Providing effective solid waste management (SWM) is essential to tackle plastics pollution, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid other potentially harmful impacts, including local air pollution impacts from open burning and the conditions that spread disease. Official development finance (ODF) plays a key role in providing SWM waste infrastructure and services. International cooperation is also central to the multi-lateral environmental agreement currently being negotiated (the ‘Plastics Treaty’). To provide insight on the scale, flows and changes in SWM ODF over time, we developed a standardised methodology to analyse OECD development finance data and applied it to data for 2003-2021. ODF focused on SWM is still very low, representing just 0.41% of all ODF. It is also an order of magnitude less than ODF focused on water and sanitation. This is despite an eight fold increase between 2003 and 2021. SWM ODF is dominated by five main donors who account for over three quarters of SWM ODF: World Bank Group, Asian Development Bank, EU Institutions, Germany and Japan. The majority of recipients of SWM ODF are middle income countries. Low income countries received only 8% of SWM ODF between 2003 and 2021. Total SWM ODF commitments in 2021 were ca. at 1.8 Billion USD. This is still significantly short of the over 30 Billion USD investment estimated to be needed to develop SWM and substantially reduce plastics pollution. The Plastics Treaty represents a key opportunity to rapidly scale up international cooperation and official development finance on solid waste management, help tackle the triple planetary crisis and enable a Just Transition to a circular economy.
Research Article
Official development finance in solid waste management reveals insufficient resources for tackling plastic pollution: A global analysis of two decades of data
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4248450/v1
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License
Version 1
posted
You are reading this latest preprint version
Solid waste management
Development co-operation
Official development finance
Foreign aid
Plastics pollution
Circular economy
Resources recovery
Global South
- International cooperation in waste management helps tackle triple planetary crisis.
- Official development finance on SWM has increased, but still not an ODF priority.
- Low income countries received only 8% of all waste-focused development finance.
- Total waste management focused development finance is far short of what is needed.
Solid waste management (SWM), comprising the collection, recycling, treatment and/or disposal of refuse and recyclable materials, is a key municipal service and utility (Wilson, 2023). Effective SWM services are essential to tackle plastics pollution. Mismanaged waste is a key source of plastics pollution, an issue receiving international focus as the subject of a new multilateral environmental agreement (UNEP, 2023a). Poor waste management also has significant health and environmental impacts. The uncontrolled dumping of waste creates the conditions that spread disease (Cointreau, 2006; Wilson et al., 2015). Open burning of waste materials causes poor respiratory health and is also major short-term climate pollutant (Velis and Cook, 2021). Conversely, improving SWM can address these issues and create valuable benefits in the form of entrepreneurial opportunities, recovery of valuable resources, and better social cohesion, by ensuring clean streets and promoting wider investment for business and tourism (UNEP, 2023b). However, many communities across the world lack effective SWM services. Analysis indicates that between 1.5 least 2.7 billion people lack effective waste collection (Wilson, 2023). The result is that 20% of total municipal plastic waste is emitted into the uncontrolled system globally (Cottom, 2023; Cottom et al., 2023) and. 16% of all municipal waste is burned in the open (Gómez-Sanabria et al., 2022). As such, the global community faces a critical challenge in extending and developing effective SWM services to mitigate these negative impacts and create positive opportunities. SWM services are typically delivered at a local level. However, local authorities in low- and middle- income countries often lack the technical capacity and the finance necessary to invest in SWM infrastructure. Due to high net operating costs, local authorities typically lack the finance to operate services over the long term and are often unable to attract commercial finance as the projects are not ‘bankable’ (World Bank Group, 2021).
Development co-operation has helped developing countries to address these challenges by building local skills and capacity, providing capital for equipment and infrastructure, creating better conditions for informal sector workers and tackling SWM issues in the aftermath of humanitarian crises (Vergara and Banna, 2013; Lee et al., 2014; World Bank, 2022). These activities go hand-in-hand with the provision of official development finance (ODF), in the form of in-kind support, grants and loans (both concessionary and non-concessionary) from bilateral or multi-lateral donors to developing country governments (Alonso and Glennie, 2015). ODF comprises Official Development Assistance (ODA) and Other Official Flows (OOF). Countries eligible as ODA recipients are defined by the Development Assistance Committee and are reviewed in a regular basis. OOF does not meet the strict definition of ODA (e.g. for a loan to be considered concessional it must be primarily aimed at development or include a grant element of at least 25%) (OECD, 2024). However, it is included here to allow more comprehensive analysis.
Solid waste management, similar to air pollution, has not been allocated to a specific, dedicated high level Sustainable Development Goal (SDG). However, it is embedded across multiple SDGs. Improving SWM has the potential to make direct and measurable progress on six SDGs, direct progress on a further six and indirect progress on the remaining five (Rodić and Wilson, 2017; Wilson, 2021; UNEP, 2023b).
To be able to make rational decisions on the ways in which development co-operation efforts are targeted in the future, a thorough and accurate understanding of the distribution and nature of development co-operation in SWM is needed, particularly in light of the recognised need to improve waste management so as to address critical challenges globally, including plastics pollution and climate change (Lau et al., 2020; Systemiq and Pew Charitable Trusts, 2020; Gómez-Sanabria et al., 2022; Cottom et al., 2023; UNEP, 2023c). However, there is limited literature and evidence relating to SWM in the context of development co-operation.
The two most recent studies on the issue are a review conducted by the World Bank Group on municipal waste management-focused lending (World Bank, 2022) and analysis of SWM official development assistance focused on tackling plastics pollution (OECD, 2022). Wilson (2021) provides a historical overview of development assistance activities related to SWM, including a number of qualitative case studies. Other studies that have considered the scale and nature of development co-operation on solid waste management issues are much more dated, but do provide useful historical context to development cooperation activities on SWM (Bartone et al., 1990; Bartone et al., 1991; Gopalan and Bartone, 1997; Wilson, 2007; Vergara and Banna, 2013; Wilson, 2021). These studies provide valuable insight on the scale of development finance focused on solid waste management. However, there is no recent, comprehensive, granular and quantitative assessment of development finance focused on solid waste management.
To address this gap, in 2014 the authors conducted an initial analysis of development finance in the SWM sector for the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) (Lerpiniere et al., 2014; Mavropoulos et al., 2014). The methodology that was used in the 2014 study has since been widely revisited and refined, and raw data for the subsequent years up to 2021 (latest available), allowing substantial new data analytics and insights. Here, we analyse of almost two decades of development finance focused on solid waste management. We create and release a novel methodology capable for the first time of estimating the level of development finance focused on SWM. And, we present an analysis of how development finance has changed over time, including considering where it has been focused and its fitness-for-purpose in the wider context of international development co-operation, key environmental challenges (i.e., plastics SWM pollution and climate change) and associated SDGs.
2.1 Data on development finance
The OECD’s Creditor Reporting System (CRS) was used as the primary source of data on official development finance (ODF) flows (OECD, 2023a). This dataset details all ODF projects as reported by OECD Development Assistance Committee members. There are several other sources of information available on development co-operation activities, including for example, the International Development Finance Transparency Initiative (IATI) portal and information published or provided directly by multi-lateral development banks (MDB), such as The World Bank Group and the Asian Development Bank, which both maintain databases of projects that can be interrogated on-line. There are also several websites which retrieve data from these sources and make it available for analysis or present it, using different visualisation approaches. For example, the EU Development Finance Explorer (European Union, 2024) and AidData (AidData, 2024). However, other than the CRS, none of these sources provides a comprehensive set of data allowing a detailed assessment of the scale and nature of ODF focused on solid waste management.
The CRS comprises a dataset of individual development projects that have received ODF. Each is defined through a set of variables, including financial value (in United States Dollars (USD), current prices), donor country, donor agency, recipient country, type of finance (i.e., grant, concessional loan or non-concessional loans) and a textual description of the nature of the project. The data is collated, checked and published by the OECD, and can be interrogated via the OECD’s on-line Query Wizard for International Development Statistics (OECD, 2023b). Data are reported for both commitments and disbursements. Committed funds often take several years to disburse (for example, a loan commitment by a development bank might be disbursed over 3 to 5 years). For this analysis, commitments have been chosen to be analysed, because these data can be considered to provide a more up-to-date and comprehensive picture of financial flows, noting that not all disbursements are reported by donors (Clean Air Fund and Climate Policy Initiative, 2023). All values analysed are expressed in USD, as reported at the exchange rate prevailing in the year of the commitment (‘current prices’).
2.2 Data acquisition and preparation - identifying SWM-focused development finance
The CRS dataset classifies each project by one of 261 types, including a ‘waste management/disposal’ classification. However, initial review identified that this classification is incorrect for many of the projects (e.g., referring to wastewater rather than solid waste). Furthermore, many CRS projects include a SWM element combined with other non-SWM activities, and therefore the monetary value assigned to the project either understates or overstates the level of ODF focused exclusively on SWM. Given these inaccuracies, it was considered that the data needed to be reviewed in detail to provide a more accurate dataset that would allow robust and detailed analysis of SWM-focused ODF flows.
A novel systematic process to clean the CRS data was developed to identify projects which were either classified by the OECD under the project theme ‘waste management/disposal’ and/or included the term ‘waste’ in their title or in their accompanying description. The process was designed so that it could be conducted over a large dataset and could be repeated consistently. This process aspires to result in a much more accurate dataset, allowing a more robust and granular assessment of SWM-focused ODF flows over time.
All CRS projects in the dataset from 2003 to 2021 were reviewed using this standardised methodology. Each individual project was reviewed using its title and the detailed description available in the database to assess the extent to which it related to SWM. Based on the supporting information for each project, a percentage value, ranging from 5–100%, was applied to represent the proportion of the project that related to SWM. This proportion was then used to calculate an adjusted monetary value for the SWM part of the project. By way of illustration, if a 20 Million (M) USD concessionary loan was considered to comprise a 10% SWM element, its monetary value was adjusted to 2M USD.
Screening of projects to identify the degree to which each comprises an SWM element is subject to a degree of subjectivity. Therefore, a number of principles were established to ensure that the screening of data and allocation of a SWM proportion was consistent and could be replicated accurately, with relevant details reported in the Supplementary Information (SI) (Table S1). The basic presumption was that the original classification used by the OECD was correct. This assumption was only altered if there was substantial evidence that the project classification was inaccurate. For example, the project description might make it clear that the project was wastewater-related rather than solid waste related, in which case it would be given a 0% value in terms of the proportion of the project that related to solid waste. Following this review, projects with a value of 1,000 USD or lower were removed from the dataset.
2.3 Data analytics
Descriptive statistics were performed (various measures of central location, i.e., arithmetic mean, median; spread of data; shape of distribution: e.g., skewness and kurtosis) (J.W.Tukey, 1977). The normality assumption was tested with Shapiro-Wilks test (α = 0.05). The variability between individual years is very high, primarily due to the nature of commitments in development finance: a donor will make a commitment in a specific year, but the funding associated with it will be disbursed over several years. This high variability makes it difficult to compare year-by-year values to explore generally changes in development finance over time. Where relevant, a three year rolling average was used to smooth for high year to year variabilities (Box et al, 2015).
Analysis was conducted to allow comparison of SWM-ODF flows with all ODF flows and flows of ODF for water and sanitation (W&S) projects. Data for all ODF and for W&S projects was downloaded separately and collated to provide a dataset for 2003–2021. Note that ‘waste management/disposal’ projects are a subset of W&S projects in the CRS database meaning that there is potentially an autocorrect issue associated with comparing SWM projects with W&S projects.
A series of secondary datasets were used to allow calculation of a variety of analytical outputs (for example SWM ODF flows per capita by recipient country) and to test for correlations between, for example, the level of SWM ODF received by a recipient country and parameters such as GNI per capita. National-level population data was obtained from World Bank Group (2023) to allow calculation of per capita SWM, W&S and total ODF flows, along with comparisons between different recipient countries and global regions. This was important to allow comparison between countries and global regions of high and low population. Regional analysis was done using regions defined in the CRS dataset so as to allow all projects to be considered. A combination of MS Excel and R (version 4.3.3) was used to conduct correlation analysis. Various correlation tests were used to assess potential lineal associations between the original or log10 transformed SWM ODF data, and other parameters such Gross National Income (GNI) per capita of recipients or Human Development Index (HDI) score for recipients. Analysis was conducted on log10 transformed data due to the highly skewed dataset.
The methodology is summarised in Fig. 1. A data map is provided in Table S2.
A total of 3,506,709 projects were obtained from the CRS database. Data screening identified a total of 9,039 projects with at least some element of SWM-focus. Removal of projects with a value of 1,000 USD or higher left 8,284 projects for further analysis.
3.1 Level of development finance for SWM
Overall, analysis indicates that an estimated 14,527M USD of development finance was committed to SWM between 2003 and 2021. This corresponds to over 8,526 grants (with a total value of 4,525M USD), 209 concessional loans (2,617M USD), 295 non-concessional loans (7,336M USD) and 9 equity investments (50M USD) (Tables S3 and S4). For all three groups, the distribution of the data is non-normal (Shapiro-Wilks: p < 0.001) and highly skewed towards the lower values (Table S5). This skewness is particularly strong for grants, data for which have a median of 39,000 USD and include a small number of very large statistical ‘outliers’. For example, the largest grant was a commitment of over 300M USD from the European Union (EU) to Turkey in 2019 associated with providing SWM-related support to the large population of refugees from Syria. The median concessional loan was 6.3M USD and the median non-concessional loan was 6.7M USD.
The baseline level of SWODF in 2003 was very low in relative terms: 216M USD, just 0.19% of total ODF. It increased by more than eight fold over the following 19 years, reaching 1,848M USD in 2021 (Fig. 2). The level of change in SWM ODF over time is not consistent, and therefore the three year rolling average was used to smooth the data to aid analysis (see methods Section 2.3). Relative to all ODF, the proportion of SWM-focused ODF has also increased from a three year average of 0.16% in 2003-05 to 0.41% of all ODF in 2019-21 (Table S6). The increase is steady up to 2010 where it drops, before rising again from 2016. By comparison, the proportion of all ODF that is focused on water and sanitation projects has stayed fairly consistent between 2003 (3.8% of all ODF) and 2019 (3.6%), but is about an order of magnitude higher than SWM ODF (Table S6).
3.2 Main donors and lenders on SWM
Sixty five different donors have committed ODF to SWM issues since 2003 (Table S7). Thirty seven of these committed over 10M USD. These SWM official development finance commitments have been dominated in terms of total financial value by the IBRD and IDA (World Bank Group), Asian Development Bank, European Union, Germany and Japan (Figs. 2 and 3). These donors have all committed approximately 1 Billion USD or more each over the past 19 years (a median of over 556M USD per year) and together account for three quarters of all SWM-focused development finance commitments.
Grants account for 31% of total ODF. The remainder of ODF was in the form of concessional loans (18%) and non-concessional loans (50%), from eighteen and fifteen donors respectively. These donors were mainly multi-lateral development banks, but also include some national donors (e.g., Germany, Belgium, Japan, Republic of Korea and Denmark). The donors that have committed finance to SWM since 2003 have stayed relatively consistent. However, individual donors have generally increased their commitments. For example, Norway has steadily increased its commitments since 2003 and is now one of the main donors in terms of ODA grants and loans (excluding non-concessional loans). In addition, the number of donors committing funds to SWM-related activities has increased, from 23 different donors in 2003 to 49 in 2021.
3.3 Recipients of development finance
SWM ODF commitments were made to 147 different country recipients (Table S8). China and Turkey have received the largest values of SWM ODF between 2003-19 (2,500M and 1,200M USD respectively). Together they account for 25% of all SWM ODF between 2003 and 2021. The top twenty recipients, all of which are either upper middle or lower middle income countries, account for 66% of all SWM ODF commitments (Table S8).
3.4 Flows by income group, per capita and region
Upper middle income group countries received most SWM ODF since 2003 (6,478M USD). Lower middle income countries received USD 5,902M and low income countries received 1,050M (Fig. 2). High income countries received 325M USD, including a 150M USD commitment from the IADB to Argentina for an ‘Integrated Urban Waste Management project’ in 2014. In per capita terms, upper middle income groups received most (USD 2.75 per capita, based on population in 2021, compared to USD 1.74 per capita for lower middle, 1.47 USD per capita for low income countries and 2.38 per capita for high income countries (or 0.34 USD per capita excluding the 150M USD commitment to Argentina in 2014). 920M USD was excluded from this per capita analysis, because it was committed to regional projects (889M USD) or was committed to countries in a year for which the World Bank had not allocated it to an income group.
The ranking of recipients of SWM ODF per capita is very different to the ranking of overall quantum (Fig. 4). Seven of the largest recipients per capita are Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The largest recipient is Palau, which received 986 USD per capita (52 USD per capita per year on average) of SWM ODF between 2003 and 2021. If SIDS are excluded, then the largest recipients of SWM ODF are Montenegro, North Macedonia and Albania, all of which are Central European countries, places in the Balkans peninsula.
Far East Asia received the most SWM ODF between 2003 and 2021, accounting for 28% of ODF over this period. Europe and South & Central Asia each received 16% and 15% of overall SWM ODF flows respectively, with South Saharan Africa receiving 10%. Caribbean & Central America region received only 2.3% (Table S8). There is a large variation in commitments by region between years due to the effect of some individual large projects. For example, the European region received over 500M USD (over 50%) of SWM ODF in 2019 due to support committed to Turkey by the European Union.
In per capita terms, the distribution of SWM ODF commitments by region is quite different to total quantities by region. Europe and Oceania received 14.3 and 16.6 USD per capita respectively (less than 1 USD per capita per year on average). The next highest is North of Sahara region (5.7 USD per capita). All other regions, including Far East Asia, received between 1 and 3 USD per capita. SWM ODF comprises just 0.12% of all ODF in the Caribbean and South America region and 0.14% in South of Sahara. This compares to 0.72% and 0.79% for Europe and Far East Asia respectively.
3.5 Correlations between levels of SWM ODF and other parameters
Tests for lineal correlation between the levels of SWM ODF per capita (log10 transformed) and GNI per capita suggest that there is a slightly positive correlation (p = .003 and r = 0.152) (Table S10). This suggests that rich countries receive more financial assistance on SWM than poorer countries. There are also slightly positive correlations between the level of SWODF received per capita and the levels of total ODF received (p < .001 and r = 0.412) and the levels of water and sanitation-focused ODF received (p < .001 and r = 0.222). Similarly, there was a weak positive correlation between SWODF and HDI (p < .001 and r = 0.242) and urban population (p < .001 and r = 0.137).
4.1 SWM not a priority for donors
SWM ODF was 216M USD in 2003. From this very low level, SWM ODF increased by 750% to over 1,500M USD in 2021 (Fig. 2). This has outpaced increases in total development finance commitments by donors and development banks, which has increased by approximately 230% over the same period (OECD, 2023a). The scale of this large increase in SWM ODF reflects the very low starting point as much as the rate of increase associated with efforts by donors and development banks to specifically increase ODF commitments on SWM. Considered in terms of the population of the countries receiving SWM development finance in 2021, it equates to just 0.28 USD per capita per year, which compares with per capita levels of 2.19 USD in the water and sanitation sector, and 45 USD for all development finance. In short, SWM has not been a priority thematic area for bilateral and multi-lateral donors historically. The effect of inflation on both donors and recipients is unlikely to affect the general trends observed ODF in current prices, but could be part of further analysis. However, it is beyond the scope of this current study.
Several historical reviews of SWM ODF provide some insight on the possible reasons for the low importance given by donors to SWM. A study by Gopalan and Bartone (1997) indicated that World Bank Group investments in SWM projects between 1988 and 1997 were on average 104M USD per year, double the average of 41M USD per year between 1974 to 1988 (Bartone et al., 1990), suggesting an increasing focus on SWM by the World Bank Group during the 1990s. However, by 2003 and 2004 SWM-focused commitments by the World Bank Group had dropped back to 59.6M USD and 46.1M USD respectively. Wilson (2023) hypothesised that this was caused by a number of high profile SWM project failures, and the wider challenge of recipient countries not being ready to receive investment on SWM (or perceived as such) due to a lack of appropriate policies, governance structures and technical capacity. Effective governance, the necessary enabling policies and the means to finance waste management operations in the long term are all critical factors in ensuring that SWM investments and development cooperation activities succeed (World Bank Group, 2021). As such, donor and development bank attention in the early 2000s focused on capacity building and policy development efforts, rather than large scale lending on SWM, in order to create this necessary enabling environment.
4.2 Middle income countries main recipients
Table S3 illustrates the largest twenty recipients of SWM-focused ODF. All of these countries are middle- or high-income countries. This trend mimics that observed in overall ODF (Development Initiatives, 2023). The ‘Addis Ababa Action Agenda’, which is a global framework for sustainable development, recognises that development finance to the least developed countries has decreased (United Nations, 2015). This skew towards middle income countries may be due a lack of a suitable enabling environment in low income countries for successful SWM projects. However, these problems need to be overcome. The costs of effective SWM are typically born locally – and are often unaffordable in local income contexts – but, the benefits are regional and global in terms of tackling plastics pollution and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
4.3 Regional distribution
Far East Asia received the greatest amount (4,124M USD) of SWM ODF commitments between 2003 and 2021, followed by Europe (2,231M USD) and South & Central Asia (2,218M USD). Much of this funding has been committed by the Asian Development Bank (Fig. 2). However, when considered in per capita terms, commitments to Far East Asia are relatively low (2 USD per capita), lower than the Middle East (3.17 USD per capita) and South America (3.00 USD per capita) and markedly lower than Europe (14.34 USD per capita) and Oceania (13.68 USD per capita).
Commitments by EU Institutions are largely focused on countries in Europe (Fig. 3), several of which are or have been seeking to join the European Union. For example, Serbia – a country seeking to join the EU – received 148M USD of SWM ODF. Much of this support was focused on landfill improvements and funded by donors including the European Institutions and World Bank. Turkey has also received large commitments of SWM ODF funding from EU Institutions and the EBRD. Commitments to Europe in 2019 accounted for over half of all SWM ODF that year due to a 513M USD of projects in Turkey funded by EU Institutions and the EBRD. 333M USD of this commitment was to assist with SWM-projects for large numbers of refugees from Syria (European Commission, 2024).
The Oceania region and other small island developing states (SIDS) receive much greater levels of SWM ODF commitments in per capita terms than most other recipient countries. This likely to be due to their specific circumstances and needs. A lack of effective waste management is a particularly acute problem for SIDS due to limited space for landfill disposal, sensitive environments, high dependency on tourism – which both typically generates high quantities of waste and can also be negatively affected by poor waste management (Mittempergher et al., 2022). Along with their import-dominated economies, meaning that SIDS government often cannot have a great influence on the products placed on market and subsequently becoming waste. Major donors to SIDS are ADB (113M USD), EU Institutions (58M USD), Japan (55M USD), the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (40M USD) and World Bank Group (35M USD). Two other major donors to SIDS are New Zealand (23M USD) and United Arab Emirates (20M USD), who committed 85% and 94% of their ODF commitments respectively to SIDS. ODF from UAE to SIDS is comprised solely of two commitments to the Maldives in 2015 and 2021 associated with a capital intensive waste-to-energy project.
4.4 Factors driving ODF commitments in SWM
Analysis of SWM ODF with key indicators of socioeconomic progress, such as GNI per capita and HDI indicates that is little or no correlation (Table S10). The allocation of SWM ODF appears to be driven by other factors; for example, political or trade links (Kiratli, 2019; Prather, 2020; Briggs, 2021; Development Initiatives, 2023). The emergence of new donors, such as the New Development Bank, is also likely to have profound influences on the way in which development finance is allocated, for example focusing on particular recipients or sectors for providing ODF (Lee, 2012). Some donors have a strong track record and an established technical capacity in delivering successful SWM projects: Germany and Japan, for example, provided more development finance on SWM issues than any other bilateral donors and have consistently supported SWM deficiencies in low- and middle-income countries between 2003 and 2021. Further analysis on the factors that drive ODF on SWM would provide a clearer picture of the existing landscape and help guide future decisions on resource allocation.
4.5 The need to step up waste management
UNEP’s Global Waste Management Outlook I (Wilson et al., 2015) identified effective waste collection and disposal services as a key requirement to address the environmental and social impacts of uncollected and mismanaged. It called for a ramping up of financial support from the international community so as to achieve a ‘step change’ in waste management in low and middle income countries. More specifically, it identified three key targets: achieving 100% collection coverage in all cities with a population of more than 1 million; eliminate open burning of municipal wastes and similar wastes; and closure of large open dumps and their replacement with controlled disposal facilities.
Wilson et al. (2015) also recognises the central role of the informal sector in providing waste management services and improving recycling rates. An estimated 11.4M informal waste workers provide waste collection and recycling services across the globe (Lau et al., 2020). These workers are often in marginalised, operating without support or formal recognition. They provide a valuable service, particularly in contexts where there is no formal waste collection or recycling system (Cook et al., 2023). Integrating the informal sector with wider waste management has the potential to rapidly scale up waste collection, tackle plastic pollution, and enable a Just Transition to a circular economy, particularly in low income countries (Shroder, 2020; Velis et al., 2022b). Clearly, the effect of ODF flows on the informal sector needs to be considered carefully and arguably should be a central focus of SWM projects funded by donors. Analysis by World Bank (2022) suggests that informal sector issues are typically considered in the context of 'do no harm’ safeguarding, rather than as a main objective of any specific project.
It is now widely accepted that improving waste management is essential for tackling plastics pollution (Velis et al., 2017). A number of key studies have identified land-based sources plastic as the dominant source of marine plastics pollution (Lau et al., 2020; Cottom et al., 2023) and the other human health and environmental impacts of plastics pollution are also being increasingly recognised (Pathak et al., 2024). SWM is included in the current official draft text for an international legally binding agreement at Section 9 (UNEP, 2023a) and forms a fundamental strand of many of the published strategies to tackle plastics pollution (European Investment Bank, 2021, Nordic Council of Ministers and Systemiq, 2023, UNEP, 2023c).
The increase in SWM ODF around 2015 coincides with timing of the first major global assessment of plastic waste (Jambeck et al., 2015). Several other studies and initiatives were also released during this period (Lebreton and Andrady, 2019; Borrelle et al., 2020) (Lau et al., 2020) and initiatives of various bilateral and multi-lateral donors began developing around this time. For example, the multi-donor trust fund Problue, housed within the World Bank Group, was launched in 2018 (World Bank Group, 2024a). Tackling marine pollution, including marine litter, is one of the fund’s four areas of activity. Similar initiatives were developed by a number of other bilateral and multi-lateral donors. Norway, announced a new programme to combat marine litter in 2019 (Norweigan Government, 2021) and in 2021 committed USD164M of ODF to SWM. Other major donors have launched similar, plastics pollution-focused initiatives (Asian Development Bank, 2019; Problue, 2021). The concurrent rise of plastics pollution as a recognised global environmental challenge and the increase in SWM ODA cannot be considered as a causality, but it does offer one plausible logical explanation for the increased scale and proportion of ODF commitments on SWM in the later 2010s.
Finance is a key constraint to providing effective waste management services in low and middle income countries (World Bank Group, 2021). Even in contexts where SWM services are relatively good in the major cities, services in secondary cities and rural areas may still be very limited (Kaza et al., 2018). Capital investment costs for SWM infrastructure and equipment can be high and SWM comes with on-going operational costs. It often takes many years to establish the necessary enabling environment that establishes a sustainable revenue stream for funding SWM on an on-going basis (Soos et al., 2013). SWM infrastructure and service is almost universally delivered at a local level, whereas access to ODF from international development banks and donors is via the national government. SWM projects are often not bankable and local authorities are often not creditworthy or able to access ODF or other sources of appropriate finance to fund the capital costs of waste infrastructure. Furthermore, local authorities can find it very challenging to find the long term operational finance to fund waste management operations in the long term so they are quite often not financially sustainable (World Bank Group, 2024b). These factors make financing SWM challenging; it is likely to be a key reason why donors appear not to typically prioritise SWM projects (Blended Finance Task Force and Systemiq, 2023).
In this context, it is important to recognise that, whilst the costs of SWM are largely born locally, the benefits of improved SWM – in the form of less plastics pollution and greenhouse gas emissions – are also regional and global. This provides a clear justification for greater international cooperation and higher levels of ODF focused on SWM. And producers and associated organisations (manufacturers, retailers, importers) who place products in the market also have a role through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), a policy whereby producers’ responsibility for products is extended beyond the consumer and into end of life (Brown et al., 2023). The current draft Plastics Treaty (UNEP, 2023a) specifically incorporates obligations related to international cooperation and EPR.
Despite the steady increase since 2003, the level of ODF focused on SWM issues remains very small (0.41% of all ODF in 2021) and is still far short of what is required to provide effective waste management services for all. A study by OECD (2022) indicates that over USD 30M per year is required to provide adequate waste collection and disposal systems in low and middle income countries. Systemiq and Pew Charitable Trusts (2020) estimated that, to provide waste collection services for the over 2.7 Billion people who do not have services, an additional 500,000 people would need to be connected to waste collection services every day up to 2040. Velis et al. (2022a) demonstrate that waste management performance is correlated to socio-economic development. This suggests that SWM performance, in a business as usual scenario about possible futures, will increase at rates similar to other development indicators (e.g., HDI) and that, without substantial additional support, the large step change in SWM needed to tackle plastics pollution and wider health and environmental impacts is therefore unlikely to be achieved.
Planning and focusing development finance requires a detailed understanding of how it has been applied in the past, building on the lessons learned as part SWM ODF projects to-date. The analysis presented here suggests that SWM ODF is not necessarily being focused in a strategic way towards those who need it most. Further analysis into the issues that drive SWM ODF – and the lessons that can be learnt from historic SWM projects – will help ensure that SWM ODF flows are used effectively in order to tackle plastics pollution and other impacts caused by poor waste management, and to achieve a transition to a circular economy.
This analysis of SWM-focused ODF flows over the past 19 years definitively proves that SWM has not, to-date, been a key priority for donors. Over the last two decades, SWM ODF has increased, but the level of ODF devoted to SWM is still less than half of one percent of all ODF, and approximately one order of magnitude less than that focused on water and sanitation projects. The level of ODF focused on SWM is far short of the investment required to tackle local and global environmental issues caused by poor waste management, including plastics pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Experience shows that implementing successful ODF-supported SWM projects is challenging. SWM services are typically delivered at a local level where establishing local revenue flows to fund on-going operational finance for SWM services is often very difficult. However, effective SWM provides regional and global, as well as local, benefits, including serving to tackle plastics pollution and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. As such, there is a strong argument that SWM service development and associated financing should be supported by much greater international co-operation and official development finance in order to help address the triple planetary crisis that the globe faces. Extended producer responsibility and related wider product stewardship approaches have will be critical engaging the wider supply chain in supporting the operation of waste management systems. An approach is needed that combines top-down financing and policy development with local capacity building and informal sector integration. In this way ODF could be integrated with additional finance from commercial, private and local sources, as for example envisioned in some of the Plastics Treaty current negotiation positions.
The Plastics Treaty currently under negotiation represents a key opportunity to rapidly ramp up attention on waste management and promote a step change in financing infrastructure and associated technical support. Furthermore, international cooperation has a key role to play in helping create the appropriate enabling environment for SWM projects to be a success in the long term. This means focusing development cooperation activities that create the right policies, promoting effective governance structures, establishing sustainable revenues and, importantly, integrating the informal sector in a way that provides for a Just Transition to a circular economy. It will be essential that providing effective waste management for all communities forms a central obligation of the Plastics Treaty. Implementing this provision would require a rapid, step-change increase in ODF commitments on SWM.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the support provided by the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) which, in 2014, allowed an initial version of the methodology to be developed and tested, as part of the Waste and Globalisation Task Force.
We are grateful to Ed Cook (University of Leeds) for constructive feedback to the manuscript and Angeliki Savvantoglou for illustration of the graphical abstract and graphics work on the figures.
FINANCIAL
The initial methodology development was partly financially supported by the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA). Dr Velis’ time was supported by the ‘Closing the Loops’ project funded by UNESCAP (Economic and Social Commission for the Asia and the Pacific). The views expressed here are of the authors’ alone.
DATA AVAILABILITY
All data relating to this study are available in the main text, supplementary information (SI) and supplementary data file, and also available in the associated Research Square preprint.
DECLARATION OF COMPETING INTEREST
Dr Costas Velis, Mr David Lerpiniere and Prof David Wilson are actively involved in the waste, resources and circular economy sector in research, advising, scholarship and consultancy capacities. Dr Costas Velis reports financial support was provided by Lloyd’s Register Foundation. Dr Costas Velis reports a relationship with International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) that includes: consulting or advisory, funding grants, speaking and lecture fees, and travel reimbursement. Dr Costas Velis reports financial support provided by UKRI, GCRF, NERC, ESRC, BBRSC, Royal Academy of Engineering, British Council, Innovate UK, EC H2020, World Bank Group, OECD, GIZ, UN-Habitat, UNESCAP, UNOPS, The PEW Charitable Trusts, IGES, ISWA, Grid-Arendal, Swedish EPA and SYSTEMIQ. David Lerpiniere’ s clients include World Bank Group, Common Seas, NORAD, ISWA, GIZ, UK Government, FCDO and Basel Convention Secretariat.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
D.J.L.: Conceptualization; Methodology; Validation; Data curation; Data Acquisition; Data Cleaning; Investigation; Formal analysis; Writing - Original Draft; Writing - Review & Editing; Visualization.
C.A.V.: Conceptualization; Methodology; Funding acquisition, Project administration, Analysis; Writing – original draft; Writing - Review & Editing; Visualization; Supervision; Validation; Resources.
D.C.W.: Conceptualization; Methodology; Writing - Review & Editing.
- AidData (2024). William & Mary's Global Research Institute. Available: https://www.aiddata.org/ [Accessed 10 April 2024].
- Alonso, J.A., and Glennie, J. (2015). What is development cooperation? New York. Available: [Accessed].
- Asian Development Bank (2019). Promoting Action on Plastic Pollution from Source to Sea in Asia and the Pacific. Manilla. Available: [Accessed: 10 September 2023].
- Bartone, C., Bernstein, J., and Wright, F. (1990). Investments in Solid Waste Management: Opportunities for Environmental Improvement. Washington DC. Available: [Accessed].
- Bartone, C.R., Leite, L., Triche, T., and Schertenleib, R. (1991). Private sector participation in municipal solid waste service: Experiences in Latin America. Waste Management & Research 9, 495-509.
- Blended Finance Task Force, and Systemiq (2023). Mobilizing Blended Finance for Circular Waste Collection and Sortation Infrastructure. Jakarta. Available: [Accessed: 1 October 2023].
- Borrelle, S.B., Ringma, J., Law, K.L., Monnahan, C.C., Lebreton, L., McGivern, A., Murphy, E., Jambeck, J., Leonard, G.H., Hilleary, M.A., Eriksen, M., Possingham, H.P., De Frond, H., Gerber, L.R., Polidoro, B., Tahir, A., Bernard, M., Mallos, N., Barnes, M., and Rochman, C.M. (2020). Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. Science 369, 1515-1518.
- Briggs, R. (2021). Why Does Aid Not Target the Poorest? International Studies Quarterly 65.
- Brown, A., Laubinger, F., and Börkey, P. (2023). New Aspects of EPR: Extending producer responsibility to additional product groups and challenges throughout the product lifecycle.
- Clean Air Fund, and Climate Policy Initiative (2023). The State of Air Quality Funding 2023. Available: [Accessed: 1 June 2023].
- Cointreau, S. (2006). Occupational and Environmental Health Issues of Solid Waste Management: Special Emphasis on Middle and Lower-Income Countries. Washington D.C. Available: http://www.worldbank.org/urban/. [Accessed: 1 September 2016].
- Cook, E., Souza, N.S.d., Lima Cano, and Velis, C.A. (2023). Informal recycling sector contribution to plastic pollution mitigation: A systematic scoping review and analysis of prevalence and productivity.
- Cottom, J.W., Cook, E., and Velis, C.A. (2023). A local-to-global emissions inventory of macroplastic pollution. available at Research Square.
- Cottom, J.W., Cook, E. and Velis, C.A. (2023). A local-to-global emissions inventory of macroplastic pollution. available at Research Square.
- Development Initiatives (2023). How much aid actually reaches countries with the greatest poverty? Bristol: D. Initiatives. Available: [Accessed: 1 March 2024].
- European Commission (2024). European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations (DG NEAR) [Online]. Available: https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/turkiye/eu-support-refugees-turkiye_en#:~:text=The%20full%20operational%20budget%20of,%2C%20and%20socio%2Deconomic%20support. [Accessed 5 April 2024 2024].
- European Union (2024). Available: https://euaidexplorer.ec.europa.eu/index_en [Accessed 11 March 2024].
- Gómez-Sanabria, A., Kiesewetter, G., Klimont, Z., Schoepp, W., and Haberl, H. (2022). Potential for future reductions of global GHG and air pollutants from circular waste management systems. Nature Communications 13, 106.
- Gopalan, P., and Bartone, C.R. (1997). Assessment of investments in solid waste management: Strategies for urban environmental improvement. Washington DC. Available: [Accessed: 1 September 2017].
- J.W.Tukey (1977). Exploratory Data Analysis.
- Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R., and Law, K.L. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347, 768-771.
- Kaza, S., Yao, L., Bhada-Tata, P., and Woerden, F.V. (2018). What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. Washington D.C.: W.B. Group. Available: [Accessed].
- Kiratli, O.S. (2019). On the Question of Generosity: Who Supports Foreign Aid to Whom?—Lessons from Turkey and Greece. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 32, 176-188.
- Lau, W.W.Y., Shiran, Y., Bailey, R.M., Cook, E., Stuchtey, M.R., Koskella, J., Velis, C.A., Godfrey, L., Boucher, J., Murphy, M.B., Thompson, R.C., Jankowska, E., Castillo Castillo, A., Pilditch, T.D., Dixon, B., Koerselman, L., Kosior, E., Favoino, E., Gutberlet, J., Baulch, S., Atreya, M.E., Fischer, D., He, K.K., Petit, M.M., Sumaila, U.R., Neil, E., Bernhofen, M.V., Lawrence, K., and Palardy, J.E. (2020). Evaluating scenarios toward zero plastic pollution. Science 369, 1455-1461.
- Lebreton, L., and Andrady, A. (2019). Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal. Palgrave Communications 5, 6.
- Lee, K.W. (2012). Do Emerging Donors Allocate Aid as DAC Members Do? The Case of Korea In The Millenium Era. Journal of International Development 24, 977-988.
- Lee, M., Banna, F., Ho, R., Bhada-Tata, P., and Kaza, S. (2014). Results-based Financing for Municipal Solid Waste. Washington D.C. Available: [Accessed].
- Lerpiniere, D., Wilson, D.C., Velis, C., Evans, B., Voss, H., and Moodley, K. (2014). Review of International Development Co-operation in Solid Waste Management. Vienna. Available: [Accessed: 1 November 2015].
- Mavropoulos, A., Wilson, D.C., Cooper, J., Velis, C.A., and Appelqvist, B. (2014). Globalisation and Waste Management. Vienna. Available: http://www.iswa.org/knowledgebase/tfgfinal [Accessed: 1 November 2015].
- Mittempergher, D., Raes, L., and Jain, A. (2022). The economic impact of marine plastic pollution in Antigua and Barbuda: Impacts on the fisheries and tourism sectors, and the benefits of reducing mismanaged waste. Switzerland. Available: [Accessed].
- Norweigan Government (2021). Overview of Projects Supported by the Norwegian Development Programme to Combat Marine Litter and Microplastics [Online]. Available: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/marine_litter/id2642037/ [Accessed 3 December 2023].
- OECD (2022). Global Plastics Outlook: Economic Drivers, Environmental Impacts and Policy Options. Paris. Available: [Accessed: 1 June 2024].
- OECD (2023a). "International Development Statistics". (Paris).
- OECD (2023b). Query Wizard for International Development Statistics [Online]. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available: https://stats.oecd.org/qwids/ [Accessed 5 March 2024].
- OECD (2024). DAC Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts [Online]. OECD. Available: https://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-glossary.htm [Accessed 5 April 2024 2024].
- Pathak, G., Nichter, M., Hardon, A., and Moyer, E. (2024). The Open Burning of Plastic Wastes is an Urgent Global Health Issue. Ann Glob Health 90, 3.
- Prather, L. (2020). Transnational Ties and Support for Foreign Aid. International Studies Quarterly 64, 133-147.
- Problue (2021). Annual Report. Washington DC. Available: [Accessed: 1 November 2022].
- Rodić, L., and Wilson, D.C. (2017). Resolving Governance Issues to Achieve Priority Sustainable Development Goals Related to Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries. Sustainability 9, 404.
- Shroder, P. (2020). Promoting a Just Transition to an Inclusive Circular Economy. London. Available: [Accessed].
- Soos, R., Whiteman, A., Wilson, D.C., Briclu, C., and Schwehn, E. (2013). Operator models - respecting diversity - concepts for sustainable waste management. Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH.
- Systemiq, and Pew Charitable Trusts (2020). Breaking the Plastic Wave: A Comprhensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastics Pollution. Available: [Accessed: 10 January 2021].
- UNEP (2023a). Revised draft text of the international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment.
- UNEP (2023b). Towards Zero Waste: a catalyst for delivering Sustainable Development Goals. Nairobi.
- UNEP (2023c). Turning off the Tap: How the world can end plastic polution and create a circular economy. Nairobi. Available: https://www.unep.org/resources/turning-off-tap-end-plastic-pollution-create-circular-economy [Accessed: 1 September 2023].
- United Nations (2015). Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development. Geneva. Available: [Accessed: 1 June 2019].
- Velis, C., Wilson, D., Gavish, Y., Grimes, S., and Whiteman, A. (2022a). Socio-Economic Development Drives Solid Waste Management Performance in Cities: A Global Analysis Using Machine Learning. SSRN Electronic Journal.
- Velis, C.A., and Cook, E. (2021). Mismanagement of Plastic Waste through Open Burning with Emphasis on the Global South: A Systematic Review of Risks to Occupational and Public Health. Environmental Science & Technology 55, 7186-7207.
- Velis, C.A., Hardesty, B.D., Cottom, J.W., and Wilcox, C. (2022b). Enabling the informal recycling sector to prevent plastic pollution and deliver an inclusive circular economy. Environmental Science & Policy 138, 20-25.
- Velis, C.A., Lerpiniere, D., and Tsakona, M. (2017). Prevent plastics marine litter – Now! Vienna. Available: my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/iswaonline_iswa_org/EXqoYP42q6BAoH-67xj22kYBkt43fzqhc8b6jb5ycxPgSw?e=PcI72Y [Accessed].
- Vergara, S., and Banna, F. (2013). "World Bank Financing: overview and innovative approaches to [methane] finance for solid waste". (Washington D.C.: World Bank).
- Wilson, D.C. (2007). Development drivers for waste management. Waste Management & Research 25, 198-207.
- Wilson, D.C. (2021). "The sustainable development goals as drivers of change.," in Handbook of Waste, Resources and the Circular Economy, eds. T. Tudor & C. Dutra. (London: Routledge).
- Wilson, D.C. (2023). Learning from the past to plan for the future: An historical review of the evolution of waste and resource management 1970–2020 and reflections on priorities 2020–2030 – The perspective of an involved witness. Waste Management & Research 41, 1754-1813.
- Wilson, D.C., Rodic, L., Modak, P., Soos, R., Rogero, A.C., Velis, C., Iyer, M., and Simonett, O. (2015). Global Waste Management Outlook. Nairobi: UNEP and ISWA.
- World Bank (2022). Transitioning to a Circular Economy: An Evaluation of the World Bank Group’s Support for Municipal Solid Waste Management (2010–20). Washington DC. Available: [Accessed: 1 November 2023].
- World Bank Group (2021). Bridging the Gap in Solid Waste Management: Governance Requirements in Solid Waste Management. Washginton DC. Available: [Accessed: 30 November 2022].
- World Bank Group (2023). World Bank Open Data [Online]. Washington DC: World Bank Group. Available: https://data.worldbank.org/ [Accessed 5 March 2024].
- World Bank Group (2024a). Available: https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/problue [Accessed].
- World Bank Group (2024b). City Creditworthiness Initiative: A Partnership to Deliver Municipal Finance [Online]. Available: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/brief/city-creditworthiness-initiative [Accessed 12 March 2024].
The authors declare potential competing interests as follows: Dr Costas Velis, Mr David Lerpiniere and Prof David Wilson are actively involved in the waste, resources and circular economy sector in research, advising, scholarship and consultancy capacities. Dr Costas Velis reports financial support was provided by Lloyd’s Register Foundation. Dr Costas Velis reports a relationship with International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) that includes: consulting or advisory, funding grants, speaking and lecture fees, and travel reimbursement. Dr Costas Velis reports financial support provided by UKRI, GCRF, NERC, ESRC, BBRSC, Royal Academy of Engineering, British Council, Innovate UK, EC H2020, World Bank Group, OECD, GIZ, UN-Habitat, UNESCAP, UNOPS, The PEW Charitable Trusts, IGES, ISWA, Grid-Arendal, Swedish EPA and SYSTEMIQ. David Lerpiniere’ s clients include World Bank Group, Common Seas, NORAD, ISWA, GIZ, UK Government, FCDO and Basel Convention Secretariat.
- SupplementaryMaterialLerpiniereVelisWilsonODFGlobalv1.pdf
Supplementaty Information
- SupplementaryDataLerpiniereVelisWilsonODFGlobalv1.xlsx
Supplementary Data