Opinion: The waste divide we don’t talk about

From the newsletter

As the circular transition gains momentum globally, Neeraj Mannie, a circular economy expert,  argues that it risks deepening inequality if it fails to address the infrastructure gap between advanced and emerging waste systems, including many African cities. He calls for an approach that prioritises foundational systems over circularity metrics.

• Mr Mannie is a global waste and circular economy executive with experience across Africa, the Middle East and international markets. His work has included sustainability delivery for Expo 2020 Dubai, waste strategy advisory for the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 (Lusail Stadium), development of a city-scale waste master plan for Luanda, Angola, and leadership of the hazardous waste business unit at Veolia Southern Africa.

• “To build circularity, you need a functioning baseline: reliable waste collection, safe disposal, engineered landfills, robust recycling markets, and effective environmental regulation. These basics are not prevalent in much of the world,” he says.

More details

By Neeraj Mannie

In Europe, waste is sorted in three-bin, five-bin, even seven-bin systems. Plastic bottles are barcoded and tracked. Municipalities publish annual circularity indexes. Meanwhile, in parts of Africa and Asia, families burn trash at dawn just to make space. Children walk over open dumpsites. Many communities don’t even have a bin to put waste into — never mind the system to collect it.

We speak of “net-zero,” “circularity,” and “zero waste to landfill” as if they are universal goals. But the truth is this: the world is running on two entirely different waste systems — one formal, digitized, and funded; the other invisible, informal, and barely functional. And yet, we call them both circular. There’s a hypocrisy in the global waste narrative that we can no longer ignore.

Circularity without infrastructure

Circular economy strategies are gaining traction across the developed world. They are embedded in policy frameworks, ESG metrics, investor portfolios, and climate transition plans. This is a good thing, in principle. However, in the developing world, circularity remains a survival tactic rather than a systemic change. Informal reclaimers dig through heaps of waste not because they believe in the circular economy, but because they are trying to feed their families. And yet, these same communities are often excluded from the circular economy dialogues, funding pipelines, and innovation platforms.

To build circularity, you need a functioning baseline: reliable waste collection, safe disposal, engineered landfills, robust recycling markets, and effective environmental regulation. These basics are not prevalent in much of the world. So, how can we apply the same metrics, language, or targets to both?

Global circularity needs local involvement

The circular economy cannot be a project for the privileged. It must be a global transition — one that starts with justice, infrastructure, and inclusion. What does this mean? 

• Funding real waste infrastructure in developing countries — not just pilots or reports, but engineered landfills, MRFs, composting plants, pyrolysis units, and real logistics systems.

• Investing in capacity and people, including formalising and protecting the role of informal reclaimers, who already do more for circularity than many governments.

• Technology transfer and open innovation — ensuring the best tools and models are adapted for context, not sold at unaffordable rates or kept behind paywalls.

• Redefining success — not as a percentage recycled, but as livelihoods improved, systems strengthened, and waste no longer harming people or planet.

A final provocation

If we continue to build a circular economy that works only for the few, while the many are still living in waste, then what we are building is not sustainable — it’s just dressed-up inequality. It’s time to ask the hard question: Who is the circular economy really for?