1. INTRODUCTION

Solid waste management is a significant challenge in countries like Bangladesh, with a population of 170 million. Urban areas in Bangladesh generate more solid waste compared to rural regions, attributed to factors such as population growth, rapid industrialisation and increased product consumption. The cities of Bangladesh produce around 25,000 tons of solid waste daily (Alam and Qiao, 2020; Islam, 2021) and the primary source of this municipal solid waste (MSW) is domestic activities (Sujauddin et al., 2008). The increased demand for waste management creates immense pressure on public sectors, frequently leading to poor services (Ahmed and Ali, 2006; Bhuiyan, 2010). As a result, collaboration with non-government organisations (NGOs) and community-based organisations (CBOs) – in other words, public-private-partnership (PPP) – has been promoted and practised to reduce the burden of waste collection, transportation and disposal on government authorities (Ahsan et al., 2012; Haque et al., 2020; Zahur, 2007). However, the conventional linear model of production, consumption and disposal is still followed by the waste management authorities and the haphazard disposal in open landfills without sorting household waste remains unchanged. Disposal of household solid waste is a cause of concern for Bangladesh because burning and open dumping are causing air, water and soil pollution and posing a threat to the environment and public health (Jerin et al., 2022).

Nowadays, the concept of circular economy (CE) in solid waste management is gaining popularity over the traditional linear model. CE keeps the materials in circulation as long as possible by involving the processes of refuse, rethink, reduce, reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, repurpose, recycle and recover (10R) until the value of the material completely diminishes, so as to minimise energy flow and to mimic nature where nothing is wasted ultimately. The concept is aligned with the early principle of 3R (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle), which evolved into 10R strategies with time. It is an environmentally viable, socially practicable and financially feasible concept essential for achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 of reduced waste generation by 2030. It is also an important part of sustainable solid waste management that ensures both public and environmental safety. Therefore, adopting CE principles is crucial for Bangladesh, considering its growing urban waste. Nevertheless, various social, economic and environmental barriers can hinder communities from transitioning to a CE (Neves and Marques, 2022).

Differences can be observed in the practice of CE between the countries of the global north and south. Engineering, technology, resources, governance and community are the main drivers of CE in the global north (Halog and Anieke, 2021), whereas waste pickers play the central role in CE in countries of the global south (Barford and Ahmad, 2021; Gutberlet and Carenzo, 2020; Morais et al., 2022; Velis, 2017). Like other developing countries, solid waste management is labour intensive in Bangladesh and household waste is not sorted at source. Initial sorting of waste at the source of generation, also known as source-segregation, is an important step of solid waste management that facilitates the process of reuse to recover and thereby enables CE. Grassroots-level workers like door-to-door collectors, sweepers, waste pickers, drivers and recyclable materials collectors or vendors play critical roles in segregating and collecting recyclable solid waste, thus contributing significantly to the CE. They are regarded as the main driving force performing the basic level of waste management activities in contrast to the policymakers at the top of waste management governance.

Waste segregation activities in Bangladesh are dominated by informal sector workers and are mostly done informally following unregistered practices, even by the formal sector workers. The formal sector consists of public or registered private service providers such as door-to-door collectors, sweepers and drivers, while the informal sector consists of individuals or small unregistered service providers such as waste pickers and itinerant vendors (Katusiimeh et al., 2013). Millar (2018) suggests seeing these people as independent environment protectors who value materials discarded by others and handle them with underrated local knowledge and skills in the absence of other suitable options. This informal practice is saving time and money by reducing operating costs and is effective for developing countries with high collection and material recovery rates (Alam and Qiao, 2020; Katusiimeh et al., 2013). Fredericks (2021) highlighted that waste pickers not only generate surplus value from waste materials by returning them to the money exchange loop but also expose themselves to the numerous vulnerabilities of landfill sites, the value of which is intangible. Besides, they do not benefit as much as small or large dealers of recycled materials because of the increasing values of recyclables with each exchange, as found in a study on Cape Town (Perez, 2021). These people are taking the burden away from the authorities without being included into the existing formal system and their contribution remains unrecognised by the government of Bangladesh.

Formalisation approaches and their impacts can vary from country to country. Formalising waste segregation service, mainly through PPP, can shrink the domain of informal sector workers and violate basic human rights as seen in a case study on Indore city of India (Tiwari and Sharma, 2024). According to Matter et al. (2013), implementing formal engineering solutions for sustainable waste management, incorporating mechanical segregation systems as in industrialised countries, is impractical in developing countries like Bangladesh. Informal practices of waste segregation create a livelihood opportunity for the urban poor and have the potential to improve their income (Alam and Qiao, 2020). A comparative study of Malaysia and Indonesia has shown that waste picking at landfills can be a feasible source of income even for higher middle income countries without formalised and so-called efficient source-segregation (Watanabe, 2018). A study on the waste pickers of China has revealed that informal waste picking not only generates significant profit but also provides opportunities for entrepreneurship, freedom of work and opportunities to live in cities (Wu and Zhang, 2019). Another study in Lahore has observed the dissatisfaction of many informal waste workers regarding formalisation because of limited freedom and decreasing amount of work (Butt, 2020). Ignoring these core implementers of the waste segregation system may lead to a less progressive and less equitable waste management system and create a barrier to successful CE transition and profit generation by the government. In contrast, an unsupervised informal service often involves unhygienic waste separation methods and open dumping of unwanted waste that threatens the environment and public health. As seen in Nigeria, substandard processes of waste segregation used by informal workers create occupational risk and results in low quality recovered material (Oguntoyinbo, 2012). Formalising partnerships between waste picker organisations and governments through policy-making is proved to be effective for transitioning towards CE in Brazil and Argentina (Gutberlet and Carenzo, 2020). It can potentially improve informal workers’ lives by means of a social safety net, legal recognition, secured working environments and impartial negotiation opportunities.

As the idea of integrating formal and informal sectors for inclusive CE transition is relatively new in Bangladesh, there is a lack of central databases or records of available circularity-driven firms. Matter et al. (2013) have discussed separately the roles and viewpoints of authorities, households, door-to-door collectors, waste pickers and recyclable material collectors in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh. Some researchers have discussed the acts, rules, policies, strategies, guidelines and plans regarding solid waste management overall in Bangladesh (Alam and Qiao, 2020; Jerin et al., 2022; Shovon et al., 2022). CE-based waste management practices in agriculture, livestock farms, garment industry, shipyards, biomedical industries and leather industries are analysed separately in multiple research studies (Ahmed et al., 2022; Azizuddin et al., 2021; Islam et al., 2021; Moktadir et al., 2020; Saha et al., 2022), though practices of CE in managing household solid waste management in cities have so far not been discussed. Some researchers have prioritised compost production, particularly from organic solid waste for agricultural use (Roy et al., 2013), waste-to-energy conversion (Habib et al., 2021) and the reuse potential of inorganic waste (Ahmed et al., 2023b; Bari et al., 2012; Moniruzzaman et al., 2011; Moniruzzaman et al., 2012), though they have not suggested a human approach recognising the informal contribution of grassroots workers. In the context of Bangladesh, resource and technology oriented top-down approaches that do not address the complex socioeconomic settings are not enough for a successful transition to a CE.

This article investigates the current practices of waste segregation and CE in Khulna city, the country’s third largest city, with an area of 45.65 square kilometres and a population of 751,237 in 177,852 households (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, 2011). The city generates 420–520 tons of household waste daily, of which only 13.5 per cent is recycled (Islam and Moniruzzaman, 2019) and only 7.2 per cent reused (Moniruzzaman et al., 2011). The study focuses on two questions: What are the challenges of formalising household solid waste segregation at the source? What are the potential solutions for the inclusion of CE while managing household solid waste?

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Data collection

Sixteen grassroots people from five different groups – namely truck drivers, door-to-door collectors, sweepers, recyclable material collectors and waste pickers – were interviewed, as shown in Table 1. The interviews were based on a pre-defined semi-structured questionnaire. The rationale for targeting these groups was their critical role in solid waste management and CE. Among these people, three were women and thirteen were men. All these people have education below the primary level. Landfill supervisors, drivers and sweepers are mainly working under government organisations. Door-to-door collectors were part of two different NGOs in Khulna. The rest of the people were working individually and informally. In addition to grassroots workers, sixteen stakeholders performing different roles in solid waste management sectors in different public and private organisations were interviewed. Group interviews were performed for all categories of actors except for officials, conservation officers, large dealers, experts, consultants and development practitioners.

This empirical research meticulously collected data by observing the behaviours of households and grassroots workers dealing with solid waste collection, segregation and disposal. The paper uses annual data of KCC budgetary allocation from 2016 to 2022 and reviews twenty policy documents of the Bangladesh government. The study also utilised the results attained from the online knowledge sharing workshop on CE Transition in Khulna, organised by Khulna University of Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh, and Intellectual Centers, Nepal on 25 July 2023. As shown in Table 1, the workshop was attended by sixteen stakeholders from related organisations in Bangladesh. The workshop was based on the Delphi approach in the form of semi-structured interviews where multiple rounds of questions were asked to a panel of interviewees and the answers were aggregated in the end by them. The approach allowed participants to rethink their ideas and alter their responses to coincide with the majority’s perspectives, which was effective in reducing the diversity of opinions on challenges and recommendations, as well as summarising the findings. In the workshop, the research team shared the existing policies and initiatives on CE and the key findings from consultations. Later, the participants shared their opinions on the preliminary findings, challenges and recommendations. They also recommended other strategies that did not come up in the initial discussions with grassroots workers and stakeholders.

3.1.2 Different levels of actors

Waste segregation services cannot be rolled out in a centralised manner like some other infrastructure services. It depends ultimately upon the actions of a full range of independent actors without any single institution taking full responsibility. Governance of household solid waste management incorporating CE takes place at multiple levels and includes a range of stakeholders. Different actors involved in this multilevel governance can be categorised under four levels – macro, meso, micro and pseudo as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Actors’ involvement in different level of solid waste governance. Created by the authors.

Macro level: Acts, rules, plans, policies, guidelines, standards and strategies are formulated at the macro level. Various ministries under the national government, along with local government authorities, design the policy and play decision-making roles in managing MSW. International development organisations and NGOs provide advocacy for policy-making and technical support. The Department of Environment (DoE) and the Department of Public Health (DPHE) regularly provide feedback regarding waste management activities in monthly consultation meetings with city corporations.

Meso level: This level includes the web of actors ranging from government employees to private sectors, formal and informal service providers and civil society organisations. Policies are interpreted, communicated and executed by these actors. The Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) typically oversees the design and construction of infrastructural facilities. KCC supervises and operates the system following devised policies. International organisations provide financial support and NGOs assist local authorities in implementing the guidelines. The conservancy department is in charge of collecting, transporting and disposing of solid waste without causing any environmental hazards. The department is also tasked with the sustainable management of accumulated wastes and city-wide monitoring. The engineering department of KCC assists in maintaining motorised waste vehicles, transporting waste and landfill development. Figure 2 shows the setups of solid waste management under KCC.

KCC struggles to provide full coverage of door-to-door waste collection services in 31 wards of Khulna city. In some areas, this system is entirely operated or supported by NGOs or CBOs, referred to as a community-based system. Khulna city produces 470 tons of daily waste, with only 250 tons collected by KCC (Rafew and Rafizul, 2021; Rafi et al., 2020). About 374 tons are transported to landfill sites (Islam and Moniruzzaman, 2019), leaving approximately 124 tons of unmanaged waste. Around 1,100 grassroots workers (Halim, 2021), mainly door-to-door pickers, van drivers and sweepers, operate under KCC and sixteen per cent of them are outsourced from NGOs and CBOs. Twenty-two NGOs and CBOs are involved with waste collection in 23 different wards covering 23,612 households out of 172,000 households in Khulna city (Ahsan et al., 2012)). The key NGOs are Clanship Association, Muktir Alo, RUSTIC, BRIC, Rupayan, Nabarub Sangsad, SEIAM, CHD, SPS and Samadhan. Interested organisations have to consult with the respective ward commissioner of KCC to obtain permission from the conservancy department of the city corporation. These organisations mainly provide services in exchange for residents’ monthly subscription fees (50–100 Bangladeshi Taka). The conservancy inspectors and supervisors (see Figure 2) usually monitor allocated wards under them and the activities of NGOs providing services on those wards. Informal workers like waste pickers, who are primarily children and women, are also important actors playing roles in waste segregation. KCC lacks a strong formal system for waste segregation, relying on grassroots workers for informal source-segregation at the household level.

Figure 2. Setup of solid waste management under KCC (Data source: KCC).

Micro Level: The actual implementation of the formal institutions on the ground is done mainly by households at the micro level. Users of waste management services are mainly taking part by paying taxes and subscription fees. Additionally, household owners and maids, as general citizens, play roles in recognising the value of waste and separating valuable products.

Pseudo level: Actors involved with this special level are playing a role in rotating the economy. All grassroots workers, junk shop owners or small dealers, recycling industries or large dealers are part of this level as they play significant roles in the final implementation of policies related to CE. Money rotation mainly takes place between pseudo level, micro level and meso level. In the past, only five NGOs, namely Prodipan, PRISM RUSTIC, SPS and Samadhan, were involved with composting organic waste separated from solid and other waste. Recently, only RUSTIC has been producing compost from its own plants in Khulna city. Approximately 859–3,713 persons are engaged in buying and selling reusable and recyclable materials (Alam and Qiao, 2020). About 310 junk shops are involved with direct or indirect recycling of inorganic used materials like plastic bags, jute bags, cartons, paper, books, garments and mixed waste (Alam and Qiao, 2020; Bari et al., 2012). About four recycling industries are dedicated to recycling organic materials (Alam and Qiao, 2020), while 35 are involved in recycling inorganic materials. Many of the recycled products are being sold to local and international markets.

3.1.3 Existing facilities

Khulna city has seventeen Secondary Transfer Stations (STSs) or Secondary Disposal Sites (SDSs), 27 large hauled containers (each having a daily capacity of five tons), eleven small hauled containers (each having a daily capacity of three tons) and twelve distinct collection routes (Islam and Moniruzzaman, 2019). KCC owns 35 motorised trucks and 216 non-motorised vans for waste collection and transportation (Halim, 2021). Community containers are mostly located along the roadsides. Neither the STSs nor the containers have separate chambers. Khulna city has three ultimate disposal sites at Rajbandh (twenty acres), Sholua (seventeen acres) and Mathavanga (24.7 acres), all located ten kilometres from the city centre, as shown in Figure 3. Unlike in the past, separate dumping and treatment of medical waste and faecal sludge are practiced, though no formal or mechanical system exists for separating organic and inorganic waste from solid waste. According to the local government authority, the sites still do not fulfill the criteria to become landfill sites. Only eighteen tons of solid waste from the dumping sites are directly used by NGOs for composting purposes (Islam and Moniruzzaman, 2019). KCC has no separate cells for monitoring waste dumping by households, though it has a system of giving and receiving feedback from citizens. It maintains registrar books to monitor the daily trips the waste trucks make. NGOs have their own monitoring system and usually submit a monthly report to KCC.

Figure 3. Location of Secondary Transfer Stations (STSs) and Landfill Sites in Khulna City Corporation (KCC).

3.1.4 Existing process of waste segregation

The formal system of solid waste management in Khulna city involves conventional activities of collection, transportation and disposal, though it lacks integration of solid waste segregation and the CE, which is mainly carried out informally by the labour force and general citizens.

Two types of waste are typically generated at the household level – organic and inorganic. According to Alam and Qiao (2020), 78.9% of collected MSW in Khulna is organic. Inorganic waste consists of paper (9.5–9.9%), plastic & polythene (2.8–3.1%), textiles and woods (1.3–2.1%), rubber and leather (0.5–1%), metals (1.1–2.2%), glass (0.5–1%), and others (2.3–5.1%) (Ahmed et al., 2023b; Alam and Qiao, 2020). Nowadays, households generate a considerable amount of e-waste. Reusable and recyclable metals, plastic, rubber, leather, wood, textiles, glass and paper are often segregated in informal ways. Figure 4 illustrates the different tiers of waste segregation, primarily undertaken by grassroots-level workers.

Figure 4. Solid waste segregation by grassroots workers at different tiers. Created by the authors.

The first tier involves the preservation of recyclable and reusable products with good market value by aware household owners, who then sell them to recyclable material collectors or junk shops. The second stage of segregation takes place when owners give away reusable materials like textiles, plastic, glass, or e-waste to housemaids who either use those products or sell them to recyclable material collectors or junk shops. However, certain recyclable but not reusable products, such as small or broken plastic products, plastic packaging and damaged items, often end up mixed with organic waste. This mixed waste is given to the door-to-door collectors who collect waste using non-motorised vans. In this stage, collectors separate the usable materials that are visible. Many houses are not accessible by the vans. Besides, some homeowners are unwilling to pay for waste collection services. Consequently, houses without door-to-door services either dispose of their waste in community dustbins if available nearby, or beside roads or in drains. After primary collection from the house, door-to-door collectors or van drivers dump the waste into the nearby community dustbins or STSs, where they separate more materials. They sell all the accumulated waste to junk shops. Waste from community containers or STSs is further transported to landfill sites using waste trucks provided by KCC. The fourth stage of recyclable waste separation is done by waste pickers who collect waste from community dustbins and STSs and sell this waste to recyclable material collectors or vendors. Recyclable waste that remains unseen by waste pickers is eventually sorted by landfill workers in the next stage, although achieving complete separation is difficult. A significant portion of this waste is polythene, which is sold for use in construction. In the sixth tier of segregation, street sweepers collect spilled recyclable solid waste and sell it to recyclable material collectors. Spillage commonly occurs during the transportation and dumping process to community containers, STSs and landfill sites by door-to-door collectors, household owners, maids or truck drivers. In the last stage, recyclable material collectors, who generally work for small dealers, sort the materials based on type (i.e., hard plastic and soft plastic) and quality and sell them to large dealers, wholesale companies or recycling industries.

3.1.5 Relevant initiatives by public and private sectors

In March 1997, a compost plant was built by KCC in partnership with a local NGO called Prodipan, under the water and sanitation programme (WSP) of the World Bank (Ahmed and Ali, 2006). Prodipan was the first NGO to produce compost fertiliser, which had high market demand in Khulna. Currently, the NGO does not produce any compost. RUSTIC started a small-scale composting initiative in 2001 with funding support from Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) under Bangladesh Environment Management Project (BEMP). In 2004, production stopped because of public complaints about the bad smell. At present, the NGO continues producing approximately thirty tonnes of compost fertiliser monthly on their own 0.47-acre site at KCC’s Rajbandh landfill site (Roy et al., 2013). They follow the process of vermicomposting using worms and microorganisms that produce less smell. From 2002 to 2004, SPS had a compost plant in partnership with another NGO, PRISM, under the Sustainable Environment Management Programme (SEMP). Samadhan started another organic compost fertiliser preparation plant during 2007–2010. The project was co-financed by the European Commission’s Asia Pro Eco Program and Khulna University of Engineering and Technology (KUET) under the project ‘Integrated Management and Safe Disposal of MSW in Least Developed Asian Countries’, WasteSafe for short. The NGO stopped composting due to disapproval from the MoA. A national 3R workshop was held in February 2007 to minimise MSW. The workshop showed case studies from Japan to design domestic policies for implementing 3R principles. The workshop had 56 participants from different government organisations like MoEFCC, MoLGRDC, MoP, LGED, KCC, Narayanganj City Corporations, Chittagong City Corporation and Kusthia Municipalities; and non-government organisations like Waste Concern, RUSTIC, PRISM and ESDO. Government medical officers and news reporters also attended the workshop. The Urban Public and Environmental Health Sector Development Program (UPEHSDP), funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), supported the construction of four STSs, provided two waste trucks to KCC, and distributed 12,500 waste bins to city dwellers.

At present, multiple projects are ongoing in Khulna city for the overall improvement of solid waste management systems, incorporating the CE concept. The 3R innovative pilot Project Phase 1 at Mathavanga, initiated by KCC under the Climate Trust Fund, focuses on MSW treatment to prevent environmental pollution. KCC has an awareness training centre under ongoing Sustainable Capacity building to reduce Irreversible Pollution by Plastics – in short, SCIP Plastics Project. The campaigns are mainly about source-segregating organic and inorganic waste, particularly plastic, to prevent ocean pollution. KCC has also started placing awareness stickers on walls and distributing leaflets to houses, schools and offices. The City and Regional Development Project-2 involves the construction of trenching grounds at Rajband and a controlled dumping station at Sholua, with plans for compost, energy and electricity production from dumped waste. Besides, Bangladesh Power Development Board (BPDB) is attempting to implement waste-to-energy (WTE) projects in various city corporations and major municipalities. The WTE project proposal for Khulna City Corporation is in progress. Lastly, DPHE is working for the treatment of solid waste without polluting the environment and DoE is planning to produce oil and octane from waste according to officials from these organisations.

3.2 Challenges of household solid waste source-segregation

The analysis of interviews and workshop reveals a variety of constraints, which are classified under five broad categories: policy, institutional, environmental, financial and social or behavioral. Table 3 gives the significance of these challenges, calculated based on number of comments made by various participant groups. The highest number of comments were found under the behavioural constraint theme. Social and institutional constraints were respectively the second and third significant constraints.

3.2.1 Policy gap

The study reveals a lack of emphasis on formal waste recycling in Khulna, contrary to policy promotion. Organic waste is never separated at source from inorganic and composting is still done by private NGOs with little or no support from the government. Strict licensing policies and the absence of recognisable incentives from the governments (Ahmed et al., 2022; Matter et al., 2015) are causing limited formal participation by private shops and industries in recycling activities. A junk shop owner commented,

We are helping the government to protect the environment and in return, we are making little profit, but sometimes that is also hindered by government restrictions. Recycle shops like ours don’t have favourable conditions for work.

According to two stakeholders, most policies do not clearly define the roles of waste generators alongside waste managers. Existing policies also overlook the roles of grassroots workers and women in segregating solid waste. Grassroots workers are also not aware of the existing policies. The Bangladesh Labor Act 2006 prioritised the taking of safety measures by formal workers while disposing of wastes (MoLE, 2006). Insufficient guidance and protection measures for child and female informal waste workers are also a cause of concern. All these aspects contradict the five fundamental principles of the human rights based approach (HRBA) – namely meaningful participation, access to decision-making, non-discrimination, accountability for all and transparency of information. Furthermore, waste management-related policies are not revised regularly.

3.2.2 Institutional constraints

The major reasons for mixed dumping of solid waste by citizens are unavailability of separate communal dustbins, irregular waste collection services and inaccessibility of waste vehicles. A development Practitioner pointed out, ‘Sometimes, waste overflows from these dustbins as they are not regularly transferred to the STSs.’ Another stakeholder stated that, ‘Inefficient use of STSs only for transferring waste instead of as material recover facilities is another shortcoming of the sustainable waste management system.’ Currently, only 950 waste workers are employed under the conservancy department of KCC, serving 177,852 households with a worker-household ratio of 1:188 (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, 2011; KCC, 2018). Despite this workload, only 17.36 per cent of workers are outsourced from private organisations (KCC, 2018). Government bodies like KCC, DoE, and DPHE also lack the workforce to adequately monitor waste collection. The lack of a comprehensive and reliable database regarding door-to-door waste collection at the city level makes monitoring more challenging. Inadequate collaboration and integration among organisations poses barriers to funding and responsibilities, causing unnecessary delays and hindering effective monitoring. Stakeholders highlight problems such as the lack of warnings, inadequate law enforcement and rare monitoring of recycling sectors. Awareness campaigns by government organisations are not part of regular activities. The lack of a training and awareness programme for waste workers and general citizens is another shortcoming of the existing system. Lastly, most waste recycling and composting projects in cities rely on support from donors, NGOs or CBOs. Challenges persist due to undisclosed issues stemming from the lack of initial capacity assessment, jeopardising the sustainability of these projects.

3.2.3 Environmental constraints

Electricity generation from waste is common in dry regions as waste can be quickly dried and burned for fuel production in hot weather. Humidity and excessive rainfall in Bangladesh make it difficult to remove moisture from waste. Moreover, the country’s humid weather is responsible for the quick decomposition of organic waste (Roy et al., 2022). As pointed out by an expert, ‘Insufficient dumping facilities and long-term storage of household waste during humid weather create odours and effluents, making it difficult for waste collectors and grassroots workers to separate inorganic and organic waste.’ Sometimes, waste pickers are not allowed in landfill sites in view of the threat to their health, which is a cause of concern for their livelihood. A landfill supervisor mentioned, ‘Sometimes we do not allow them in the site considering their health risk. Now they collect the remaining wastes after dressing.’ Many stakeholders agreed that this indirectly minimises the practice of CE by restricting informal waste segregation.

3.2.4 Financial constraints

KCC’s primary income sources include development funds, taxes, fees, fines and tolls for various activities. From 2016 to 2022, an average of 6.48 per cent of the total budget was invested in the conservancy department, with only 0.45 per cent spent on development activities like solid waste management (see Table 4). The remaining amount is spent on establishment sections like salaries and official bills. The conservancy department manages MSW, human waste, street sweeping, drain cleaning, waterlogging prevention, mosquito extermination and detention of stray animals. Managing these activities with limited tax money is a challenging task. A conservancy officer stated, ‘Due to lack of funds, it is very difficult for us to provide separate bins in every household and design community containers and STSs accordingly. Providing appropriate facilities requires money and no taxes are paid by the households for many of the services we provide.’ Moreover, many households, particularly low-income people in slum areas, are unwilling to pay monthly subscription fees for waste collection services. Inadequate financial benefit also discourages grassroots workers from providing a quality service, making waste separation a challenge. An expert highlighted, ‘the amount of service charge claimed by NGOs from the households is not often reasonable, creating an extra burden for people already paying taxes. In addition, there is no fixed rate and no government control over the service charges and salaries of workers fixed by NGOs.’