Leveraging the circular economy for efficient, resilient, and sustainable food systems in sub-Saharan Africa
College of Business and Economics, University of Johannesburg, Áuckland Park, South Africa
Article metrics
View details
Abstract
Sub-Saharan Africa’s (SSA) food systems are in disarray and unable to meet their mandate of feeding the rapidly growing continental population. This necessitates rethinking and unthinking plans, policies, and interventions to positively steer the continental food system and make it more effective and efficient. Underpinned by the circular economy (CE) theoretical framework, this article explores the potential of the CE in improving the African food system. Drawing on a systematic literature review of 76 documents from the Web of Science and Scopus databases, this article identifies the challenges of SSA food systems. It examines how a CE can improve the efficiency, resilience, and transformation of SSA’s food system. The findings show that adopting the CE can help improve SSA food systems by reducing waste and resource extraction by reusing resources, recycling nutrients, and maximising the value of by-products. It can enable regional food systems to shift from the linear ‘make, use, dispose’ model to a more sustainable approach that keeps resources in use for as long as possible. This involves minimising waste at all stages of the food supply chain, from production to consumption. The article concludes that circular food systems offer a lens through which to view food systems from a value-chain perspective, thereby minimising resource extraction and waste production.
1 Introduction
The concept of a circular economy (CE) refers to an economic system designed to minimise waste and pollution by keeping resources in circulation for as long as possible (Figge et al., 2023). It comprises strategies such as sharing, leasing, reusing, repairing, renovating, and recycling materials and products (Antonioli et al., 2022). The approach seeks to replace the current linear economy, which concentrates on taking, making, and disposing of resources, with a more sustainable model. In the context of food systems, a CE would seek to reduce waste and resource depletion by reducing food waste, maximising resource use, and promoting the reuse and recycling of by-products. In the context of food systems, the approach could be adapted to promote reducing food waste and maximising resource use by regenerating natural systems, sustaining the use of products and materials, and using renewable energy (Rabbi and Amin, 2024). It focuses on minimising resource extraction and waste generation across the food system while maximising the value of recovered outputs (Abbate et al., 2023).
One of the main challenges in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) food systems is food waste (Bessa et al., 2021; Mmereki et al., 2024). Significant food waste, contamination, and spoilage exist across the entire food supply chain in the region, leading to substantial economic losses and food insecurity. For instance, South Africa alone wastes about 10.3 million tonnes of food yearly, accounting for a third of its food production (Ronquest-Ross and Sigge, 2024). Across SSA, food losses range from 30 to 50% of total production (Okroro, 2024). Food waste and contamination occur at all stages of the SSA supply chain, from production to consumption. Substantial losses occur during primary production (farming) due to pests, diseases, unmarketable characteristics, and weather, especially for fruits and vegetables (Quintieri et al., 2023). Post-harvest handling and storage also contribute significantly, as do issues in transportation and retail. Food waste has a considerable economic cost, impacting farmers, businesses, and consumers. It also leads to the waste of resources such as water and energy used in production.
Food waste and contamination occur due to various factors, such as improper drying practices, like open-air solar drying. These methods can contaminate crops such as maize, sorghum, and groundnuts with aflatoxins. Aflatoxins are toxic substances produced by moulds that can pollute stored grains and cause serious health issues (Ayeni et al., 2020). High temperatures, moisture, and changes in rainfall patterns due to climate change worsen food contamination, especially for fruits and vegetables. Inadequate food storage and refrigeration facilities can also contribute to food spoilage, particularly in areas with limited infrastructure.
Food waste and losses have enormous economic and social implications. They lead to reduced food availability, price hikes, and resource strain (Ndhlovu, 2025a). Moreover, they can lead to land degradation and water wastage. Addressing food waste and contamination in SSA requires a multi-pronged approach that includes investments in infrastructure (e.g., cold storage and food-drying facilities), improvements in post-harvest food-handling practices, promotion of sustainable agricultural and food system practices, and consumer conscientization about food waste reduction strategies.
Implementing a CE has the potential to enhance more effective use of agricultural and food system resources and generate less waste throughout food systems (Bigdeloo et al., 2021; Ndhlovu, 2025b). A CE can help promote eco-friendly agricultural and food system practices (Sgroi, 2022). A CE may help the environment by reducing carbon emissions (Abbate et al., 2023). For Eisenreich et al. (2022), encouraging consumers to purchase through a closed-value chain and circular-economy processes has significant potential to reduce food loss and waste. Sustainable agricultural and food system practices, reduced waste, and optimal resource use can support a food company’s CE strategy. In Italy, Polman (2025) reports that Milan has implemented a successful urban food waste strategy focused on a collaborative business model. The city established ‘neighbourhood hubs’ against food waste that operate at a neighbourhood level. By 2023, five hubs had collected 615 tonnes of food, redistributing it to vulnerable populations and successfully bridging the gap between food waste reduction and social welfare. In Spain, Rodríguez and Camacho (2025) found that the Agro2Circular project was designed to create a ‘Territorial Circular Systemic Solution’, focusing on the Mediterranean region. The project focuses on upcycling fruit and vegetable waste into high-value nutraceuticals and converting multi-layer plastic packaging waste back into plastic pellets. This has reduced landfill waste volumes, lowered GHG emissions, and led to the development of new local economic sectors based on by-product utilisation. In Sweden, Plantagon, a company that operates high-tech urban vertical greenhouses, uses a closed-loop system that recycles water and nutrients within the building. The system produces fresh, organic vegetables while minimising land use, water consumption, and eliminating the need for transport, showcasing urban-based circular food production (Rizwan et al., 2025).
In Asia, the Metropolitan Authority in Thailand utilises processed food waste in rooftop agriculture as part of a ‘District Food Management Sandbox’ initiative, turning waste into high-value urban farming inputs (Salam, 2025). In Indonesia, Vermiculture (using earthworms) is used to treat food waste and livestock manure, converting them into premium organic fertiliser. This supports Indonesia’s goal of integrating circular practices in the food industry to achieve the 2045 Green Transformation Vision (Rahmah et al., 2025). Companies in the region are also increasingly using reverse logistics, the collection and reprocessing of used packaging, to reduce waste and minimise exploitation of natural resources (Salam, 2025). These initiatives have reduced food waste, lowered greenhouse gas emissions from landfills, and improved ecological health through soil regeneration (Nattassha et al., 2020). They have also ignited higher recycling rates, supported by subsidies and waste taxes. This has boosted food production efficiency and reduced farmers’ input costs. The initiatives, however, face challenges including limited space, insufficient financial resources for smaller farmers, and the need for improved market linkages to fully operationalise circular methods (Wikurendra et al., 2024). Overall, these instances show that a CE can facilitate a profitable, environmentally friendly food economy in SSA. However, studies examining how a CE can help build efficient, resilient, and sustainable food systems in SSA are limited. This article seeks to close this gap in the literature.
This article (i) explores the challenges of SSA food systems and (ii) examines how a CE can help as a potential intervention for facilitating efficient, resilient, and sustainable food systems in SSA. This article contributes to ongoing discussions on the transformation and sustainability of the SSA food system. It also provides insights on pathways towards attaining Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in SSA, particularly those related to hunger (SDG 2), health and wellbeing (SDG 3), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11), and climate action (SDG 13), which tend to be lagging compared to other global regions. Policymakers, food industry experts, politicians, academics, and students of agriculture and food systems could benefit from the overview of SSA food systems presented in this article and from insights into how a CE approach can help generate efficient, resilient, and sustainable food systems in the region.
The article proceeds as follows: The following section outlines the theoretical framework. This is followed by the research methodology adopted for the study. After that, the findings are presented and discussed under sub-sections. A CE approach is then proposed as having the potential to address the various food system challenges in SSA and facilitate the realisation of efficient, resilient, and sustainable food systems. After that, the challenges of integrating the CE in SSA’s food systems are outlined. Lastly, conclusions and recommendations are drawn from the findings and discussion.
2 Theoretical framework: the circular economy
The CE framework underpins this article. A CE is characterised by several key components that maximise resource use and reduce waste. These components include reducing, reusing, recycling, repairing, and re-manufacturing materials, as well as encouraging renewable energy and sustainable production practices (Chrispim et al., 2023). Eventually, the aim is to create closed-loop systems that keep materials in use for as long as possible, reducing the need for raw materials and minimising environmental impact (Bansal et al., 2022).
In food systems, the CE seeks to reduce waste through minimising resource consumption and waste generation at the food production and storage stages. Under the reuse component, the CE approach aims to create new uses for products and materials after their initial use, thereby extending their lifespans. Recycling is another component of the approach, aiming to recover materials from waste streams to produce new products. The other component is ‘repair’, which focuses on restoring damaged products to working order and prolonging their use. Re-manufacturing is the other component of the CE approach. This component focuses on taking used products, disassembling them, and re-manufacturing them to meet new specifications.
The CE also promotes the use of renewable energy. This entails utilising clean and sustainable energy sources to power the economy and reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Further, the approach promotes sustainable production practices. This is achieved by designing and producing products with durability, recyclability, and ease of disassembly in mind (Chen et al., 2020). In addition, the approach endorses the use of circular materials, focusing on developing and using materials that can be readily recycled and reused. The approach also encourages the creation of closed-loop systems in which products and materials are planned for reuse and recycling many times, minimising waste and resource depletion. Lastly, the approach provides insights into waste management opportunities, enabling the development of efficient waste collection, sorting, and recycling infrastructure. These components of the CE approach work together to create a more sustainable, resource-efficient economic model that minimises the environmental impact of production and consumption (Hapuwatte and Jawahir, 2021).
3 Methods and materials
This article adopted a systematic literature review methodology guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). This was meant to ensure a transparent, structured review of the published evidence. It uses defined rules to identify evidence, an a priori protocol for eligibility criteria, and well-defined search measures for literature collection
3.1 Literature search and coding
The PRISMA 2020 criteria were implemented. The articles for review were sourced from the Web of Science and Scopus databases. These are two leading and most comprehensive databases of peer-reviewed literature. The databases were combined to enhance the generality, strength, and reliability of the literature search on how the CE can be harnessed to improve food systems in SSA. The generic keywords ‘circular economy’, ‘closed-loop economy’, ‘regenerative economy’, and ‘resource-efficient economy’ were used to search for relevant papers. The refinement search query was entered as follows: ‘circular economy’ OR ‘Closed-loop economy’ OR ‘Regenerative economy’ OR ‘resource-efficient economy’ AND Food systems AND agriculture AND Farming. Table 1 lists the retrieval limits.
| Item | Description |
|---|---|
| Database | Scopus/Web of Science |
| Search field | Title, Abstract, Keywords |
| Keywords | “Circular economy” OR “Closed-loop economy” OR “Regenerative economy” OR “resource-efficient economy” AND Food systems AND agriculture AND Farming |
| Accessibility | All |
| Years | 01/01/2015–31/12/2025 |
| Author name | Exclude undefined names |
| Subject area | All |
| Publication stage | Final |
| Document Type | All |
| Language | English |
Paper retrieval limits from selected databases
3.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Generic searches of the Web of Science and Scopus databases yielded 377 and 148 articles, respectively, yielding a total of 525 articles. The search for texts was conducted on January 05, 2026, and was limited to text titles, abstracts, and keywords to exclude irrelevant papers. After a refined search, 212 articles were removed, leaving 313 articles
A total of 313 papers were, therefore, exported to CSV for manual screening and duplicate removal. This resulted in the elimination of 177 duplicate articles, leaving 136 eligible for abstract screening. After abstract screening, 41 articles were also excluded for lack of relevance, leaving 95 eligible for full screening. After full screening, 76 articles were deemed relevant, while 19 were eliminated for irrelevance. Table 2 provides more details on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, while Figure 1 summarises the article identification and selection process.
| Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria |
|---|---|
| Peer-reviewed papers from Scopus and Web of Science | Grey literature and papers found outside these two databases |
| Papers published between 2015 and 2025 | Papers published before 2015 and after 2025 |
| Papers from both open-access and subscription-based publishers | Papers from outside these open-access and subscription-based publishers |
| Final papers | Papers in press |
| English journal papers | Papers written in other languages |
| Papers on SSA only | Papers not focused on SSA |
Paper identification criteria
3.3 Data analysis
The article adopted manual content analysis, the analysis of a text’s content. The selected texts were first coded into manageable classes. Segments of interest were extracted from the relevant texts, focusing on the challenges of SSA’s food systems and the potential for CE interventions. The article employed both deductive coding for all identified segments of interest. Latent coding was used to generate an in-depth understanding of the potential of the CE to intervene in SSA food systems. The author read the entire text to gain an overall understanding of its argument and position on the potential impact of CE activities on food systems in SSA. Thematic analysis, in which themes are developed from available data, was then employed. A total of five themes emerged from the analysis. The first three themes detailed the challenges of SSA’s food systems. The last two themes focused on the benefits of CE activities and the strategies for utilising CE interventions in SSA’s food systems (see Table 3). These themes serve as the basis for the analysis and discussion of the potential of the CE to intervene in SSA food systems in this article.
| Main themes | No of papers | % |
|---|---|---|
| Climate change and environmental degradation | 17 | 22.4 |
| Low agricultural productivity and production constraints | 13 | 17.1 |
| Inadequate infrastructure and supply chain issues | 12 | 15.8 |
| Potential Benefits of a CE for SSA Food Systems | 19 | 25 |
| Strategies and practices for applying a CE in SSA food systems | 15 | 19.7 |
Key themes in the study
3.4 Limitations
Although the systematic review approach aims to eliminate bias, its success depends on the availability of high-quality research, the subjectivity of study selection, and the time-intensive, retrospective methodologies it entails. This study relied solely on articles in the Scopus and Web of Science databases and therefore failed to include all relevant databases or grey literature. This can lead to incomplete conclusions, particularly since the CE concept is still emerging and many documents remain in grey literature format. Excluding grey literature significantly compromised the validity and accuracy of the findings, as many texts are in grey literature format. The author also acknowledges that reliance on manual processes for content analysis could have led to inconsistencies in data interpretation. Peer review by colleagues could help minimise such inconsistencies.
4 Findings and discussion
A total of five themes emerged from the analysis (see Table 3). A total of 17 (22.4%) of the 76 articles focused on how climate change and environmental degradation affected SSA’s food systems. Another 13 articles (17.1%) focused on agricultural productivity, 12 (15.8%) examined the impact of inadequate infrastructure, and 19 (25%) examined how CE initiatives can help address SSA’s food systems challenges. Another 15 articles (19.7%) provided details on how circular-economy-based strategies can be implemented to improve various components of the food system. The study revealed that SSA’s food systems face a multi-faceted network of challenges that cooperatively contribute to food insecurity and malnutrition and hamper economic development across the continent. These challenges span environmental, economic, social, and political dimensions. The study, however, also revealed the potential of CE initiatives to address the identified challenges.
The following subsections provide details on these challenges and potential circular-economy-based interventions
4.1 Climate change and environmental degradation
Extreme weather events, including recurrent and severe droughts, floods, and unpredictable rainfall patterns, were among the significant challenges to African food systems, particularly food production (Ofori, 2025; Robertson et al., 2024; Shabani et al., 2024). These events directly impact crop yields, livestock, and overall agricultural productivity (Emmanuel et al., 2024; Mokone and Ndhlovu, 2025; Mukumba et al., 2025). A total of 22.4% of the reviewed articles explored the problematic role of climate change and environmental degradation on SSA’s food systems (see Table 3). Poor land management practices, overgrazing, deforestation, and changing climatic conditions lead to soil fertility exhaustion, erosion, and desertification, and to a reduction in arable land, thereby affecting food production (Amogne and Yalew, 2024; Crozier et al., 2025; Ezeudu et al., 2021). Bwalya et al. (2024) found that poor farmland management was the major problem in food production in Zambia. In broader Southern Africa, Rötter et al. (2024) found that poor farming practices were key challenges to food production and the leading cause of food insecurity in the sub-region. Simane et al. (2025) observed that Africa was grappling with severe food security challenges, driven in part by land degradation and water scarcity. They also found that climate variability and extreme weather events intensified food insecurity by reducing agricultural productivity, water availability, and livelihoods. CE initiatives can improve food systems by mitigating climate change and potentially reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This can be achieved by moving from a ‘take-make-waste’ linear model to a regenerative system that keeps resources in use, reduces waste, and restores natural systems (Kumba et al., 2024; Mekonnen et al., 2025; Oni et al., 2022).
The study revealed that pests and diseases driven by climate change are significantly affecting African food systems (Munubi et al., 2025). It is posited that climate change is facilitating the spread of crop diseases and pests, such as the fall armyworm, devastating harvests, and undermining food systems (Owojori et al., 2025; Zindi and Ndhlovu, 2025). Neuenschwander et al. (2023) reveal that Africa annually loses half of its harvest to pests (insects, pathogens, nematodes, weeds). Asibe et al. (2023) found that pests and crop diseases significantly affected maize production in Africa. Okonya et al. (2021) found that pests and diseases cause significant crop losses and contribute to household food insecurity in Uganda. Therefore, managing pests and diseases is key to enhancing SSA’s food security and nutritional security. Several reviewed texts propose that to offset these pests and disease-related food losses and waste and to improve food security in SSA, pest management also needs to be revamped immediately (Shai et al., 2024). Instead of using chemical sprays that ultimately harm the environment, the CE promotes regenerative practices to enhance biodiversity. For instance, start-ups like Chanzi in Tanzania and InsectiPro in Kenya use black soldier fly larvae to convert municipal organic waste into high-protein animal feed and rich organic fertiliser. This improves livestock health, making them less susceptible to diseases, while providing an alternative to costly, often imported feed. Kenyan company, Safi Organics, turns agricultural waste into organic biochar fertiliser. Such composted material has been shown to reduce soil-borne nematode densities by up to 90%, promoting healthier root systems that are more resistant to pathogens. In Ghana, VIVAGRI projects utilise agricultural residues, such as rice straw, maize stover, and sawdust, to cultivate mushrooms, with the resulting spent substrate used for snail farming or as organic fertiliser, creating a zero-waste, high-yield system (Tulashie et al., 2023).
African food systems struggle with water scarcity issues. The analysis indicated that many African sub-regions depend heavily on rain-fed agriculture, making them highly vulnerable to water shortages (Ingrao et al., 2023; Musse, 2021). Water shortages are severely impacting African food systems by lessening crop yields and livestock production, increasing food prices, and limiting agricultural productivity (Aijaz et al., 2025; Mhlanga and Ndhlovu, 2023). This significantly contributes to food insecurity, poverty, and even resource-related conflict in the region. In South Africa, for instance, Bonetti et al. (2022) conducted a study covering 17 major crops under current and future climate scenarios, focusing on their sustainability with respect to water resources and using the water debt repayment time indicator. These scholars found that high water debts led to unsustainable production of potatoes, pulses, grapes, cotton, rice, and wheat, requiring significant irrigation. These scholars also found that climate change scenarios intensified pressure on water resources, particularly in regions already susceptible, with a potential country-level increase in irrigation demand of 6.5 to 32% by 2090 (Bonetti et al., 2022). Overexploitation of groundwater will further worsen this issue (Srivastava et al., 2024). The CE concept offers much potential to reduce water consumption and use in food system activities. For instance, in Kenya and South Africa, wastewater generated from fish farming (hatcheries/ponds) is channelled into greenhouses to irrigate vegetables, as seen in projects where fish pond water provides nutrient-rich water for crops, reducing the need for separate freshwater irrigation (Ishuga et al., 2024; Kamau et al., 2025). Practices such as no-till farming and cover cropping, which protect the soil and minimise evaporation, are being used to keep soil moist across SSA. This approach improves soil health and decreases water loss. The Western Cape Department of Agriculture in South Africa also uses the Fruitlook tool, which provides satellite-based data to help farmers track water usage and growth (Ndhlovu, 2025c). This allows for precise irrigation, ensuring water is only applied where and when needed. Initiatives like Agricycle in Uganda and Kenya convert perishable fruits and vegetables into higher-value products on-site. Reducing food spoilage and transport times reduces the total water use throughout the food system (Black et al., 2021; Nabatanzi-Muyimba and Mugambwa, 2023). These initiatives create a circular water economy by reducing freshwater withdrawals, reusing treated water, and trapping moisture within the soil-food system, which is crucial for water security in SSA’s food systems.
4.2 Low agricultural productivity and production constraints
The analysis showed that SSA is primarily an agrarian region, with over 70% of the regional population directly relying on agriculture for livelihoods and income (Mathobela et al., 2024; Ndhlovu, 2025a). For instance, around 61% of the population, or 142 million people, in Southern African countries rely on agriculture for subsistence, employment, and income (Mutengwa et al., 2023; Ntawuhiganayo et al., 2023). In Southern Africa, except for Botswana (17%) and South Africa (14%), over 50% of the population in most countries directly depends on agriculture (Ndhlovu and Mhlanga, 2024). This magnitude of agriculture has enormous implications for sustainability and environmental welfare. Agriculture in SSA substantially impacts the environment, often resulting in adverse outcomes such as soil degradation, deforestation, and water scarcity (Degefu and Getachew, 2025; Gwara et al., 2021). For instance, a study in Ghana found that practices such as slash-and-burn farming, heavy use of agro-chemicals, and deforestation caused environmental degradation (Olanipekun et al., 2019). However, some scholars argue that agriculture also offers environmental benefits, such as soil enhancement, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity protection, depending on the practices used (Beesigamukama et al., 2023; Tindwa et al., 2024).
The analysis revealed that a significant portion of African agriculture comprises small-scale, primary, or subsistence farming, often with low yields (Aruwajoye and Coetzee, 2025; Ayompe et al., 2025). These farmers often intensify their farming practices to improve yields. The adopted practices often lead to environmental degradation (Nkwonta et al., 2023; Okroro, 2024). In addition, it was found that African smallholder farmers often have limited access to and adoption of modern farm inputs, such as improved seeds, fertilisers, and technology, due to costs, limited market access, and cash constraints (Mmereki et al., 2024; Ndhlovu, 2025b). Limited implementation of sustainable farming practices, such as soil and water preservation measures, also contributes to low productivity in SSA (Estefanos, 2023; Ingrao et al., 2023). A significant amount of food (up to 40% in some cases) is also lost post-harvest due to insufficient storage facilities, poor handling practices, and limited access to processing (Albizzati et al., 2022; Al-Jawaldeh and Meyer, 2023; Ndhlovu, 2025b). The study showed that CE initiatives have the potential to enhance productivity by converting agricultural waste into valuable resources, such as organic fertilisers, animal feed, and energy, thereby reducing reliance on costly, synthetic inputs and restoring soil health (Mgoma et al., 2025; Owojori et al., 2025). By adopting regenerative practices, these initiatives increase resilience to climate shocks and create new, localised revenue streams for farmers.
For instance, in Zambia, the Simalaha Incubator Farm Company, a community-based regenerative farm using crop rotation, livestock integration (moving coops), and biochar application to restore degraded land, has helped improve soil organic matter, which increased by 250% within 2 years. Improved soil health increased crop yield and quality. By creating their own compost and fertiliser, farmers in the surrounding area reduced their reliance on expensive, synthetic inputs. In Kenya, Bio-Innovate Limited at Ngong Town Market processes market organic waste into biogas and fertiliser. It provides peri-urban farmers with easy access to affordable, nutrient-rich liquid fertiliser and compost, boosting their vegetable yields (Ishuga et al., 2024; Kamau et al., 2025). The study showed that the widespread use of composting and biochar increases soil carbon, reduces erosion, and improves moisture retention, crucial for drought resistance. Farmers save money by replacing expensive imported, synthetic fertilisers and pesticides with locally made, organic alternatives. Farmers also gain additional income streams from selling agricultural by-products, such as residues and peels, to circular processing businesses. In addition, these initiatives create local employment, from waste collection to high-tech bio-processing.
4.3 Inadequate infrastructure and supply chain issues
A total of 12 articles (15.8%) reviewed found that the other key challenge to SSA food systems is poor transport networks (Aruwajoye and Coetzee, 2025; Ndebele-Murisa et al., 2024). Inferior roads, rail, and freight systems hinder the timely and safe transportation of agricultural products from farms to markets, increasing spoilage and damage (Ronquest-Ross and Sigge, 2024; Sgroi, 2022). In addition, a lack of suitable storage, particularly cold storage and processing facilities, was reported as resulting in substantial post-harvest losses and limiting value addition (Hoinle and Klosterkamp, 2023; Sagomba and Ndhlovu, 2025). It is also revealed that many smallholder farmers in SSA rural areas struggle to access markets due to poor transport networks, market disintegration, and limited information on market prices, leading to severe food loss and waste (Ronquest-Ross and Sigge, 2024; Sgroi, 2022). Bureaucratic processes and delays at ports of entry hinder intra-African trade and the development of efficient regional food supply chains (Ndhlovu, 2025b; Ndhlovu, 2025a).
To address the numerous infrastructural challenges, some start-ups and firms were reported as using mobile or small-scale units, such as shipping containers, to process waste and produce fertiliser or energy on-site (Chitaka et al., 2025; Ishuga et al., 2024). Organic waste, which accounts for up to 60% of municipal waste in African cities, is also being turned into nutrient-rich fertilisers and insect protein, thereby bypassing the need for complex waste-disposal infrastructure (Ndzeshala et al., 2025). By turning waste into a local resource, this model addresses the logistical challenge of transporting bulky, low-value waste while reducing dependence on synthetic fertilisers. This addresses both the waste crisis in urban areas and the shortage of affordable animal feed, creating a localised, circular supply chain. In addition, by generating inputs (fertiliser and feed) directly at farms or local hubs, circular models reduce reliance on broken or non-existent transport logistics. By localising inputs, supply chains are less vulnerable to fuel shortages, border closures, or poor transportation infrastructure. Farmers reduce costs by using locally produced, low-cost bio-fertilisers. Some initiatives integrate informal waste collectors, such as bicycle couriers, into the supply chain, ensuring consistent delivery of inputs despite poor infrastructure.
To address these interrelated food system challenges in SSA, the study highlighted the need for a multi-faceted approach, including investments in sustainable agriculture, infrastructure development, market access, climate change adaptation, and strong governance and policy frameworks. This article adds to this list by suggesting the potential of adopting a CE
4.4 Potential benefits of a CE for SSA food systems
A total of 19 (25%) of the articles agreed that leveraging the CE offers a transformative path to addressing several challenges in SSA food systems. It shows that CE initiatives in food systems provide significant environmental, economic, and social benefits, specifically by enhancing food security, reducing reliance on expensive external inputs, and creating localised jobs. By shifting from a ‘take-make-waste’ model to closed-loop systems, these initiatives restore soil health and build resilience against climate-induced shocks. CE practices like intercropping and mulching have been shown to increase crop yields by 15–20% (Ofori, 2025). Localising production reduces vulnerability to global supply chain disruptions, such as fuel shortages or international conflicts (van Rooyen et al., 2025). Circular models often require localised processing, which creates employment for youth and women, particularly in waste collection and valorisation. By recycling organic waste into bio-fertilisers or animal feed, farmers can reduce their dependency on expensive, often imported, synthetic fertilisers by up to 30%. Initiatives such as anaerobic digestion can prevent 0.5 to 1 tonne of CO2 emissions for every tonne of food waste recycled rather than landfilled. CE also helps restore degraded land, which affects roughly 70% of arable land in SSA.
The analysis showed that adopting a CE framework can enhance food security and nutrition for the region’s rapidly growing population (Agaja and Olaniran, 2025). By reducing food loss and waste, the CE directly increases the availability of safe and nutritious food for people. The CE approach can also boost crop and livestock yields through resource-efficient technologies and diversified production. In addition, the CE can also increase the resilience of SSA food systems. This can be achieved by reducing dependence on external inputs (such as synthetic fertilisers and agro-chemicals) and consolidating local value chains, making food systems more resilient to diverse shocks (van Rooyen et al., 2025).
The CE approach also increases the chances of environmental sustainability. It can minimise resource exhaustion and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by addressing food waste and promoting sustainable practices (Omotoso and Omotayo, 2024). It can also mitigate land degradation, water pollution, and biodiversity loss. Furthermore, the CE approach offers greater economic opportunities and improved livelihoods. New income streams can be created by valorising waste into valuable products, such as compost, bioenergy, and insect-based feed. It can also generate job opportunities in areas such as waste collection, processing, and the development of new bio-based products. The CE approach can also facilitate improved resource efficiency. This can be achieved by optimising water, energy, and land use through closed-loop systems and innovative technologies (Brenya et al., 2024). Table 4 outlines examples of CE initiatives already being implemented in SSA and from which other start-ups and countries can draw practical lessons.
| Company/initiative | Country | Description | Key impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chanzi | Tanzania | Uses “vernacular” insect farming to convert 18,000 kg of organic waste daily into animal feed and fertiliser. | Creates 20 + full-time jobs and provides feed costs 25–40% lower than conventional soy or fish meal. |
| Songhai Integrated Farming | Benin | A closed-loop system integrating crop production, livestock, aquaculture, and renewable energy. | Minimises waste by using crop residues for animal feed and animal waste for fertiliser and biogas. |
| Safi Organics | Kenya | Converts rice waste (husks) into high-quality biochar fertiliser. | Improves farmer yields and resilience while sequestering approximately 1.7 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per acre. |
| The Waste Transformers | South Africa/Liberia | Sells decentralised “nutrient hubs” in 6-meter shipping containers that process 500–3,600 kg of organic waste daily. | Converts waste directly into on-site electricity, biogas, and liquid fertiliser. |
| Insectipro | Kenya | Rears crickets on food by-products to create protein-rich flour for human nutrition and animal feed. | Addresses nutrient deficiencies (iron, zinc, protein) in malnourished children while turning waste into profit. |
| Fruitlook | South Africa | A digital platform providing real-time data to help farmers optimise water use. | Enhances water efficiency and climate-smart decision-making for deciduous fruit and grape farmers. |
Examples of case CE initiatives in SSA
4.5 Strategies and practices for applying a CE in SSA food systems
Several strategies and practices for applying the CE framework in SS’s food systems were proposed. A total of 15 articles (19.7%) detailed how the CE approach can be applied to improve food security in Africa. It was found that integrating the CE in SSA’s food systems involves, firstly, reducing food loss and waste (Lungaho et al., 2025; Thwala and Ndhlovu, 2025). This can be achieved through improving post-harvest handling and storage. SSA food system stakeholders can invest in climate-resilient infrastructure, such as solar-powered cold storage, well-organised drying systems, and suitable packaging to minimise food spoilage (Brenya et al., 2024). Food system stakeholders may also consider adding value to by-products to improve food systems. Stakeholders can focus on transforming agricultural remains and food waste into higher-value products, such as animal feed, compost, biochar, and biogas (Sagomba and Ndhlovu, 2025; van Rooyen et al., 2025). Examples include using maise and coffee husks as mulch or turning fruit waste into jams. In addition, food system stakeholders can help promote behavioural change. Educating consumers, producers, and retailers on waste reduction practices.
Implementing a CE in SSA’s food systems also entails regenerative agriculture. This may involve improving soil health through practices such as composting, manure management, cover cropping, minimum tillage, and crop rotation to enhance soil fertility, water retention, and carbon sequestration. This may also entail adopting integrated crop-livestock systems. This is achieved by utilising animal manure as crop fertiliser and crop residues as livestock feed, creating closed nutrient loops. Food system stakeholders, especially farmers, may also leverage agroforestry, integrating trees into farming systems to improve soil health and biodiversity and to provide a range of products. Furthermore, they can adopt integrated pest management strategies (Brenya et al., 2024). This may involve reducing dependence on synthetic pesticides by adopting biological, cultural, and mechanical pest control methods.
Efficient resource management is another strategy for applying the CE in SSA food systems. This may involve precision agriculture. Technologies using Artificial Intelligence, such as remote sensing, robots, and the Internet, can be used to optimise inputs, such as water, spray chemicals, and fertilisers, leading to higher yields and lower waste. Smart Irrigation Systems can also help save water. The CE approach also offers safe and effective ways to reuse water in agricultural practices, thereby improving overall operational efficiency and resilience (van Rooyen et al., 2025).
Implementing a CE in SSA’s food systems also entails adopting circular business models and innovation. This may be achieved by supporting small and emerging businesses in converting organic waste into valuable resources. There is also a strong need to localise food processing to decrease food miles and enable the recycling of agricultural by-products (Ndhlovu, 2025b). Stakeholders can also consider developing bio-refineries to facilitate the extraction of multiple high-value products from biomass and organic waste streams. Another potential strategy is to engage in aquaponics. This entails combining aquaculture (fish farming) with hydroponics (growing plants without soil), where fish waste provides nutrients for the plants (Duncan et al., 2023).
5 A proposed framework for integrating CE principles in SSA’S food systems
Integrating CE principles into SSA’s food systems is critical for transforming a sector largely based on a linear ‘take-make-waste’ model, which currently leaves 29% of the population facing food insecurity while causing significant environmental degradation. However, a clear approach to how these principles should be integrated is required. A clear, structured approach is essential to convert 30–40% food loss rates into opportunities for, and to shift toward, regenerative practices that improve soil health, increase yields, and strengthen climate resilience. Figure 2 summarises a proposed closed-loop approach for integrating CE principles to improve SSA’s food systems.
Figure 2 shows that integrating CE principles into SSA’s food systems involves moving toward a regenerative approach that eliminates waste, circulates materials, and regenerates nature. In SSA, this entails leveraging traditional agroecological knowledge alongside modern technology to improve food security and rural livelihoods while preserving biodiversity
Key aspects of this integration include:
5.1 Regenerative agricultural practices
Integrating CE principles into SSA’s food systems entails utilising organic waste as compost and biochar rather than allowing it to rot in landfills, thereby restoring soil fertility and decreasing reliance on synthetic fertilisers. It also involves implementing and scaling traditional farming methods such as crop rotation and agroforestry to boost biodiversity and soil resilience. In addition, it entails using internet-based technologies, remote sensing, and real-time environmental data to optimise crop yields while minimising water, fertiliser, and pesticide inputs.
5.2 Waste valorisation and nutrient cycling
Integrating CE principles into SSA’s food systems also entails converting organic agricultural residues and urban waste into animal feed using insects, such as black soldier flies, helping to address the high costs of animal feed, particularly for aquaculture and poultry. It also involves transforming agricultural residues and municipal organic waste into bioenergy (biogas) and nutrient-rich bio-fertiliser through anaerobic digestion. In addition, it entails developing local, low-cost solar-powered refrigeration and improving processing to turn wasted fruits and vegetables into higher-value products, such as drying and fermentation.
5.3 Urban–rural linkages
Figure 2 also shows that integrating CE principles into SSA’s food systems entails supporting small-scale, vertical farming, and hydroponic systems near city centres to reduce transportation costs and food waste. It also involves implementing waste collection systems that bring urban organic waste back to rural areas for composting, thus closing the nutrient loop
5.4 Systemic enablers
Integrating CE principles into SSA’s food systems also entails recognising and formalising the roles of informal waste pickers and traders, integrating them into structured waste management chains. In addition, governments must create supportive policies that provide financial incentives for small businesses focusing on circularity, such as extended producer responsibility schemes for packaging. It is also vital to foster community cooperatives and utilise digital platforms for sharing best practices in agroecology and resource recovery.
6 Challenges and considerations
Although the potential is enormous, implementing the CE in SSA’s food systems faces numerous challenges. These challenges include insufficient infrastructure to support efficient food system operations. Inadequate food storage, processing, and transportation infrastructure significantly contribute to post-harvest losses in SSA (Okroro, 2024; Ronquest-Ross and Sigge, 2024). SSA food system actors, particularly smallholder farmers, also experienced limited access to financing (Ndhlovu, 2025b). High upfront investment costs for circular technologies and models may hinder food system actors.
There are also knowledge and technology gaps that may hamper the adoption of the CE. Awareness and access to suitable CE technologies and practices may be limited, thus impeding adoption (Hoinle and Klosterkamp, 2023; Mmereki et al., 2024)
Policy and regulatory frameworks may also affect the adoption of the CE in SSA food systems. Restrictive policies and insufficient incentives to support the transition to circular food systems could contribute to limited adoption of the CE approach by SSA food system stakeholders (Ndhlovu, 2025b; Rötter et al., 2024). There are also cultural practices that may hinder the adoption of the CE. Some traditional practices, particularly in rural areas, may need to be adapted to embrace circularity. Furthermore, many agricultural systems in SSA are dominated by smallholder farmers. These farmers require tailored solutions for their farming activities.
7 Conclusions and policy recommendations
This article explored the challenges of SSA food systems and examined how a CE approach could serve as a potential intervention to facilitate efficient, resilient, and sustainable food systems. Underpinned by the CE framework, the article showed that SSA’s food systems face several challenges, ranging from climate change, food loss and waste, land degradation, limited infrastructure, and unsustainable production practices and consumption patterns. These challenges compromise the activities of all food system stakeholders, from production to consumption, via storage, processing, transportation, and retail. The article concludes that SSA food systems are at a crisis point that necessitates urgent intervention. It proposes adopting the CE as a potential intervention strategy.
The article argues that to fast-track the transition to circular food systems in SSA, food system actors and policymakers should focus on developing clear policies and providing incentives that promote circularity, waste reduction, and resource recovery in the food sector. SSA governments must also prioritise investments in climate-resilient storage, processing facilities, and transportation networks. In addition, in partnership with the private sector and financial institutions, national and local governments need to create dedicated financing facilities, grants, and preferential rates for agribusinesses and farmers implementing circular models. SSA governments also need to invest in research and development for context-specific circular-economy solutions and to consolidate agricultural extension services to disseminate knowledge and best practices to farmers and other food system actors. There is also a need for capacity building and awareness. This can be achieved by providing training and education programmes for food system actors on CE principles and technologies. Further, SSA food system stakeholders need to establish robust systems to track food loss and waste, resource flows, and the impact of circular-economy interventions. By embracing the principles and practices of the CE, SSA can build food systems that are efficient, resilient, and truly sustainable, fostering food security and economic development for current and future generations.
Several limitations are associated with this study. The systematic literature review methodology used represents a limitation. Although the method aims to eliminate bias, its success depends on the availability of high-quality research, the subjectivity of study selection, and the time-intensive, retrospective methodologies it entails. The use of Scopus and Web of Science databases may have excluded critical documents that could have added value but are not listed by either database. Excluding grey literature could have compromised the validity and accuracy of the findings, as many texts on CE initiatives in SSA are published in grey literature. The study also utilised both empirical and review articles. This does not provide a complete picture of the impact of CE initiatives since review articles are not based on empirical evidence. Future studies should conduct empirical research on these issues to provide a comprehensive assessment of the impact of CE initiatives in the region. Future studies also need to explore how to better link organic waste from cities with agricultural needs. They also need to explore new technologies for recycling organic waste and reducing food loss at the source. In addition, there is a need for research on how to better align national development strategies with circular food principles.
Statements
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication
Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge the University of Johannesburg for affiliation support
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. Grammarly was used for language editing in this article. The Google Gemini App, versions Gemini .5 Flash was used to generate Figure 2. AI tools were used solely to support clarity and readability. All AI-supported outputs were reviewed, revised, and approved by the author, who retains full responsibility for the scholarly content of this publication.
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
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsus.2026.1844373/full#supplementary-material
References
1
AbbateS.CentobelliP.CerchioneR.GiardinoG.PassaroR. (2023). Coming out of the egg: assessing the benefits of CE strategies in Agri-food industry. J. Clean. Prod.385:135665. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135665
2
AgajaF. O.OlaniranA. F. (2025). Application of food safety culture in attaining wellbeing and sustainable CE. NIPES7, 1280–1291. doi: 10.37933/nipes/7.4.2025.SI148
3
AijazN.LanH.RazaT.YaqubM.IqbalR.PathanM. S. (2025). Artificial intelligence in agriculture: advancing crop productivity and sustainability. J. Agric. Food Res.20:101762. doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2025.101762
4
AlbizzatiP. F.RocchiP.CaiM.ToniniD.AstrupT. F. (2022). Rebound effects of food waste prevention: environmental impacts. Waste Manag.153, 138–146. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2022.08.020
5
Al-JawaldehA.MeyerA. (2023). Reshaping Food Systems to Improve Nutrition and Health in the Eastern Mediterranean Region. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers doi: 10.11647/OBP.0322
6
AmogneA. A.YalewK. W. (2024). Assessment of household solid waste characteristics, quantity, and management practices in Dangila town, Ethiopia. Environ. Monit. Assess.196:894. doi: 10.1007/s10661-024-13064-5
7
AntonioliD.GhisettiC.MazzantiM.NicolliF. (2022). Sustainable production: the economic returns of CE practices. Bus. Strat. Environ.31, 2603–2617. doi: 10.1002/bse.3046
8
AruwajoyeN. N.CoetzeeR. (2025). Transitioning from linear to circular systems offers sustainable solutions for smallholder agriculture in the global south. Environ. Chall.21:101300. doi: 10.1016/j.envc.2025.101300
9
AsibeA. F.NgegbaP. M.MugehuE.AfolabiC. G. (2023). Status and management strategies of major insect pests and funal diseases of maize in Africa. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 19, 686–697. doi: 10.5897/AJAR2023.16358
10
AyeniK. I.AkinyemO. M.KovačT.ChibunduN. E. (2020). Aflatoxin contamination of maize vended in Ondo state, Nigeria, and health risk assessment. Croat. J. Food Sci. Technol.12, 123–129. doi: 10.17508/CJFST.2020.12.1.16
11
AyompeL. M.NkonghoR. N.AcobtaA. N.MassoC.EgohB. N. (2025). Transforming palm oil production: sustainable techniques and waste management strategies for Cameroon’s smallholder farmers. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.9:1606323. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1606323
12
BansalS.JainM.GargI.SrivastavaM. (2022). Attaining CE through business sustainability approach: an integrative review and research agenda. J. Public Aff.22, 1–21. doi: 10.1002/pa.2319
13
BeesigamukamaD.TangaC. M.SevganS.EkesiS.KelemuS. (2023). Waste to value: global perspective on the impact of entomocomposting on environmental health, greenhouse gas mitigation and soil bioremediation. Sci. Total Environ.902:166067. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166067
14
BessaL., AgangaO.MontheB. (2021). Turning Africa’s Food Waste problem into a Regenerative Opportunity. Available online at: https://climate champions.unfccc.int/turning-africas-food-waste-problem-into-a-regenerative-opportunity/ (Accessed May 7, 2025)
15
BigdelooM.TeymourianT.KowsariE.RamakrishnaS.EhsaniA. (2021). Sustainability and CE of food wastes: waste reduction strategies, higher recycling methods, and improved valorization. Materials CE3:3. doi: 10.1007/s42824-021-00017-3
16
BlackM. J.RoyA.TwinomunujiE.KemausuorF.OduroR.LeachM.et al. (2021). Bottled biogas—an opportunity for clean cooking in Ghana and Uganda. Energies14:3856. doi: 10.3390/en14133856
17
BonettiS.SutanudjajaE. H.MabhaudhiT.SlotowR.DalinC. (2022). Climate change impacts on water sustainability of South African crop production. Environ. Res. Lett.17:084017. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac80cf
18
BrenyaR.JiangY.SampeneA. K.ZhuJ. (2024). Food security in sub-Saharan Africa: Exploring the nexus between nutrition, innovation, circular economy, and climate change. J. Clean. Prod.438:140805. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140805
19
BwalyaB.MutandwaE.ChilubaB. C. (2024). Sustainable land management and implications on incomes, food self-sufficiency, and women. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.8:1393489. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1393489
20
ChenL.HungP.MaH. (2020). Integrating circular business models and development tools in the CE transition process: a firm-level framework. Bus. Strat. Environ.29, 1887–1898. doi: 10.1002/bse.2477
21
ChitakaT. Y.SchenckC.PetersenJ. (2025). Enhancing circular economic activities of e-waste pickers in South Africa: using Korten’s four generations strategies as framework. Sustain. Dev.33, 7603–7616. doi: 10.1002/sd.3532
22
ChrispimM. C.MattssonM.UlvenbladP. (2023). The underrepresented key elements of CE: a critical review of assessment tools and a guide for action. Sustainable Prod. Consumption35, 539–558. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2022.11.019
23
CrozierM. N.NtsalaP. G.SchenckC.Crozier McClelandJ.van DykE. E.PetersenJ. (2025). Drivers, barriers, and enablers of a South African circular solar PV module supply chain: A focus on reuse. Waste Manage. Res.43, 2116–2132. doi: 10.1177/0734242X251340306
24
DegefuM. A.GetachewS. (2025). Examining the CE–solid waste–sustainability education nexus for sustainable urban waste governance in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Socioecol. Pract. Res.7, 461–475. doi: 10.1007/s42532-025-00234-z
25
DuncanA. J.AyantundeA.BlummelM.AmoleT.PadmakumarV.MoranD. (2023). Applying circular economy principles to the intensification of livestovk production in sub-Saharan Africa. Outlook to Agriculture, 52, 327–338. doi: 10.1177/00307270231199116
26
EisenreichA.FüllerJ.StuchteyM.Gimenez-JimenezD. (2022). Toward a circular value chain: impact of the CE on a company’s value chain processes. J. Clean. Prod.378:134375. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134375
27
EmmanuelJ. K.JumaM. J.MloziS. H. (2024). Biogas generation from food waste through anaerobic digestion technology with emphasis on enhancing CE in sub-Saharan Africa – a review. Energy Rep.12, 3207–3217. doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2024.09.008
28
EstefanosS. E. (2023). Land degradation causes, consequences and sustainability of the restoration efforts: the case of Soro Wereda, Hadiya zone, southern Ethiopia. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Res.9, 18–27. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.11
29
EzeuduO. B.AgunwambaJ. C.UgochukwuU. C.EzeduT. S. (2021). Temporal assessment of municipal solid waste management in Nigeria: prospects for CE adoption. Rev. Environ. Health36, 327–344. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2020-0084
30
FiggeF.ThorpeA.GutberletM. (2023). Definitions of the CE: circularity matters. Ecol. Econ.208:107823. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107823
31
GwaraS.WaleE.OdindoA.BuckleyC. (2021). Attitudes and perceptions on the agricultural use of human excreta and human excreta-derived materials: a scoping review. Agriculture(Switzerland)11:153. doi: 10.3390/agriculture11020153
32
HapuwatteB. M.JawahirI. S. (2021). Closed-loop sustainable product design for CE. J. Ind. Ecol.25, 1430–1446. doi: 10.1111/jiec.13154
33
HoinleB.KlosterkampS. (2023). Food justice in public catering places: Mapping social-ecological inequalities in the urban food systems. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7:1085494. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1085494
34
IngraoC.StrippoliR.LagioiaG.HuisinghD. (2023). Water scarcity in agriculture: an overview of causes, impacts and approaches for reducing the risks. Heliyon9:e18507. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18507
35
IshugaE. M.MugishoG. M.ThenyaT. (2024). Unlocking solid waste circularity in urban settings: insights from upcoming town in Kenya. Clean. Waste Syst.8:100157. doi: 10.1016/j.clwas.2024.100157
36
KamauE. A.MwitoM. M.JoshuaP. M.MogakaH. R.KirimiF. K.OnyariC. N.et al. (2025). Influence of selected institutional factors on adoption intensity of CE practices among sugarcane and rice processors in Western Kenya. J. Glob. Innov. Agric. Sci.13, 1473–1480. doi: 10.22194/JGIAS/25.1715
37
KumbaH.MakepaD. C.CharambaA. N.OlanrewajuO. (2024). Towards CE: integrating waste management for renewable energy optimization in Zimbabwe. Sustainability (Switzerland)16:5014. doi: 10.3390/su16125014
38
LungahoM.OjuederieO. B.OdoziE. B.MshelmbulaB. P.OnawoL. O.IgieborF. A.et al. (2025). From discard to re groundnut waste. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.9:1684699. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1684699
39
MathobelaR. M.MolotsiA. H.MarufuM. C.StrydomP. E.MapiyeC. (2024). Transitioning opportunities for sub-Saharan Africa’s small-scale urban pig farming towards a sustainable circular bioeconomy. Int. J. Agric. Sustain.22:2315918. doi: 10.1080/14735903.2024.2315918
40
MekonnenB.WilskeB.AddisuB.NigussieA.SiegfriedK.GizachewS.et al. (2025). Biochar-based fertilizers increase crop yields in acidic tropical soils. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin.19, 1124–1142. doi: 10.1002/bbb.2777
41
MgomaS. T.BasitereM.MshayisaV. V.De JagerD. (2025). A systematic review on sustainable extraction, preservation, and enhancement in food processing: the advancement from conventional to green technology through ultrasound. PRO13:965. doi: 10.3390/pr13040965
42
MhlangaD.NdhlovuE. (2023). Digital technology adoption in the agriculture sector: challenges and complexities in Africa. Human Behav. Emerg. Technol.2023, 1–10. doi: 10.1155/2023/6951879
43
MmerekiD.DavidV. E.BrownellA. H. W. (2024). The management and prevention of food losses and waste in low- and middle-income countries: A mini-review in the Africa region. Waste Manag. Res.42, 287–307. doi: 10.1177/0734242×231184444
44
MokoneN.NdhlovuE. (2025). “Impact of global challenges on the African food system: a critical assessment,” in African Food Systems, ed. NdhlovuE. (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-90823-1_14
45
MukumbaC. P.ZuluS. L.KavisheN. (2025). Circular procurement assessment methods in the built environment: a scientometric analysis and systematic review. Sustain. 17:9409. doi: 10.3390/su17219409
46
MunubiR. N.LamtaneH. A.HamadM. I. (2025). “Solutions for climate change impact in aquaculture and tools for assessing their effectiveness,” in Intelligent Solutions to Evaluate Climate Change Impacts, (New York: IGI Global), 155–180. doi: 10.4018/979-8-3693-5898-6.ch007
47
MusseS. A. (2021). Exploring the cornerstone factors that cause water scarcity in some parts of Africa, possible adaptation strategies, and quest for food security. Agric. Sci.12, 700–712. doi: 10.4236/as.2021.126045
48
MutengwaC. S.MnkeniP.KondwakwendaA. (2023). Climate-smart agriculture and food security in Southern Africa: A review of vulnerability of smallholder agriculture and food security to climate change. Sustainability, 15:2882. doi: 10.3390/su15042882
49
Nabatanzi-MuyimbaA. K.MugambwaJ. (2023). “Institutionalization and enforcement of circular fisheries practices in Uganda: the military’s role in implementing the National Fisheries Policy,” in CE Strategies and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainable Development Goals Series, Part F2780, eds. Erdiaw-KwasieM. O.AlamG. M. M. (Singapore: Springer Nature), 595–640. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-3083-8_19
50
NattasshaR.HandayatiY.SimatupangT. M. (2020). Understanding CE implementation in the Agri-food supply chain: the case of an Indonesian organic fertiliser producer. Agric. Food Secur.9:10. doi: 10.1186/s40066-020-00264-8
51
Ndebele-MurisaM.MubayaC. P.DekesaC. H.SamundengoA.KaputeF.YossaR. (2024). Sustainability of aqua feeds in Africa: a narrative review. Sustainability16:10323. doi: 10.3390/su162310323
52
NdhlovuE. (2025a). “Current state of agriculture and African food systems,” in African Food Systems, ed. NdhlovuE. (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-90823-1_2
53
NdhlovuE. (2025b). “Introduction: Africa’s food systems: prospects for resilience, recovery, innovation, and sustainable transformation,” in African Food Systems, ed. NdhlovuE. (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-90823-1_1
54
NdhlovuE. (2025c). Towards urban food system transformation in South Africa. Discover Sustain.6:834. doi: 10.1007/s43621-025-01607-w
55
NdhlovuE.MhlangaD. (2024). “Towards a functional food system in Africa,” in The Russia and Ukraine Conflict: Implications for Sustainable Development Prospects in Africa, eds. NdhlovuE.MhlangaD. (Cham: Springer), 345–361. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-63333-1_21
56
NdzeshalaS. T.AdubasimC. V.JosephP. O.UgwuV. U.NnadiA. L.SatoS.et al. (2025). Converting lignified waste to dignified wealth: the crucial role of microbial biotechnology in sustainable agriculture and environmental management. Environ. Eng. Manag. J.24, 583–604. doi: 10.30638/eemj.2025.046
57
NeuenschwanderP.BorgemeisterC.De GrooteH.SæthreM.-G.TamòM. (2023). Perspective article: food security in tropical Africa through climate-smart plant health management. Heliyon9:e15116. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15116
58
NkwontaC. G.AumaC. I.GongY. (2023). Underutilised food crops for improving food security and nutrition health in Nigeria and Uganda—a review. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.7:1126020. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1126020
59
NtawuhiganayoE. B.Nijman-RossE.GemeT.NegesaD.NahimanaS. (2023). Assessing the adoption of regenerative agricultural practices in eastern Africa. Front. Sustain.4:1105846. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2023.1105846
60
OforiP. (2025). CE practices in third-world nations: challenges and implications for environmental sustainability. Environ. Dev. Sustain.27, 1691–1745. doi: 10.1007/s10668-023-03939-x
61
OkonyaJ. S.MudegeN. N.NyagaJ. N.JogoW. (2021). Determinants of women’s decision-making power in pest and disease management: evidence from Uganda. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.5:693127. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.693127
62
OkroroP. (2024). Tackling food waste in Africa: we need to make haste. AFEX. Available online at: https://www.afex.africa/blog/tackling-food-waste-in-africa-we-need-to-make-haste
63
OlanipekunI. O.Olasehinde-WilliamsG. O.AlaoR. O. (2019). Agriculture and environmental degradation in Africa: the role of income. Sci. Total Environ.692, 60–67. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.129
64
OmotosoA. B.OmotayoA. O. (2024). The interplay between agriculture, greenhouse gases, and climate change in sub-Saharan Africa. Reg. Environ. Chang.24, 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s10113-023-02159-3
65
OniO. O.NevoC. M.HampoC. C.OzobodoK. D. O.OlajideI. O.IbidokunA. O.et al. (2022). Current status, emerging challenges, and future prospects of industrial symbiosis in Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res.16:49. doi: 10.1007/s41742-022-00429-2
66
OwojoriO. M.ErasmusL. J.PandeyS.OlubambiP. A.SadareO.AyeleruO. O. (2025). “Leveraging private sector investment for climate-resilient water security for green growth in sub-Saharan Africa,” in Water Remediation Methods and Wastewater Treatment, (Elsevier), 111–140. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-33038-4.00025-8
67
PolmanD. (2025). Policymaking for circular urban food systems: a systematic literature review of policy instruments and governance arrangements. Reg. Sci. Policy Pract.17:100250. doi: 10.1016/j.rspp.2025.100250
68
QuintieriL.KooO. K.CalebO. J. (2023). Editorial: fight against food waste: combating contamination and spoilage. Front. Microbiol.14:1265477. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1265477
69
RabbiM. F.AminM. B. (2024). CE and sustainable practices in the food industry: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis. Clean. Responsib. Consum.14:100206. doi: 10.1016/j.clrc.2024.100206
70
RahmahD. M.FaojiahR. S.DewiM. S.AmaruK.SetiawanA. A. R.PramulyaR.et al. (2025). Dynamic modelling of circular economic implementation towards sustainable coffee agroforestry in Indonesia. Discover Sustain.6:1243. doi: 10.1007/s43621-025-02039-2
71
RizwanD.KirmaniS. B. R.MasoodiF. A. (2025). CE in the food systems: a review. Environ. Qual. Manag.34:e70096. doi: 10.1002/tqem.70096
72
RobertsonV.MajiwaE.TaremwaN. K. (2024). “Exploring CE awareness, perceptions and practices in selected urban slums in Kigali City of Rwanda,” in Urban Slums and CE Synergies in the Global South. Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements, eds. OkyereS. A.AbunyewahM.Erdiaw-KwasieM. O.BoatengF. G. (Singapore: Springer), 47–69. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-9025-2_4
73
RodríguezM.CamachoJ. A. (2025). Quantifying service sector waste: insights from the Spanish economy. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.32, 18380–18391. doi: 10.1007/s11356-025-36758-w
74
Ronquest-RossL. C.SiggeG. O. (2024). South Africa’s food system: an industry perspective on past, present, and future applications of science and technology. S. Afr. J. Sci.120:16536. doi: 10.17159/sajs.2024/16536
75
RötterR. P.NkomoM.zu DrewerJ. M.VesteM. (2024). “Agricultural land-use systems and management challenges,” in Sustainability of Southern African Ecosystems under Global Change. Ecological Studies, eds. von MaltitzG. P.et al., vol. 248 (Cham: Springer). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-10948-5_20
76
SagombaE.NdhlovuE. (2025). “Food system transformation for safe and nutritious diets in Africa,” in African Food Systems, ed. NdhlovuE. (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-90823-1_9
77
SalamM. A. (2025). Future of CE in Thailand: evidence from corporate efforts. Wisdom J. Human. Soc. Sci.2, 56–61
78
SgroiF. (2022). The CE for resilience of the agricultural landscape and promotion of the sustainable agriculture and food systems. J. Agric. Food Res.8:100307. doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100307
79
ShabaniT.MutekwaV. T.ShabaniT. (2024). Developing a sustainable integrated solid waste management framework for rural hospitals in Chirumanzu District, Zimbabwe. Circ. Econ. Sustain.4, 1183–1217. doi: 10.1007/s43615-023-00313-x
80
ShaiK. N.MaterecheraS. A.AmooS. O.AremuA. O. (2024). Ethnobotanical insights on the management of plant pests and diseases by smallholder farmers in Mpumalanga Province of South Africa. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed.20:71. doi: 10.1186/s13002-024-00711-x
81
SimaneB.KapwataT.NaidooN.CisséG.WrightC. Y.BerhaneK. (2025). Ensuring Africa’s food security by 2050: the role of population growth, climate-resilient strategies, and putative pathways to resilience. Foods14:262. doi: 10.3390/foods14020262
82
SrivastavaM. K.GaurS.OhriA.SrivastaveP. K.SinghN. (2024). Applications of remove sensing in water quality assessment. In: Remote sensing in precision agriculture. Elsevier. 217–236. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-91068-2.00019-9
83
ThwalaK. C.NdhlovuE. (2025). “Food systems sustainability: towards food waste reduction in African tourism food outlets,” in African Food Systems: Rethinking Prospects for Continental Sustainable Transformation, ed. NdhlovuE. (Switzerland: Palgrave Mcmillan), 537–558. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-90823-1_20
84
TindwaH. J.SemuE. W.SinghB. R. (2024). Circular regenerative agricultural practices in Africa: techniques and their potential for soil restoration and sustainable food production. Agronomy14:2423. doi: 10.3390/agronomy14102423
85
TulashieS. K.DodooD.KetuE. (2023). Environmental and socio-economic benefits of a CE for bioethanol production in the northern part of Ghana. J. Clean. Prod.390:136131. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136131
86
van RooyenA.BjornlundH.MoyoM.PittockJ.ParryK.MujeyiA. (2025). Agroecology and circular food systems: decoupling natural reer Resour. Dev.41, 489–511. doi: 10.1080/07900627.2024.2449224
87
WikurendraE. A.CsonkaA.NagyI.NurikaG. (2024). Urbanization and the benefit of integration CE into waste management in Indonesia: a review. CE Sustain.4, 1219–1248. doi: 10.1007/s43615-024-00346-w
88
ZindiB.NdhlovuE. (2025). “Innovative strategies for sustainable food production and efficient reed. NdhlovuE. (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan)
Summary
Keywords
circular economy, food systems, resilience, sustainability, transformation
Citation
Ndhlovu E (2026) Leveraging the circular economy for efficient, resilient, and sustainable food systems in sub-Saharan Africa. Front. Sustain. 7:1844373. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2026.1844373
Received
31 March 2026
Revised
15 May 2026
Accepted
25 May 2026
Published
08 June 2026
Volume
7 – 2026
Edited by
Michail Beliatis, Aarhus University, Denmark
Reviewed by
Gianluca Pugliese, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Italy
Alif Andika, Padjadjaran University, Indonesia
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Ndhlovu
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Disclaimer
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
