 2 and 3), which aligns with Binz and Truffer (2012, 2017), who argue that global innovation systems can supply resources and norms which local TIS actors subsequently adapt to their contexts.
Guidance of the search (F4)
Function 4 ‘guidance of the search’ remains largely in phase B: “formation” across ten out of eleven countries, characterized by non-binding, fragmented policy signals and weak enforcement, which is characteristic for an emerging, ad hoc governance phase (Bergek et al., 2008). Only South Africa has advanced this function to phase C: “growth,” due to coherent targets, financing mechanisms, and dedicated R&D support. Our focus here is on institutions - specifically laws, policies, and regulatory frameworks - related to organic waste management, which are central aspects in innovation systems (Bergek et al., 2015). In OFSA production, these institutions can include policy targets such as organic waste recycling quota, laws and regulations such as recycling laws. They all provide directional signals that shape actor expectations and steer innovation trajectories (Hekkert et al., 2007). We created three policy-guidance clusters - advanced, emerging, and nascent - using a qualitative rubric we developed. Countries were grouped based on: (i) the presence of a dedicated solid waste management law; (ii) explicit references to recycling/resource recovery within that law; and (iii) explicit organic-waste recycling targets (see Table 5). Countries were rated advanced if all three criteria were met, emerging if waste management was at least included in broader environmental laws, and nascent if none of the criteria was fulfilled.
Solid waste management and recycling laws, policies, and legal frameworks in eleven African countries (adapted from Freyer et al., 2024a).
Country
Solid waste management and recycling laws, policies and legal frameworks
Comments
Source
1. Cameroon
Law No. 96/12 Environmental Management (1996)
Lays out waste management practices.
Albrecht et al. (2022)
Urban Development and Housing signed Order No. 00072/MINAT/MINVILL (2000)
Defines hygiene/sanitation, collection and/or treatment of household waste.
Decree no. 2012/2809/PM (2012)
Lays down the conditions for the sorting, collection, storage, recycling, treatment and final disposal of waste.
UN Habitat (2018)
Decree no. 001/MINEPDED (2012)
Sets out the conditions for obtaining an environmental permit for waste management.
2. Ethiopia
Ethiopian Environmental Policy (1997), Public Health Protection Proclamation No 200/2000, Environmental Impact Assessment Proclamation No 299/2002, Environmental Pollution Control Proclamation 300/2002.
Well-developed set of policies and regulations on environmental management that include SWM, but no measures for enforcement, effectiveness unknown.
Singh and Singh (2022), Xie and Mito (2021)
National Solid Waste Management Proclamation (No. 513/2007)
Waste segregation at households’ level is foreseen by it in Article 11.1.
Lenhart et al. (2022)
National Integrated Urban Sanitation and Hygiene Strategy (2017)
Strategy to improve urban sanitation and hygiene, including (organic) SWM. It promotes 3R (reduce, reuse, recycle) and the integration of informal waste collectors.
FDRE (2017)
3. Ghana
Local Governance Act (1993)
Lays the foundation for the formulation of by-laws for MSWM.
Singh and Singh (2022)
Environmental Sanitation Policy (ESP), 2010
Comprehensive guidelines for environmental sanitation, incl. SWM. Reference to waste reduction, reuse, recycling, recovery. Emphasis on composting for the management of organic waste, promoting its conversion for agricultural use.
GoG (2010a)
National Environmental Sanitation Strategy and Action Plan (NESSAP), (2010)
Aims at, e.g., Awareness creation—change in sanitation behavior.
GoG (2010b)
Local Governance Act, 2016 (Act 936)
Mandates Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies (MMDAs) to manage solid waste directly or through private sector partnerships. MMDAs are responsible for developing sub-national plans based on national strategies and are empowered to enact by-laws on sanitation to regulate local environmental conditions, including MSWM.
GoG (2016)
National Solid Waste Management Strategy (NSWMS), (2020)
Aims to enable effective waste reduction, recovery, reuse and recycling.
MSWR (2020)
4. Ivory Coast
Government with World Bank elaborated the Urban Resilience and Solid Waste Management Project (USWMP) (2019–2020).
Aim is to improve SWM and services—among others. There is no legislation specific to SWM; no specifics regarding recycling or composting are provided in the USWMP.
MoS (2020), UN Habitat (2018)
Hygiene and Health Law Code (2023–899)
Intends to regulate waste management incl. Increased circular practices and recycling (the law is currently under review).
Republique-de-Cote-D'Ivoire (2023)
5. Kenya
National Solid Waste Management Strategy (2015)
Platform for action between stakeholders, objectives are to reduce waste, waste segregation at source, resource recovery etc.
Singh and Singh (2022)
Sustainable Waste Management Act, no. 31 of 2022.
The act includes the promotion of a circular economy, including recycling and reuse. It covers organic and non-organic wastes.
The Republic of Kenya (2022)
6. Malawi
Environment Management Act (1996)
Broadly framed, can be applied to MSW management.
GoM (2018), GoM (2014)
National Environmental Policy (2004)
Provides policy guidance incl. Waste management.
Environment Management (Waste Management and Sanitation) Regulations (2008)
Detailed guidelines for waste management practices, including waste separation at source and recycling (incl. Organic materials).
National Waste Management Strategy (2019–2023)
It guides actions of regulatory bodies, the public, and stakeholders in areas such as policy formulation, promotion of waste segregation (at source), resource recovery, and the establishment of sound infrastructure for waste management.
EAD (2019)
7. Rwanda
Organic Law No 04/2005
Foundational law, provides the basis for all waste management activities.
Singh and Singh (2022)
Regulations No 002/EWASTAN/ SW/RURA (2015)
Governs solid waste recycling, establishing standards and procedures for recycling activities.
National Sanitation Policy (2016)
Aims to ensure sustainable, equitable, and affordable access to safe sanitation and waste management services. It emphasizes the importance of integrated waste management strategies, including waste reduction, reuse, recycling.
MoI (2016)
Law No. 48/2018 of 13/08/2018 on Environment
Revises and supplements the Organic Law on Environmental Protection and Management, incl. Waste management.
GoR (2018)
Regulation No. 007/R/SAN-EWS/RURA/2021
Provides a licensing framework for solid waste collection/transportation services.
The strategy includes the promotion of a circular economy, including recycling and reuse (e.g., organic wastes).
MoI (2022)
Ministry of Agriculture Strategic Plan 2018–2024
Promotes an “integrated approach to soil fertility/nutrient management, which employs agro-ecology, resource recovery and reuse, and fertilizer enriched composts.”
MoAAR (2018)
8. Senegal
The Environment Code on Waste Management and Recycling (Law No. 2001–01).
Foundational law that states that disposal or recycling shall be environmentally sound.
RVO (2022), World Bank (2019c)
National Solid Waste Management Program (PNGD) (2014)
This program aimed to achieve a “Zero Waste” vision for Senegal through integrated waste management strategies with specific emphasis on the roles of local authorities.
Integrated and Sustainable Solid Waste Management Strategy (2015)
Emerged as a continuation from the The National Solid Waste Management Program (PNGD - Programme National de Gestion des Déchets) (2014). The key components include decentralization and private sector engagement, establishment of waste management agglomerations.
Law No. 2022–18, enacted on May 23, 2022
Authorizes the creation of the National Integrated Waste Management Company (Sonaged S. A.), a state-owned enterprise responsible for implementing integrated waste management strategies nationwide.
RoS (2022a, 2022b)
Law No. 2023–15 of August 2, 2023, enacting the Environmental Code
The update to Law No. 2001–01 addresses various environmental issues, including strengthening waste management.
RoS (2023)
9. South Africa
National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998)
Foundational law, provides the overarching principles for environmental management.
RoSA (2008)
National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008
Promotes integrated waste management based on the waste management, waste avoidance, reduction, reuse, recycling, and recovery. Treatment and safe disposal are considered as a last resort. Integrated Waste Management Plans (IWMPs) have to be developed by all government spheres.
National Waste Management Strategy (NWMS)
Aligned with the Waste Act, the NWMS outlines the government’s approach to waste management (waste avoidance and reduction, development of a recycling economy).
DEA (2013), DEFF (2020), Ricci-Jürgensen et al. (2020)
Municipal By-Laws
Local municipalities in South Africa have the authority to develop by-laws that address waste management within their jurisdictions.
De Villiers et al. (2020)
10. Uganda
National Environment Act, 2019
This act constitutes the principal environmental legislation, providing guidelines for environmental management, including waste management practices.
GoU (2019)
National Environment (Waste Management) Regulations (2020)
Detailed guidance on waste management. Section 18 foresees waste separation at source for sorting of recyclable, hazardous and/or nonbiodegradable waste.
NEMA (2020)
Sector Strategy for Organic Waste Management (SOWU)
Current development of a strategy aimed at aligning organic waste management with national policies and enhancing the capacity of institutions to promote waste separation and recycling of organic waste.
Sanabria and Okello (2024)
11. Zimbabwe
The Public Health Act (1996)
Deals with solid waste.
Shabani and Jerie (2023)
The Environmental Management Act (2002)
Addresses SWM; Comprehensive legislation exists, but implementation and enforcement are lacking.
Environmental Management (Effluents and Solid Waste Disposal) Regulations, 2007 (SI 6 of 2007)
These regulations govern the disposal of effluents and solid waste, including provisions for licensing waste disposal sites and standards for waste management practices. Local authorities are required to develop waste management plans.
GoZ (2007)
The Zimbabwe National Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ZNISWMP), (2010)
To address shortcomings, the Plan aimed to develop a decentralized MSWM, better stakeholder integration, waste reduction, source separation and recycling. However, many of proposed actions are not implemented.
Nhubu et al. (2021)
Advanced cluster
South Africa, Kenya, and Rwanda are considered advanced among the eleven countries as they have defined solid waste management laws. In addition, these laws reference recycling and resource recovery (Table 5). Further, they are the only countries with explicit organic waste recycling targets.
Based on our investigation, South Africa has the most mature regulatory framework and institutional capacity across all countries. The country established a Waste Act (2008), formulated a National Organic Waste Composting Strategy6 in 2013 (DEA, 2013), and set organic waste recycling targets (DEFF, 2020). South Africa has a coherent and integrated legislative framework, with clear responsibilities, financing and enforcement mechanisms (Shi et al., 2021). However, Godfrey and Oelofse (2017) consider inefficiencies due to overregulation. Furthermore, Oelofse and Muswema (2020) criticize that the scarcity of accurate organic waste recycling data introduces difficulties in assessing the success of the recycling targets. Godfrey et al. (2021) find that the low costs of landfilling have been inhibitive for organic waste treatment and viable business models, but the government is increasing restrictions.
We find that Kenya has established a progressive Sustainable Waste Management Act (2022) and set an ambitious municipal waste recycling rate by 2030 (NEMA, 2015). Nevertheless, the implementation of solid waste management policies has been historically faced with practical obstacles such as poor implementation and enforcement, corruption and inadequate public cooperation (Amugsi et al., 2022). One of the market leaders in OFSA production stated: “From a regulatory environment, there’s not much creating headwinds, but there’s also nothing creating tailwinds.” (KE-4: OFSA entrepreneur).
Finally, we find that Rwanda’s circular economy legislation and ambitious targets is advanced compared to other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (Surchat et al., 2023). Rwanda’s 2022 Integrated Solid Waste Management Strategy mandates source separation and recovery targets, yet implementation remains faced with challenges due to limited institutional capacity and budgetary constraints (Mulindwa et al., 2024).
Emerging cluster
Based on our grouping, Ghana, Uganda, Ethiopia, Malawi, and Zimbabwe belong to the emerging cluster. In these cases, we show that solid waste management is included within broader environmental laws, but explicit recycling and resource recovery targets are generally absent (Table 5).
Ghana has attempted to increase organic waste recycling with their National Solid Waste Management Strategy for Ghana (2020). The strategy provides a structured approach to tackling waste management challenges, with a particular emphasis on waste minimization, organic waste recycling, and private sector involvement (MSWR, 2020). Nevertheless, a lack in the effectiveness of governance structures, particularly disconnections between national and local stakeholders, institutional collaboration and coordination, is hindering effective steering (Volsuuri et al., 2022; Williams et al., 2023). Further, the insufficient emphasis on waste segregation at source, as in most other countries, remains a key issue: “Waste collection has been privatized but the biggest challenge is that the waste is not separated […] the quality [of raw material] is questionable.” (GH-7: OFSA entrepreneur).
Uganda released its National Environment Regulations in 2020, including a section that foresees waste separation at source for sorting recyclables. Currently, a Sector Strategy for Organic Waste Management (SOWU) is under development. It aims to align organic waste management with national policies and strengthen institutional capacity to promote waste separation and the recycling of organic waste (Sanabria and Okello, 2024).
Countries like Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, and Malawi have made comparatively early efforts in organic waste management and recycling (Table 5). Ethiopia released Solid Waste Management Proclamation No. 513 in 2007, which aimed to encourage organic waste recycling and composting. In particular, article 11.1. of the Proclamation mandates waste segregation at the household level, but this has not been achieved in practice (Lenhart et al., 2022). In 2017, the National Integrated Urban Sanitation and Hygiene Strategy began promoting the 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) and the integration of informal waste collectors. Yet, the majority of organic waste is still disposed of through open dumping and uncontrolled incineration (Lenhart et al., 2022). Despite these policy initiatives, there remains a lack of responsibility and clarity about financing mechanisms: “It needs to be defined who is responsible for it. Because there is currently not really a responsibility. Of course, in cities like Addis there are companies who get a contract by the city for waste, but it is not actually enshrined in law that the city is responsible for this waste, so of course it feels responsible for keeping the streets clean. But there is always the question of who pays the bill”. (ET-6: Scientist).
In Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe National Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan was released in 2010. It aimed to develop a decentralized waste management, improve stakeholder integration, waste reduction, source separation and recycling. However, many of the proposed actions have not been implemented (Nhubu et al., 2021).
Malawi released the Environment Management (Waste Management and Sanitation) Regulations in 2008. These regulations provide detailed guidelines for waste management practices, including organic waste separation at source and recycling. Malawi also established a EAD (2019), which prioritizes recycling. However, effective implementation remains limited due to low public participation, budgetary constraints, and inadequate infrastructure (Chikukula et al., 2024; Kamanga et al., 2024).
Nascent cluster
Senegal, Cameroon and Ivory Coast belong to the nascent cluster of countries, where organic waste recycling is less explicitly prioritized. Therefore, in these countries none of the three grouping parameters studied is present (Table 5). Senegal has recently strengthened its legal base regarding waste management (Law No. 2022–18 and Law No. 2023–15); however, the explicit prioritization of organic waste recycling is not distinctly emphasized.
Cameroon has enacted several legislative instruments to regulate waste management, but organic waste recycling is not prioritized. Furthermore, Cameroon faces poor implementation of existing laws and regulation, along with a lack of infrastructure, limited public awareness of laws and regulations, and insufficient source separation (Albrecht et al., 2022).
In Ivory Coast, general regulation regarding solid waste management has historically been weak (UN Habitat, 2018). The potentially forthcoming Hygiene and Health Law Code (2023–899), currently under review, intends to regulate waste management and promote circular practices and recycling (Republique-de-Cote-D'Ivoire, 2023).
Across all countries, solid waste management and recycling face similar challenges in being effective. Lacking enforcement of regulatory frameworks, budgetary constraints, corruption, insufficient infrastructure, insufficient integration of informal waste pickers, and public participation are among key challenges in many Sub-Saharan countries (Muheirwe et al., 2022; Shi et al., 2021). Additionally, inconsistency and ambiguity in regulations and a lack of clear incentives can discourage recycling such as the payment based on the weight of waste delivered to landfills (Lenhart et al., 2022). The gap between policy and implementation has been identified as a major barrier to innovation system growth in other emerging economies (Intarakumnerd and Chaminade, 2007; Schiller et al., 2020). Regarding the recycling of human excreta, regulations are either ambiguous, absent or highly bureaucratic, as expressed by some interviewees: “Currently, most of the technological options in the ecological sanitation sector face bureaucratic limitations concerning reuse of human excreta.” (SA-8: Scientist). “There needs to be clear policies that say you can use fecal sludge in agriculture production, and these are the guidelines for its use.” (CC-2: Consultant).
Market formation (F5) for organic fertilizers and soil amendments
Across ten countries, Function 5 ‘market formation’ is in phase B, emerging in a fragmented manner. Only South Africa achieves a more institutionalized level and reached phase C, characterized by standardized quality classes, diverse market segments, and formal procurement channels.
Current market size
There is a dearth of systematic, quantitative data on OFSA production volumes or capacities. IFDC (2023) provides statistics on inorganic fertilizer and, to some extent, on organic fertilizer plants, production quantities, and/or capacities. The current gaps in reliable market data reflect weak development of Function 2 ‘knowledge development’ and 7 ‘resource mobilization’. Without reliable market data, policy makers and investors cannot assess the scaling potential or system growth (Hekkert et al., 2007). Qualitative estimates from interviews on the current market size of ex situ OFSA production vary widely across the studied countries, reflecting differences in waste sources and production approaches (Table 6).
Ex situ organic fertilizer and soil amendment (OFSA) production or production capacities by country (t a−1) according to information collected from interviews in contrast to literature and/or web sources (status quo 2023).
Country
Ex situ organic fertilizer production or production capacity*
Estimations from interviews (2023) (t/a−1)
Description (organic waste source)
Literature and web sources (t/a−1)
Description (organic waste source)
Source
1. Cameroon
< 5,000
Households, plant collection
n.a.
-
-
2. Ethiopia
< 250,000
Households
270,000*
Compost produced from municipal solid waste
Mutukaa and Ermias (2021)
3. Ghana
≈ 130,000
Households, markets, human excreta, abbatoirs, agro-processing
12,500*
n.a.
IFDC (2023)
87,000
Household waste
www.acarpghana.com
4. Ivory Coast
≈ 60,000
Households, animal manure, palm oil production residues
Households, hotels, markets, human excreta, abbatoirs, agro-processing
TechnoServe (2023)
6. Malawi
< 5,000
Households
n.a.
-
-
7. Rwanda
< 5,000
Households, agro-processing
n.a.
-
-
8. Senegal
≈ 70,000
Households, agro-processing, animal manure
5,000
n.a.
IFDC (2023)
9. South Africa
> 70,000
Households, green waste from municipalities, markets, human excreta, abbatoirs, agro-processing
**
Household municipal organic waste
DEA (2013), DEFF (2020)
10. Uganda
< 10,000
Households, agro-processing, animal manure, plant collection, human excreta
n.a.
-
-
11. Zimbabwe
≈ 50,000
Households, markets, human excreta, agro-processing
n.a.
-
-
All numbers are rounded; t = metric tons; *Yearly production capacity, own calculation with data from IFDC (2023). Daily production (calculated with 8 h of operation) multiplied by 220 estimated working days per year. ** The reported figures are contradictory.
According to official statistics, South Africa stands out as having one of the most advanced ex situ OFSA production systems in Sub-Saharan Africa, with an organic waste recycling rate of 49%, equivalent to approximately 10 million t a−1 (DEFF, 2020). However, these figures are in conflict with other reported numbers by DEFF (2020). Oelofse and Muswema (2020) note that recycling rates for organic waste in South Africa cannot be accurately determined due to data limitations. Consistent with this uncertainty, interviewees emphasized that reliable national figures are not visible on the ground (SA-1, 4, 6, 8).
Across most countries, except South Africa, supply chains for OFSA remain fragmented and informal. Production and distribution typically rely on artisanal units or small firms producing less than 50 t a−1. Medium-sized enterprises produce up to 3,000 t a−1 and larger production units more than 3,000 t a−1. The latter two are professionalizing with mechanized operations and structured waste acquisition. Larger entrepreneurs sometimes sell in bulk to farmer cooperatives, as reported by one interviewee (GH-6), or through government programs, as in Ghana (GH-7). However, our interviews show that their overall geographic coverage and production volumes remain limited compared to the total agricultural area, especially in rural areas: “To get it to the farmers, to semi-urban farmers is fairly easy, but to get it to the rural areas, transportation becomes the challenge.” (CC-2: Consultant). Current estimated OFSA production amounts range from less than 5,000 t a−1 in Cameroon, Malawi, and Rwanda, to over 100,000 t a−1 in Ghana (Table 6), which has several well-established OFSA entrepreneurs. In Ethiopia, recently installed production capacities achieve approximately 270,000 t a−1 (Mutukaa and Ermias, 2021). Notably, more than 100 million people inhabit Ethiopia and there are significantly higher amounts of organic waste compared to the other 10 countries (Kaza et al., 2018).
Many of the smaller entrepreneurs among the interviewees use relatively clean waste streams from agro-processing units, markets, or hotels, as household waste is usually not source separated. Some larger and mechanized entrepreneurs do use household waste. However, interviewees report that this negatively affects both the cost and the quality of the final products (CC-2, 5; GH-7). A few entrepreneurs we interviewed experiment with or are actively using human waste, such as fecal sludge (CC-1; GH-6; SA-8), though it is currently of minor relevance. Still, some interviewees emphasized its potential: “[…] there’s lots of the fecal sludge. And in the countries where we work, 95% of all the fecal sludge comes from onsite sanitation systems, it’s not in sewage systems. So, we speak about onsite sanitation, about septage tanks and the septage is rather clean. It has microbial risk, but we can eliminate those. And co-composting nitrogen rich fecal sludge with carbon rich municipal organic waste, can produce quite a good product.” (CC-6: Scientist).
The wide variation in ex situ OFSA market size reflects the heterogeneity of TIS maturity across countries. Most remain in niche experimentation, while Ghana indicates signs of institutionalizing with, for example, larger scale entrepreneurs. Only South Africa indicates a development phase C: “growth,” with professionalized, large scale industrial operations and associated industry associations although concise numbers on recycling rates are lacking.
Nonetheless, considering overall volumes of potentially available municipal organic waste and human excreta, as well as nutrient needs in agriculture, the current market size across all eleven countries can be considered niche (cf. Ellssel et al., 2024a; Freyer et al., 2024a).
Market demand
In all countries, interviewees reported increasing inorganic fertilizer prices due to the value chain disruptions caused by COVID-19 and the Russo-Ukrainian war. This is in coherence with literature (cf. Assefa et al., 2025; Vos et al., 2025). Consequently, most interviewees observed a crisis induced demand for fertilizer alternatives: “In Ethiopia there are more and more companies that do composting and that sell compost for good prices. […] But it’s interesting to see that there is a market as such a market was so far not existent.” (ET-6; Scientist) “In South Africa, the [inorganic] fertilizer market was growing rapidly, but fertilizer has become so expensive that most farmers are cutting down on the amount of fertilizer they use, and therefore they’re more open to alternatives.” (SA-4: Scientist). However, interviewees fear a short-lived signal compared to the impact of stable policy frameworks, as one entrepreneur pointed out: “[…] I think this is the window of opportunity we have, […] until the traditional fertilizers will get in the same position as they were before the conflict [Russo-Ukrainian war] and the Covid-19 pandemic.” (CC-3: OFSA entrepreneur). Yet, success stories have been shown in literature to create momentum for change in a specific direction (Hekkert et al., 2007). In our study, we also note that due to inorganic fertilizer shortages, both institutional actors and farmers have become open for alternatives: “If the crisis had not happened […] MOFA [Ministry of Agriculture] would not be talking about encouraging farmers to use chicken manure and things like that.” (GH-1: NGO). “We have seen a lot of farmers moving to organic fertilizers […] due to the shortage in inorganic fertilizer and the increase in price.” (GH-9: OFSA entrepreneur). “The war has made importation of chemical fertilizer into Malawi difficult […] This shortage has driven demand of Bionitrate fertilizer by Malawi farmers.” (MW-2: OFSA entrepreneur).
Market stimulation by policy
The long-standing emphasis on inorganic fertilizer, particularly in subsidy schemes, in extension and education can discourage OFSA use (Cai et al., 2019) and could be addressed through targeted policy reforms. Currently, none of the countries comprehensively combine price incentives, e.g., subsidies, credits, with quality assurance, e.g., fast-track standards, and ancillary support, e.g., tax waivers, PPP logistics, which would be most effective for broad market stimulation (Bergek et al., 2008, 2015). In the case of inorganic fertilizers, subsidies alone have generally not guaranteed increased fertilizer use (Wang et al., 2018), or as one interviewee stated: “The skewed public funds allocated to [inorganic] fertilizer subsidy programs alone has not helped […] a blended approach is needed.” (KE-2: Scientist). Presently, policies are not aligned in most countries. All countries subsidize inorganic fertilizers, while only Senegal und Ghana have introduced fiscal incentives for organic fertilizers (Table 7). However, broad subsidies for all fertilizers may unintentionally reinforce incumbent inorganic fertilizers, as farmers may default to higher nutrient products. Instead, one interviewee proposed subsidies for blends or combo-packages of inorganic and OFSA (CC-5).
Inorganic and organic fertilizer subsidies in eleven African countries (adapted from Freyer et al., 2024a).
Country
Subsidies (2023)
Comment
Source
Inorganic fertilizer (yes/no)
Organic fertilizer (yes/no)
1. Cameroon
yes
n/a
-
AfDB (2022)
2. Ethiopia
yes
no
-
ENA (2023)
3. Ghana
yes
yes
Fixed prices for organic fertilizers from specific companies
GH-3; PPRSD (2022); MoF (2023)
4. Ivory Coast
yes
no
For specific crops only (cotton)
Gouvernement-de-Côte-d'Ivoire (2022)
5. Kenya
yes
no
-
Traore et al. (2024); Waweru (2025)
6. Malawi
yes
no
Through the Agricultural Input Program (AIP)
ActionAid (2025); Benson et al. (2024)
7. Rwanda
yes
n/a
-
IFDC (2023); Spielman et al. (2025)
8. Senegal
yes
yes
OF subsidies since 2022; 10% of fertilizer subsidies for organic fertilizers
SE-3; Ricome et al. (2024)
9. South Africa
yes
no
Provision of production inputs (seeds, fertilizer)
RoSA (2024)
10. Uganda
yes
no
-
UG-2
11. Zimbabwe
yes
n/a
-
World Bank (2020)
Niche markets
The majority of the interviewed entrepreneurs were already active before the 2020–2022 market disruptions. They focused part or whole of their product range on niche markets, such as certified organic production or other high value crops for export (KE-4; SA-6; GH-10; RW-2, 5, 6; ZW-3). Niches often emerge around specific user needs, e.g., certified organic production, where knowledge, networks, institutional linkages, and legitimacy building processes take shape (Bergek et al., 2008; Hekkert et al., 2007). The area under certified organic farming has grown steadily and significantly over the past decade in all 11 countries (Willer et al., 2025), indicating a potential indirect driver of demand for certified OFSA products: “But South Africa’s unique in that we’ve got a very good export and a very good domestic market. There’s a big demand for organically produced food. So, definitely at the moment there’s a huge demand for organic fertilizers, especially ones that are approved for use in certified organic crops.” (SA-5: Policy maker).
Pricing
Price differences can be explained by various factors, but a wide variation creates confusion over the “fair” value, thus undermining transparent price signals that market formation needs for efficient selection (e.g., Hekkert et al., 2007), which in turn, can negatively affect market uptake (Aggarwal et al., 2024). We show that prices for OFSA products display pronounced heterogeneity both across and within countries, whereas inorganic fertilizer prices tend to vary less (Table 8). The variation in inorganic fertilizer prices can generally be explained by geographical location (Bonilla Cedrez et al., 2020). Price differences in OFSA are influenced by various factors, such as the nutrient content and the resulting value proposition. Some of the interviewed entrepreneurs blend their products with materials, i.e., inorganic fertilizers, minerals, nitrogen rich plant materials, or use more labor intensive or otherwise costly production methods. Entrepreneurs who have mechanized operations and secure access to larger quantities of organic waste benefit from economies of scale and thereby reduced unit costs (KE-4; ET-5; CC-1).
Inorganic and organic fertilizer and soil amendment prices in eleven African countries, as reported by interviewees (2023).
We find that regions with well-developed infrastructure such as roads and reliable access to waste streams, as well as collaborations with municipalities through land provision or logistical support, can help reduce operational costs. Logistics and distribution overheads are major cost drivers in operations and can affect pricing: “One of our big learnings is the importance of being as close as possible to the waste streams (<60 km) to reduce transportation costs to a site, especially given the inefficiency of freight on the continent […].” (KE-4: OFSA entrepreneur).
Certified organic growers producing for export are willing to pay premium prices for traceability and third-party quality assurance, while bulk buyers such as smallholder farmer cooperatives are highly price sensitive: “Our product is not easily affordable for farmers […] we recommend at least 2 t ha-1 and farmers struggle to pay.” (RW-5: OFSA entrepreneur). However, other entrepreneurs emphasize the increased yield and higher income for farmers, particularly where soils are affected by degradation: “Farmers see an average of 30% yield increase when applying the compost in addition to mineral fertilizer applications.” (KE-4: OFSA entrepreneur).
Standards and certification
Slow, opaque, or inconsistent certification processes undermine trust and weaken the selection environment that the ‘market formation’ function seeks to strengthen (Hekkert et al., 2007). In turn, the complete absence of any standard is inhibitive for markets to evolve (Bergek et al., 2008). The current wide variation in product performance we observe across studied countries is indicative for the “formation” phase (Bergek et al., 2008). Six of the eleven countries have introduced standards for organic fertilizers, and three have standards for soil amendments (Table 9). The establishment of standards indicates progress toward institutionalization of TIS development, corresponding to phase C. However, several countries such as Malawi, Rwanda, Uganda have only implemented them in recent years. Therefore, an immediate effect on market formation may yet not be visible. But even where standards exist, interviewees partly reported weak enforcement, long processes, and limited quality control, which undermine trust and hinder market formation: “It took us 1 and a half years to get products registered. In this regard policies need to improve.” (KE-3: OFSA entrepreneur). “We send samples to the lab and sometimes get no feedback for six months, so our product sits unsold.” (GH-7: OFSA entrepreneur). “Even certified compost sometimes shows wildly different nutrient levels when retested, how can farmers trust the label?” (ET-1: NGO). Other interviewees pointed to the absence of robust regulatory frameworks: “There is need for a regulatory framework to guide production and packaging with clear labelling and no ambiguity, and standards in place so that farmers will get value for their money, with proven efficacy.” (GH-4: Consultant).
Organic fertilizer and soil amendment (OFSA) standards and responsible institutions in eleven countries (adapted from Freyer et al., 2024a).
Country
Responsible institutions
Standards
Comment
Source
Organic fertilizer (yes/no), (year)
Soil amendments
1. Cameroon
Agence des Normes et de la Qualité—Standards and Quality Agency (ANOR)
No
No
General fertilizer regulation. Products need to be tested on, e.g., nutrient contents if marketed as organic fertilizer.
CM-1; RoC (2003)
2. Ethiopia
Ethiopian Standards Agency (ESA)
Yes (2008, 2018)
Yes (2018)
CES 69–1:2018 for Biochar/soil conditioners; CES 69–2:2018 for Compost/soil conditioner.
ESA (2022)
3. Ghana
Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate (PPRSD)
No
No
Guidelines for OF developed in 2022, precursor for standards.
PPRSD (2022)
4. Ivory Coast
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MINADER) & Plant Protection Directorate (DPCQ)
No
No
General fertilizer standards derived from ECOWAS regional regulations.
PWIC (n.d.)
5. Kenya
Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS)
Yes (2011, 2023)
No
KS 2290:2011; KS 2290:2023—Organic Fertilizer; Standard for organo-mineral fertilizers currently in development.
KEBS (2011, 2023)
6. Malawi
Malawi Bureau of Standards (MBS)
Yes (2024)
No
DMS 2020:2023, liquid organic fertilizer; MS 1084:2023, solid organic fertilizer.
General fertilizer standards derived from ECOWAS regional regulations.
World Bank (2019a)
9. South Africa
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Yes (2017)
Yes (2008, 2021)
Products need to be registered according to Act n. 36 of 1947; National Norms and Standards for Organic Waste Composting (GN 561).
RoSA (2017), RoSA (2021)
10. Uganda
Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS)
Yes (2023)
No
US 1584:2023; US 1584:2024, Organic fertilizer
UNBS (2023)
11. Zimbabwe
Standards Association of Zimbabwe
No
No
Organic fertilizer must be registered before being sold*
World Bank (2019b)
*Compost, manure, and night soil do not require registration if sold under their original name (i.e., not labeled as fertilizers) (GoZ, 2016).
Resource mobilization (F6)
Once again across the same group of ten countries, Function 5 ‘resource mobilization’ for OFSA production remains in phase B. The mobilization of resources is fragmented and largely dependent on short-term grants and donor support, with some exceptions involving direct investment. Once more, South Africa stands out, where sustained multi-institutional funding matured into an “institutionalized” phase C.
Financial capital
In most countries, public budgets for OFSA production, such as for R&D, are negligible. South Africa is an exception, with a multi-institutional funding architecture. The 10-Year Waste Roadmap committed substantial investment for waste valorization R&D (Godfrey et al., 2021), combined with additional funding opportunities and incentives (GreenCape, 2019).
Across countries, subsidies remain focused on inorganic fertilizers, with some exceptions (Section 3.1.5). Internationally sourced and donor-driven grants are a major source of finance for pilots and R&D. However, such support can collapse (e.g., USAID; Offord et al., 2025). Donor and pilot driven projects must transition to sustained government and/or private-sector finance, otherwise, they may remain time bound and fail to scale (e.g., Bergek et al., 2008; Tigabu et al., 2015a, 2015b). Nonetheless, we observe that initial donor engagement can catalyze local entrepreneurship, as for example in Kenya (KE-3; KE-4). Foreign direct investments by parent companies such as in Ghana (GH-6), Senegal (SE-6), Uganda (UG-10), and Kenya (CC-3; KE-4), represent long-term and strategic commitments. Interviewed entrepreneurs across all countries reported difficulty in accessing credit on acceptable terms, a well-documented phenomenon (Williams et al., 2025). Green finance mechanisms currently play a minor role, though carbon credit sales have been reported (KE-2; KE-3; KE-4) and future potential has been highlighted (CC-6; Jawadi et al., 2025).
Human capital
Across countries, we document that donor- and project-driven university partnerships play an important role in knowledge creation and diffusion, e.g., formulation of crop specific formulations (CC-1; KE-4; CD-1; SA-8). Yet, local universities operate on limited domestic R&D budgets. South Africa has the most robust academic capacity, with dedicated curricula (SA-4, 8) and specially funded research chairs in circular bioeconomy (Godfrey et al., 2021). Interviewees across all countries emphasized a lock-in of agricultural education and extension on inorganic fertilization, leaving OFSA training under-resourced. The general availability of labor has been identified as a strength for OFSA production (CC-5).
Complementary assets
South Africa stands out with ISO-accredited laboratories, local manufacturers for recycling equipment, formalized memorandums of understanding with licensed organic waste recyclers (CSIR, 2024), and government supported knowledge brokers (GreenCape, 2019). Rwanda is mentioned in our interviews for its progressive lab protocols (CC-1), and both Rwanda and Kenya have been highlighted by an international company for its business support structures (CC-3). However, the lack of qualitative lab infrastructure, limited access to appropriate equipment, and high import taxes are important resource constraints across countries: “Lack of adequate technological equipment for waste sorting and delivery […] adequate storage facility is another challenge.” (RW-5: OFSA entrepreneur). “There isn’t high quality enough equipment that matches what we need domestically, so we import it. The same for spare parts. And then you pay at least a 30% import tax.” (KE-4: OFSA entrepreneur).
In some cases, interviewees underlined that municipalities provide land, transportation, or other support (KE-4; CC-1; ET-5; SA-8): “The municipality [Arba Minch, Ethiopia] has been very supportive in terms of helping us restructure the solid waste management. They’ve done a really good job of being able to separate waste streams at the household level.” (CC-1: Scientist). Interviewees consistently pointed out public support as a key lever for lowering the price-structure barrier for waste-to-soil ventures.
Creation of legitimacy (F7)
Across ten countries, Function 7 ‘creation of legitimacy’ remains in phase B, with again only South Africa achieving phase C. Most initiatives are highly fragmented initiatives although some countries show early signs of institutionalization. Fragmented efforts correspond to development phase B, whereas coherent coalitions and enforceable standards indicate a shift toward phase C (Bergek et al., 2008; Hekkert et al., 2007).
In South Africa, formal industry associations (FERTASA, ORASA, SABIA) and government funded knowledge brokers (GreenCape, 2019) support the organic waste recycling sector, indicating policy legitimacy. Intermediaries like GreenCape facilitate knowledge flows and strengthen TIS functions (Binz and Truffer, 2017). The existence of formal organic fertilizer standards and enforcement through annual provincial inspections indicate also that South Africa has entered phase C.
In Kenya, OFIMAK, an organic fertilizer industry association established in 2024, supports entrepreneurs and advocates in the policy domain. Recently updated standards indicate increasing legislative legitimacy. Entrepreneurs and OFIMAK foster social acceptance through demo trials, although extension integration is found to be minimal in our study (KE-2; KE-3). Despite increasing OFSA production, overall volumes remain at niche level.
Rwanda has circular economy action plans, is a founding member of pan-African circular economy networks (ACEA), and has set ambitious recycling targets alongside fertilizer standards. Farmers are reportedly familiar with OFSA, indicating social acceptance: “[…] they [farmers] often tell me that they would never plant crops without the application of organic fertilizers [imborera]. “(RW-1: Scientist). Although political legitimacy and social acceptance are increasing, recycling rates and production volumes remain low overall.
We show that Ethiopia, Malawi, and Uganda have established formal standards but lack cohesive industry associations. Advocacy coalitions for ex situ organic waste valorization are weak and consist of uncoordinated efforts of pioneering private firms, NGOs, researchers, and research partnerships. Insufficient or inappropriate lab infrastructure hampers quality control: “Good national laboratories are needed […] certification builds trust.” (ET-5: Scientist); as well as concerns regarding fake products (ET-2; ET-3). In Uganda, high demand indicates social acceptance: “Solid sludge is overbooked [from treatment plants].” (UG-9: Scientist).
In Malawi, urine-based fertilizers faced initial opposition, but uptake increased via demo plots and crisis-driven demand (MA-2). Nevertheless, extension staff and regulatory agents lack familiarity with ex situ OFSA in all countries, which undermines formal legitimacy.
Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Zimbabwe, and Ghana lack formal standards, although Ghana recently introduced organic fertilizer guidelines and a Technical Working Group, indicating growing policy recognition. In contrast, the other four countries have weak policy environments in which organic waste recycling is low priority. We observe that Senegal stands out from this group for pronounced civil society activities in Agroecology advocating waste recycling and first attempts to increase OFSA uptake through subsidies (SE-1, 2, 4, 5).
Across all contexts, political advocacy of ex situ OFSA is increasing (AUC, 2023). However, variable quality, lack of trust in certification, high price heterogeneity and longstanding emphasis on inorganic fertilizers in education and extension services are inhibitive.
Alternative fertilizers are sometimes perceived as a market threat, a view echoed in Zimbabwe’s Fertilizer Value Chain Report (NCC, 2022). Confirmed by interviewees who noted incumbent resistance: “Many of those who import chemical fertiliser are involved in politics and benefit from the trade.” (CM-4; Scientist). Resistance to change is typical in socio-technical transitions (Bergek et al., 2008; Hekkert et al., 2007), and can lead to lock-in situations (Hassink, 2010). Shifts in social practices are therefore needed to enable adoption (Freyer et al., 2024b). In our findings, advocacy coalitions remain fragmented; intersectoral coalitions across agriculture, waste management, and sanitation sectors are needed to legitimize OFSA initiatives as solutions to broader environmental and public-health challenges (CC-1, 2, 5, 6). Policy alignment across sectors is still in its infancy. However, the growing organic farming sector in most countries may enhance legitimacy, influence expectations, and generate positive feedback, especially for the TIS function ‘guidance of the search’ (Bergek et al., 2008).
Cross-functional synthesis across 11 African countries
Our TIS assessment shows uneven maturity across countries. All have moved beyond A: pre-development, most remain in B: formation, none has reached D: maturation (Figure 3). According to literature, the concentration in formation indicates structural and functional barriers that inhibit co-evolution of functions (cf. Bergek et al., 2008; Hekkert et al., 2007).
Qualitative assessment of TIS functional maturity. Summary of the current state of development phases (A: Pre-development to D: Maturation) for each TIS function (F1–F7) within the 11 study countries.
Table showing the stage of development for seven technology innovation system functions across eleven African countries. South Africa is at the growth stage (C, green) in functions F1, F4, F5, F6, and F7, while all other countries are at the formation stage (B, yellow) for all functions. Legend indicates stage categories and defines F1 through F7 functions.
Our findings show that the OFSA Technological Innovation System is embedded in transnational ties (donors, NGOs, universities, firms) that circulate know-how more readily than bulk products. Given OFSAs’ low value-to-weight, long distance shipping is rarely economical, especially for smallholders. The most realistic regionalization is standards harmonization (e.g., ARSO) and selective near-border trade. Diffusion should prioritize shared protocols (quality assurance, standard operating procedures), ring-tested labs, and practitioner forums.
Across countries, we find that the entrepreneurial base is thin but diversifying. Small and medium-sized enterprises, NGOs, and some municipally linked ventures dominate F1, with widespread donor dependence outside South Africa. Private firms often internalize R&D. Public research contributes episodic projects (F2). Demand is often lead by export-oriented and certified organic farms, with limited penetration into staple crops (F5). Intermediaries (standards bodies, regulators, extension) are present but unevenly capacitated, constraining legitimation (F7) and market formation (F5). Overall, actor constellations are consistent with formation-phase dynamics.
Knowledge flows are mediated by fragmented networks, informal ties, short-lived consortia, and transnational partnerships. Where associations or meso-level intermediaries operate, most visibly in South Africa, brokerage and collective problem-solving strengthen diffusion, legitimation, and policy feedback (F3, F4, F7). Elsewhere, peer-learning platforms are sporadic, thus learning-by-doing stay localized and difficult to scale (F2, F3). The absence of stable network infrastructures (regular fora, working groups, buyer–supplier linkages) weakens the handoff from experimentation (F1/F2) to market formation (F5).
We find that cross-sector coordination between waste, sanitation, and agriculture operates in silos, despite clear potential for feedstock and waste-to-resource linkages, which is consistent with literature (Hanjra et al., 2018; Otoo and Drechsel, 2018). In the studied countries, policy and regulatory frameworks are often underspecified or weakly enforced, generating uncertainty that undermines entrepreneurial experimentation (F1), R&D investment (F2/F6), and market formation (F5). However, many countries are now introducing or refining relevant laws and standards. Their effectiveness requires monitoring and evaluation. The long-standing emphasis on mineral fertilizers in training and extension heightens the need for legitimation of OFSA alternatives.
Cross-country synthesis
In this study, South Africa stands out overall, as six of seven functions indicate C: growth. Nonetheless, knowledge development (F2) remains in phase B: formation, due to no coherent national R&D agenda for ex situ OFSA. Policy signals (F4) and knowledge brokers supported R&D (F2) and market formation (F5), while associations (F1/F3) aid legitimation. Organic waste streams remain underutilized, and mainstream agriculture still rely mainly on mineral fertilizers. The niche is robust but not yet regime-shifting.
In Ghana and Kenya, F1 show growth signs, as entrepreneurs engage in a range of technology and go-to-market experiments, yet volumes remain niche, largely serving export oriented and certified organic farms. Recent crisis driven demand increases still need to manifest into broader market growth. Other functions are in formation (Figure 3). R&D is fragmented and often internationally partnered, policy guidance is aspirational but thin on enforcement and quality control, finance is often donor-led, and legitimacy efforts are sporadic. Ghana is notable for OFSA inclusion in input subsidies. Without concurrent strengthening of R&D (F2), guidance (F4), finance (F6), and legitimation (F7), scaling is uncertain as observed by Tigabu et al. (2017) on cookstove entrepreneurs in Rwanda.
The remaining eight countries - Cameroon, Ethiopia, Ivory Coast, Malawi, Rwanda, Senegal, Uganda and Zimbabwe - cluster in formation (B), characterized by scattered pilots, champion entrepreneurs, and NGO-led trials that rarely scale into self-reinforcing ventures, similar to findings for solar PV and bio-digestion innovation systems (Kebede and Mitsufuji, 2017; Tigabu et al., 2015a, 2015b). R&D is project-bound, formal diffusion via networks and extension is limited. Notable outliers include international OFSA firms in Ivory Coast and Senegal, subsidies in Senegal, and standards in Ethiopia, Malawi, and Rwanda. Still, no single functions consistently catalyze others. Policies are ambiguous, markets thin, and resource mobilization short-term.
Present OFSA innovation systems are unlikely to reduce soil degradation at scale. Produced volumes are small, intermittent, and niche-oriented with prices and distribution models that potentially limit smallholder uptake. Yet the technical potential embedded in municipal organic waste, agro-processing residues, and sanitation by-products is substantial (Ellssel et al., 2024a; Freyer et al., 2024a). Effective valorization could close nutrient and organic matter loops and reduce urban externalities (landfill diversion, public health risks). Realizing this requires systemic shifts. This includes (i) codifying practice into quality assurance and efficacy protocols (F2 to F5/F7), (ii) standards and clear registration pathways to build trust (F4/F5), (iii) demand anchors such as public procurement and targeted inclusion in input programs to move beyond niches (F5/F&), and (iv) extension and agronomy packages that tailor products to crop and soil contexts. Without these changes, existing lock-ins such as mineral fertilizer subsidies, weak enforcement, patchy lab capacity, and siloed waste-sanitation-agriculture governance, will continue to stall diffusion and confine OFSA to thin market segments.
Limitations and future research directions
This study provides a snapshot of the current state of OFSA production systems within a defined timeframe and across diverse country contexts. While the exploratory approach enables a broad comparative perspective, it may not capture all country- or context-specific nuances, which would require in depth country-specific studies. In particular, South Africa’s comparatively strong showing could be partially influenced by the greater availability and specificity of government and policy documents. Such sources can overstate program coherence and effectiveness. We, therefore, interpreted South Africa’s documentary signals alongside interview evidence and noted divergences where entrepreneurs reported gaps [e.g., current recycling rates in DEFF (2020)]. Future work should systematically map documentary claims against independent performance indicators to minimize confirmation bias. Nonetheless, the insights gained offer a valuable foundation for understanding the current dynamics and trends in OFSA innovation systems.
Treating OFSA as a single technology field-level TIS inevitably masks heterogeneity among sub-fields (composting, digestate, BSF frass, biochar, organo-mineral blends). Our country-level phase ratings represent the dominant or most visible sub-system and may under- or overstate progress in others. Future work should apply nested or comparative sub-field analyses (multiple, coupled TISs) to capture differences in technology readiness levels, actor networks, and market uptake.
Our triangulation was function-specific rather than uniform, with interviews as the core source across functions, while policy documents mainly informed Function 4 and 5, and scientific literature provided context. Thus, some functions lack corroboration from all three streams. In addition, the interview panel may be skewed toward accessible stakeholders, and responses subject to recall (Coughlin, 1990) and social desirability bias (Grimm, 2010).
Building on our TIS assessment, future research could delve deeper into country-level studies to assess historical pathways (e.g., Tigabu et al., 2015b), path dependencies, and the influence of policy on OFSA system evolution. In-depth analyses of different value chain stages or individual TIS functions, such as ‘resource mobilization’ or ‘legitimization’, could help identify specific barriers and enablers, allowing more targeted interventions. Priority should be given to identifying and testing actionable levers with regard to policy, finances, organization and technologies. Longitudinal research is needed to capture how entrepreneurial experimentation, market formation, and knowledge diffusion evolve over time. Additionally, to strengthen the evidence for policymaking and reduce potential biases, future studies would benefit from applying systematic literature review protocols (Ellssel et al., 2024b).
Further research should examine the effects of recent policy measures, such as the organic fertilizer subsidies in Senegal and Ghana, and assess how such instruments support or constrain TIS maturation. Finally, targeted case studies on raw material availability, distribution systems, power relations, and multi-actor networks would deepen our understanding of how OFSA production systems can be technologically robust and socially inclusive.
Conclusion
This exploratory study provides a snapshot of the current state and trends in ex situ OFSA production across eleven Sub-Saharan countries. This inquiry was of particular interest regarding recent supply chain disruptions for inorganic fertilizers and its potential pull factor on innovation systems in OFSA production. Our analysis shows that, in all cases, no TIS function remains at the “pre-development” phase, each has at least emerged in an ad hoc or fragmented form. However, most functions (entrepreneurial activities, knowledge development and diffusion, guidance of the search, market formation, resource mobilization, and legitimacy) remain at the “formation” stage. In these countries, no single function has matured enough to catalyze others. Entrepreneurial efforts are typically uncoordinated, R&D and knowledge sharing are sporadic, policies and regulations are incomplete, ambiguous or unenforced. Formal markets have yet to develop, and funding is mostly short-term. Nevertheless, isolated signs of institutionalization appear such as emerging OFSA subsidies, increasing OFSA standard implementation and cross-country coordination. South Africa stands out with most functions institutionalizing and reinforcing one another. Entrepreneur associations and fertilizer quality standards support professionalized entrepreneurship. Policy signals (‘guidance of the search’) and dedicated funding actively foster R&D and build legitimacy in South Africa. Across all countries, disruptions in both national and international value chains are acting as pull factors for increased experimentation, raising demand, and enhancing legitimacy. Certified organic farming and export oriented high value crops constitute important niches. Yet, ex situ volumes remain small relative to organic waste volumes and nutrient demand in agricultural production. Looking ahead, strengthening ‘guidance of the search’ and ‘resource mobilization’ could drive system development by enhancing resource recovery and recycling of organic waste and closing the loop to agriculture.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
Ethical approval was not required for the studies involving humans because no personal data was collected for research purposes. The authors affirm that the study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
We sincerely thank the interviewees for their time and expertise. We are also grateful to the colleagues who helped establish contacts across countries and contexts. Furthermore, we thank Michael Hauser for his time and comments on the Manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. BOKUchat (based on OpenAI GPT-4, accessed via BOKU University in 2025) was employed to improve grammar, punctuation, clarity, conciseness, and overall readability of the text. All content and interpretations remain the responsibility of the authors.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Author disclaimer
The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of the European Union.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2026.1656284/full#supplementary-material
ReferencesAbdeljaouedE.BruléM.TayibiS.ManolakosD.OukarroumA.MonlauF.. (2020). Bibliometric analysis of the evolution of biochar research trends and scientific production. Clean Techn. Environ. Policy22, 1967–1997. doi: 10.1007/s10098-020-01969-xACEA (2021). Five big bets for the circular economy in Africa African circular economy Alliance - insight report 2021. Available online at: https://www.aceaafrica.org/_files/ugd/056cf4_9ef0689c02154ce68ba801c1c2731be1.pdf (Accessed September 14, 2024).ActionAid (2025). Policy brief: a 2023-2024 financial year agriculture sector budget analysis. Available online at: https://malawi.actionaid.org/sites/malawi/files/publications/Policy%20Brief-A%202023-24%20Agriculture%20sector%20budget%20analysis.pdf (Accessed June 10, 2025).AdamsW. C. (2015). “Conducting semi-structured interviews” in Handbook of practical program evaluation. eds. NewcomerH. P. H.KathrynE.WholeyJ. S. (Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley), 492–505.AdewunmiY. (2024). “Waste entrepreneurship in South Africa: a review of the existing situation” In: Singh, P., and Borthakur, A. (eds). Trash or treasure: Entrepreneurial opportunities in waste management, 125–142. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-55131-4_5AfDB (2022). Cameroon: African development fund approves €63 million loan to boost food security. African Development Bank Group (AfDB). Available online at: https://www.afdb.org/en/news-and-events/press-releases/cameroon-african-development-fund-approves-eu63-million-loan-boost-food-security-53518 (Accessed September 14, 2022).AfDB (n.d.). Africa circular economy facility (ACEF). African development Bank (AfDB). Available online at: https://www.afdb.org/en/topics-and-sectors/topics/circular-economy/africa-circular-economy-facility-acef (Accessed June 10, 2025).AggarwalS.GieraB.JeongD.RobinsonJ.SpearotA. (2024). Market access, trade costs, and technology adoption: evidence from northern Tanzania. Rev. Econ. Stat.106, 1511–1528. doi: 10.1162/rest_a_01263AlbrechtE.NkemA. M. A.ErnestE. (2022). The legal aspect of waste management in Cameroon with focus on the Buea municipality. J. Geosci. Environ. Prot.10, 9–23. doi: 10.4236/gep.2022.108002AliahmadA.HarderR.SimhaP.VinneråsB.McConvilleJ. (2022). Knowledge evolution within human urine recycling technological innovation system (TIS): focus on technologies for recovering plant-essential nutrients. J. Clean. Prod.379:134786. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134786AmugsiD. A.MuindiK.MberuB. U. (2022). Implementation of solid waste management policies in Kenya: challenges and opportunities. Cities Health6, 528–535. doi: 10.1080/23748834.2022.2071566AssefaT. W.BerhaneG.AbateG. T.AbayK. A. (2025). Fertilizer demand and profitability amid global fuel-food-fertilizer crisis: evidence from Ethiopia. Food Policy133:102785. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102785AUC (2023). African fertilizer and soil health action plan (2023–2033). Available online at: https://au.int/sites/default/files/newsevents/workingdocuments/43470-wd-2._EN_Africa_Fertilizer_and_Soil_Health_Action_Plan_VI_170523.pdf (Accessed June 12, 2024).BanamwanaC.MusokeD.NtakirutimanaT.BuregyeyaE.SsempebwaJ.MainaG. W.. (2022). Complexity of adoption and diffusion of ecological sanitation technology: a review of literature. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev.12, 755–769. doi: 10.2166/washdev.2022.041BeesigamukamaD.SubramanianS.TangaC. M. (2022). Nutrient quality and maturity status of frass fertilizer from nine edible insects. Sci. Rep.12:7182. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-11336-z, 35505193BensonT.De WeerdtJ.DuchoslavJ.MasanjalaW. (2024). Fertilizer subsidies in Malawi: from past to present. Working paper 44: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).BergekA.HekkertM.JacobssonS.MarkardJ.SandénB.TrufferB. (2015). Technological innovation systems in contexts: conceptualizing contextual structures and interaction dynamics. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans.16, 51–64. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2015.07.003BergekA.JacobssonS.CarlssonB.LindmarkS.RickneA. (2008). Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: a scheme of analysis. Res. Policy37, 407–429. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.003BinzC.TrufferB. (2012). Technological innovation systems in multi-scalar space. Geogr. Helv.66, 254–260. doi: 10.5194/gh-66-254-2011BinzC.TrufferB. (2017). Global innovation systems—a conceptual framework for innovation dynamics in transnational contexts. Res. Policy46, 1284–1298. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.05.012BjornlundV.BjornlundH.Van RooyenA. F. (2020). Why agricultural production in sub-Saharan Africa remains low compared to the rest of the world–a historical perspective. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev.36, S20–S53. doi: 10.1080/07900627.2020.1739512Bonilla CedrezC.ChamberlinJ.GuoZ.HijmansR. J. (2020). Spatial variation in fertilizer prices in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS One15:e0227764. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227764, 31935246BouhiaY.HafidiM.OuhdouchY.BoukhariM. E. M. E.MphatsoC.ZeroualY.. (2022). Conversion of waste into organo-mineral fertilizers: current technological trends and prospects. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol.21, 425–446. doi: 10.1007/s11157-022-09619-yBrooksK. B.SimonD.-C. (2021). Environmental Policies, Laws, and Regulations.In Sustainability. World scientific. 5, 411–437. doi: 10.1142/9789811240928_0015CaiT.SteinfieldC.ChiwasaH.GanungaT. (2019). Understanding Malawian farmers' slow adoption of composting: stories about composting using a participatory video approach. Land Degrad. Dev.30, 1336–1344. doi: 10.1002/ldr.3318CaoQ.SongJ.LiuC.YangW.YabarH.ZhengH.. (2025). Expediting co-benefits of tailored municipal solid waste management strategies globally. Nat. Sustain.8, 1164–1176. doi: 10.1038/s41893-025-01613-wCarlssonB.StankiewiczR. (1991). On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. J. Evol. Econ.1, 93–118. doi: 10.1007/BF01224915Castro-HerreraD.ProstK.SchäferY.KimD. G.YimerF.TadesseM.. (2022). Nutrient dynamics during composting of human excreta, cattle manure, and organic waste affected by biochar. J. Environ. Qual51, 19–32. doi: 10.1002/jeq2.20312ChikukulaA. A.OmokaroG. O.GodswillO. O.CassimS. Y.MabangweH. S.KaisiI. (2024). Problems and possible solutions to municipal solid waste management in Malawi urban areas–an overview. Asian J. Environ. Ecol.23, 42–52. doi: 10.9734/AJEE/2024/v23i6553ChildersD. L.CormanJ.EdwardsM.ElserJ. J. (2011). Sustainability challenges of phosphorus and food: solutions from closing the human phosphorus cycle. Bioscience61, 117–124. doi: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.2.6Christopher GoK.BrummerM. (2024). Power, governance, and global value chains: case studies on NGO Agri-food innovation intermediaries in the Philippines. Asian J. Technol. Innov.32, 324–345. doi: 10.1080/19761597.2023.2225777CofieO. O.DrechselP.AgbottahS.van VeenhuizenR. (2009). Resource recovery from urban waste: options and challenges for community-based composting in sub-Saharan Africa. Desalination248, 256–261. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2008.05.063CofieO.NikiemaJ.ImpraimR.AdamteyN.PaulJ.KonéD. (2016). Co-composting of solid waste and fecal sludge for nutrient and organic matter recovery. Colombo: International Water Management Institute (IWMI).CoughlinS. S. (1990). Recall bias in epidemiologic studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol.43, 87–91. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90060-3, 2319285CSIR (2024). Science, technology and innovation for a circular economy 2023/2024 - annual progress report. Waste Research Development and Innovation Roadmap South Africa. Available online at: https://wasteroadmap.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/waste_rdi_roadmap_ar_2023_4.pdf (Accessed June 10, 2025).DansoG.DrechselP. (2014). “Nutrient recycling from organic wastes through viable business models in Peri-urban areas in sub-Saharan Africa” in The security of water, food, energy and Liveability of cities. eds. MaheshwariB.PurohitR.MalanoH.SinghV.AmerasingheP. (Dordrecht: Springer).DdibaD.AnderssonK.RosemarinA.Schulte-HerbrüggenH.DickinS. (2022). The circular economy potential of urban organic waste streams in low-and middle-income countries. Environ. Dev. Sustain.24, 1116–1144. doi: 10.1007/s10668-021-01487-wDe BoniA.MelucciF. M.AccianiC.RomaR. (2022). Community composting: a multidisciplinary evaluation of an inclusive, participative, and eco-friendly approach to biowaste management. Clean. Environ. Syst.6:100092. doi: 10.1016/j.cesys.2022.100092De VilliersN.Van AsH.BothaJ. (2020). The enforceability of the by-laws of district municipalities on local municipalities: the case of solid waste disposal. Stellenbosch Law Rev.31, 315–343.DEA (2013). THE National Organic Waste Composting Strategy. Final strategy Report. Department: Enviromental Affairs, Republic of South Africa. Available online at: http://sawic.environment.gov.za/documents/3635.PDF (Accessed June 12, 2024).DEFF (2020). National Waste Management Strategy 2020. Department Enviroment, Forestry and Fisheries. Available online at: https://www.dffe.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/2020nationalwaste_managementstrategy1.pdf (Accessed June 12, 2024).DesmondP.AsambaM. (2019). “Accelerating the transition to a circular economy in Africa: case studies from Kenya and South Africa” in The circular economy and the global south. (London: Routledge), 152–172.DioufB.MiezanE. (2019). The biogas initiative in developing countries, from technical potential to failure: the case study of Senegal. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.101, 248–254. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.11.011DrechselP.GraefeS.FinkM. (2007). Rural-urban food, nutrient and virtual water flows in selected west African cities. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 35p (IWMI Research Report 115).DyckB.SilvestreB. S. (2019). A novel NGO approach to facilitate the adoption of sustainable innovations in low-income countries: lessons from small-scale farms in Nicaragua. Organ. Stud.40, 443–461. doi: 10.1177/0170840617747921EAD (2019). National Waste Management Strategy. Environmental Affairs Department (EAD), Government of Malawi (2019). Available online at: https://de.scribd.com/docu-ment/671182348/National-Waste-Management-Strategy-2019-2023 (Accessed July 23, 2024).EdsandH.-E. (2019). Technological innovation system and the wider context: a framework for developing countries. Technol. Soc.58:101150. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.12.005EllsselP.KüstnerG.Kaczorowska-DolowyM.VázquezE.Di BeneC.LiH.. (2024b). Building a solid foundation: advancing evidence synthesis in Agri-food systems science. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.8:1410205. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1410205EllsselP.SaussureS.NyakandaF.FreyerB. (2024a). Alternative organic resources for soil health in Africa. Rural 2158:49 (Accessed May 23, 2024).ENA (2023). Government provides 21 billion birr subsidy for fertilizer. Available online at. Retrieved from https://www.ena.et/web/eng/w/eng_2586864 (Accessed March 14, 2023).ESA (2022). Ethiopian standards catalogue 2022. Available online at: https://ethiostandards.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/Ethiopian%20Standards%20CES%20Catalogue%202022%20%281%29.pdf (Accessed June 10, 2025).FAO (2019). Availability and utilization of agroindustrial by-products as animal feed. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Available at: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/a28cd6c4-d795-43ac-9103-f805e667a179/content (Accessed March 14, 2023).FDRE (2017). National Integrated Urban Sanitation and Hygiene Strategy. Available online at: https://www.cmpethiopia.org/content/download/3562/14562/file/Integrated%20USH%20Strategy%202017.pdf (Accessed June 10, 2025).FelekeS.ColeS. M.SekabiraH.DjouakaR.ManyongV. (2021). Circular bioeconomy research for development in sub-Saharan Africa: innovations, gaps, and actions. Sustainability13:1926. doi: 10.3390/su13041926FerronatoN.TorrettaV. (2019). Waste mismanagement in developing countries: a review of global issues. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health16:1060. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16061060, 30909625FreyerB.AmareZ. Y.BielingC.BingenJ.CifuentesM. L.EllsselP.. (2024b). “Food systems in Europe and sub-Saharan Africa: critical reflections on the interface between food systems and ecosystem services using social practice theory” in Agrifood transitions in the Anthropocene. (London: Sage), 227.FreyerB.EllsselP.FriedelJ. K.MöllerK. (2023). “The contribution of organic farming systems to soil fertility—a systems perspective” in Eds.: Michael J. Goss and Margaret Oliver. Encyclopedia of soils in the environment. 2nd ed (Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier). doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-822974-3.00240-8FreyerB.EllsselP.NyakandaF.SaussureS. (2024a). Exploring the off-farm production, marketing and use of organic and biofertilisers in Africa: A scoping study. Wageningen, Netherlands: DeSIRA-LIFT. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14042.56004FriedrichE.TroisC. (2011). Quantification of greenhouse gas emissions from waste management processes for municipalities–a comparative review focusing on Africa. Waste Manag.31, 1585–1596. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.02.028, 21450453FurtadoA. T.PerrotR. (2015). Innovation dynamics of the wind energy industry in South Africa and Brazil: technological and institutional lock-ins. Innov. Dev.5, 263–278. doi: 10.1080/2157930X.2015.1057978GalganiP.van der VoetE.KorevaarG. (2014). Composting, anaerobic digestion and biochar production in Ghana. Environmental–economic assessment in the context of voluntary carbon markets. Waste Manag.34, 2454–2465. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.07.027, 25204615GeelsF. W. (2019). Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: a review of criticisms and elaborations of the multi-level perspective. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.39, 187–201. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009GirmaY. (2022). Credit access and agricultural technology adoption nexus in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Agric. Food Res.10:100362. doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100362GodfreyL.OelofseS. (2017). Historical review of waste management and recycling in South Africa. Resources6:57. doi: 10.3390/resources6040057GodfreyL.RomanH.SmoutS.MaserumuleR.MpofuA.RyanG.. (2021). “Unlocking the opportunities of a circular economy in South Africa” in ed. Sannidhya Kumar Ghosh. Circular economy: Recent trends in global perspective. (Springer Singapore: Springer), 145–180.GodfreyL.SitholeB.Jacob JohnM.MturiG.MuniyasamyS. (2022). “Transitioning to a circular economy in South Africa: the role of innovation in driving greater waste valorization” in eds. Jingzheng Ren and Long Zhang. Circular economy and waste valorisation: Theory and practice from an international perspective (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 153–176.GoG (2010a). Environmental sanitation policy (ESP). Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development; Government of Ghana (GoG). Available online at: https://www.ircwash.org/sites/default/files/MLGRD-2010-Environmental.pdf (Accessed May 23, 2024).GoG (2010b). National Environmental Sanitation Strategy and action plan (NESSAP). Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, Government of Ghana (GoG). Accra: GoG. Available online at: https://www.ircwash.org/sites/default/files/MLGRD-2010-National.pdf.(Accessed March 14, 2023).GoG (2016). Local Governance Act, 2016 (Act 936). Accra: Ghana Publishing Company. Available online at: https://www.ircwash.org/sites/default/files/MLGRD-2010-National.pdf (Accessed September 13, 2024).GoM (2014) Environment Management Act. Commenced on 21 October 1996. Available online at: https://malawilii.org/akn/mw/act/1996/23/eng@2014-12-31 (Accessed May 23, 2024).GoM (2018). National Waste Management Act.- Strategy 2019-2023. Available online at: https://cepa.org.mw/Library/government-publications/national-waste-management-strategy (Accessed May 23, 2024).GoR (2018). Law no. 48/2018 of 13/08/2018 on Environment. Available online at: rwandalii.org/akn/rw/act/law/2018/48/eng@2018-09-21 (Accessed May 23, 2024).GoU (2019). The National Environment Act, 2019 (act no. 5 of 2019). Available online at: https://ulii.org/akn/ug/act/2019/5/eng@2019-03-07 (Accessed May 23, 2024).Gouvernement-de-Côte-d'Ivoire (2022) Le conseil des ministres adopte des décrets portant creation, attributions, organisation et fonctionnement de l'Agence Nationale de Promotion Rurale (ANADER) et du Laboratoire Central d'Analyses des Sols, Plantes, Eaux et Engrais (LACAPE) Available online at: https://www.gouv.ci/_actualite-article.php?recordID=13789 (Accessed May 23, 2024).GoZ (2007). Environmental Management (Effluents and Solid Waste Disposal) r 1265 Regulations, 2007 (Statutory Instrument 6 of 2007). Available online at: https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC181819/ (Accessed May 23, 2024).GoZ (2016) Zimbabwe Fertilizers, Farm Feeds and Remedies Act, Chapter 18:12. Legislation as at 31 December 2016 Available online at: https://zimlii.org/akn/zw/act/1952/21/eng@2016-12-31/source.pdf (Accessed 23, 2024).GreenCape (2019) Waste - 2019 market Intelligence report GreenCape. Available online at: https://greencape.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/WASTE-MARKET-INTELLIGENCE-REPORT-WEB-3.pdf (Accessed May 23, 2024).GreeneN.HennessyS.RogersT. W.TsaiJ. (2021). The role of emptying services in provision of safely managed sanitation: a classification and quantification of the needs of LMICs. J. Environ. Manag.290:112612. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112612, 33906118GrimmP. (2010). “Social desirability bias” in Eds. Jagdish Sheth and Naresh K Malhot. Hoboken, New Yersey: Wiley international encyclopedia of marketing.wiem02057. doi: 10.1002/9781444316568HanjraM. A.LydeckerM.DrechselP.PaulJ. (2018). “Rural-urban food and nutrient dynamics and nutrient recovery from waste in developing countries” in: Eds. Zeunert, J., and Waterman, T. Routledge handbook of landscape and food. (London: Routledge), 344–365. doi: 10.4324/9781315647692HarfadliM. M. a.RamadanB. S.RachmanI.MatsumotoT. (2024). Challenges and characteristics of the informal waste sector in developing countries: an overview. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.26, 1294–1309. doi: 10.1007/s10163-023-01738-1HassinkR. (2010). “Locked in decline? On the role of regional lock-ins in old industrial areas” in Eds. Ron Boschma and Ron Martin. The handbook of evolutionary economic geography, Cheltenham, UK; Edward Elgar Publishing. 450:31. doi: 10.4337/9781849806497HauserM.LindtnerM. (2017). Organic agriculture in post-war Uganda: emergence of pioneer-led niches between 1986 and 1993. Renew. Agric. Food Syst.32, 169–178. doi: 10.1017/S1742170516000023HekkertM. P.SuursR. A.NegroS. O.KuhlmannS.SmitsR. E. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change74, 413–432. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002HoornwegD.Bhada-TataP. (2012). What a waste: A global review of solid waste management. Urban development series knowledge papers no. 15. Washington, DC: World Bank.IFDC (2023). Promotion of fertilizer production, cross-border trade and consumption in Africa: IFDC. Available online at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15lNWk8nVQAxv6QIRuuu9hKRwzsbQ7IxG/view?pli=1 (Accessed May 23, 2024).IFDC (2023) Register of fertilizer manufacturing & processing facilities in Sub-Saharan Africa. (7th ed.). International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC). Available online at: https://hub.ifdc.org/items/d36187e8-9d36-4492-914b-d528ccba565e (Accessed May 23, 2024).IntarakumnerdP.ChaminadeC. (2007). Strategy versus practice in innovation systems policy: the case of Thailand. Asian J. Technol. Innov.15, 197–213. doi: 10.1080/19761597.2007.9668643IsibikaA.SimhaP.VinneråsB.ZurbrüggC.KibazohiO.LalanderC. (2023). Food industry waste-an opportunity for black soldier fly larvae protein production in Tanzania. Sci. Total Environ.858:159985. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159985, 36368404JawadiF.PondieT. M.CheffouA. I. (2025). New challenges for green finance and sustainable industrialization in developing countries: a panel data analysis. Energy Econ.142:108120. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2024.108120JonesA.Breuning-MadsenH.BrossardM.DamphaA.DeckersJ.DewitteO.. (2013). Soil atlas of Africa. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. doi: 10.2788/52319JumbaI.KorirN.CommuL.LangatA. (2024). The business case and strategies to scaling local manufactoring of organic fertilizer. Bonn, Germany: Deutsche Gesellschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. Available online at: https://www.giz.de/de/downloads/giz2024-en-study-on-strategies-to-scale-local-manufacturing-of--report-final.pdf (Accessed January 22, 2025).KalinaM.OgwangJ. Ò.TilleyE. (2022). From potential to practice: rethinking Africa’s biogas revolution. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun.9, 1–5. doi: 10.1057/s41599-022-01396-xKamangaT. W.ChiteteM. M.KamangaB. C.DamazioC.YafetiY.SibandeM. (2024). Towards sustainable solid waste management systems: empirical evidence from northern Malawi. Environ. Health Insights18:11786302241255800. doi: 10.1177/11786302241255800, 38828045KazaS.YaoL.Bhada-TataP.Van WoerdenF. (2018). What a waste 2.0: A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.KebedeK. Y.MitsufujiT. (2017). Technological innovation system building for diffusion of renewable energy technology: a case of solar PV systems in Ethiopia. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change114, 242–253. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.018KEBS (2011). Bio fertilizer — specification KS 2356: 2011. Available online at: http://www.inmetro.gov.br/barreirastecnicas/pontofocal/%5Cpontofocal%5Ctextos%5Cregulamentos%5CKEN_306.pdf (Accessed July 23, 2024).KEBS (2023). Organic fertilizer-specification KS 2290: 2023. Draft Kenya Standard Third Edition. Available online at: https://members.wto.org/crnattachments/2023/TBT/KEN/23_9305_00_e.pdf (Accessed July 23, 2024).KoY.-C.ZiganK.LiuY.-L. (2021). Carbon capture and storage in South Africa: a technological innovation system with a political economy focus. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change166:120633. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120633LazurkoA.DrechselP.HanjraM. A. (2018). Financing resource recovery and reuse in developing and emerging economies: Enabling environment, financing sources and cost recovery. Colombo: International Water Management Institute (IWMI).LeitzingerC. (2001). “The potential of co-composting in Kumasi-quantification of the urban and peri-urban nutrient balance” in eds. P. Drechsel, and D. Kunze. Waste composting for urban and peri-urban agriculture: closing the rural-urban nutrient cycle in sub-Saharan Africa (CABI Publishing Wallingford UK), 150–162. doi: 10.1079/9780851995489.0150LenhartM.PohlM.NellesM.SprafkeJ.ZimmermannC.NassourA.. (2022). Status-quo of organic waste collection, transport and treatment in East Africa and Ethiopia. Leipzig: Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum gemeinnützige GmbH. doi: 10.48480/5qsb-t569LoorbachD.FrantzeskakiN.AvelinoF. (2017). Sustainability transitions research: transforming science and practice for societal change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.42, 599–626. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340RoS (2023). Loi n° 2023-15 du 02 août 2023 portant Code de l’Environnement du Sénégal,” Centre de ressources documentaires sur l’Irrigation au Sahel. Available online at: https://bibliotheque.pariis.net/items/show/297 (Accessed September 4, 2024).MangaM.Camargo-ValeroM.AnthonjC.EvansB. (2021). Fate of faecal pathogen indicators during faecal sludge composting with different bulking agents in tropical climate. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health232:113670. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113670, 33310349ManipuraA.DrechselP.JayawardhanaH.ShanmugapriyaR.MannapperumaN.JayatillekeH. (2025). Improved performance indicators and institutional setup for more viable compost production from municipal solid waste in Sri Lanka. Waste Manag. Bull.3:100217. doi: 10.1016/j.wmb.2025.100217MarkardJ.TrufferB. (2008). Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: towards an integrated framework. Res. Policy37, 596–615. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.004MBS (2024). MBS standards work PROGRAMME, Available online at: https://mbsmw.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024-STANDARDS-WORK-PROGRAMME-ISSUE-35-2.pdf (Accessed January 14, 2025).MeinzingerF.KrögerK.OtterpohlR. (2009). Material flow analysis as a tool for sustainable sanitation planning in developing countries: case study of Arba Minch, Ethiopia. Water Sci. Technol.59, 1911–1920. doi: 10.2166/wst.2009.189, 19474484MoAAR (2018). Strategic plan for agriculture transformation 2018-24. Kigali: Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources. Available online at: https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/rwa180543.pdf (Accessed September 13, 2024).MoE (2022). Rwanda circular economy action plan and roadmap. Available online at: https://www.environment.gov.rw/news-detail/rwanda-launches-national-circular-economy-action-plan-and-roadmap (Accessed July 23, 2024).MoF (2023). 2023 Programme based budget estimates: Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Government of Ghana, Ministry of Finance (MoF). Available online at: https://mofep.gov.gh/sites/default/files/pbb-estimates/2023/2023-PBB-MOFA.pdf (Accessed July 23, 2024).MoI (2016). National Sanitation Policy. Kigali: Ministry of Infrastructure. Available online at: https://www.rura.rw/fileadmin/Documents/Water/Laws/NATIONAL_SANITATION_POLICY__DECEM1379 BER_2016.pdf (Accessed September 13, 2024)MoI (2022). National integrated solid waste management strategy. Kigali: Ministry of Infrastructure. Available online at: https://www.mininfra.gov.rw/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=65802&token=1d8fce1eafd916460f5818305e6fadfa83ab9e89 (Accessed January 22, 2025)MoS (2020). Urban resilience and solid waste management project(P168308). Environmental safeguards instruments summary. Available online at: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/452971583250051747/pdf/Cote-dIvoire-Urban-Resilience-and-Solid-Waste-Management-Project-Environmental-Safeguards-Instruments-Summary.pdf . (Accessed January 22, 2025).MSWR (2020). National solid waste management strategy for Ghana Ministry of Sanitation and Water Resources (MSWR), government of Ghana. Available online at: https://ghanawasteplatform.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/National-Solid-Waste-Management-2020.pdf (Accessed January 22, 2025).MugodoK.MagamaP.DhavuK. (2017). Biogas production potential from agricultural and agro-processing waste in South Africa. Waste Biomass Valorizat.3, e318–e329. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(19)30095-6, 31326072MuheirweF.KombeW.KihilaJ. M. (2022). The paradox of solid waste management: a regulatory discourse from sub-Saharan Africa. Habitat Int.119:102491. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102491MulindwaM. S.AkorJ.AutaM.Nijman-RossE.OgutuM. O. (2024). Assessing the circularity status of waste management among manufacturing, waste management, and recycling companies in Kigali, Rwanda. Front. Sustain.4:1215554. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2023.1215554MuscatA.de OldeE. M.Ripoll-BoschR.Van ZantenH. H.MetzeT. A.TermeerC. J.. (2021). Principles, drivers and opportunities of a circular bioeconomy. Nat. Food2, 561–566. doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00340-7, 37118163MusiolikJ.MarkardJ.HekkertM. (2012). Networks and network resources in technological innovation systems: Towards a conceptual framework for system building. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 79, 1032–1048. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.01.003MutukaaS.ErmiasA. (2021) Ethiopian NAMA: creating opportunities for municipalities to produce and operationalize solid waste UNDP Ethiopia country office - project terminal evaluation 137. Available online at: https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/12946MutungwaziA.MukumbaP.MakakaG. (2018). Biogas digester types installed in South Africa: a review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.81, 172–180. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.07.051MwafulirwaS. (2023). Evaluation of Mbeya based organic fertiliser on maize yield and yield components in Malawi. Res J Recent Sci13:2502.NahmanA.OelofseS.StrydomW.MuswemaA.MatiniseS.StaffordW. (2018). Decision support tool for implementing municipal waste separation at source: incorporating socio-economic and environmental impacts. Waste research development and innovation roadmap research report. Available online at: https://wasteroadmap.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/2_CSIR_Final_Technical_report.pdf (Accessed January 22, 2025).National Waste Management StrategyEnvironmental affairs department (EAD), government of Malawi (2019) Available online at: https://de.scribd.com/document/671182348/National-Waste-Management-Strategy-2019-2023 (Accessed January 22, 2025).NCC (2022). Fertilizer value chain competitiveness report. Zimbabwe: National Competitiveness Commission (NCC). Available online at: https://www.ncc-zim.co.zw/wp-1420 content/uploads/2022/11/Fertilizer-Value-Chain-Report-22-Nov-2022.pdf (Accessed September 13, 2024).NegroS. O.HekkertM. P.SmitsR. E. (2007). Explaining the failure of the Dutch innovation system for biomass digestion—a functional analysis. Energy Policy35, 925–938. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.00072NEMA (2015). The National Solid Waste Management Strategy. Available online at: https://ad.nema.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/National-Solid-Waste-Management-Strategy-.pdf (Accessed July 23, 2024).NEMA (2020). The National Environment (Waste Management) Regulations 2020. Kampala, Uganda: National Environemet Managemnt Authority. Available online at: https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/fr/c/LEX-FAOC203454/ (Accessed September 13, 2024).NhubuT.MuzendaE.BelaidM. (2021). Framework for decentralising municipal solid waste management in Harare, Zimbabwe. Adv. Sci. Technol. Eng. Syst. J.6, 1029–1037. doi: 10.25046/aj0602115NkonyaE.JohnsonT.KwonH. Y.KatoE. (2016). “Economics of land degradation in sub-Saharan Africa” in eds. Ephraim Nkonya, Alisher Mirzabaev, Joachim von Braun. Economics of land degradation and improvement–a global assessment for sustainable development (Cham: Springer), 215–259.NoyC. (2008). Sampling knowledge: the hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol.11, 327–344. doi: 10.1080/13645570701401305OelofseS.MuswemaA. (2020). “Overview of potential sources and volumes of waste biomass in South Africa” in eds. Linda Godfrey, Johann F. Görgens, Henry Roman. Opportunities for biomass and organic waste valorisation (London: Routledge), 1–14.OffordC.CohenJ.EnserinkM. (2025). US aid freeze deals' tectonic'blow to research. Science387, 704–705. doi: 10.1126/science.adw6800, 39946470OtooM.DrechselP. (2018). Resource recovery from waste: Business models for energy, nutrient and water reuse in low-and middle-income countries. London: Routledge.OttaniF.PedrazziS.MorselliN.PugliaM.AllesinaG. (2024). Seeking the synergistic potential of biochar integration in municipal composting plants for techno-economic and environmental leverage. Sustain Energy Technol Assess64:103717. doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2024.103717PalinkasL. A.HorwitzS. M.GreenC. A.WisdomJ. P.DuanN.HoagwoodK. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm. Policy Ment. Health Ment. Health Serv. Res.42, 533–544. doi: 10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y, 24193818PandyaswargoA. H.PremakumaraD. G. J. (2014). Financial sustainability of modern composting: the economically optimal scale for municipal waste composting plant in developing Asia. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric.3, 1–14. doi: 10.1007/s40093-014-0052-5Perez-MercadoL. F.Perez-MercadoC. A.VinneråsB.SimhaP. (2022). Nutrient stocks, flows and balances for the Bolivian Agri-food system: can recycling human excreta close the nutrient circularity gap?Front. Environ. Sci.10:956325. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.956325PPRSD (2022). Organic fertilizer guidelines for Ghana. Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate (PPRSD). Acccra.PWIC (n.d.). Fertilizers. Available online at: https://pwic.gouv.ci/en/procedures-importations-2/fertilizers/ (Accessed June 6, 2025)QiS.DegenA.WangW.HuangM.LiD.LuoB.. (2024). Systemic review for the use of biochar to mitigate soil degradation. GCB Bioenergy16:e13147. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.13147RajooK. S.KaramD. S.IsmailA.ArifinA. (2020). Evaluating the leachate contamination impact of landfills and open dumpsites from developing countries using the proposed leachate pollution index for developing countries (LPIDC). Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag.14:100372. doi: 10.1016/j.enmm.2020.100372RaniroH. R.Serrano-GomezJ.MortH. L.KalpakchievT.KooijJ.ZhaoY.. (2025). Overcoming recycling barriers to transform global phosphorus management. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ.2025, 1–18. doi: 10.1038/s43017-025-00717-3Republique-de-Cote-D'Ivoire (2023). LOI No. 2023-899 du 23 Novembre 2023. Portant Code de L'Hygiene et da la Salubrite. Ministère de l'Economie, du Plan et du Développement, Republique-de-Cote-D'Ivoire. Available online at: https://salubrite.gouv.ci/document/loi-n2023-899-du-23-novembre-2023-portant-code-de-lhygiene-et-de-la-salubrite/Ricci-JürgensenM.GilbertJ.RamolaA. (2020). Overview of potential sources and volumes of waste biomass in South Africa. International solid waste association (ISWA). Available online at: https://www.altereko.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Report-1-Global-Assessment-of-Municipal-Organic-Waste.pdfRicomeA.Barreiro-HurleJ.FallC. S. (2024). Government fertilizer subsidies, input use, and income: the case of Senegal. Food Policy124:102623. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102623RoC (2003). Law no. 2003/007 of 10 July 2003 governing activities in the fertilizer sub-sector. President of the Republic of Cameroon. Available online at: https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/cmr141881.pdfRoS (2022a). Loi n° 2022-18 du 23 mai 2022 portant création de la Société Nationale de Gestion Intégrée des Déchets (Sonaged S.A.). Official Gazette of the Republic of Senegal (RoS). Available online at: https://sentresor.org/app/uploads/loi-n°2022-18-du-23-05-2022-création-SONAGED-SA-société-nationale-de-gestion-intégrée-des-déchets.pdfRoS (2022b). Loi n° 2023–15 du 02 août 2023 portant Code de l'environnement. Official Policy Letter, Republic of Senegal (RoS). Available online at: https://primature.sn/sites/default/files/2023-10/Loi%20n%C2%B02023-15%20du%2002%20ao%C3%BBt%202023%20portant%20Code%20de%20l%27Environnement.pdf (Accessed July 23, 2024).RoS (2023). “Loi n° 2023-15 du 02 août 2023 portant Code de l’Environnement du Sénégal”. Centre de ressources documentaires sur l’Irrigation au Sahel. Available online at: https://bibliotheque.pariis.net/items/show/297. (Accessed September 4, 2024).RoSA (2008). Government GAZETTE, 10 March 2009. Republik of South Africa. Available online at: https://sawic.environment.gov.za/documents/384.pdf (Accessed July 23, 2024).RoSA (2017). Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act (36/1947): Regulations Relating to Fertilizers. Government GAZETTE, 8 September 2017. Available online at: https://search.opengazettes.org.za/text/30084?dq=41100&page=1 (Accessed July 23, 2024).RoSA (2021). National norms and standards for organic waste composting: government notice 561 (GN 561) published in government Gazette no. 44762 on 25 June 2021. Republic of South Africa. Avilable online at: https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/NEMWA-National-Norms-and-Standards-for-Organic-Waste-Composting-June-2021.pdf (Accessed July 23, 2024).RoSA (2024). Estimates of National Expenditure 2023 vote 29: Agriculture, land reform and rural development. National Treasury Republic of South Africa. 40 p. Available online at: https://www.treasury.gov.za/documents/national%20budget/2023/ene/Vote%2029%20Agriculture,%20Land%20Reform%20and%20Rural%20Development.pdf (Accessed July 23, 2024).RoseC.ParkerA.JeffersonB.CartmellE. (2015). The characterization of feces and urine: a review of the literature to inform advanced treatment technology. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol.45, 1827–1879. doi: 10.1080/10643389.2014.1000761RoyE. D.EshamM.JayathilakeN.OtooM.KolibaC.WijethungaI. B.. (2021). Compost quality and markets are pivotal for sustainability in circular food-nutrient systems: a case study of Sri Lanka. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.5:748391. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.748391RozasS. T.GauthierB. (2012). Les tontines favorisent-elles la performance des entreprises au Cameroun?Revue D’économie du Développement1, 5–39. doi: 10.3917/edd.261.0005RSB (2024). Guidelines for the production of organic fertilizer and soils amendments from municipal solid wastes. 1st Edn. Kigali, Rwanda: Rwanda Standards Board (RSB). Available online at: https://www.rsb.gov.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/DRS_582_2024.pdf (Accessed September 13, 2024).RURA (2021). Regulation no. 007/R/SAN-EWS/RURA/2021 governing solid waste collection and transportation services. Kigali: Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authority (RURA). Available online at: https://www.rura.rw/fileadmin/Documents/Water/RegulationsGuidelines/Regulation_governing_sol1524 id_waste_collection_and_transportation_services__May_2021.pdf (Accessed February 14, 2025).RVO (2022). Sector Report Circular Economy Senegal. Commissioned by the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Netherlands. Available online at: https://www.rvo.nl/sites/default/files/2022-10/Sector-Report-Circular-Economy-Senegal.pdf (Accessed July 23, 2024).SakrabaniR. (2024). Opportunities and challenges organo-mineral fertiliser can play in enabling food security. Front. Sustai. Food Syst.8:1296351. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1296351SaldanaJ. M. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 3rd Edn. Cham: SAGE Publications.SanabriaA.OkelloG. (2024). Addressing organic waste management in Uganda through multi-stakeholder participatory approaches: inception meeting and mapping brief. Available online at: https://iiasa.ac.at/sites/default/files/2024-09/SOWU%20Brief_FT.pdf (Accessed April 17, 2025).SchenckR.NellC.GroblerL.BlaauwP. (2022). Towards engaged solid waste management for cleaner cities and towns in South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).SchillerK. J.KlerkxL.PoortvlietP. M.GodekW. (2020). Exploring barriers to the agroecological transition in Nicaragua: a technological innovation systems approach. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst.44, 88–132. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2019.1602097SekabiraH.NijmanE.SpäthL.KrütliP.SchutM.VanlauweB.. (2022). Circular bioeconomy in African food systems: what is the status quo? Insights from Rwanda, DRC, and Ethiopia. PLoS One17:e0276319. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276319, 36264999SekabiraH.SimbekoG.FelekeS.ManyongV.SpäthL.KrütliP.. (2023). Determinants and success of engagement in circular bioeconomy practices in African food systems. Clean. Circ. Bioecon.6:100065. doi: 10.1016/j.clcb.2023.100065ShabaniT.JerieS. (2023). A review on the effectiveness of integrated management system in institutional solid waste management in Zimbabwe. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.30, 100248–100264. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-29391-y, 37612560ShiY.WangY.YueY.ZhaoJ.MaraseniT.QianG. (2021). Unbalanced status and multidimensional influences of municipal solid waste management in Africa. Chemosphere281:130884. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130884, 34289601SinghR.SinghS. (2022). Managing solid waste in Africa - a scoping study to prepare the ground for future action. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment.SmårsS.GustafssonL.Beck-FriisB.JönssonH. (2002). Improvement of the composting time for household waste during an initial low pH phase by mesophilic temperature control. Bioresour. Technol.84, 237–241. doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(02)00056-1SoobhanyN. (2019). Insight into the recovery of nutrients from organic solid waste through biochemical conversion processes for fertilizer production: a review. J. Clean. Prod.241:118413. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118413. (Accessed July 23, 2024).SpielmanD. J.MugaboS.RosenbachG.NdikumanaS.BenimanaG.IngabireC. (2025). Fertilizer policy reforms in the midst of crisis: evidence from Rwanda. Food Policy133:102823. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2025.102823SurchatM.IrakozeM.HansmannR.KantengwaS.KonlambigueM.SpäthL.. (2023). Jobs in the circular bioeconomy under scrutiny: the challenging reality of compost production in Rwanda. World Dev. Sustain.3:100094. doi: 10.1016/j.wds.2023.100094SuursR. A.HekkertM. P. (2009). Cumulative causation in the formation of a technological innovation system: the case of biofuels in the Netherlands. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.76, 1003–1020. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2009.03.002TaronA.SinghS.DrechselP.RavishankarC.UlrichA. (2023). Sewage sludge: A review of business models for resource recovery and reuse. Colombo: International Water Management Institute (IWMI).TechnoServe (2023). Scalable alternatives to inorganic fertilizers in Kenya. Study commissioned by foreign commonwealth and development office (FCDO). Available online at: https://www.technoserve.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/FCDO_Kenya_Fertilizer_Final_Report_vFF.pdf (Accessed July 17, 2024).The Republic of Kenya (2022). The Sustainable waste management Act no. 31 of 2022. Published by the National Council for law reporting with THE authority of the attorney-general. Available online at: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2022/31/eng@2022-12-31TigabuA. D.BerkhoutF.van BeukeringP. (2015a). The diffusion of a renewable energy technology and innovation system functioning: comparing bio-digestion in Kenya and Rwanda. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.90, 331–345. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.019TigabuA. D.BerkhoutF.van BeukeringP. (2015b). Technology innovation systems and technology diffusion: adoption of bio-digestion in an emerging innovation system in Rwanda. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.90, 318–330. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.011TigabuA.BerkhoutF.van BeukeringP. (2017). Development aid and the diffusion of technology: improved cookstoves in Kenya and Rwanda. Energy Policy102, 593–601. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.12.039TomitaA.CuadrosD. F.BurnsJ. K.TanserF.SlotowR. (2020). Exposure to waste sites and their impact on health: a panel and geospatial analysis of nationally representative data from South Africa, 2008–2015. Lancet Planet. Health4, e223–e234. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30101-7, 32559439TraoreS.MuriiraM.TamboJ. A.WaithakaS. (2024). How Kenya’s National Fertilizer Subsidy Program is working. International food policy research institute (IFPRI). Available online at: https://www.ifpri.org/blog/how-kenyas-national-fertilizer-subsidy-program-working/ (Accessed May 15, 2024).TumuhairweJ. B.TenywaJ. S.OtabbongE.LedinS. (2009). Comparison of four low-technology composting methods for market crop wastes. Waste Manag.29, 2274–2281. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2009.03.015UN Habitat (2018). Current Solid Waste Management Situation - Brief - Côte d’Ivoire - Abidjan. Available online at: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2022/07/abidjan_en.pdf (Accessed July 17, 2024).UN Habitat (2018). Cameroon - Situation actuelle de la gestion des déchets solides (GDS). Available online at: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2022/07/cameroon_fr.pdf (Accessed July 17, 2024).UNBS (2023). Organic fertilizer — specification. DRAFT UGANDA STANDARD. reference number DUS 1584: 2023. Kampala: Uganda National Bureau of standards (UNBS). Available online at: https://members.wto.org/crnattachments/2023/SPS/UGA/23_0517_00_e.pdf (Accessed September 13, 2024).VolsuuriE.Owusu-SekyereE.ImoroA. Z. (2022). Rethinking solid waste governance in Ghana. Heliyon8. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12235, 36593851VosR.GlauberJ.HebebrandC.RiceB. (2025). Global shocks to fertilizer markets: impacts on prices, demand and farm profitability. Food Policy133:102790. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102790WangY.ZhuY.ZhangS.WangY. (2018). What could promote farmers to replace chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers?J. Clean. Prod.199, 882–890. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.177WaweruS. (2025). Why Kenya needs organic fertiliser. daily nation. Available online at: https://static.nation.co.ke/pdfs/019DNC18012025-A.PDF (Accessed January 18, 2025).WernerK. A.Castro-HerreraD.YimerF.TadesseM.KimD.-G.ProstK.. (2023). Microbial risk assessment of mature compost from human excreta, cattle manure, organic waste, and biochar. Sustainability15:4624. doi: 10.3390/su15054624WillerH.TrávníčekJ.SchlatterB. (2025). The World of organic agriculture. Statistics and emerging trends 2025. Frick, Switzerland and Bonn, Germany: Organics International.WilliamsP. A.Akon-YamgaG.OnumahJ. A.Akuffobea-EssilfieM.QuayeW.AgyemangA. (2025). Understanding the impact of innovation and other business support interventions on SMEs’ development–lessons from sub-Saharan Africa from an evidence-based review. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev.17, 80–94. doi: 10.1080/20421338.2024.2421290WilliamsP. A.NarraS.AntwiE.QuayeW.HaganE.AsareR.. (2023). Review of barriers to effective implementation of waste and energy management policies in Ghana: implications for the promotion of waste-to-energy technologies. Waste1, 313–332. doi: 10.3390/waste1020021World Bank (2019a). Enabling the business of agriculture 2019 - country profile Senegal. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available online at: https://eba.worldbank.org/content/dam/documents/eba/SEN.pdf (Accessed September 13, 2024)World Bank (2019b). Enabling the business of agriculture 2019 country profile Zimbabwe. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available online at: https://eba.worldbank.org/content/dam/documents/eba/ZWE.pdf (Accessed September 13, 2024).World Bank (2019c). Senegal municipal solid waste management project (P161477). Combined Project Information Documents / Integrated Safeguards Datasheet (PID/ISDS). Available online at: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/581531500995135875/pdf/ITM00184-P161477-07-25-2017-1500995132357.pdf (Accessed July 17, 2024).World Bank (2020). Agriculture subsidies for better outcomes - options for Zimbabwe. World Bank32:147. doi: 10.1596/34147XieJ.MitoT. (2021). Towards a trash-free Addis Ababa: Pathways for sustainable, climate-friendly solid waste management. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Available online at: https://hdl.handle.net/10986/36746 (Accessed September 13, 2024).YeoD.DongoK.MertenatA.LüssenhopP.KörnerI.ZurbrüggC. (2020). Material flows and greenhouse gas emissions reduction potential of decentralized composting in sub-Saharan Africa: a case study in Tiassalé, Côte D’Ivoire. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health17:7229. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17197229, 33023240ZorpasA. A. (2020). Strategy development in the framework of waste management. Sci. Total Environ.716:137088. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137088
Edited by: Harry Konrad Hoffmann, Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany
Reviewed by: Erik Sindhøj, Research Institutes of Sweden (RISE), Sweden
Zakari Tsiga, University College London, United Kingdom
Katharina Bäumler, Johann Heinrich von Thuenen-Institut Coordination Unit Climate, Germany
As outlined in EU Regulation 2019/1009, we classify materials as organic fertilizers when their nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium content each exceed 1%; if these nutrient levels are below 1%, they are considered soil amendments.
Cameroon is typically considered part of Central Africa. To facilitate description and potentially highlight certain shared characteristics, we group Cameroon with the West African community in this study.
www.deepl.com
A tontine system is a cooperative financial arrangement where a group of people regularly contributes money, goods, or labor into a collective pool, and the benefits are distributed to members based on an agreed schedule or criteria. It is commonly used in West and Central Africa as a form of mutual support, especially in rural and informal economies (e.g., Rozas and Gauthier, 2012).
African Organisation for Standardisation (https://www.arso-oran.org/).
Strategies in public policy are high-level plans that guide policy development, funding, and program implementation but they are non-binding (e.g., Zorpas, 2020), however, they can be a legislative requirement as demanded by law (e.g., National Waste Management Strategy in South Africa is demanded by the Waste Act, 2008).