AQMx Sectoral Guidance: Eliminating Open Waste Burning

Open waste burning (OWB) refers to the deliberate or spontaneous combustion of household and other municipal refuse without any control of emissions.  

• 38% of global waste, 810 million tonnes per year, is ‘uncontrolled’ (UNEP, 2024), which means it is either openly dumped or burned.  
• Globally, 14% of people burn their waste as the primary means of managing it when it leaves their home, rising to 41% in East Africa (Lloyds Register Foundation, 2024). Waste is also burned after collection at localized dumpsites or final disposal sites. In Indonesia, 52% of plastic waste emitted into the environment is openly burned (PISCES, 2024).
• A reasonable estimate is that 16% of municipal waste is openly burned (Gómez-Sanabria et al., 2022, Wilson et al., 2024).  

People burn waste to prevent it from accumulating, for privacy and dignity, to reduce pests and smells, and sometimes to extract valuable materials. Waste burning is prevalent where people do not have access to an affordable, reliable collection service (Pathak et al., 2023). The amount of waste burned can change seasonally. In India for example, more waste is burned in the streets in winter as those working outside add waste to fires for warmth. During festivals, more waste is produced also leading to more burning. 

The challenge is growing. As consumption patterns change and the population of urban areas increases, quantities of municipal waste are growing rapidly. Without transformative action, the quantity of waste dumped or burned is predicted to nearly double to 1.57 billion tonnes per year by 2050 (UNEP, 2024), with a corresponding doubling of its negative impacts on the climate, biodiversity and human health. 

Open waste burning (OWB) not only adds to the quantity of pollutants in the air, but also their toxicity. OWB emits short-lived climate pollutants such as black carbon and methane, in addition to air pollutants like particulate matter (PM), persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as dioxins and furans, and polychlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons (Mebratu and Mbandi, 2022).  

OWB can also produce emissions of a variety of heavy metals including but not limited to cadmium, chromium, manganese, antimony, arsenic, lead and mercury, depending on the quantity of E-waste burned. 

There is uncertainty about the contribution of open waste burning to air pollution and climate change. The science is still evolving. The best current estimates are (Gómez-Sanabria et al., 2022):

• Black Carbon: OWB contributes 6-7% of global black carbon
• Particulate Matter PM2.5: OWB contributes around 8% of global anthropogenic PM2.5 emissions.
• Carbon Dioxide CO2: OWB emitted around 150 Tg/year of carbon dioxide, around 0.4% of global CO2 in 2015.

The localised impacts of open waste burning can be particularly damaging with significant spikes in air pollution. For example, the mean level of PM2.5 downwind of a landfill site in Lahore, Pakistan ranged between 172 and 343 µg/m3 (Raza et al., 2021). This is 11-22 times higher than the WHO safe level of 15 µg/m3 for average 24-hour PM2.5 exposure (WHO, 2021).   

Emissions of POPs (dioxins etc.) from OWB can be extremely high. UNEP standardised figures for reporting to the Stockholm Convention suggest a toxicity factor of 300 µg TEQ (Toxic Equivalent) per tonne of waste for dumpsite fires, and 40 µg TEQ/t for domestic waste burning. This compares to 2.2 µg TEQ per tonne of fuel burned for emissions from 4-stroke engines using leaded fuel (UNEP, 2013). 

Public health impacts

Burning waste releases a cocktail of pollutants and particulate matter that are highly dangerous for health (WHO, 2025). OWB-related PM2.5 exposure contributes to an estimated 270,000 premature deaths annually (Kodros et al., 2016).  

The most vulnerable are disproportionately affected: women particularly during pregnancy, children and the elderly (Velis and Cook, 2021). Informal waste workers are also particularly at risk as they are more exposed to smoke from burning waste, and the danger of burns.

Persistent organic pollutants can bioaccumulate in the fatty tissues of humans and wildlife, and concentrations increase along the food chain. This includes dioxins which are highly toxic, linked to cancer, and causing reproductive and developmental problems and damage to the immune system, and interference with hormones (WHO, 2023). 

Ecosystems impacts

Pollutants from OWB contaminate soil and water with persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals, posing long-term risks to ecosystems, agriculture and human health through the food chain (Ferronato and Torretta, 2019). OWB also emits black carbon, a powerful short-lived climate pollutant that exacerbates warming in regions where it is concentrated, altering weather patterns and cryosphere ecosystems (CCAC).

Economic impacts

Economic costs in healthcare expenses and lost productivity due to health impacts are high. The negative global economic impacts of current waste management systems were estimated at USD 243 billion in 2020, almost as much as the direct costs incurred in waste management (USD 252 million) (UNEP, 2024).

Burning waste also destroys its potential value for recycling. In Africa, this value was estimated at USD 8 billion per year in 2018 (UNEP, 2018).  

Reducing open burning of waste has a range of direct benefits, particularly in terms of:  

• Improved local air quality for vulnerable communities and improved health outcomes  
• Reduced contamination of soils and water, and the reduced build-up of pollutants in the environment and in food chains.  
• Contributing to national climate mitigation targets.

There are also a range of indirect benefits because actions to reduce OWB will likely involve improvements in waste management services. This can contribute to:

• Increased economic value from recovered waste, and boosted jobs and employment in the waste sector. Adopting a circular economy approach, reducing waste generation and boosting recycling to 60% will keep costs at approximately 2020 levels and generate an overall economic net gain of USD 108 billion by 2050 (UNEP, 2024).  
• Reduced economic losses from ill-health.    
• Further contributions to climate mitigation of 15-25% from improved waste management including reduced waste generation and improved recycling (Wilson et al., 2024) .

Key questions to answer in the baseline assessment are:  

• What is the extent of the open waste burning problem, including:
  • How much waste and what types of waste are burned?
  • What contribution is open burning making to ambient air pollution?
• Where is open waste burning occurring? Is it more concentrated in particular parts of the city? The three most common locations are:
  • backyards of houses and businesses
  • communal / open spaces within neighbourhoods
  • final disposal sites  
• Who is burning waste, and what are their reasons for the practice, paying particular attention to gender and equity dimensions?  
• Who is most severely impacted by open waste burning, again disaggregating by gender and other socio-economic dimensions? 

Baseline assessment when local data are not available

Waste management data

In many cases, reliable, city-wide, current data are not available on waste management. Ideally a WasteWise Cities Tool study would be carried out. If this is not possible and in the short term:  

• estimates can be made using data from comparable cities in the country or region from the UN-Habitat and GIZ databases.  
• The World Risk Poll 2023 (data explorer) included a question about ‘what happens to waste when it leaves the home’ with data available for 142 countries. 

Air quality data

In the absence of a local or national emissions inventory, global estimates of air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and short-lived climate pollutants emissions can be found in databases such as EDGAR and CEDS. Global air quality maps such as UNEP/IQAir and OpenAQ, and remote sensing data from NASA Earth Observations and Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service can help in the baseline assessment for regional and local concentrations. 

Baseline assessment when local data are available

Waste management data

Gather any local studies that may have been carried out and use the data to update estimates for quantities of waste generated, recycled and reaching the final disposal site.  

It is worth reviewing whether data are available for your town or city at:

• The UN-Habitat database contains data from the WasteWise Cities Tool across multiple countries, with city-level data on waste generation, recycling and disposal.
• The GIZ Waste Flow Diagram database, with a focus on plastic waste, but also a repository of hundreds of city-level waste flow studies.  
• The Solid Waste Emissions Estimation Tool (SWEET) is helpful in analysing waste management and open burning data. The tool estimates current and future emissions based on business as usual or alternative scenarios. It provides suggestions for estimates where data are missing, for example using IPCC 2019 default values.

Air quality data

Gather data on PM2.5, PM10, and black carbon (when available) concentrations from the local or national air quality monitoring network. Identify spatial hotspots and seasonal trends. Local or national emission inventories as well as source apportionment studies can provide key insights into the contribution of the waste sector to ambient air pollution. If data, staffing and other resources are sufficient, new analysis can be carried out following the AQMx Air Quality Management Guidance guidance for monitoring, source attribution and emissions inventories.  

AQMx Guidance on Air Quality Monitoring

AQMx Guidance on Source Attribution

AQMx Guidance on Emission Inventories

Gathering data on open waste burning specifically

Even where waste management data is available, it is very rare that data will be available on open waste burning specifically, and it is recommended that fresh insights are gathered to fill this gap.

Information about open waste burning can be gathered through:

• Stakeholder mapping and engagement (see Step 2)
• Use of a transect walk methodology to collect information about the prevalence and locations of open waste burning (Nagpure et al, 2015).
• Surveys and focus group discussions with households and institutions and other stakeholder groups to document their waste management practices, making sure to disaggregate by gender.
• Willingness-to-pay studies may also be useful in identifying how to structure solutions and behaviour change campaigns.
• New methodologies are currently being trialled for example in Pakistan using remote sensing and satellite data to pinpoint and measure the extent of open burning incidents over time (Engineering X, 2025).  

Estimating health impacts

Data on air quality and waste burning specifically can be linked to health impacts by reference to:  

• The State of Global Air annual report and website which presents national level trends on air pollution and health impacts.  
• World Health Organisation AirQ+ tool helps to quantify the health burden and impact of air pollution, alongside the Burden of Disease database.
• C40 Cities Pathways AQ tool, or simpler Air Quality through Urban Actions (AQUA) tool. These can be used to calculate how emission changes can benefit local air quality and health. 

Map stakeholders

Gathering insights from a range of key stakeholders is vital in understanding the drivers for open waste burning, and differences across wealth groups and genders. At government level, it clarifies lines of responsibility and who is doing what at local and national levels. At community level, early engagement with a wide range of stakeholders from the outset of the process is crucial in setting the foundation for a broad set of actions. 

Informal waste workers will be key stakeholders to engage from the beginning, with in-depth knowledge of where burning happens, why it happens and what incentives and barriers people face in reducing or eliminating the practice.  

Insights will have been gained about which groups to include from the focus groups and surveys carried out during baseline assessments (Step 1). Groups to engage can include associations of informal waste workers, community leaders, women’s groups, business, educational institutions, religious institutions, and health care settings. SOWU (2024) provides an example of stakeholder mapping for organic waste management in Uganda.  

Secure political support 

Open waste burning is rarely a high priority until the connections are made to key issues of concern for the city or nation. It is important to reframe open burning as a critical challenge with direct implications for air quality, health, climate change, and economic development.  

Create a local multi-stakeholder task force or committee  

There is often a lack of effective co-ordination between and among stakeholders, projects and systems concerned with air quality. This lack of co-ordination also applies to waste management. Key departments could include Environment, Health, Education, Finance, Wildlife and tourism, and Agriculture. 

A multi-stakeholder task team or committee should be convened including not only government departments but also representatives from the range of stakeholders identified during stakeholder mapping. Inclusion of informal waste worker representatives will be crucial. This task team can work to champion the issue and identify solutions.  Its key mandate is to agree the local City Action Plan, and track its progress over time (see Success Story 2, Kisumu and 3, Nairobi).   

National convening and support

While actions need to be planned at local levels, national level support can add weight to local initiatives. Actions at the national level could include:

• Establishing an inter-ministerial task force to promote and co-ordinate action on open waste burning.
• Making high profile commitments to addressing the issue by, for example, setting national targets and endorsing regional or international pledges.
• Ensuring policy and legal frameworks are in place for effective waste management (see Step 4).
• Championing the gender and inclusion aspects of tackling open burning through behaviour change campaigns and initiatives to showcase the role of the informal sector.  
• Engaging with journalists and the media to raise the profile of the issue. 

The following steps will be useful in planning and design of an action plan for your town, city, or district, to tackle open waste burning.  

Review baseline information and identify priorities for action

The task force will jointly review the baseline information to prioritise actions based on criteria such as:

• Where most open waste burning happens
• Where it impacts particularly affect vulnerable populations  
• Where it impacts important habitats or ecosystems

The review will also help the task team to identify and prioritise key gaps and challenges in terms of policy, institutional capacity, data systems, finance and infrastructure. The task team should analyse these challenges to identify which need the most urgent action.  

Set overall vision and goals

The vision should describe a future desired state, and set time-bound targets. City-level targets could also reflect nationally-agreed policy targets and regional commitments (see Step 4, Policy Integration). 

Agree priority objectives and actions

The most powerful actions to end open waste burning will be (a) to ensure access to reliable, affordable waste collection services; and (b) to support this with consistent behaviour change messaging.  

Examples of objectives and targets include:

• Kisumu, Kenya: Objective: Reduce open burning of waste. Target: reduce the quantity of waste burning from 23 tonnes per day to 9 tonnes per day by 2030, and to 0 by 2040.  
• Vientiane, Laos: Objective: Increase access to adequate waste collection services by ensuring 100% waste collection rates for all citizens by 2030.

To ensure this happens requires a range of actions covering the steps in this guide.  

• Steps 4 (Policy integration), 5 (Standards and regulation), and 8 (Enforcement) set the broader policy and regulatory framework.  
• Steps 6 (Communications and awareness-raising) and 9 (Capacity-building) focus on awareness raising and capacity building for a range of stakeholders.
• Step 7 (Implementation) focuses on activities required for the implementation of waste-burning-specific actions.  

The task team will need to agree which are a particular priority in their context.  

Some actions to reduce open waste burning can be taken relatively quickly such as encouraging residents to bring their waste to collection points or sign up for collection services rather than burning waste at home. However, achieving long-term change requires a holistic approach which ensures sustainable alternatives to open burning are in place. This includes:

• An integrated waste management approach working across the waste hierarchy from reducing waste, to recycling and finally safe disposal.
• Promoting circularity through maximizing waste-to-resource conversion, generating economic value and jobs.

The African Regional Roadmap also encourages an approach that facilitates ‘Massive Small Changes’. This includes creating a collective vision, allowing learning-by-doing so that appropriate, context-specific solutions emerge, and ensuring the participation of multiple stakeholders.  

Assign responsibilities and identify partnerships

The key stakeholders involved in each action should be identified and a lead agency identified. For example, the Department of Health could take a lead in mobilizing their network of community health workers to share behaviour change messages. The Department of Education could lead a ‘Zero Waste Schools’ initiative (Mertenat and Zurbrügg, 2023).  

Partnerships for action also need to be identified. The Department of Environment and waste management teams will need to work closely to co-design solutions with informal waste workers and private recycling companies; and with NGOs and social enterprises working with communities or the informal sector.

Commitments and partnerships can also be agreed with local institutions such as schools, health centres and religious institutions. They can agree to end open burning practices, adopt alternatives, and raise awareness among their communities.  

Assess finance required and potential sources

The source and level of finance required for different actions should be estimated. Actions can be no-cost, low-cost or require larger investments (see ‘how to finance’ below). Potential sources of finance should be identified.  

Set a timeline for actions  

A timeline should be agreed, setting interim and final targets. The plan can be phased to build foundations, pilot solutions and scale these up. Finding some short-term quick-wins helps build momentum.

Agree a monitoring and reporting framework

The plan should include a monitoring and reporting framework and timeline overseen by the task force (Step 10). 

Waste management policy coherence at national and local levels  

At national level, the set of waste management policies, targets and regulations should be reviewed. If open burning of waste is not mentioned, a revision process should be started to ensure its explicit inclusion. This is likely to involve the Ministry of Environment and the National Environmental Management Agency or equivalent. UNEP (2015) provides a guide to developing or revising national waste management strategies, including a review of range of policy tools available.  

In most countries, municipal and city governments have the devolved mandate for waste management, including setting local policies, by-laws, tariffs and penalties. These should be reviewed to ensure they align with and support the agreed city Action Plan, making explicit mention of open waste burning. This is critical to ensure the Action Plan has legislative backing, and as a basis for the allocation of budgets.   

Policy integration beyond waste management

Step 2 (Institutional arrangements) highlights the importance of reframing open waste burning as a cross-cutting issue. This should be reflected in policies for example:  

• Embedding open waste burning as part of overall waste strategies in climate change mitigation plans and in Nationally Determined Contributions under the UNFCCC Paris Agreement (CCAC, 2024; ISWA, 2025). For example, Namibia’s NDC 2.0 selects waste management as one of four key sectors for mitigation actions, and sets a target for a 25% reduction in open waste burning by 2030.  
• Including open waste burning in national air quality and SLCP strategies.  
• Making reference to open waste burning as part of public health prevention strategies.  
• Embedding improved waste management and reduced OWB in local economic development or tourism strategies.

Alignment with regional and international commitments

National and local level policies should also align with regional, international and transboundary commitments agreed by national governments such as:

• The 2022 AMCEN resolution 18/1(b) setting a target of a 60% reduction in open waste burning in Africa by 2030 and the full elimination of the practice by 2040.  
• The 2025 Kathmandu Declaration committing representatives from seven South Asian countries to ending open waste burning
• The ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution  
• Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
• Basel Convention on the control of transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and their disposal. The convention, ratified by 191 countries, includes the general obligation for ‘Environmentally Sound Management’ of waste (art. 2(8) and 4(2)), reducing waste generation and ensuring safe final disposal.

UNEP (2015) Annex B provides a useful summary of these and other international agreements.  

Upstream policies for reducing waste and ensuring products are more recyclable  

• National Plastics Pacts or similar voluntary commitments can bring producers together to agree on reducing waste and making packaging more recyclable.  
• Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation can define product categories, recycling obligations, and penalties for non-compliance, while also phasing out problematic products through eco-design standards and material bans (ICLEI, 2025a)  
• National legislation can introduce bans on plastic bags, ‘problematic’ plastics, or single-use plastics. This should go hand-in-hand with support for the users of these products to find more sustainable alternatives.  
• Sustainable public procurement policies can set standards to boost demand for recycled content.  
• Take care to avoid inadvertently encouraging open burning which can be the case when citizens are sensitized about plastic waste or littering, because people see burning as a way of ‘cleaning’ (Pathak et al., 2023).

Ensure regulations encourage increased collection  

• Support increased coverage in collection services by working, for example, with landlords or local chiefs and leaders.

  Regulations should mandate that residents, or landlords, subscribe to waste collection services. This is particularly the case where the local government does not provide a comprehensive service, and outsources this function to private operators.  

• Set zoning regulations and award licences to operate with clear operating standards, service coverage obligations, and quality controls, ensuring both high and low-income areas are served (ICLEI, 2025a). 

Create inclusive standard operating practices

• Work with all waste collectors to agree a set of minimum standards such as collecting and keeping waste fractions separate, aimed at increasing collection and reducing open dumping of waste, thus reducing need to burn waste.
• Work with recycling businesses to agree minimum standards that can be integrated into their licensing conditions that support their businesses but discourage burning of residual waste.  
• Work with the operators of final disposal sites and waste pickers representatives to agree improved and safer standard operating practices at dumpsites, such as use of protective equipment, and registration on arrival at the site (CSIR, 2011).  
• Improve practices at landfill sites to reduce risks of fires. The Global Methane Initiative (2012) guidance for sanitary landfills is useful.  

Targeting regulations in other sectors

Where particular types of waste form a large part of the open burning problem, specific regulations can be helpful, for example:  

• Management of medical waste (see Success story 3: Nairobi).  
• Management of packaging, and in particular plastic food packaging. There are examples from a variety of countries in Africa and the Middle East (Food Packaging Forum, 2025). 

Behaviour change campaigns are an essential part of tackling open waste burning. They should be informed by findings from the baseline assessment to identify different audiences and address their reasons for burning waste.  

Principles to ensure effective campaigns  

• Understanding the audience: segmenting it to ensure messaging connects with the concerns of different groups. Being aware of gender differences is critical here.
• Identifying a few key messages, and being consistent.  
• Conveying messages in the best ways to reach the audience, for example using storytelling, and simple, clear language.

Key audiences and messages

Households and institutions resorting to open waste burning

• Capitalize on the pride people have in their neighbourhoods and the desire to keep their streets clean.
• Highlight simple practices as alternatives to open burning, emphasizing why these are safer for people and the environment
• Inform people of the health risks from open waste burning, particularly for vulnerable members of the household.  
• For institutions and landlords, campaigns should also emphasise the regulations they are required to follow, and good practices they can adopt.  

Waste workers, both formal and informal

• Highlight opportunities to recover value from waste,  
• Inform of the severe health risks from prolonged exposure to pollutants from burning waste (air, food and water contamination).  
• Recognise the contribution informal waste workers make, seeking to build respect and recognition for waste workers.  

Policymakers and other waste stakeholders

Decision-makers at city, state or national level may also be a key audience, with the objective of raising the profile of the issue and creating momentum for action (see Success story 6 from India, for an example of a successful social media campaign targeted at city-level decision-makers).  

Choosing appropriate communication channels

Communication strategies should capitalize on popular local forms of communication and trusted sources. Depending on the context this can include radio talk-shows, street theatre, WhatsApp messaging and other social media, clean-up days, celebration of days such as the International Day of Zero Waste (30th March), use of mascots, posters and other public messaging.  

Trusted sources of information can also be used to champion the messages such as: local health centres and community health volunteers, school teachers, traditional chiefs and elders, religious leaders.  

Examples of communication and awareness raising campaigns

ICLEI (2025b) contains examples of campaigns such as:

• The City of Cape Town’s Spring Cleaning and Winter Readiness campaigns
• Lusaka’s approach to changing perception of waste through art (Zambia)
• An Air Pollution sensitisation manual for Environmental Health and Health Promotion officers (City of Accra, Ghana)
• A collaborative approach to tackling open burning in Blantyre, Malawi

Through its open burning grant programme, Engineering X supported a number of awareness raising campaigns. Outputs included:

• Awareness raising film used in Nigeria
• Social media campaign produced by Administrative Staff College of India (Case Study 6) 

International Days such as the International Day of Zero Waste (25th March), World Environment Day (5th June) or World Cities Day (31st October) can also be important moments for holding events. Supporting materials are often published by UN Agencies at these occasions. 

AQMx Guidance on Public Engagement and Communications

Implementation actions in the absence of comprehensive waste collection services

These actions are relevant where waste collection services are not reaching many households, businesses and institutions. In these contexts, the majority of waste burning takes place in backyards or on the streets.  

Increase number of households reached by waste collection services, boosting separation of waste for easier, more efficient recycling, removing the need for burning at households or disposal sites. A good example is Success Story 1 from Indonesia, and Sirk Norge (2025) also in Indonesia.  

This can be either delivered by municipalities directly, or by licensed entities. Informal waste collectors can be integrated into the system through service level agreements. They often deliver flexible, responsive services, reaching all neighbourhoods even where lanes are narrow and unsuitable for large vehicles. A successful example of community-led collection systems is in a section of Dar es Salaam (Nipe Fagio, 2024).  

There can be different approaches to financing this service. In many cases, informal collectors charge households (or landlords) a monthly fee. Digital payment systems can help streamline this. Alternatively, local governments can charge for the system as part of rates or connected to other fees. For more details see ‘Financing’ section.

Reduce the volume of waste that needs to be collected from households. This can be achieved by encouraging home composting and source separation of dry recyclables which can be collected by itinerant waste buyers.  

Implementation actions where waste is collected but is burned before reaching final disposal sites or recycling centres 

Tackle hotspots for burning and open dumping through engagement with waste handlers and communities still resorting to open waste burning. As illustrated in Success Story 1 from Indonesia, waste dumping and burning hotspots can be cleared and closed with notices and barriers to discourage further dumping. This requires alternative collection services to be in place and good buy-in from the community.  

Focus on ensuring good logistical co-ordination between those collecting waste from households and bringing waste to collection points, and vehicles taking the waste from collection points for final disposal or recycling. CSIR (2011) has useful tips for managing transport costs, reducing vehicle down-time and increasing efficiency of collection schedules.

Implementation actions in linear collect-and-dispose waste systems

These actions are relevant where a comprehensive waste collection system exists but there is limited segregation and recycling, and most of the waste is taken to disposal sites. In these contexts, the majority of waste burning occurs at final disposal sites (landfill).  

Improve conditions at final disposal sites, working in partnership with site management and waste pickers who operate there to reduce spontaneous and deliberate fires. This can include moving the disposal site from ‘uncontrolled’ to ‘controlled’ status through improving aspects such as site security and fencing, the reception of waste, how nuisances are controlled (windblown litter, flies, vermin), and how fires are prevented. It also includes improving the operating practices and health and safety of everyone working at the site. The WasteAware Benchmark indicators (Wilson et al., 2024) provide a useful checklist, with more useful guidance in CSIR (2011) and USEPA (2020). 

In the longer term, and in tandem with strategies to divert the majority of waste, investment in sanitary landfills will allow for the closure of legacy uncontrolled waste disposal sites, and eliminate open burning at final disposal.  

Implementation actions likely to be relevant in all contexts

Engage and build capacity of the informal sector, addressing health, safety and alternatives to open burning of waste.The informal sector is often at the frontline of recovery and recycling. In many contexts they gather and separate the majority, if not all, the materials that are diverted from open dumping and burning. Building on this through further training and capacity building can remove barriers and enable the informal sector to handle greater volumes of waste and to professionalise their operations. See Step 9. 

Invest in infrastructure to support waste collection, valorisation and sustainable disposal. This investment can support the operation of informal and formal private sector waste collectors, traders and aggregators, so less waste is dumped or burned. All potential technology solutions should be evaluated in terms of their likely performance in local contexts. Many commentators argue that waste incinerators, for example, are not appropriate, as they do not support objectives of pollution abatement, or promoting a circular economy and green jobs (UNEP, 2024; Arnika, 2024). This often includes investing in material recovery facilities (MRF), waste banks or buy-back centres. These can be at a variety of scales, and with a variety of management systems.  

There are successful examples of smaller-scale decentralized MRFs in Success Stories from Kisumu and The Maldives, where management of the centres is devolved to local groups or small enterprises under licence to the local authority (see also Nipe Fagio, 2024). The FlipFlopi project toolkit provides excellent practical advice for running recycling operations.  

Enforcement strategies can intervene at a variety of points in waste value chains. Enforcement that seeks to prevent open burning is generally seen as more effective than penalizing offenders.  

Enforcement for uptake of alternatives

Local governments can enforce payment of tariffs for waste services, for example by bundling it with other payments, or withholding access to particular services if fees are not paid. Alternatively they can fine landlords who have not subscribed to a waste collection service.  

Local governments can attempt to impose fines for open dumping of waste by residents, businesses or waste collectors. However, it can be hard to secure evidence of these practices.  

Enforcement of open burning bans

National and local governments can introduce a ban on open waste burning, and the gradual introduction of fines as part of by-laws or national policy frameworks. Fines can penalize individuals in neighbourhoods or the operators of disposal sites.  

Training is needed for enforcement officers, as well as backing from political leadership to enable these penalty systems to be operationalized fairly.  

Evidence suggests that such bans and enforcement on their own (in the absence of practical alternatives to open waste burning) are rarely effective and difficult to implement. The costs of bringing cases to court is also often a major barrier (Pathak et al., 2023).  

Capacity building for non-waste specialists such as air quality managers

A range of local government officers such as air quality managers and public health officers will need orientation about the specific health and air pollution impacts related to open waste burning, tools and methods to assess them, and the options available to reduce them.  

Capacity building for waste managers

Many waste managers at local government level would benefit from exposure to new ideas and training to:

• Adopt new ways of working such as how to effectively integrate the informal sector, and how to promote greater source separation and recycling and improved management of final disposal sites. Many of these are low-cost, saving clean-up costs by diverting waste.  
• Understand and evaluate a range of financing options for different actions, including for example user fees, public budgets, opportunities from extended producer responsibility schemes, climate finance, and how they can be combined to create a stable and sustainable funding. 

Capacity building for waste workers

Waste value chains involve a large number of people both those employed by local governments and those working independently as waste pickers, collectors, traders and recyclers. Training programmes targeting these groups can help increase the efficiency and safety of their operations, increasing their scale and volumes of waste they can handle.  

All independent waste businesses, informal or small-scale formal enterprises, are likely to benefit from training in aspects such as:

• Keeping records and accounts, and using this data to improve small waste business
• Using digital systems (GSMA, 2024).
• Access to finance to grow small waste businesses
• Organising as an association or forming a co-operative.
• Health and safety precautions including the dangers of open waste burning
• Awareness of local legislation and regulations that apply to their waste business
• Women’s empowerment and entrepreneurship to address the particular barriers they face 

Depending on the nature of the business, training may also be useful for the informal sector and government workers in:

• Promoting source segregation by waste generators
• Efficient waste collection systems  
• Transport logistics, route optimisation
• Waste sorting and storage for sale
• Safety protocols for handling waste and safe handling of equipment

Ensuring sustained action

In the long run, sustained action will require the on-going allocation of budgets and on-going political prioritization. Awareness campaigns need to be renewed and refreshed, infrastructure needs to be rolled out, and capacity building needs to continue as new groups are on-boarded.

Indicators to track Open Waste Burning

Indicators are needed to track the underlying drivers of open waste burning, its prevalence, and the impact of improvements on air quality.  

Key indicators are likely to include:

Open Burning incidents: Monitoring of open waste burning will be a key indicator to track elimination of the practice. Can be monitored through repeat transect walk methodologies during different seasons every couple of year.  
Indicators: Frequency and volume of waste burned in neighbourhoods and streets using transect walk methodology 
Responsible institutions: City Department of Waste Management, or Public Health Department. 

Disposal site fires: Monitoring of the extent and frequency of fires and disposal sites supports improved management. This can be monitored through safety reports at the site itself, air quality sensors and potentially in the future through remote sensing data. 
Indicators: Frequency and severity of disposal site fires.  
Responsible institutions: City Department of Waste Management which has oversight for operations at the disposal site. 

Uptake of waste collection services: This is critical in terms of access to alternatives to open burning. It can be monitored through records of licensed collectors and occasional household surveys.  
Indicators: Percentage of households, businesses and institutions with a reliable waste collection service. Percentage of households, businesses, institutions separating their waste before collection. 
Responsible institutions: City Department of Waste Management which has oversight on waste management delivery. 

Waste recovered and recycled: Useful to monitor to illustrate that waste is being diverted from landfills or open dumping. Monitoring can be through occasional updates to the Waste Wise Cities Tool in particular the surveys of apex waste traders.  
Indicators: Percentage of waste recovered and recycled. 
Responsible institutions: City Department of Waste Management. 

Air quality: improvements in air quality can be tracked, in particular near to hotspots for burning or disposal sites. This can be monitored through a network of sensors.  
Indicators: 24 hour mean and annual mean PM2.5, PM10 and black carbon (if available). 
Responsible institutions: Ministry/Department of Environment, and Agencies/boards for air pollution control. 

Health and safety of waste workers: reducing open burning of waste, capacity building and improved access to and use of personal protective equipment should reduce risks for waste workers. This can be monitored through incident logs and occasional surveys.                                                              Indicators: Number of injuries, burns and respiratory diseases by waste workers. Number of days when unable to work due to illness or injury, disaggregated by gender. 
Responsible institutions: Department of Labour, Department of Public Health.  

Job creation: transforming waste systems to provide alternatives to open burning should create job opportunities in green jobs and the circular economy. This can be monitored through reports on the membership of associations and co-operatives, or through occasional surveys. 
Indicators: Number of waste workers with improved incomes. Number of new jobs created in waste collection and recycling.  
Responsible institutions: Department of Labour, Department of Waste Management.

The SPREP (2023) guide provides practical guidance on waste management data collection, monitoring and reporting including a set of key performance indicators, the required data and how that data can be collected. Similarly, the OECD (2024) guide suggests a set of indicator and potential data sources. For smaller operations, the FlipFlopi Toolkit provides highly practical guidance about indicators and targets, and data management.  

Tools for monitoring and evaluation

Some tools are now available enabling real-time, continuous monitoring of waste systems. Other tools should be applied intermittently to assess progress.

• Digital apps and data collection tools can be implemented with waste businesses to track the coverage of services, volumes of waste and quantities recycled (GSMA, 2021).  
• Air quality sensors can be used to monitor ambient concentrations, especially near waste burning hotspots or final disposal sites/
• The WasteWise Cities tool and open-burning transect walk methodologies can be applied periodically to track progress.
• Integration of simple questions about waste management should be added to national household and labour surveys, such as those asked in the World Risk Poll (2023). 

Waste management is almost always a local government responsibility.  Public sector financing, especially for operational costs, is also, therefore, a local government responsibility. Many local governments in low and middle-income countries have very limited budgets. They struggle to meet the operational costs even for a very minimal, linear waste management service. And at the same time, these costs can amount to an overage of 20% of municipal budgets in low-income countries (World Bank, 2018). Globally, waste management is critically underfinanced, attracting only 0.4% of overseas development finance between 2018 and 2021 (Lerpiniere et al, 2024). Larger projects requiring national government finance, loans or other investments struggle to be viewed as ‘bankable’.  

In this context, local decision makers need to be strategic about how they finance actions in the short, medium and longer term. Within the 10 steps of this AQMx Guidance, actions to address open burning of waste vary in terms of costs. Budgets can also come from a wide range of sources including from local waste generators, waste producers, public budgets, and a range of external sources nationally and internationally.  

The guidance below is divided in terms of levels of finance required, and the types of action they will fund. We identify what local actors can do to access these types of finance, and what supporting or enabling actions may needed nationally or internationally. 

Examples of institutional measures include:

• Setting up strong institutional arrangements for the open waste burning elimination plan (see Step 2)
• Partnering with schools, religious and community organisations, so they commit to not burning waste, but recycling and having their waste collected
• Raising public awareness for example through community health volunteers and local champions. 

Examples of operational measures include:

• Increasing waste collection services
• Establishing a basic registration system for informal waste handlers, and running a training programme to build their capacity

Opportunities for local mobilisation of funds, covering operational costs  

• Collection fees paid directly by households to collectors  
• Combining collection fees with other service charges, cross-subsidizing household waste fees with commercial fees, or high-income areas cross-subsidizing low-income neighbourhoods.  
• Tipping fees, noting these may have negative impacts, if they encourage open dumping of waste, rather than taking it to the disposal site.  
• Fines levied to residents for open dumping or burning
• Licensing charges paid by businesses to be allowed to operate, noting that this should be structured and applied in ways which do not serve as a barrier to waste management operations. 

Additional sources of finance for waste management operating costs  

• Extended producer responsibility (EPR) frameworks generate additional funds at national levels with the intention that this supports increased collection and recycling. Examples: South Africa, Kenya.  
• Plastic credits: can be accessed through intermediaries and can support the business models of recycling companies. Although controversial because it is argued they justify continued over-production of plastics, they have been used successfully by e.g. River Recycle (Indonesia), Mr Green Africa (Kenya).  
• Carbon credits: similarly, can support operational budgets of projects which reduce dumping of mixed waste and therefore avoid generation of methane (for example through composting instead). They are part of the business model of e.g. Sanergy / Regen Organics (Kenya). Further info, and a recognition of the challenges can be found in Catalytic Finance Foundation (2025). Both plastic and carbon credits only make economic sense for larger initiatives due to the costs of compliance. 

Example of capital investments include:

• Construction of recycling centres / material recovery facilities
• Improved infrastructure at, or construction of, controlled landfill sites to eliminate burning of waste at final disposal. 

It is worth reviewing experiences of others in the region with major waste infrastructure investments. There is evidence to suggest that waste-to-energy incineration, while marketed as a ‘bankable solution’, creates long-term debt and locks cities into a linear system with high operating costs (GAIA, 2021). 

A key to securing larger capital investments is not only putting together a sound business case, but also demonstrating commitment through political prioritization, mobilizing funds locally, collecting robust data, and engaging positively with private companies and the informal sector. The business case also has to demonstrate local operational and financial capacity to take on a larger scheme.

It is advisable to seek support for project preparation, as this skill-set is quite specialized and may not be available locally. Specific scoping studies may be needed, and expertise required in negotiating financial arrangements between a range of partners. Organisations such as the City Climate Finance Gap Fund and the Green Climate Fund offer financial support for this phase.  

Sources of finance for larger investments include National Agencies, Development Banks, Bilateral and Multilateral institutions, climate finance, private sources, philanthropic foundations.

A range of financial instruments can be sought such as grants, (concessional) loans, equity investments, public-private partnerships, green bonds, and blended finance.   

National-level actions can be taken to support access to finance at local levels such as:

• Allocating additional budgets to local governments not only for infrastructure but also capacity building, for example, to promote and support waste valorisation enterprises.
• Establishing schemes for new streams of finance e.g. EPR, tariffs or fees
• Bringing local governments together to support collective applications for larger funds. An example is the Waste Management Flagship Project led by the Development Bank of South Africa which received project preparation funding from the Green Climate Fund in 2018 to support (a) six municipalities to be ready to launch organic waste treatment pilots; and (b) the development of documentation, processes and financial packages to scale up successes in a further 24 municipalities.

Differentiated exposure and impacts

Men and women in communities are involved in different ways with waste generation, management and open burning of waste specifically (UNEP, 2024 table 6, pg 51). For example:  

• Women are almost universally the main managers of waste within households, gathering waste and disposing of it. Depending on the context, men may also take responsibility for particular types of waste (such as garden waste). Women often burn waste near to their home as a cheap and easy means of disposal.
• Women may burn waste as a fuel or a fire-starter for cooking, which is generally their responsibility.  
• Men may take responsibility for work in the yard, and may burn garden waste along with some household or toilet waste (see Success story 5, Dominican Republic).  
• Outside the home, depending on local culture and practices, women or men may take responsibility for keeping neighbourhoods clean including burning piles of waste in the streets.  
• As informal waste workers, women and gender minorities face additional discrimination, vulnerabilities to violence and harassment. They usually earn lower incomes because they are confined to lower-value roles and can only access lower-value waste. They find it harder to access credit, training or technologies. (See for example gender-based examples from Vietnam: WEF, 2023).

These different practices mean men, women and gender minorities are exposed to pollution from open burning of waste in different ways, with women often more exposed. Women also have specific vulnerabilities linked to impacts of air pollution on reproductive health, passing dangerous materials to babies in the womb and through breastfeeding,  and the tendency for dangerous pollutants to accumulate in body fat (WHO, 2023).  

Targeted actions  

It is important to include gender considerations in the planning and implementation of actions to achieve more sustainable, equitable and effective outcomes. Solutions and behaviour change messaging has too often failed when designed by men without sufficient consideration of the realities and perspectives of women as the main users or targets of the messaging.  

Actions to include gender considerations effectively include:

• Collecting disaggregated data and the perspectives of men and women separately during stakeholder analysis.  
• Ensure women are represented and empowered in decision-making committees for policies, action plans and designing solutions.
• Strengthen women-led informal waste businesses or co-operatives through tailored capacity building or access to finance.
• Ensure behaviour change campaigns are designed to address differing gender roles in waste management.  

Differentiated exposure and impacts

A wide range of roles in waste management chains are played by informal workers including waste pickers within neighbourhoods and at dumpsites, mixed waste collectors, itinerant waste buyers, aggregators and traders. Their contribution is often ignored, and not included in official recycling statistics. The number operating in a city, the volumes of waste they handle, the value they generate and money they save a city is often not known or recorded. Estimates of the number of participants in the informal waste sector worldwide vary from 10-20 million (Engineering X, 2020).  

However, studies in most low or middle-income countries routinely find that they are almost entirely responsible for recovery and recycling of waste, while municipal systems remain linear. A conservative estimate is that they collect 88 million tonnes of recyclable waste per year, which compares to 76 million tonnes of material collected for recycling in Europe per year (2017-19) (Engineering X, 2020). Despite this contribution, their work is often actively discouraged by city officials, for breaking regulations for waste handling, land use, and business licensing. In some cases efforts to improve the waste system criminalise their activities or exclude them from sources of waste at dumpsites.  

In addition, waste workers are often able to secure only very low incomes and suffer further social harassment, exclusion and violence. This can be compounded by issues of gender, age and ethnicity.  

In relation to open waste burning, informal workers are particularly exposed to risk. Waste pickers in neighbourhoods are exposed to traffic fumes as well as smoke from burning waste, although SEI (2022) identify this as an under-researched area. Those picking waste at dumpsites may also sleep at or close to the dumpsite, increasing the length of time they are exposed to unhealthy air pollution. There are also risks from burns from handling or setting fire to waste. The ash from burned waste can also be highly dangerous (contaminated with uPOPs and other toxic materials), polluting food and water that waste workers may use.  

Targeted actions

A set of ten principles and seven steps have been developed by DEFF (2020) in South Africa as part of a toolkit for waste picker integration. This stresses the importance of recognition, respect and redress, and valuing waste pickers’ expertise (see also WIEGO, 2018). The toolkit also includes suggestions for addressing key challenges in waste picker integration, such as municipal staff having insufficient skills or time; and weak relationships and levels of trust between municipal officials and waste pickers.  

Actions to integrate the informal sector in waste management strategies and strategies to address open burning specifically can include:

• Strengthen protections for informal waste workers, including access to healthcare and personal protective equipment. Other forms of social protection can be introduced such as life and health insurance cover.  
• Improve controls and safety practices at dumpsites. Efforts to ban waste pickers are often ineffective, but measures such as safety training, waste handling protocols, providing hand-washing facilities and requiring waste pickers to sign in and out have improved safety e.g. in South Africa (Engineering X, 2020).
• Introduce simple and low-cost registration schemes for informal waste workers with the active involvement of waste picker organisations. This helps streamline communications and gives formal recognition to waste workers.  
• Ensure informal waste workers are represented and empowered in decision-making committees for policies, action plans and designing solutions. Building trust, starting by recognising their contribution and valuing their expertise is crucial, in contexts where local government and waste pickers have often been opposed.  
• Integrate and support informal waste collector groups to increase coverage of collection services, and ensure the waste they collect is properly transported for recycling or disposal. This often requires co-ordination with municipal waste systems.  
• Ensure informal waste workers have access to a wide range of capacity building support to access appropriate technical and business training, access finance, develop representative organisations, and to understand their legal rights (see Step 9, Capacity Building).  

Beyond these practical actions, supportive measures can be taken at national policy levels to protect and improve the labour rights of waste workers, and promote transition to a job-rich circular economy (ILO, 2025).