With countries across the region moving towards greater waste diversion, higher recycling rates and more circular economies, an important question needs to be asked: is our waste collection system ready to support these ambitions? 

Waste collection is a fundamental pillar of waste management. Yet, in my view, it is still not sufficiently aligned with the wider national agenda. There are encouraging efforts across the region, but there is a long way to go. 

So, where do we start? 

Too often, the question we ask is: Has the waste been collected and are the streets clean? 

We need to ask another question: Has the way we collected that waste helped recover its value—or made recovery more difficult? 

Cleanliness and reliable collection will always remain essential. But when national strategies call for greater recycling, reduced landfill disposal and stronger circular economies, collection contracts must contribute directly to those ambitions. 

In my view, the challenge is not simply operational. It begins with how we procure, structure and measure the service. 

Where to start? Procurement 

An ambitious national waste strategy cannot deliver its full potential if procurement focuses primarily on trucks, manpower, collection frequency and the lowest price. These requirements describe the resources deployed, but they do not define what the system should achieve. 

Calling an agreement a “performance-based contract” does not necessarily change this. The more important question is: performance against what? 

If we measure equipment availability, trips completed and tons collected, we are essentially rewarding the movement of waste. If the objective is recycling and diversion, we should also measure participation in source separation, contamination levels, verified recycling, recovery rates and reductions in residual waste sent for disposal. 

Equipment and staffing requirements will always have a role in ensuring service quality and safety. But they should support desired outcomes, not substitute for them. 

Waste collection contracts are where national ambition must become an operational obligation. 

Contract size: scale with purpose 

I have seen cities divided into ten or more collection zones, sometimes without a clear connection between those boundaries and the wider recovery system. 

Dividing a city is not inherently wrong. Multiple contracts can encourage competition, accommodate local conditions and reduce dependence on a single provider. Equally, a larger contract does not automatically deliver better results. 

The real question is whether the chosen structure supports efficient operations and meaningful investment. 

Does each service area provide sufficient scale for segregated collection, public engagement, digital monitoring and access to recovery infrastructure? Are contractors working towards common standards? Who is accountable when separately collected material enters a shared treatment facility? 

We should design service areas around the needs of the waste system, rather than expect the system to fit administrative boundaries. 

Contract duration: investment needs a credible horizon 

In my experience, five-year contracts are common across the region. But we should challenge the assumption that five years is always the right duration. 

A conventional collection service and an integrated waste management program have different investment requirements. The latter may require dedicated containers at the pre-collection stage, redesigned collection systems, transfer infrastructure, sorting capacity, digital systems and sustained behavioural-change programmes. 

When substantial investment must be recovered over a relatively short period, annual costs can rise or operators may be reluctant to invest beyond minimum requirements. 

Where the scope justifies it, contracts of ten years or more deserve serious consideration. A longer horizon can give operators greater confidence to invest in the pre-collection stage—how waste is stored, separated and presented before a vehicle arrives. 

However, longer contracts must come with stronger accountability, including measurable milestones, independent verification, periodic reviews and effective remedies for underperformance. 

The objective is an investment horizon matched to the assets and outcomes being procured, with safeguards that protect public value. 

Deposit Return System provides one example of investment in the pre-collection stage. It requires infrastructure, funding and a clear operating model. What happens before collection deserves far greater attention. 

The next level: integrate collection and recovery 

A central weakness in a fragmented system is that the organization collecting waste may have little commercial incentive to consider what happens afterwards. 

If collection is paid for independently of recovery, why would a contractor invest significantly in reducing contamination or improving recyclable material quality? 

An integrated model can change that equation. 

When collection, recovery and residual disposal are considered together, operators have an incentive to look at the whole-system cost. Better segregation at source can preserve material quality and reduce the downstream effort required to separate mixed waste. 

This does not mean source separation eliminates the need for treatment infrastructure. Collection and treatment should be designed together, so each supports the other. 

Integration also does not require one company to own every asset. It requires clear accountability, compatible contracts, shared data and aligned incentives across the organisations involved. 

The aim should be to optimise the cost and performance of the entire system—not simply secure the cheapest collection service. 

The system does not end at the sorting plant 

Even the best-designed collection contract cannot succeed in isolation. 

Source separation requires convenient infrastructure, clear communication, consistent collection arrangements and appropriate enforcement. Residents and businesses need to understand what to separate and trust that their efforts will be maintained downstream. 

I have encountered this concern myself: residents questioning whether their efforts to separate waste are ultimately wasted during collection. 

Treatment facilities must be capable of handling the material they receive. Beyond treatment, recovered products need buyers. 

Offtake should not be addressed only after a recovery facility has been built. Product specifications, quality requirements and routes to market should influence system design from the beginning. 

Waste management is therefore an ecosystem. Pre-collection, collection, transfer, treatment, manufacturing demand and final disposal must function as connected parts of one system. 

A practical route to change 

I recognise that this transition is not easy, particularly in large countries with different municipal conditions, existing contracts and uneven infrastructure. But complexity should encourage a structured approach, not prevent reform. 

Selected cities or service areas could introduce integrated, longer-term contracts with clear baselines, phased source-separation obligations, confirmed treatment arrangements and independently verified outcomes. 

Performance could then be assessed against recycling and diversion targets as well as the total cost of the system before the model is expanded elsewhere. 

The opportunity is not to assume that recycling revenues will pay for everything. It is to use public spending more effectively, attract appropriate private investment and support industries that can consume recovered materials. 

Governments will continue to play an essential role in planning, regulation and oversight. Integration should make that role more effective, not obscure responsibility. 

Ultimately, the solution is neither a performance contract in name nor a stand-alone source-separation campaign. It is a coherent system in which procurement, investment, operations and end markets work towards the same objective. 

We should stop treating waste collection as the end of a cleanliness service and start designing it as the beginning of resource recovery. 

Key messages ( In a box)  

• Waste collection must be part of an integrated recovery system. 

• Contract size and duration must enable long-term investment. 

• Contracts must reward recycling and diversion, not just collection.