Building circular food systems in cities

Urban circular food systems encompass a wide range of sectors, stakeholders, and specific intervention points. They are designed to reduce and eliminate pollution and waste, keep materials and products in use, and regenerate natural areas and ecosystems. Given their distinct physical, socioeconomic, demographic, governance, and political characteristics, actions taken by cities towards establishing circular food systems must be context specific.

Key policy measures to build circular food systems in cities fall across the following intervention points: production, processing, distribution and retail, consumption, waste management, and synergies.

• Production stage:
  • Source from local, regeneratively-produced, and sustainable food sources: Establish policies, regulations, and infrastructure to encourage local food production with agroecological and regenerative farming practices. Measures include:
    • Establishing policy frameworks to facilitate land access and improve tenure for practicing agroecology in areas surrounding cities. For example, the City of Bonn in Germany passed a resolution to prioritize organic farming methods on leased urban agricultural land.
    • Integrating agroecology and sustainable food production into city planning, zoning, and building standards. Utilize vacant urban spaces and underutilized city-owned land for sustainable food production (e.g., rooftop and home gardens, community gardens, vertical farms). For example, in Kesbewa, Sri Lanka, the CITYFOOD Strategy supports home-based food production and supplies inputs (e.g., seeds, equipment) to establish compact home and rooftop gardens, rainwater harvesting systems, composting systems for organic household waste, and other related systems.
    • Promoting the establishment of and supporting inclusive farmer cooperatives for farms using regenerative practices. Such cooperatives can aid farms by enabling co-investment and cost sharing for inputs and marketing.
    • Providing training, extension services, and educational materials to farmers for adopting agroecological practices. Extension services can promote the use of greater seed diversity and low-impact crops while also directly providing inputs (e.g., seeds). For example, in Toronto, Canada, the city established the World Crops and Learning Gardens project to improve the diversity of, and access to, locally sourced foods.
  • Offer incentives and support for farmers and producers: Provide financial support to implement agroecological, regenerative and circular economy practices. Examples include:
    • Providing tax reduction, credit facilities, and preferential loans for farmers to adopt agroecological practices, and for reducing waste and utilizing organic materials and byproducts. For example, the City of Bonn in Germany joined the Organic Cities Network, promoting organic farms and processing, boosting demand for organic locally-produced foods, and giving priority to organic production on leased urban agricultural lands.
    • Designing preferential contracts (e.g., public procurement) and requirements for sourcing from local farms using regenerative and agroecological practices. Strengthen the emphasis on sourcing from Small and Medium Enterprises and local businesses (see Integrate healthy and sustainable diets in public procurement). For example, in San Paolo, Brazil, the city designed a preferential public procurement requirement that food providers must source food based upon local, regenerative, and agroecological practices.
    • Promoting the adoption of cleaner, integrated closed loop systems (e.g., small-scale integrated multitrophic aquaculture or hydroponic vertical farms), including in urban and post-industrial spaces. For example, in Northern Amsterdam, Netherlands, the city has partnered with Metabolic Institute to pilot open-source aquaponic farms in a former industrial shipyard, recycling nutrients in paired fish-vegetable production systems.
    • Encouraging the use of biological, organic alternatives to synthetic fertilizers and pest control in farms (e.g., using integrated pest management to replace pesticides, or using compost to replace chemical fertilizers).

For additional relevant guidance, see Implementing nature-positive food production practices, Agriculture in urban and peri-urban areas, and Improving equitable access to healthy and sustainable foods.

• Processing stage:
  • Facilitate industrial symbiosis: Plan industrial areas to interlink production processes, reducing industrial waste by sustainably utilizing outputs. Industries in the same location can coordinate to share useful byproducts, where one industry uses the otherwise wasted byproducts from another industry in its production processes. Byproducts from cities can also be applied back into the regional agricultural system to shorten supply chains and close resource loops. For example, the Rizhao Economic and Technology Development Area (RETDA) in China interlinks resource streams between 31 companies in various sectors, including food and oils, machinery, cereal, paper, and textiles, to share outputs in their production processes. Within RETDA, for example, one brewery produces vinasse, a waste byproduct from sugar, which is used as a production input by a chemical factory.
  • Encourage the use of food byproducts in other products: Establish regulations, quotas, and standards for safe and sanitary material treatment and reuse, to ensure sustainable sourcing where possible and the reuse of food byproducts. Utilization of food byproducts could be directed into three broad product streams:
    • New food products (e.g., natural food colouring, nutritional supplements, sweeteners, pet food).
    • Inputs for agricultural production (e.g., livestock and fish feed, insect protein, compost, fertilizer) that can be utilized in peri-urban agriculture or local food production. However, companies must design consumer food products such that the waste can be safely repurposed as a farming input (e.g., avoid chemical food additives that are unsafe to return to the soil as compost).
    • New materials and bioenergy (e.g., biodegradable/compostable packaging, combustible briquettes, biogas) can be sold to consumers or used to power industrial and municipal processes (e.g., electricity provision, heating, transportation). Guidelines and requirements for companies can encourage sourcing more sustainable alternatives from compostable/biodegradable materials (e.g., cellulose material like cassava plant or bamboo) to make food packaging and consumer products (e.g., paper towels, drinking straws).
• Distribution and retail stage:
  • Improve urban infrastructure used for food systems (e.g., roads, storage facilities): Promote the maintenance and repair of food-specific storage infrastructure and cold chain assets based on circular food economy principles. For example, the City of Barcelona in Spain has improved its overall food market sustainability and increased food proximity, in part through implementing repairs and upgrades to its electricity and water infrastructure.
  • Encourage food redistribution: Encourage food providers to donate safe, unsold food to food banks, charities, or other food insecure populations. Facilitate direct connections between food providers (e.g., supermarkets, restaurants) and community initiatives or nonprofits. In 2016, the City of Milan in Italy established local food waste hubs to facilitate surplus food recovery from supermarkets and cafeterias to redistribute to food insecure populations. The city also provided buildings for collection and redistribution centres, as well as tax reductions for participating businesses.
  • Strengthen direct producer-to-consumer channels: Shorter supply chains allowing food producers to interact with, and sell directly to, retailers and consumers can provide fresh, high-quality produce to city residents, reduce food loss and waste, reduce GHG emissions from longer transit, and foster stronger relationships between producers and consumers. Measures include:
    • Providing public spaces (i.e., food hubs) and logistical support for community food initiatives (e.g., food cooperatives, farmers markets). For example, the Liege Food Belt (CATL) in Belgium is a programme that fosters and promotes local food production and regional distribution, with 20 cooperatives in operation.
    • Promoting digital technologies (e.g., digital marketplaces) can also improve cooperation and coordination between producers, retailers, and consumers. In Belo Horizonte, Brazil, a programme was created to directly connect food producers with consumers, eliminating retailer price markup and improving food security. In Leuven, Belgium, a local distribution platform Kort’om Leuven connects peri-urban farmers and food retailers (e.g., supermarkets, restaurants) through regular timed deliveries.
    • Offering incentives for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and local businesses including food service providers that source from local and regenerative farms (e.g., facilitate land and space access).
    • Organizing public innovation challenges and grants for solutions related to shortened food chains (e.g., local food products, sustainable local logistics). In Ede and Barneveld, Netherlands, farmers can join the Short Food Chain Masterclass, organized by the cities in cooperation with a university, to develop innovative services and products for local markets.
• Consumption stage:
  • Encourage sustainable shifts in consumption behaviour: Various policies and programmes can help steer attitudes and spur action towards reducing food waste, supporting higher levels of efficiency and more circular outcomes in food systems. Measures include:
    • Promoting behavioural changes through public campaigns, events, programming, and education materials to reduce food waste, address negative biases around reuse, and encourage the purchase of food produced locally and under regenerative agriculture. For example, the City of Melbourne in Australia joined a local nonprofit to develop the We Need to Talk About Food guide, an educational resource for consumers and businesses on sustainable food consumption. The City of Porto in Portugal is home to a number of ongoing national initiatives to combat food waste, including Refood and the Fruta Feia (Ugly Fruit) Cooperative, diverting food waste from landfills and marketing imperfect vegetables and fruits.
    • Developing standards and rules about consumer food labelling and claims, to create greater awareness and transparency about the socio-environmental impacts of different production processes (e.g., biodiversity benefits of agroecology, fair wages on farms) or packaging types (e.g., recycled, biodegradable).
    • Establishing partnerships with city schools to integrate food waste reduction into curricula. Development of educational materials to teach youth about healthy, sustainable diets can also help encourage positive lifelong eating habits. See Increasing demand for healthy and sustainable diets.
    • Promoting the use of improved technologies for traceability in supply chains (e.g., tracking farm origins, production and farming techniques, environmental impacts).

For additional guidance on reducing food waste, see Reducing food waste in gastronomy sector, retail and at household level.

• Waste management stage:
  • Facilitate diversion of inedible food and organic waste from landfills: Circular systems employ waste management strategies that can redirect organic waste streams back into productive uses. Measures include:
    • Requiring municipal waste management companies to adopt innovations for the advanced collection, sorting, and treatment of organic wastes.
    • Encouraging municipal waste management agencies to form public-private collaborations, promoting the development of bioeconomy products made from food byproducts and other reusable organic materials.
    • Establishing the infrastructure, guidance, and requirements for sorting waste at both the commercial and household levels (e.g., multiple coloured bins for compost, recycling, and landfill and explanatory signs/flyers). Distribution of educational materials and programming to raise public awareness can improve outcomes for more effective waste sorting. The development of deposit-and-refund schemes and recycling systems for beverage containers and food packaging can reduce waste sent to landfill. (See Reducing food waste in gastronomy sector, retail and at household level.)
    • Providing technical assistance (ongoing) for businesses to help them measure and monitor food waste.
    • Implementing bans on sending food waste to landfills and requiring mandatory reporting and reduction targets for the private sector, especially large corporations. In Beaverton, Oregon (USA), the city implemented an ordinance requiring food scrap composting for businesses that produce high quantities of food waste.
    • Creating inclusive partnerships and cooperation with informal sectors of workers (e.g., waste collectors) to generate resource streams and create decent, safe income opportunities (e.g., Circular Credits). The City of Pune in India developed the SwaCH model, a pro-poor public-private partnership that employs informal waste collectors in the formal municipal waste system, where they generate income by collecting waste for processing, composting, and biofuel production.
• Synergistic measures:
  • Develop synergies between municipal waste, water, energy, and agricultural systems: Various municipal agencies handling solid waste, wastewater treatment, electricity generation, public transportation, and other core functions can coordinate to build circularity into their respective operations. Such synergies might include and combine:
    • Wastewater treatment systems, whereby water, nutrients, and biosolids can be recovered and reused for other productive processes. Biosolids and nutrients from wastewater can be used to produce agricultural fertilizers and combustible biomass for electricity/heat generation in industrial or municipal functions (e.g., powering buses for public transit). Interventions could also explore natural methods for capturing nutrients from wastewater and agricultural run-off (e.g., use of algae in remediation). In cities under water scarcity conditions, treated wastewater can be an important source of agricultural irrigation. Such systems should be developed according to sustainable and circular sanitation solutions principles. In Turku, Finland, a biodigester facility recovers nutrients from wastewater and produces biogas, providing both inputs for agriculture and energy for public transport systems.
    • Reclamation of nutrients and biosolids from solid municipal waste. Biosolids from municipal waste facilities (i.e., food waste, plant trimmings), if properly and safely separated and processed, can be used to enhance soil in agricultural systems as compost. Benefits include the creation of new business models and revenue streams, replacement of chemical fertilizers with nitrogen and phosphorous rich organic fertilizers, and improvement of nutrient content of soils in cropland. If properly separated, food waste could also be processed using sustainable insect farming, producing insect protein for use in livestock and fish feed. In Riga, Latvia, the city developed a waste management site to reduce organic food waste in landfills, make compost, and produce biogas, using the biogas to grow indoor tomatoes and cucumbers that supply supermarkets all year.
    • Energy generation through burning biosolids reclaimed from both municipal waste and wastewater treatment. Often, the production of compost, fertilizer, or other products from organic waste can be paired with the production of biogas or combustible biomass. This resource can then be used in developing electricity and heat to power other processes, including industrial production, transportation, or residential heating. In Naivasha, Kenya, the local government partnered with Sanivation, a company that produces fuel briquettes from treated faecal sludge, to supply commercial heating processes.

Relevant governance measures include:

• Coordination with governments and other public institutions at the regional, national and international level to align with and complement corresponding food systems policies. 
• Integration of circular food system strategy/measures into climate, biodiversity and land-use policies, as well as broader city-wide strategies, action plans, and roadmaps.
• Forming inclusive and participatory Food Policy Councils or Platforms at the city level, to inform city strategic plans, targets, policies, and programmes and foster dialogue between stakeholders.
• Building capacity of municipal government staff to understand and implement circular food system policies. 
• Increasing research on the benefits of circular food systems in cities, circular innovations, and best practices for implementing them. Research into food systems, as well as other public investments related to circular food systems, should maintain an emphasis on ensuring equitable outcomes and serving marginalized populations.
• Reforming agricultural subsidies and tax policies to incentivize production of locally grown sustainable foods. Redirect subsidies that support environmentally harmful production towards local, sustainable, and regenerative agriculture.
• Review cost and incentive structures to ensure that positive biodiversity outcomes are consistently integrated in sector food system policies and development strategies.
• Divesting city funds from investments, policies, incentives, and assets that support linear (non-circular) economic models.
• Seeking investments from private and multilateral donors to support the transition to circular food systems.
• Enabling and encouraging public-private partnerships that help reduce investor risk in projects for circular food system innovations.
• Regulation around waste reduction, processing, and reuse.

Tools and guides for building circular food systems in cities include:

Guides

Building circular food systems in cities can also help advance the targets of the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF), as well as those of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Climate change mitigation benefits

Implementing circular food systems in cities has the potential to reduce 4.3 billion tons of CO2 equivalent by 2050. This is through:

• Encouraging production and consumption of food grown through sustainable farming methods like organic farming and regenerative agriculture, for example through sourcing requirements, financial incentives for farmers, and behavioural change initiatives for consumers.
  • This contributes to soil, water and ecosystem health improvement, improving their capacity to sequester carbon, for instance by reducing emissions from processes like freshwater eutrophication and soil acidification caused by intensive fertilizer use.
  • It also reduces GHG emissions by increasing reliance on plant-based foods, which require less land, thus slowing conversion of natural ecosystems to agricultural land.
• Transforming by-products into new products ranging from organic fertilizers, animal feed products, and biomaterials to medicine and bioenergy, thus reducing fertilizer and energy use.
• Measures to prevent food waste and diversion to landfills, and resultant GHG emissions, including methane. See Reducing food waste in gastronomy sector, retail and at household level.

Climate change adaptation benefits

Building circular food systems in cities can directly contribute to the following targets under the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience:

• Target 9a (Water & Sanitation): Circular urban food systems can help combat climate-induced water scarcity and promote access to safe potable water, with estimates that they could save up to 450 trillion litres of fresh water. Efficient water management practices, including rainwater harvesting and sustainable irrigation, lead to reduced water consumption in food production. Organic farming methods can reduce water pollution from fertilizer and pesticide use. Natural methods for nutrient recovery from wastewater, agricultural run-off and solid waste for use as agricultural inputs can also reduce pollution and pressure on water sources.
• Target 9b (Food & Agriculture): Circular food systems are often more resilient to climate-related disruptions, including supply chain disruptions and food shortages, for instance due to food redistribution initiatives and stronger local and informal markets. Diversified, localised, and equitable food production and distribution, especially when accompanied by adaptive governance measures, can further reduce urban vulnerability to climate-related risks such as extreme weather events.
• Target 9d (Ecosystems): Circular systems may involve restoring urban green spaces and urban agriculture, which can provide habitat for wildlife and support ecosystem services that enhance urban resilience to climate change, for example reducing Urban Heat Island effects, flood mitigation and pollutant absorption.
• Target 9e (Infrastructure): Circular food systems necessitate a wide variety of infrastructure, such as for wastewater and solid waste management facilities, food storage and transport facilities to reduce food waste, and industrial facilities for symbiotic use of industrial and agricultural by-products. This can enhance overall urban resilience to climate impacts.
• Target 9f (Livelihoods): Equitable engagement with and participation of communities in circular food initiatives can lead to the development of community-led climate adaptation strategies, for example through urban agriculture, food recovery, and food banking efforts. Circular food systems can also protect livelihoods supporting informal markets, food vendors and informal waste workers, and generate new opportunities in urban agriculture, waste collection, segregation, composting, and the like.

Biodiversity benefits

Action under this policy option can help to deliver on multiple KM-GBF targets, in particular:

• Target 7 (Reduce Pollution to Levels That Are Not Harmful to Biodiversity) and Target 10 (Enhance Biodiversity and Sustainability in Agriculture, Aquaculture, Fisheries, and Forestry): Circular urban food systems protect biodiversity by reducing pollution, waste and pressure on resources like land and water. For example, reducing nutrient runoff (e.g. high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus) through lowered chemical inputs and nutrient recovery processes can help decrease algal blooms in water bodies, benefiting aquatic ecosystems. Promoting plant-rich diets can lower land use and slow down conversion of habitats to agricultural use. Cities can also promote urban agriculture through rooftops, vacant lots, and vertical gardens, which can create (micro)habitats for wild species within urban environments.
• Target 12 (Enhance Green Spaces and Urban Planning for Human Well-Being and Biodiversity): By integrating urban and peri-urban agriculture into city planning, municipalities can increase local food production while simultaneously enhancing green spaces and biodiversity, with associated benefits for human health.
• Target 14 (Integrate Biodiversity in Decision-Making at Every Level): Circular economy interventions can be coordinated with other departments such as waste management, agriculture, greenery and land development, as one departments’ waste can become one other’s resource.
• Target 16 (Enable Sustainable Consumption Choices To Reduce Waste and Overconsumption): Cities can increase shifts in consumer behaviour by prioritizing the availability of local and sustainably produced food through public procurement and other support for farmers and suppliers, improving infrastructure for storage and transport, and targeted interventions at the consumption stage such as educational campaigns and introducing standards for labelling and transparency about environmental and circularity claims.

Other sustainable development benefits 

Building circular food systems in cities can also help contribute to the progress of the following SDGs by:

• SDG 1 (No Poverty): creating local employment opportunities in agriculture, food distribution and waste management.
• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): ensuring consistent access to nutritious food through promoting production and availability of healthy and sustainable food.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being): encouraging better dietary choices, such as increasing the proportion of seasonal and plant-based foods.
• SDG 4 (Quality Education): providing opportunities for sustainable food education regarding circularity e.g. food waste reduction, dietary choices, and urban agriculture practices.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): ensuring equitable access to food and fair opportunities for participation in food systems, especially for informal produce sellers and waste workers.
• SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): ensuring effective waste management, climate-smart production and consumption of food, and food waste prevention.
• SDG 15 (Life on Land): supporting biodiversity through sustainable agricultural practices e.g. lower chemical inputs, urban farming e.g. in rooftops and vacant lots.

Creating circular food systems in urban areas hinges on the development and execution of thoughtful, well-coordinated interventions. Nevertheless, these initiatives frequently confront both technical and non-technical barriers, as well as possible unintended consequences and trade-offs that may hinder their success, such as:

• Higher Initial Costs: Implementing circular food systems can involve higher upfront costs for infrastructure, technology and education, which may pose financial challenges especially for low-income countries and communities who often struggle to finance even basic waste management.
• Unequal Access: Circular food systems may inadvertently exacerbate inequalities if access to resources, such as land or education, is unevenly distributed among communities.
• Competition for Resources: Circular systems could compete with other essential urban services, such as housing or transportation, for resources like space and funding.

Integrating the following measures into a comprehensive and cohesive framework can help address implementation challenges and minimize potential trade-offs:

• Adequate public and private funding through public-private partnerships with retailers and consumer goods companies to propel innovation, research and learning. 
• Inclusive policy planning and implementation processes by active participation of marginalized voices to ensure a just, equitable transition to circular food systems.
• Address the power asymmetries in governance, e.g. when large corporate food companies have high influence relative to low income or marginalized communities.
• Platforms and governance structures to accelerate cooperation and integrated planning among all stakeholders.
• Strengthened local food production through practices tailored to local contexts such as using diverse crop varieties and cover crops, rotational grazing and agroforestry. 

Reliable tracking of progress in developing circular food systems in urban settings requires robust monitoring mechanisms, well-defined indicators, and coherent frameworks that reflect both the implementation process and its impacts on climate and biodiversity.

Indicators to monitor biodiversity outcomes

The Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity agreed to a comprehensive set of headline, component, and complementary indicators for tracking progress toward the targets of the KM-GBF. Some of these indicators could also be functional for monitoring the implementation of this policy option. These indicators are:

Tools to monitor biodiversity outcomes

Not identified

Tools to monitor climate outcomes

Not identified.

Several initiatives advancing circular food systems in cities offer critical insights into effective implementation and tangible outcomes, including:

• In Cape Town, South Africa, the organization FoodForward SA collaborates with retail stores and food outlets with high levels of food wastage to channel otherwise wasted food to beneficiary organizations. In this way, FoodForward SA has recovered and distributed around 2,148 tons of food surplus to 203 beneficiary organizations, predominantly focusing on educational institutions, women, and youth. Moreover, the initiative has created various other benefits for the community, including 30 direct jobs, opportunities for youth to gain supply chain upskilling, and the removal of 8,592 tons of GHG emissions.
• In the City of Lilongwe, Malawi, food waste had been a source of pollution in local river ecosystems. The UNA Rivers Project was created to divert organic food waste that originated from several nearby markets before it enters the river. To utilize the organic waste, local women volunteers collected and transported it to a nearby composting site, then earned income from selling the final compost products.
• In Hong Kong, an inaugural Organic Resources Recovery Center (ORRC) began operating in 2018. Its Organic Resources Recovery programme, developed through the coordination of the government’s environmental protection department and its Special Administrative Region, established three ORRCs. Once operational, the first ORRC had capacity to treat more than 200 tons of source-separated organic waste each day, or 80,000 tons annually. After the initial treatment, organic resources are sent to an anaerobic digestion plant that produces both compost and biogas. An on-site combined power-heat unit burns biogas and generates electricity that feeds directly into the grid, while also generating usable heat. At the end of the process, each ton of biowaste has been converted into about 100 kg of compost and one MWh of biogas.
• The City of Porto in Portugal is home to a number of ongoing national initiatives to combat food waste, including Refood and the Fruta Feia (Ugly Fruit) Cooperative. Refood diverts still edible food waste from the landfill through redistribution to food banks. Similarly, Fruta Feia collects and redistributes imperfect vegetables and fruits while running effective marketing campaigns. With 378 producers and 17 delivery points across the country, Fruta Feia has saved 7,629 tons of food waste, with significant benefits to soil preservation and reductions in energy and water use. With 6,800 beneficiaries and 60 centers nationally, Refood provides 150,000 meals and avoids 1,000 tons of biowaste each month.

1. A Systemic Analysis of Circularity in Food Systems, within Cities and Beyond [Food Trails]. (2024, May 29). Retrieved January 13, 2025, from https://foodtrails.milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org/exploring-urban-food-challenges-with-food-trails-crosscutting-managers/
2. Bhatt, P., Bhandari, G., Turco, R. F., Aminikhoei, Z., Bhatt, K., & Simsek, H. (2022). Algae in wastewater treatment, mechanism, and application of biomass for production of value-added product. Environmental Pollution, 309, 119688.
3. C40. (2021) How cities can reduce municipal food waste. Retrieved from https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/How-cities-can-reduce-food-waste-by-households-and-businesses?language=en_US.
4. City of Sydney (2023). Insect Farming Trial for Food Waste. Retrieved from https://meetings.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?AIId=1565
5. Climate Change & Food Waste – Solutions to Reduce Methane & Other GHGs. (n.d.). Retrieved January 14, 2026, from https://refed.org/food-waste/climate-and-resources/
6. Collacot, L. (2022, November 11). Six lessons we’ve learnt about transforming city food systems. Retrieved January 13, 2025, from https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/cities-and-a-circular-economy-for-food/cities-article
7. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019). Cities and Circular Economy for Food. Retrieved from https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/cities-and-a-circular-economy-for-food/overview.
8. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019). Completing the Picture: How the Circular Economy Tackles Climate Change. Retrieved from https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/completing-the-picture.
9. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2021). The Nature Imperative: How the circular economy tackles biodiversity loss. Retrieved from https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/biodiversity-report
10. European Environment Agency. (2023). The benefits to biodiversity of a strong circular economy. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/the-benefits-to-biodiversity
11. FAO. (n.d.) Integrated Pest Management. Retrieved on 22 July, 2024 from https://www.fao.org/pest-and-pesticide-management/ipm/integrated-pest-management/en/ 
12. FAO. (2018). Integrating Food into Urban Planning. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/ca2260en
13. FAO. (2019). FAO framework for the Urban Food Agenda. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/ca3151en/ca3151en.pdf
14. FAO. (2024). Greenhouse gas emissions from agrifood  systems  Global, regional and country trends, 2000–2022 ( No. 94) (No. 94). Retrieved January 14, 2026, from https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cd3167en
15. FAO and Toilet Board Coalition. (2021). Future proofing agriculture systems – Circular sanitation economies for more resilient and sustainable food systems. Land and Water Discussion Paper No. 18. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb2444en.
16. Fauzia, A., Frimawaty, E., & Arifin, H. S. (2024). Urban agriculture as ecosystem services provider: A review. Holistic: Journal of Tropical Agriculture Sciences, 2(1), 31–45.
17. Food Forward SA https://greencape.co.za/assets/EI_CASE_STUDY_6_4_21.pdf
18. Frehner, A., Cardinaals, R. P. M., Boer, I. J. M. de, Muller, A., Schader, C., Selm, B. van, et al. (2022). The compatibility of circularity and national dietary recommendations for animal products in five European countries: a modelling analysis on nutritional feasibility, climate impact, and land use. The Lancet Planetary Health, 6(6), e475–e483.
19. GACERE. (2022). Circularity Economy and Biodiversity – Working paper. Retrieved from https://www.unido.org/sites/default/files/unido-publications/2023-11/GACERE%20Working%20Paper%20on%20Circular%20Economy%20and%20Biodiversity_March%202022.pdf
20. GIZ (2021). Circular Economy as a Cornerstone for Meeting the Goals of the Paris Agreement. Retrieved from https://www.giz.de/fachexpertise/downloads/giz2021-en-circular-economy-paris-agreement.pdf
21. Harhare, M. & Urban Ocean I Resilient Cities Network. (2021). Transforming waste management by empowering informal waste-pickers in Pune. Retrieved from https://resilientcitiesnetwork.org/downloadable_resources/UR/UO/case-study-pune-01-.pdf
22. Hawkes, C., Harris, J., & Gillespie, S. (2017). IFPRI, Global Food Policy Report. Washington, DC, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute, 35. Available at https://gfpr.ifpri.info/gfpr2017/
23. Hamam, M., Chinnici, G., Di Vita, G., Pappalardo, G., Pecorino, B., Maesano, G., et al. (2021). Circular Economy Models in Agro-Food Systems: A Review. Sustainability, 13(6), 3453
24. HLPE (2023). Reducing inequalities for food security and nutrition. Rome, CFS HLPE-FSN. Available from https://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe/insights/news-insights/news-detail/reducing-inequalities-for-food-security-and-nutrition/en.
25. ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability). (2021a). City Practitioners Handbook: Circular Food Systems. Retrieved from https://circulars.iclei.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ICLEI-Circulars-City-Practitioners-Handbook-Food.pdf
26. ICLEI (2021b). City Practitioners Handbook: Circular Food Systems – Circular Food Systems Action Card Template. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://circulars.iclei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ICLEI_Handbook_CircularFoodSystems_ActionCard.pdf
27. ICLEI (2021c). City Practitioners Handbook: Circular Food Systems – Overview of city-level food system assessment methods. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://circulars.iclei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ICLEI_Handbook_CircularFoodSystems_City-levelFSassessment.pdf
28. ICLEI (2019). The Urban Nexus: Integrating Resources for Sustainable Cities. Retrieved from: https://circulars.iclei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Urban-Nexus-Publication_130519.pdf
29. Improving health and well-being through nature. (n.d.). Retrieved January 14, 2026, from https://www.who.int/europe/activities/improving-health-and-well-being-through-nature
30. Jurgilevich, A., Birge, T., Kentala-Lehtonen, J., Korhonen-Kurki, K., Pietikäinen, J., Saikku, L., & Schösler, H. (2016). Transition towards circular economy in the food system. Sustainability, 8(1), 69.
31. Li, Y., Shang, J., Zhang, C., Zhang, W., Niu, L., Wang, L., & Zhang, H. (2021). The role of freshwater eutrophication in greenhouse gas emissions: A review. Science of The Total Environment, 768, 144582.
32. Milan Urban Food Policy Pact. (2020). Food Waste Milan 2019. Retrieved from https://www.milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/FW-Milan_2019.pdf
33. Miret, C. (2022). How does the circular economy interact with urban food system transformation? In Social and Cultural Aspects of the Circular Economy. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003255246-5/circular-economy-interact-urban-food-system-transformation-carlos-miret
34. Morrow, O., & Davies, A. (2022). Creating careful circularities: Community composting in New York City. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 47(2), 529–546.
35. Olsson, E. (2025). Conceptualizing circularity in urban food systems: A scoping review. Global Food Security, 47, 100893.
36. Polman, D. (2025). Policymaking for circular urban food systems: A systematic literature review of policy instruments and governance arrangements. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 17(11), 100250.
37. Raza, S., Zamanian, K., Ullah, S., Kuzyakov, Y., Virto, I., & Zhou, J. (2021). Inorganic carbon losses by soil acidification jeopardize global efforts on carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 315, 128036.
38. Resilient Cities Network (2022). Urban Eats: How cities can leverage opportunities to build resilient food systems through circular pathways. Retrieved from https://resilientcitiesnetwork.org/urban-eats-resilient-food-systems/.
39. Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture and Food Security Foundation (RUAF) (2017). CITYFOOD: Linking Cities on Urban Agriculture and Urban Food Systems. Retrieved from https://ruaf.org/document/cityfood-linking-cities-on-urban-agriculture-and-urban-food-systems/.
40. Shafer, P. J., Chen, Y. H., Reynolds, T., & von Wettberg, E. J. (2022). Farm to institution to farm: Circular food systems with native entomoculture. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5, 721985.
41. Simon, W. J., Hijbeek, R., Frehner, A., Cardinaals, R., Talsma, E. F., & van Zanten, H. H. E. (2024). Circular food system approaches can support current European protein intake levels while reducing land use and greenhouse gas emissions. Nature Food, 5(5), 402–412.
42. Wageningen University. (2020). Nature-based Solutions for Climate Resilient and Circular Food Systems: a narrative. Retrieved from https://www.wur.nl/en/show/Nature-based-Solutions-for-Climate-Resilient-and-Circular-Food-Systems-a-narrative-December-2020.htm
43. Walls, M. (2011). Deposit-refund systems in practice and theory. Resources for the future discussion paper, (11-47). Available from https://www.rff.org/documents/1568/RFF-DP-11-47.pdf.
44. Wensing, J., Cremades, R., & van Leeuwen, E. (2023). Cities can steer circular food systems at scale. Nature Food, 4(1), 4-4.
45. Wibisono, D. A. S., Saw, C.-Y., Wu, T.-Y., & Chau, C.-F. (2025). Advancing Industrial Food Byproduct Management: Strategies, Technologies, and Progress in Waste Reduction. Processes, 13(1). Retrieved February 11, 2026, from https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/13/1/84
46. World Economic Forum (2022). What is regenerative agriculture? Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/10/what-is-regenerative-agriculture/
47. WWF (2024). Can Your Money Do Better? Redirecting Harmful Subsidies to Foster Nature and Climate Resilience. Retrieved from https://wwfeu.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/wwf—harmful-subsidies-report_full-report.pdf.